Maybe this isn't the right subreddit, but I am fascinated by this case.
If you follow the news you have surely at some point read about the alleged animal brothel this guy ran with mice covered in vaseline with their tails cut off: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/16/douglas-spink-arrested-in_n_541379.html
When I read this the first time I found the mice story to be too bizarre to be true.
In these articles it says stuff like
It wasn't immediately clear whether other zoophilic tourists had been to Spink's farm, but Assistant U.S. Attorney Susan Roe said Friday, "I expect there may have been other people visiting the property."
So... there is one owner and there is evidence for one other guy who was there for unknown reasons and this is literally the only evidence that makes it a "brothel"?
A little later I read this interview on vice: http://www.vice.com/read/apparently-animals-consent-to-sex-in-the-beastiality-brothel
When I read this, it all sounded a bit far fetched and the guy seemed to be quite pretentious / trying too hard to sound intelligent but when reading that he describes himself as mildly autistic/having asperger's syndrome I'll excuse this.
Note also the link to the "Uniquely Dangerous" book, which sounds like quite the interesting book project. The journalist writing it has a blog with quite some fascinating stories too.
Today I came about this interview with him: http://thewholefuckingshow.com/whartng-interview-with-doug-spink/
And it intrigued me so much I looked up this pdf: http://wrinko.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/LeConteSpink_AE2011-Witchunt2010-rev2.pdf where he narrates his story in more detail. The best thing about this is that he doesn't simply claim stuff, but he also gives many names of the people he accuses of wrongdoing, so if one is only motivated enough, one could actually follow up on almost all of it.
After reading the last pdf: What is your opinion? Is it all true or is he just very good at sounding sincere?
My opinion of Spink is… complicated. I'm used to newspapers being very incorrect in what they say, but that could be anywhere from "didn't do it" to "much worse". I heard the allegations about the mice well before I read an interview with him that was clearly sympathetic and showed him concerned about the well-being of the animals that were taken away from him.
For lack of any better information, I currently put him in the same category as Assange: probably guilty, but simultaneously convinced of his own innocence. (But I could be wrong about all of that).
Why would you want to cut the mouse's tail off? How else are you supposed to pull the thing out, when it's covered in Vaseline?
Hypothetically speaking, of course.
It's a bizarre accusation and I have no idea how it makes any sense either.
I'm curious: On his about page he mentions "academic research on zoophilia". I feel like I'm missing something. Is there a list of this "academic research" somewhere? I'm not seeing it on his website. On scholar.google.com a search for "autor:spink zoophilia" doesn't have results. Did he actually publish anything?
Spinks biggest problem is a lack of credibility after his first completely unrelated conviction. He used to smuggle drugs but got off surprisingly easy with a three year sentence.
I have no doubt that his bestiality case got blown out of proportion to make sure he would be convicted but clearly he's not your average zoophile.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4jzmtyPIew http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2002675488_kesling10m.html
It's pretty fucked up that he's spent less time in jail for smuggling several hundred kilos of cocaine than he's done for having sex with animals!
http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2012378491_spink17m.html
I could listen to this guy speaking about corporate jurisdiction for hours. Having an insanely interesting life probably helps... I watched the whole thing and it really made my night.
Yea, I'm not a lawyer, but does
not sound some kind of shady?
In the interview I watched before he said he still hasn't been actually charged with anything. I wonder if this is true.
I only know word against word here, but I have a feeling I trust his word over this. I wasn't really aware about why until now, but after observing some activities the last few days I have seen it again and again: When it comes to zoophilia, animal welfare and rights organizations either remain silent or they lie. And when they are corrected, they lie again. And then they lie some more. The sad thing is that most of these lies are really transparent and even silly, yet they have nothing better to do than to repeat them again and again. I really want to give them the benefit of the doubt, but they are making it really hard.
To this day I have not seen a single animal welfare or rights organization who has given an honest statement about zoophilia. Not one. As for the Humane Society where this woman works, let's google this: http://www.humanesociety.org/news/press_releases/2009/04/florida_humane_lobby_day_040209.html
Let's read until the first lie:
Wow, they got one sentence in without a lie.
No fucking source. Either they are fucking incompetent and can't read studies or they know why they shouldn't give a source and are fully aware they are lying in your face. This is most likely the study: https://www.animalsandsociety.org/assets/library/448_s1014.pdf
Quote:
Not 96% of juveniles who had sexual conduct with animals. 96% of juvenile sex offenders who had sexual conduct with animals.
We do find animal cruelty and infliction of suffering appalling and that is why both have always been illegal under animal cruelty laws. It's even the same word. Cruelty. They literally said that without this legislation animal cruelty was legal.
There is really no sugar coating it. These people lie when it comes to zoophilia.
If there is someone who should have no credibility it's those people that routinely lie. Yet these people get published in the media completely unquestioned. In what kind of world are we even living?
And now my night is ruined again.
It is unrelated to the topic here, but by now I am quite convinced we should also simply lie back and bullshit them just as much: Did you know that animal protection organizations kill 120% of the animals in their custody, and that they are supported by pedophiles? Also, the dogs thre are sold in parts to baby food manufactures, Chinese restaurants, and their blood is used in hamburgers to die the pattys.
Wow look at how evil these zoophiles are! They are trying to discredit animal welfare organizations! They must be against animal welfare!
That's the point. When they start complaining you can say: You started it, where are your sources, why are your clearly made up numbers more credible than our clearly made up numbers?
And they will be like: Oh.
Not that anyone would care, but it doesn't make sense to argue their numbers and statements. I could just as well put some shit in a blender and see if that works.
That's how I think a lot of people react.
I have no idea what to do about it either.
Maybe bring it up every time it gets mentioned without any own agenda. Just telling people that they are being misinformed and that they should think about how this reflects on this organization.
Don't lie. Be absolutely truthful.
That's my first reaction, and now I have to come up with reasons why it's a good idea. Slander/libel is a bad thing, it will get noted and responded to with a painful lawsuit when your identity is discovered. It will hurt us. The truth is more relevant, especially this one:
"Because as we all know sex is an evil thing that we only suffer through to reproduce. Likewise, everyone knows that euthanasia and castration are entirely standard treatments for being a rape victim in our society."</sarcasm>
More importantly, it's not constructive at all. When outsiders will look at it all they're going to see is a mess of people and organizations accusing each other of horrible stuff and no sense of reason or useful information.
On the other hand, that sounds like an improvement to the situation now...
Perhaps we could at least mess with them a little bit by misinformation? That is a powerful tool after all, and they totally deserve it.
For example - I would LOVE to feed Peta America some made-up intelligence anonymously about a "Zeta Pride Parade with Donkeys and Horses and so on" allegedly being planned in some rural town in the middle of nowhere. Then somehow covertly make sure it looks like that by indeed sending a few emails to the town's council asking permission for a "farmer's parade" so they have that on record when Peta calls them to verify....
And then, not only will their forums and internet outlets be flush with hate and outrage, no hundreds of weird people are going to drive out into hot, scorching nowhere all day, to protest naked, smeared in artificial animal blood etc something that they will find doesn't exist. Oh god, I would be so gleeful if I could pull that of.
You can't fight lies with more lies. If you're trying to make a moral argument, deliberately lying to people is not a great way to go about it. You don't win acceptance from society by trolling people :P
Ok ok... I'll have my little fantasies of petty revenge somewhere else ;)
First I heard of ZETA was Zoophiles for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. I think pointing out that expansion of the acronym is a better thing to do than just making PETA look like the loons everyone already thinks they are.
After all, it might make someone think.
[deleted]
I find his views on consent a bit unsettling according to a interview he gave not that long ago. I don't know what to think of the guy otherwise. I used to look up to him when he went by his old alias "fausty" because he seemed like a pretty intelligent guy, until I found out what he did.
Well, just looking at what he did in life there is no doubt he is very intelligent even if he doesn't seem to always make the most intelligent decisions...
Can you post a link to that interview please?
http://www.vice.com/read/apparently-animals-consent-to-sex-in-the-beastiality-brothel
Also, here is his personal blog piece for that interview-> http://wrinko.net/vice-interview-doug-spink/
I may be reading this favorable for him and therefore I'm missing it - what do you mean is so unsettling here that you're sure isn't just a victim of condensing the interview?
I never believed any of the accusations about brothels or overt mistreatment. At worst some people saw his ways and policies as enabling or careless, it's possible, not sure how much you can pin on him.
His faults have to do with the drug charges, going around the law and serious altercations with other zoos. The latter, you don't see a balanced picture because the moronic trend is to keep anything slightly dramatic behind closed doors or avoid his name specifically, so he gets the stage all to himself.
Yes he's good at sounding sincere (nice way to put it) so take that into account. It's a well-decorated cross-section of truth. It stands well, it just doesn't contain the history that makes zoos not want him as a representative regardless. Those stories are more blurry with not many on his side.
Don't want him speaking for me and I despise the activism, but he has some points on various topics (like anyone really) and he's not stupid, so on a weird day I could prefer Spink to the rest of the herding dinosaurs in the community.
As I am not really part of any zoo community, I do indeed not know more about that stuff.
If there is something zoos should know about him, then maybe someone should explain it in a place like this where it can be found by interested people.
It would be nice but that's not how things are done in the zoo community. It's pretty much trash. Maybe you'll get really lucky and someone will get annoyed enough to drop by. I only remember general lines myself, no links on hand (except his ED article which is total shit: https://encyclopediadramatica.se/Fausty). He toyed with EZ and ZF, the leftover dicks on zoobb are especially unfond of him. You can find some tidbits in old forum threads, archive.org and ask people.
I have seen this article and what is most notably about it to me is that there are no sources for example to that email where he supposedly admits to treating animals badly and a google search for a random sentence from it doesn't have any results.
Well, if people don't want him to be a representative, but won't tell anyone, why, then I really can't help it much either. I don't need a full history or something. Just one thing that tells what all this is even about would be nice. Maybe I'll look around but this sounds all very vague.
I don't blame you for a second, that's completely predictable!
All I know is: he had official access to the elitezoo servers and caused mass drama and was exiled, one of the articles on his forum gives his side of it. I was on there but barely remember. His posts weren't bad. iirc there was a conflict with the zoophilesforums admins too, he turned them against each other or some. Then there's those with personal dealings with him, can't say more. No idea about that ED email, but I believe the excerpt about going after beastforum.
I don't like the guy. That is not personal - because I don't know him. Also, I may not know all of or enough of the information to really judge him.
But he is simply too visible, has too many shenanigans and antics with the law in the past at the same time, and seems to have pissed off half of the community. A lot of people felt he was encroaching and all-absorbing. Simultaneously, he can convince a lot of people to like him and that there are good explanations for everything.
What is true? Idk, by now it is even hard to tell how many interested sides are playing in the propaganda game for this case.
He is intelligent, perhaps more than is good for him. - He can write, boy can he write if he wants to. Personally, I think his personality, as I perceive it by proxy, adds a hint of this particular unstableness that makes you wonder if he wouldn't push that red button on a whim for the philosophical paradox created by destroying the world.
Overall I wish he would stop his quasi-spokesmanship and campaign, go away and life in peace somewhere under all the radars.
Also - this is mere speculation - don't get into contact with him at all. Or at least prepare well before that. There is an imho non-negligible chance, actually, that he is a "snitch" to some three-letter-agency and will sell you onto a list of theirs in exchange for remaining free. Don't you think he has been treated very lenient overall? Do snitches ever get off or just work themselves into a more and more exploitable position? Sometimes I wonder if he isn't even being used as an agent provocateur, building a highly visible, slightly questionable, somewhat very odd picture of us by way of presenting him like this continuously to the public. ... In any case, if the feds have bugged someone without his knowledge in order to scrutinize the zoophilia scene (because they love scrutinizing), it is probably him first and foremost.
Well, he does keep saying stuff like
My preliminary impression is that I like him because he is a little bit crazy and has a few odd opinions, but not too much.
But I'm really waiting out to see whether he actually is truthful or maybe leaves out important stuff.
I think it's a little bit far fetched that he'd be a snitch, but who knows...
IDK. I just know a lot of people who would make better spokespersons from what I can see overall.
And I am sure he is at least bugged without his knowledge. If I wanted to bug the zoo/beast scene (e.g. for their interest in cryptography, and perhaps because I think they are all deviant and probably p@ dos in addition anyway - so someone is going to do it) - he'd be the first guy on my list.
I highly doubt he's a snitch intentionally. But the warning holds. You have to assume he's monitored by some higher agency (even when local county doesn't seem aware). Nevermind zoophilia, guaranteed he's flagged as an extremist.
Still I don't see this as a special case, I wouldn't get into non-anon contact with anyone who's been outed to their community much less a court. Last I read he didn't advocate anything less either.
Is he not working on that deepthought manifest and those things any longer? Ok then, has been a while since I looked into things.
Idk, he might be giving different impressions in different contexts.
I'm sure the NSA has a social contact graph centred around him. 2 links? That probably includes most of us, one way or another.
Of course, it's highly likely every community as large as reddit, hosted in the USA, and with the ability to create "private" groups has been ordered to hand over all details of private group memberships. My gut feeling says they don't care about us at this time.
Long story short: Use a good VPN. At least.
If I worked for the NSA, I would push hard for pwning as many VPNs providers as possible.
Despair is not the answer. At least make it harder for them. Use a good VPN. Offshore etc.
I don't despair — the NSA knowing who we all are is fine provided that none of them consider us a national security issue. And I'd be really surprised if they think we're relevant to their interests. Unless you're in a government (and therefore a blackmail target), just being a zoo isn't enough, and I'd expect the NSA would prefer keep the extent of their ability to know who we are a secret than to share info with courts.
Boy does he get fucked around
http://wrinko.net/free-last-free-last/ -> dec 5th -> free at last, free at last
http://kpug1170.com/news/007700-bestiality-advocate-gets-more-jail-time/ -> dec 15 -> Judge Charles Snyder decided Spink should spend three more months behind bars
I have seen that, but I was wondering: Why did he accept that deal? Wouldn't he have known better?
I have read this story: http://www.bellinghamherald.com/2014/12/13/4025619_judge-overrules-plea-deal-gives.html?rh=1
So I have only read what he writes but he doesn't strike me as a man who would just go ahead and do that. I don't think I'll ever be in that position, but I know if I was, I'd never "admit" to "animal cruelty", no matter what. That'd be out of principle of not admitting to animal cruelty. If they want to claim it's animal abuse they better have some way of substantiating their claims or stfu. Did jail wear him down at last?
Also
What's about this woman? There are quite some allegations against her. Wouldn't it be a journalist's job to be a bit investigative here? But that's just not happening it seems. Everything the humane society says seems to be taken at face value by the media. How is that?