social vore //
monster society where "is it okay to eat humans?" (traditionally: yes, obviously) is now up for public debate
and thoughtful monster might think it precipitous to form an opinion without trying a human first
vore, noncon, "you", Rationalist //
monster that thinks it's important to consider the strongest arguments from each side
it doesn't expect you to have the strongest argument (you're obviously motivated )
but it does need you to maximally cry and plead for mercy to test the argument "eating people is bad b/c you'll regret it" in its strongest form.
regardless, it's going to prepare you as deliciously as possible, to likewise steelman "eating people is good b/c they taste good".
vore, noncon, torture, "you", Rationalist //
just remember to keep begging & scream if it hurts, to test "eating people is bad b/c they feel pain" and "eating people is bad b/c it violates their consent".
(don't worry, you'll be going through the whole food prep process alongside a pig as the control.)
vore, noncon, torture, "you", Rationalist //
@lioness But if you're not motivated by future outcomes none of that matters.
vore, noncon, torture, "you", Rationalist //
@madewokherd the motivation of the monster & its instructions is to test hypotheses. If you personally are ambivalent about being eaten & stay quiet, the risk is that the monster discounts the regret/pain/violation arguments, then later does eat someone who objects & feels bad bad about it afterwards.
there's objections you could make to the experimental design (should it eat one human per hypothesis to keep the tests separate?) but also you're lunch.