Yukizuriman's One Night Stand - Ch. 32

Dex-chan lover
Joined
Sep 20, 2024
Messages
2,161
Ah, you're still on this despite having the circumstances explained to you in stereo.
You can explain something you're wrong about as many times as you like you're still wrong
Why did you box "alive" and not "body"?
Because alive people have bodies, do you not have a body? Are you an AI or something? I'm pretty sure not only that you have a body but you've used that word to describe your body at least once in your life so I don't understand why you would try to use that as some kind of gotcha
 
Dex-chan lover
Joined
Sep 20, 2024
Messages
2,161
But nobody conflates living personhood with the possession of a body, because being a living person is about more than the body-- even from a materialist standpoint.
Then either you aren't a native English speaker or you're a liar "my body is sore" is an extremely common phrase.

It's simple, he asked if it was a living body, the monster said yes, it's literally in front of your face and you refuse to accept it
 
Dex-chan lover
Joined
Feb 5, 2023
Messages
2,255
Then either you aren't a native English speaker or you're a liar "my body is sore" is an extremely common phrase.
...and "my body is sore" is meant to signify that the entirety of one's being is experiencing the sensation of soreness, as opposed to just the body? Their body?

Your example proves exactly my point.
 
Dex-chan lover
Joined
Sep 20, 2024
Messages
2,161
...and "my body is sore" is meant to signify that the entirety of one's being is experiencing the sensation of soreness, as opposed to just the body? Their body?

Your example proves exactly my point.
The entirety of the body is alive, just read the fucking text in the comic bro, the body is alive
 
Dex-chan lover
Joined
Feb 5, 2023
Messages
2,255
The entirety of the body is alive
That's not what's in contention. What's in contention is your conflation of "body" and "person", even as you demonstrate the difference between the two in your examples.

You couldn't even argue that the original person's consciousness is still there-- it's not evidenced, and the body was described as "fresh", i.e. the body had freshly died and was being sustained by the monster, since there's no circumstance where you would call a living body "fresh".
 
Last edited:
Dex-chan lover
Joined
Sep 20, 2024
Messages
2,161
That's not what's in contention. What's in contention is your conflation of "body" and "person", even as you demonstrate the difference between the two in your examples.

You couldn't even argue that the original person's consciousness is still there-- it's not evidenced, and the body was described as "fresh", i.e. the body had freshly died and was being sustained by the monster, since there's no circumstance where you would call a living body "fresh".
Ok buddy I don't know what your native language is but in English the word alive means the opposite of the word dead. I also don't know what culture you come from but in the cultures that speak English having sex with a dead body is frowned upon so even if the body is dead, it isn't an improvement, as I said in my previous comment. I suggest you maybe sign up for duo lingo or maybe an ESL course so you can figure out what is meant by someone asking if something is alive though.

As for the word "fresh" you keep harping on about, fresh doesn't mean dead it means new. If I'm an employer recruiting fresh graduates I am not looking to employ dead people.
 
Dex-chan lover
Joined
Feb 5, 2023
Messages
2,255
Ok buddy I don't know what your native language is but in English the word alive means the opposite of the word dead.
The very start of my comment discussed your conflation of "body" and "person", with no direct reference to "alive" or "dead".

I also don't know what culture you come from but in the cultures that speak English having sex with a dead body is frowned upon so even if the body is dead
I didn't say that the body is dead. The body isn't dead. They say that the body is alive, specifically because Yukizuriman didn't want to feel like a necrophile. The original person possessing the body is dead, and the body ended up being sustained by the mistletoe monster.

You're the one arguing that the person is alive, because you think that a reference to the body is a reference to the person, as though a person is their body and a body is their person. You don't get to decline to "well, it's still necrophilia" when the previous argument is demonstrated as untenable-- and not when you won't even directly acknowledge its demonstrated untenability.

As for the word "fresh" you keep harping on about, fresh doesn't mean dead it means new
O--oh, so it was a newborn body. Whole matured body in a nurse uniform was born the day before-- they just jacked Benjamina Button right out the nursery and took her to Monster World to get infested by a sentient mistletoe.

How are you going to condescend to me about the English language when you aren't endeavoring to narrow down applicable word meanings given a context? And in the first place, what Anglophone culture do you live in, where people are referred to as "fresh", as if they're meat? What Anglophone culture do you live in, where people in polite society (explicitly) reduce people to their bodies, conflating their personhoods with their bodies?
 
Last edited:
Dex-chan lover
Joined
Sep 20, 2024
Messages
2,161
Wow a shit ton of stuff that still doesn't change anything
The very start of my comment discussed your conflation of "body" and "person", with no direct reference to "alive" or "dead".


I didn't say that the body is dead. The body isn't dead. They say that the body is alive, specifically because Yukizuriman didn't want to feel like a necrophile. The original person possessing the body is dead, and the body ended up being sustained by the mistletoe monster.

You're the one arguing that the person is alive, because you think that a reference to the body is a reference to the person, as though a person is their body and a body is their person. You don't get to decline to "well, it's still necrophilia" when the previous argument is demonstrated as untenable-- and not when you won't even directly acknowledge its demonstrated untenability.
Seeing as you're too retarded to understand what I'm saying let's see if ChatGPT can explain it in a way you understand
If a living body is possessed by an entity and then someone knowing that situation has sex with them would that be considered rape? Would the entity consenting to it change that?


Yes, it would almost certainly be considered rape or sexual assault, regardless of the entity’s consent. Here’s why:


1. Consent Must Come from the Person, Not an Entity


In any legal or ethical framework, valid consent must come from the person whose body is being used, not an external entity—supernatural or not. If the actual person is not aware, not present, or not in control of their body, they cannot give meaningful consent.


2. Possession Removes Autonomy


If a person is "possessed," that implies they are not in conscious control of their actions or body. From both a legal and moral standpoint, someone in that state is considered incapacitated—like being unconscious, heavily drugged, or mentally incapacitated. Sex with a person in such a state is almost universally regarded as non-consensual.


3. Entity Consent Is Irrelevant


Even if the entity wants the sex or gives permission, that does not override the rights of the actual person. It would be analogous to someone impersonating another person or hijacking their body—it’s fundamentally a violation of bodily autonomy.


4. Intent of the Other Person Matters Too


If someone knows the person is possessed and proceeds with sex anyway, knowing the real person didn’t or couldn’t consent, that’s an even clearer indication of rape, legally and ethically.




Summary:​


  • Yes, it would be considered rape.
  • No, the entity’s consent does not make it morally or legally acceptable.
  • Bodily autonomy and the consent of the person who owns the body are essential and non-transferable.

If you want, we can also explore this from different cultural, legal, or philosophical perspectives.

O--oh, so it was a newborn body. Whole matured body in a nurse uniform was born the day before-- they just jacked Benjamina Button right out the nursery and took her to Monster World to get infested by a sentient mistletoe.

How are you going to condescend to me about the English language when you aren't endeavoring to narrow down applicable word meanings given a context? And in the first place, what Anglophone culture do you live in, where people are referred to as "fresh", as if they're meat? What Anglophone culture do you live in, where people in polite society (explicitly) reduce people to their bodies, conflating their personhoods with their bodies?
What anglophone country do you refer to people as fresh?
All of them as far as I know, here is the dictionary, notice how literally none of those definitions have the word dead in it? Now it doesn't mean that dead things can't be considered fresh, sure, but it is also by no means a requirement. As for terms that use the word fresh to refer to living beings you have fresh recruits, fresh graduates, being fresh off the boat, that one had a TV show
iu

Another TV show that had fresh to describe a person
iu

The way you talk about people makes me hope you aren't a doctor because the way you talk about people's bodies the moment they aren't conscious makes me worried you'll go around killing all the coma patients
 
Dex-chan lover
Joined
Feb 5, 2023
Messages
2,255
Seeing as you're too retarded to understand what I'm saying let's see if ChatGPT--
1. The person was already dead.

2. I couldn't care less about ChatGPT, if I'm already talking with you and addressing your arguments. Moving on.

What anglophone country do you refer to people as fresh?
All of them as far as I know--
Why did you misquote what I said to make your argument, in this discussion about semantics?

You don't need to take this seriously at all, but I'm not further engaging with someone that will discuss nuance without actually respecting it, while also thinking that slang (i.e. the "Fresh" in "Fresh Price) or a turn of phrase regarding a recent state of being (i.e. the "Fresh" in "Fresh off the Boat") is comparable to a circumstance where a body is being talked about as "fresh".
 
Last edited:
Dex-chan lover
Joined
Sep 20, 2024
Messages
2,161
1. The person was already dead.

2. I couldn't care less about ChatGPT, if I'm already talking with you and addressing your arguments. Moving on.


Why did you misquote what I said to make your argument, in this discussion about semantics?

You don't need to take this seriously at all, but I'm not further engaging with someone that will discuss nuance without actually respecting it, while also thinking that slang (i.e. the "Fresh" in "Fresh Price) or a turn of phrase regarding a recent state of being (i.e. the "Fresh" in "Fresh off the Boat") is comparable to a circumstance where a body is being talked about as "fresh".
Because I don't give a shit about your semantic argument you're just a retard that think someone that has been explicitly stated to be alive is in fact dead, you know you are wrong which is why you sidestepped the chatGPT statement that pointed out you were wrong. You have no arguments except "but they said the body was fresh" yes they fucking did, it is a parasite you retard, it is a fresh host for them to feed on, parasites by definition only exist in living beings, every part of your argument is incorrect because you don't understand what words mean and when I say "this is what this means" you go "I don't know English but it doesn't mean that" stick to reading in your 1st language bro.
 
Dex-chan lover
Joined
Feb 5, 2023
Messages
2,255
Because I don't give a shit about your semantic argument
How are you going to have an argument with someone-- and especially about word meaning-- but not address what they're actually saying? You don't find that meaningless?

you know you are wrong which is why you sidestepped the chatGPT statement that pointed out you were wrong.
Why would I care about what ChatGPT has to say in general, let alone when you gave it a prompt with untrue premises?

You had to recruit an LLM to agree with you after feeding it a question not representative of the circumstances being discussed (which is why it doesn't mention necrophilia at all)-- in contrast, no less than two real people at this point have tried explaining the story to you-- and, to my recollection, did so without going into a frothing juvenile rage where "retard" and "bro" become tics.
 
Dex-chan lover
Joined
Sep 20, 2024
Messages
2,161
How are you going to have an argument with someone-- and especially about word meaning-- but not address what they're actually saying? You don't find that meaningless?


Why would I care about what ChatGPT has to say in general, let alone when you gave it a prompt with untrue premises?

You had to recruit an LLM to agree with you after feeding it a question not representative of the circumstances being discussed (which is why it doesn't mention necrophilia at all)-- in contrast, no less than two real people at this point have tried explaining the story to you-- and, to my recollection, did so without going into a frothing juvenile rage where "retard" and "bro" become tics.
Of course I recruited an LLM because you seem to think that if a person has had their consciousness highjacked by another creature it isn't rape because the person is dead and the creature now has the body they both reside in. You are also making the wild assumption that there would be no way to save the host if the parasite was removed with 0 evidence. By the way according to your logic the woman in Arizona that was in a coma that was impregnated and gave birth wasn't raped because she in a vegetative state.

I'm not interested in arguing semantics because there are no semantics to be argued, you're trying to look at the words through a fucking kaleidoscope to try and justify that he isn't a rapist somehow, just accept it and move on. Even breaking bad fans that like Walter White accept he's a POS meth dealer, the fact that you try so much mental gymnastics to justify that his raping of a woman and making absolutely 0 attempts to save her and yet still think of him is a hero just makes you look like someone who would commit rape themselves. You are allowed to like evil characters, you're allowed to like morally grey characters you're allowed to like good characters but just accept what they are and move on instead of trying to justify how alive=dead.
 
Dex-chan lover
Joined
Feb 5, 2023
Messages
2,255
Of course I recruited an LLM because you seem to think that if a person has had their consciousness highjacked by another creature it isn't rape because the person is dead and the creature now has the body they both reside in.
1. That doesn't explain why you would use an LLM, or what value there would be in doing so-- independent of your bad prompt.

2. If the person is "dead", then they don't "reside" in the body.

By the way according to your logic the woman in Arizona that was in a coma--
People that are in comas are not dead. They still "reside" in their bodies.

I'm not interested in arguing semantics because there are no semantics to be argued
You don't know what "semantics" means.
 
Dex-chan lover
Joined
Sep 20, 2024
Messages
2,161
1. That doesn't explain why you would use an LLM, or what value there would be in doing so-- independent of your bad prompt.

2. There was zero indication of the original consciousness. None at all.
1. There is zero evidence to say that there is no recovery at all possible for the person the body belongs too
2. Even if there isn't any chance of recovery it is still their body and still therefore rape.

You are still defending a rapist, I believe you should be banned from hospitals with coma patients as you seem to believe that if there is 0 indication of consciousness it isn't rape. It is rape even if there is 0 indication of consciousness. I certainly hope women don't leave their drinks unattended with you around as after all if they aren't conscious.

You keep yapping about the prompt being bad despite the fact it describes the situation perfectly. There is a person who is alive, their body has been taken over by another entity, I even gave it the condition that the entity consented. What part of that is inaccurate? There is 0 indication that there couldn't be recovery from the parasite monster, if Yukizuriman was actually a hero he would have certainly tried.
 
Dex-chan lover
Joined
Feb 5, 2023
Messages
2,255
There is zero evidence to say that there is no recovery at all possible for the person the body belongs too
You normally can't recover from death.

And since you can now distinguish between the "person" and the "body", you can recognize that they only ever talked about the "body" and its being alive.

You are still defending a rapist, I believe you should be banned from hospitals with coma patients
Firstly, I'm not "defending a rapist". The argument given to you by myself and others, is that the parasitized body was already dead prior to being taken over. What's I argued is that there was no original person to save, because said person already died.

Secondly: You don't know what a "coma" is, you don't know what "semantics" are...

I certainly hope women don't leave their drinks unattended with you around as after all if they aren't conscious.
...and this statement is just gibberish.

There is a person who is alive, their body has been taken over by another entity
No, the person is dead and their body is being kept alive by some entity. Which is why they say the body is alive.
 
Last edited:

Users who are viewing this thread

Top