Bestiality bill advances in New Jersey Senate (self.zoophilia)
submitted 2015-05-09 16:57:34 by kinggourd123
Just the other day caught a comment from a stupid fuck gloating bestiality was still legal in his state.
/r/zoophilia archive /r/zoophilia archiveJust the other day caught a comment from a stupid fuck gloating bestiality was still legal in his state.
How do people enforce this law? Seriously long as you don't make videos and keep it to your house, how does one get caught?
Horse people, who generally do it outdoors, have a particular fear that is legitimate lately. Particularly in the south, anti drug patrols now use infrared drones... do you see the issue here?
I see that its time to use a closed barn. Don't get me wrong I would love to bang my dog missionary on the soft grass but we don't have that luxury yet.
The drone infrared thing would see through a barn... But yes, that is a given.
Really? I'd be surprised. The more insulated the barn is, the blurrier the image, and I'd expect it to be invisible unless the two of you lean sideways on a metal exterior wall?
They use these drones for indoor marijuana farms, which put off smaller amounts of infrared through much more significant insulation.
Needless to say a barn is not an issue.
Really? I got the impression that marijuana farms were mainly limited by available power consumption, so put out quite a lot of low-grade heat over the entire structure, while a horse and a human would look pretty much identical regardless of if they were shagging or mucking out.
You might be right actually. I'm not a grower, just assumed logically plants don't make a lot of heat... but maybe these farms do?
Willing to concede if that's the case. It just seemed like a legit concern to me.
The plants themselves don't, it's the artificial lighting because they're all indoors and (presumably) 24/7. Ironically the stuff seems to be a leader in development of vertical farming methods.
That makes a good degree of sense... Thanks.
Those poor scotsman everyone knows they like to hump sheep, but heaven forbid their wives find out.
Low-hanging fruit. The height correlating with IQ. Loosely related example that showed up today:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/05/10/what_to_do_when_the_users_are_watching_nazi_dwarf_smut_at_work/
In Nigel's previous gig, “ ... one of the employees ordered a subscription to a bestiality site using his work email.” But the worker was clearly over-excited because he put a typo in his email address, which meant the receipt for the subscription reached the head of IT's inbox, where all bounced mail ended up.
“The receipt and a photo of a kitten with the words 'Please don't hurt me!' were pinned to the outside of the culprit's door for all to see,” Nigel recalls.
What do you have against Bestiality and Zoophilia?
http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/2014/Bills/A3500/3012_I1.HTM
Addition:
The wording of these is often very weird. Have you paid close attention?
It's illegal to "use an animal...". I wonder whether it's clearly defined what "use" means. Can you argue that in your loving relationship neither "uses" the other?
It's illegal to "initiate any kind of sexual contact with the animal or creature". Initiate. Interesting. So what if the animal is the one who initiates and you simply go along?
Sure, arguing in such a way would probably never work, but you can really see how the people who make the laws think about us.
As usual the law doesn't mention any suffering, harm, force or coercion. It's the sexual act itself that they want to make illegal, not to protect animals from harm.
well, yeah, because its gross and unnatural /s
I hope that's sarcasm...
That's what /s means, yes.
Forgive me, my newbie was showing.
I was informing you. There's nothing to forgive.
lol, /s is the closest ive seen to a sarcasm mark ;)
Bestiality bills are unfortunately a quick way to make a particular politician look good without any feasable opposition. I dont expect that to change for a long time.
Usually, yes. There have been some cases of signifigant political resistance such as the denmark vote, but even then the party beating down on us usually has something to gain.
As zeta-verein has pointed out, this will continue as long as we do not have a political or social presence, because we make such easy targets. I'm not entirely sure of the solution, but one thing is for certain: hiding is no longer working.
Everything im about to write is written out of pure selfishness.
I want to do everything i can for future zoophiles to ensure nobody has to suffer as many of us have. However, i am not willing to do it at the expense of my livelihood or chance at happiness. If there comes such a time where there is sufficient social backing, then perhaps going public would be useful. But for now i think remaining silent is the only option for us if we want to retain our shot at happiness that i believe we are entitled to strive for.
In actuality, the bills make little to no difference to me. I would be private about my sex life regardless of whether they existed or not. In fact, on the flipside, the bills perhaps deterr folks who would rather actually abuse an animal or use it purely for sex.
Pure selfishness is the only way to think when talking about YOUR personal safety. However, I don't believe going public is even necessary. Anonymous is hardly a public organization and they were able to motivate people to do... things. Not good things, but still. I think we can get a good online counter movement going if we care enough.
One thing I am certain of, and I've been watching this since bestiality was legal in most states not just a few (right after the supreme court case that led to this): Silence is not helping us, and continuing with this strategy will only make it worse. It will make them believe our silence is because we don't have a counter-argument, and know what we do is wrong. Nothing could be further from the truth!
Well, i personally believe we need a "normal" to stand up for us first. Unfortunately soceital change isnt a thing that can be forced. More often than not its a gradual process that nobody even knows theyre doing.
It can't be forced, but it can be encouraged... and often has been.
I believe starting small by setting up a zoo-run fund for animal welfare, and doing donations to shelters and such in a known zoo-charities name would start to turn the image around... show our concerns do lie with animal welfare, for example. I toyed with one such idea using bitcoins. I wouldn't mind setting something like that up, as I have less to lose than most (no animal partner nor likely will have one for some time).
I think a lot of animal welfare issues can tend to be divisive and it could be hard to get us to unite under one program. I know zoos who hold opinions about shelters, and other things, myself included. Its not a bad idea, but it would be hard to implement i imagine. Not to mention that groups like anonymous would likely attack it at one point or another.
Groups like anonymous can't attack it. Bitcoin is decentralized, which was why I chose it... There is no one except perhaps a concerted large government effort (that would certainly be a violation of several laws) that could possibly take it down.
Centralizing the effort on reddit, and keeping it to undevisive issues such as nokill shelter funding shouldn't be too difficult I wouldn't think?
That said, I'd be lying if I said I had it all figured out. The way to manage votes on what to fund is still my main issue. Another lesser but still significant issue, is writing a guide on how to use it to anonymously donate money without an ip link.
Again, theres simply too much variability in opinion to really say one way or the other. This is my own stubbornness and a great example of where this would hang up. But i would hate to donate money to something i inevitably wouldnt support otherwise to appeal to a larger audience.
I'm sure there would be hangups, and as such, that's one of the places I just admitted I'm hung up: A simple democratic process on a single mass fund wouldn't work. I admitted that above but could've been more clear about that, apologies.
Ideally, I would want the votes to be per donation, and in such a way that people could "earmark" their funding contingent to their goals for it. This isn't impossible (bitcoin already supports payment "comments"), but will require some development and perhaps creation of a board to oversee the handling of funds... It would of course ensure that your money was never spent on anything you didn't like, and if we couldn't find a use for it, that it would be returned or otherwise unused.
Perhaps. This discussion might be worthy of its on post at this point.
It will be (never intended to get this involved in the topic lol).
First, more work needs to be done to see if it's even possible in theory... Don't worry, capable parties are looking into it, and when the time is right, it will be discussed. :)
I hope zoophilia doesn't become completely illegal! I don't think it needs to be illegal at all. But how do you argue something like, "they can't consent?" I mean yes, they can't speak or use a human language. But how can we argue that they demonstrate consent- through body language? How would you counter their argument? It seems that when an entity uses a human language, it is then easy to know what they feel about a certain issue. How do we know for sure that the animals are happy to have sex with humans and would freely wish to have sex with humans? (people are worried that animals actually don't want to have sex with humans but are somehow manipulated into doing it)
Bitcoin isn't as good as you're hoping; there have been occasions where a single group had more than 50% of the compute resource, and could therefore force arbitrary transactions to occur.
Bitcoin is a nice idea, but assume it's a prototype rather than a finished usable product.
You're refering to the ghash.io attack (which by the way, wasn't an attack, but a pool possessing enough people hashing there to execute one)
Also, this is wrong:
"force arbitrary transactions to occur."
Nope, only a doublespend (spending money and taking it back). And the odds aren't that great, to be honest.
A single group has ONCE been on the verge of doing this, yes, but there is a contigency plan in place for such things if someone actually did (the blockchain would notice immediately). There would be a hardfork. Yes, values would fluctuate, but the coin would survive.
Bitcoin is as a financial instrument very prototype (the value fluctates too much), but as a currency for advocacy efforts with a reasonable degree of anonyminity? There isn't a stronger platform available. And no, there is absolutely no way in hell or highwater anonymous could do jack shit to stop it. They USE it for pete sake.
What about alternatives such as Dogecoin?
It entirely depends on the behaviour of the currency when faced with a hostile adversary. I don't know if economics is an art or a science, but I do know that coping with intelligent hostile actors is hard to get right, and that's something all cryptocurrencies have to face.
In that case Zoos need develop their own powerful currency. The currency should be able to withstand attacks. We could call it ZooCoin.
We did it. All sex with politicians is now illegal.
More like all sex involving humans, lol.
Good point... Humans are animals.
If we just outlawed sex with animals, we can't reproduce. Gg human race... Gg.