So as I am sure every one of you here knows, debating this topic is like pulling the pin on the grenade; something is going to blow up, and thought I am sure most if not all of you know much of this information I would like to share with you the strategy for handling this debates.
-Remain calm: no matter what they say you have to remain 100% calm and friendly. I know this is hard for most, but the instant you show aggression in the slightest you have lost the debate no matter what you say. This is the #1 rule in handling most debates, but especially a topic like this from the less popular side.
-Some points that are good to mention (I am sure you know these already): Animals do not think sex is special, they enjoy it because it feels good and have no special attachments to it. Not all cases of zoophilia are harmful to the animal and the animal often enjoys it. Cases where the animal is harmed are called zoosodomy in zoophile communities (be sure that you validate their side by confirm that some cases definitely do hurt the animal. This will help bring their guard down a little). The animal will communicate through body language when it want sex with a human. Giving an exmaple like this I find help: Imagine there is a fully clothed person being humped by a dog. No harm in that, right? Dogs do that kind of stuff all the time. Some may even find this funny. Now that person is not wearing any cloths. Can you please explain to me how is this different for the dog?
-Avoid the word "you" or other similar pronouns. It comes off as slightly accusatory, and they will explode on that.
-Say please often and emphasize that you would like this to remain calm. "I do not understand why bestiality/zoophilia is wrong. Can I please get an explanation?" "I see this is getting a little heated and I would really appreciate it if this remained a calm discussion. Please let's take a little breather to calm ourselves down before continuing this."
-Do not say "I disagree" in any way. Say something like "I am having a hard time seeing how that is true, can you provide more explanation please? I do not understand."
-Make sure they know you would never hurt an animal. They will accuse you of being "one of those horrible people" You are probably best of just saying "I think there is a misunderstanding I would never have sex with an animal." This is lying for most if not all of you reading this, but I find it effective. For me it is impossible to lie (it is a pathological thing. I technically can lie, but my brain has an issue processing the fact that I just lied creating and almost electrical shock feeling thought my body. It is believe to be linked to OCD. So for me for moral reasons and that issue with brain processing I can not lie.), but since I am not a zoo I can say that without lying.
-avoid groups of people. The more people there are the more likely they are all going to team up on you. This strategy has actually worked for me using it openly on Facebook, but it is still risky with more people.
I am sure many in this community already know this since you are all such great people from my experience, but I have found this strategy surprisingly effect so far at least compared to others I have tested and I thought I would share in the hopes that we can learn from each other. They still get upset but this helps keep things cool. If any of you have anything else you would like to add or would like to share your strategies please let me know. I am trying to formulate the best strategy for debating this and so far this is the best I have. I think I may have even successfully convinced a few people with it (though it is hard to say for certain).
Edit: Oh an I almost forgot. I have only used this strategy through text while debating online. It may work well in person/with talking and I imagine it would, but I have not tested it.
There's a guy on youtube named Matt Dillahunty. He's hosted an atheist television show in Austin, TX for ten years, and has debated loads of people (mostly on theism vs. atheism, obviously), both informally with callers and formally on stage. Though most of his videos concern particulars of that debate, this one has some more general tips, such listening to your opponent rather than preparing a rebuttal completely in advance, and remembering whether your audience is scholarly or the general public.
I think the biggest thing (particularly online), is that you're unlikely to convince the other person of your position, at least right there. They may not be convinced at all, or they may need to go away and think about it for a while. Rather, try to get an audience (by doing such debates in public and somewhat unbiased forums), and try to make your arguments convincing to people on the fence. You never know what lurker will read what you wrote and become an ally.
This isn't debate strategy.
Debate strategy doesn't discourage aggression - it discourages irrationality. But being angry and aggressive doesn't necessarily mean that you're being irrational. I can be high energy and pissed and still form a rational argument (albeit it's more difficult).
Debate strategy doesn't necessarily encourage agreement or disagreement, but making it clear that your position is different is important and so "I disagree" is a generally neutral way to get that message across. Sending a message like you're open to being convinced in the case of something you won't change your mind on is not only poor form in debates - it's dishonest representation of self. If you're going to lie, don't say anything.
So what you've indicated is that people should hide away who they really are and avoid conflict. And that's fine - you can't win or lose a fight you don't engage in, and here we're trying not to lose critically at the individual level, so refusing to fight at the individual level is an option.
But don't mistake what you're advising as debate strategy. It's not. It's more a method of keeping shit from hitting the fan in one's own life and affairs.
For further reading on actual debate strategy as it's formally studied consult the following three links, in order:
Dense primer on Propositional Calculus, the root of formal proposition and logical argument structure
Readily available list of common fallacies - the things to NOT DO
A google search on "debate strategy
I am always willing to be convinced wrong no matter what the belief is (I think everybody should be), so it is not dishonest. You could try an convince me the sky is in fact yellow, and I would hear you out (though I am not sure how you would do that but you get what I am saying?) Though if they continue to throw the normal reasons at me I am unlikely to change my mind as I have already learned why those are incorrect, they will need new information if they are to convince me I am wrong. I phrase it in a way that might lead me to new information while displaying my points peacefully. The majority of people once you get them mad it is all over, you already lost and no matter what you say (even showing scientific evidence) they will disagree, so it is in my belief that the best course of action is to get them to remain calm and discuss it in a friendly way. Debate strategy may have been poor phrasing on my part but do you get the point I am getting at?
Dawkins spoke of the "pragmatic athiest", where if absolute athiesm is a 10 and absolute faith is a 1, no rational person should be found less than a 2 or more than a 9 on the scale, ever, for any reason. He justified this saying that despite all evidence to the contrary we cannot exclude possibilities by arbitrary standards. (Tillich would note that the nature of belief or disbelief has no effect on objective truth-evaluation. I don't believe in big business running the show, but lo! I awake to find I'm naught but a follower!)
Unfortunately, while you may sit a 9 on the "zoophilia" scale version of this, this isn't how most people feel. Most people sit at the poles on issues it's easy to polarize and consistently be on the "winning"/"losing" side of. So I daresay you're an outlier in humanity, though I'm still getting a feel for Reddit's userbase and it may be more the norm here.
However, advising other people to do so without knowing whether they sit at the poles - granting you're telling your truth, which is to say "you're not lying" - is probably in bad form, and generally in the real world where one's passions are involved one has made up their mind more-or-less before walking into an argument.
I repeat myself, to everyone:
Do not misrepresent yourself and pretend that the fake version of yourself means you're winning anything. Ever. In anything at all in life.
I suppose. I do not mean to tell everybody to go out and argue their side but for those who want to this is what I have found most successful. People come in up-in-arms so to speak and this has been the best way to at least mostly disarm them and have a more pointful discussion. I by no means know where everybody else stands, so it is hard to say how this will work for others but I thought it could be advantageous to share. I suppose you are right about not sharing your true self but most people as soon as you tell them you are a zoo you have already lost your chance to convince them, so probably better of not directly answering yes or no. Maybe say "My apologies but we are not discussing my orientation here we are discussing the topic of zoophilia, my orientation is irrelevant" though I feel that would to those pesky assumptions so many humans like to make.
But that's exactly the problem - you can't pretend your reasoning exists in a vacuum and so your attraction to animals is relevant! Granting "we're not discussing that" isn't a lie (so long as you don't discuss it), but if you've already lost just by being a zoo, you always lost.
What you've found is a way to not have the shots taken at you personally, not a way to change minds. Of this I'm reasonably certain. 80%-ish.
Well I mean, people see it as a mental disorder, so as soon as you admit you are a zoophile they will have the mentality of "they can not possibly see the errors of their way, they are mentally disabled" Maybe after you convince them that it is not wrong you can bring orientation up, but I do not see it working out if you admit you are a zoophile, at least not in a number of cases. Perhaps I am wrong but that seems to be how it is from my perspective.
Reads as "there never was any winning". People at the poles won't ever be shifted.
I am not sure that is entirely true, it just takes a different approach and much more time. The problem is that many think it is a mental illness, and they then work under the assumption that somebody who is a zoophile can not possibly see the errors of their ways as they are mentally ill.
I'd like to try, if you will permit me. :)
The sky has no inherent colour, and can be yellow, or even green, at sunset and sunrise. Also, the way we talk about colour in English is predominantly about hue, but other cultures and languages put the emphasis in different places: for example, I have heard that the Ancient Greeks said the sky was bronze-coloured, because their focus was brightness, and in that sense yellow and sky-blue are very similar colours.
That is actually rather interesting. I would not have considered this, but I guess technically you are right. There are also places where chemical pollution changes the sky color so that could be as well a possibility. Of course this is all only if we assume colors actually exist, as technically color is just our brains trying to perceive the world around it based on what light input it has. To a blind man color is an abstract concept.
I will peruse your links. As someone who does engage #opbeast, I find that taking a calm and reasonable approach is needful for my own weelbeing as well as to project a consistent and meaningful contrast to their own narrative. I will represent accurately what I am and they are welcome to act in ways that I feel are self-destructive. Taking a higher and considered ground is crucial to others on the fence understanding our stance.
Great stuff!
"For me it is impossible to lie (it is a pathological thing. I technically can lie, but my brain has an issue processing the fact that I just lied creating and almost electrical shock feeling thought my body. It is believe to be linked to OCD."
^ Nice to see that I'm not the only one who feels like this. I have always been told to just lie about my sexual attraction upon other things but that causes more pain and stress with the ill feeling that I'm not being truthful and that a part of me feels weak.
Yes it can be difficult at times being completely unable to lie, but I find life is better overall when all the truth is out there. People will believe what you say much quicker (at least people who have known you a while) and similar things. I imagine it would be very difficult being unable to lie and having an "unacceptable" sexual orientation.
I've only skim-read this so far, I'll come back to it in more depth later (debating skills in general are something I want to work on). But I've never heard of "zoosodomy" before, did you mean "zoosadism"?
yes, zoosadism, sorry, I am dyslexic. My apologies.
I've found that the majority of "debates" fall into two categories:
You have to get good at identifying the type of person you're arguing with, and adjust your approach accordingly. And your attitude is key in how you represent your side of the argument.
Irrational arguments will rarely be "won". Your best approach is that of an educator, just there to counter fallacies and provide a counter opinion from your personal beliefs and experiences.
Rational arguments rely on facts, studies, and relevant comparisons (We can eat animals, forcibly collect their semen and inseminate them without caring about their emotions... but when sex is involved, they're suddenly treated like fragile children?).
But attitude is the most important part. We tend to approach anti-zoo sentiments adversarially, as a fight against an oppressor. This isn't a good way to win hearts and minds.
We have to respect the fact that the vast majority of "anti-zoos" are also animal lovers (just not animal lovers). We have far more common ground with those that are against us, that we can use to show them that we deeply care for our animals.
And we have to show them that we appreciate and respect their desire for animals to live happy, fulfilling lives. If we can convince them that we feel the same way they do about animal abuse, we've already won the "debate", even if they still think sex with animals is morally wrong at the end of the discussion.
Approaching the discussion in a friendly, intelligent and respectful manner will go a lot farther to win over people than all the facts and psychological research in the world. We have to show that we're open to sincerely thinking about their points, even if it goes against what we want to believe, if their argument is compelling. And we have to have a strong and well thought-out argument of our own to provide them something to think about as well.
Kill 'em with kindness is what I believe in. :)
Interesting. Yes, according to a study I heard even simply quoting scientific research only, but in a bad attitude, the person you are telling it to will be significantly less likely to agree with you. Plus in my view, hatred is always wrong, no matter who it is against and no matter the reason. Hatred only feeds the cycle of hatred. A wise person one told me something about hate: "Hatred is love that has been scorned, love that has been twisted, love that has been broken and irreparable beyond repair; it is love that is misguided, love that is perverted, love that is neglected and forlorn and left to fester. " I do not see why somebody would ever want to taint more love by poisoning it with hate.
All correct points. We can only persuade by taking the higher ground. Thankfully, we have many tools at our disposal to calmly and rationally explain what zoo represents. We can create compelling places to occupy by treating the subject with dignity and consideration. I find some virlulant anti-zoo activity works against the legitimacy of their own narrative. That leaves us the room to occupy the better space.
Just as an aside, I am so pleased to see this level of discourse. Zoo has a place and a space to offer and I'm gratified that people are willing to step forward with some intend-ful mindfulness to represent this space. I am very hopeful out of this dialogue. I hope it continues.
I wish there were more I could do than debate online, but there just are not public groups or anything yet it seems. I think perhaps the world is not quite ready for that maybe (just a guess) but I think eventually there will be. I may not be a zoo, but I would gladly go to some kind of zoophile protest or something like that. The even without the unjustice all the zoophiles I have met so far have actually seemed to be pretty neat people but then again I only have this community to work with so far. It would be interesting to meet some in person (that is knowning I have met one as I could easily be meeting them all the time and they just do not say anything out of fear). Sometimes I wonder if my friend just might be. He has said a few things that make me wonder, but at the same time he is a fury so I wonder if he just meant that, but we are usually way to hyper around each other to actually discuss it because we both have really bad ADHD. Speaking of ADHD I tangented really bad on that post. I am just all over the place today. I will cut off here before I get any worse :D
There is some overlap between Fur and zoo. But then again there is a spectrum of beliefs and views and how theiy're expressed. I for one respect the Fur space but It's not in me to be. As a zoo, I want to make it a point of being very simple, perhaps direct with the message of beneficial, moral and ethical zoophilia. Given the crowd the uninformed can lump us into, I think this messaging is very important to establishing a legit place in the public discourse in this space.
As you point out, there's only online where anon allows safe spaces to express inner feelings of being zoo. IRL is not ready for that quite yet.
I see no logical reason to be against furries (sexual or otherwise) so I respect his preference for it. What ever floats their boat (or should I say goat? :P ) The lumping is something I never understood. It was always pretty obvious to me that that was clearly not all cases. The fact that dogs hump people is basically proof that not all cases are forced.
I have given some consideration into starting something like an education network or something, but I am not exactly the leader type. I feel like the fact that I am not a zoo could go both ways, it could either help of hurt. If somebody else does not before me I might do something when I am ready, but that will be quite some time probably as I have much to work on myself before I would be able to properly run something so controversial to say the least. Of course it would probably go over better if I just made something that was just generally about all sexual orientations for education and visibility.
I'v thought of a few approaches myself. I think the germans and french ie. ZETA and Equity for All have made IRL strides though for many zoos, fear of their partners welfare and stigma force us to stay on the low. I think overtime, the idea will gain increasing traction but through an incremental and below the radar sort of way.
"Equality for All" was and is a hoax; this "organisation" was created as a tool to promote a film. Don´t expect anything from them. ZETA´s ZRD( Zoophile Rights Day) is IMHO the worst approach that can be taken to push this topic into the public. If you view the footage on youtube, you will see why three ZRDs have failed to make a difference so far...only around 10 to 15 people on the pro side, but a massive wall of antis, accompanied by animal rights activists and the German extreme right. After the first ZRD, there was some newspaper coverage of the event, but not one was friendly in any way. The 2nd and 3rd ZRD was held, but almost no one cared anymore to write articles anymore. What we need is a broad public debate about zoophilia, the demo failed to achieve this, the ZETA Verein failed to initiate this so far and the usual "Yuck! Sex with an ANIMAL?? I don´t even want to think about it for a second!" attitude remains the norm. Don´t expect ZETA to change anything soon...
But there are some things the zoo community could do:
We still suffer from the lack of genuine zoo literature, there are only a few books available. When the term zoophilia comes up, the average person will inevitably think of porn. Even the most prominent book on "zoophilia" ("The Horseman") turns out to be nothing more than a story about a bestialist. We need genuine zoo books telling the public how a zoophile feels, what a zoophile life is really like, apart from porn and internet communities only existent to help desperate folks getting laid with some random animal.
Start writing, people. Nowadays it´s rather easy to publish a book yourself, with many shops printing small amounts of books on demand. Write down your life as a zoo, order a few copies and start with guerrilla education: leave one copy in a train, at a bus stop, anywhere you can be sure that someone will find it. Go and tag some walls with pro zoo slogans. For quicker application, you can prepare your images as stencils you only need to spray over with a can and thus diminuishing the danger of being caught.
Have started to write some books myself, one about my life as an exclusive horse zoo, another one with the working title "The zoophile manifesto" and hope I finish them both around autumn time this year.
Don´t rely on orgnisations, start your own fight for tolerance now. Use art as your weapon. Write, paint, carve, make music with pro zoo lyrics, whatever you like and feel comfortable with.
I have noticed it seems to have slowly been creeping up but it could take a while. I had not heard about those organization, but it is good to hear there has been some progress. There has been the new acronym QUILTBAG to replace LGBTQ (because of asexuals and such), guess they will just add a z at the end of it, but then I guess there are necrophiliacs as well, and depending on a number of factors I guess pedophiles could be added on there for pedophiles that do not act on their attraction.