Apparently some redditors actually do support us (self.zoophilia)
submitted 2014-12-26 08:51:02 by actuallynotazoophile ok, I lied
I was browsing reddit as you do and upon reading the comments of the Askreddit topic, "What is shockingly LEGAL", I came across an interesting thread: link, no participation mode
Once you get past the initial kneejerk reactions and karma whoring comments there are a small group of commenters that come out to indicate the hypocrisy of the people preaching the consent argument, and argue against the 'the animal will always be harmed' argument.
I was pleasantly surprised really, its like a breath of fresh air. I thought some people here might also want to have a look.
Some of those arguments were pretty sensible, was a nice surprise :P
I didn't see any new arguments against zoophilia. Just the usual "Animals are children!" and "They can't consent!".
Oh, I meant the arguments in defence of zoophilia. The arguments against it have remained the same for decades and are just as flawed now as they were when they were first made.
I find it kinda awkward when people try to counter anti-zoophilia arguments but do a bad job of it. It's like "well, I appreciate the effort, but you're not exactly helping." Seeing people make the same arguments I'd use is heartening.
Oh, I see. Especially when people say "Do we care about consent in anything else?" and just leave it at that. I don't like that, it makes us seem like we don't care about consent. It is a useful tool for pointing out hypocrisy when you also show that animals can consent.
I always miss the golden opportunities to write essays. I turn my back for 6 hours and look what happens. :P
Oh well. It has some good discussion - certainly one of the biggest I've seen. Good to see.
I have to admit, sometimes my guilty pleasure is to dip my toes in those public debates where it comes up... once in a while it blows someone's mind to realize that zoophiles can be housewives and normal people too and I get an odd satisfaction from that, that it's not just dirty sheep farmers and bearded hermits in the woods.
But more often than not it breaks down into "colby" jokes and suggestive private messages.
I was pleasantly surprised as well, it's good that people see some of the hypocrisy behind the usual arguments against zoophilia.
I like to think that if people with functioning brain cells actually sit down and think critically about the topic for more than five seconds, they all come to a similar conclusion. It is indeed nice to see.
What's "no participation mode"? I mean when I follow the link and press a reply button it lets me enter text.
It's more of a courtesy thing, since people piling into a subreddit they wouldn't normally visit to comment/vote on something is sort of against reddit's rules. This link explains it much more thoroughly. The basic gist is that np links can allow a subreddit's moderators to prevent commenting, but that unless they've specifically engineered this, they're just a little reminder to people not to vote brigade and comment on topics where they're not community members.
Thanks. I'll follow that rule from now on (though I never broke it before, I just wanted to see if the reply button was disabled and pressed cancel)
Should I implement something like that here?
I'm not sure it'd do much, to be honest. The few times people do find their way here, it's almost never from an np link, and even if it was, they could just manually change the np to www in the URL and they'd be able to comment anyway. Since we don't get a ton of outsiders coming here and spamming downvotes etc. (at least, as far as I've seen) it's probably more effective to just ban people as and when they start causing problems and breaking the rules.
I might not have linked it properly but no participation mode is just a little thing to help prevent brigading. All that happens is a little warning message pops up reminding you not to vote. you can still vote and comment if you want, but try to keep reddiquette in mind.
I will keep that in mind. I wish there was more then just "vote up" or "vote down" sort of like the way youtube used to be with the 1-5 stars.
Voting system is itself flawed, buries unpopular opinions and puts jokes in the top.
Oh yeah. I was in that thread.
Somewhat of an uphill battle in a default sub, but I was really impressed and surprised with the quality of the comments and the maturity with 90% of the users commenting. This kind of thing never gains any traction on 4chan, where there's like 2 threads per day on the topic of zoophilia or bestiality on /an/.
I wish there could be more open discussion like this not contained within the safe confines of a special interest subreddit, but I feel that almost everything that needs to be said has already been said. Every philosophical argument one could imagine has already been splayed out, but nobody seems to be willing to budge either way.
Im an ally of zoophilia, because it makes 0 sense to argue against it :p.
Its the same with the rest of the lgbt community, where lots of years ago it was illegal to be gay. Well, I guess it still is in some coubtries like russia >_>.
Cool, I'm glad to have you here. your second point is pretty spot on, people just dont realise (or dont want to realise...) that zoophiles today are treated exactly the same as the LGBT community 50 years ago. The hypocrisy is pretty silly.