Normally I like seeing ALF tags wherever I encounter them. Not here though.
TIL the anti zoo scene in brazil is exactly like the one we have seen everywhere: Small, loud and showing the same old shock images and "comparisons" to pedophilia to passers-by.
But the really offensive thing about this video: Why a horizontalvertical video? Seriously, who does this?
kuromadoushi 2 points on 2016-07-23 16:24:58
You mean 'vertical' video?
cabongue 2 points on 2016-07-23 17:01:13
He meant "anal video"
fuzzyfurry 1 point on 2016-07-23 22:06:53
Damn.
30-30amator equae 1 point on 2016-07-18 17:13:49
On one hand, that´s for sure a bizarre scene in the video. A handful of "activists" yelling their slogans on the streets...
But on the other hand, Brasil is one of the main sources for "professional" animal porn and that fact had to arrive in the consciousness of the "normal society" some day.
I predicted a worldwide ban of sexual activities with animals a few years ago and until today, my prediction hasn´t failed yet...the reasons for this downward spiral on which zoophilia is travelling are still not recognized by all zoos, let alone all the issues that stand in our way.
Yes, it´s quite funny how comparable these Brazilian activists are to others from other countries. Yes, it´s quite funny how similar the methods of influencing the public are. But what´s not funny at all is how defenseless our community is and how inept also in finding valid responses beyond the usual "debunking " list arguments and half hearted separation from animal abusers.
We still lack proper solutions for a few core issues in zoophilia: the consent argument , the lack of a real separating line between real zoos and the rest ; the lack of real possibilities to prove the wellbeing of our animals is also important here.
As I said: without a major change in our viewpoints, our way of thinking and our willingness to draw a line defining true zoophilia once and for all, everything we can do to defend us is totally in vain. I proposed a few solutions for the core issues, but since they demand some sacrifices and contradict the sex lib agenda that´s so terribly common and unchallenged by our own community, any counteactions are a waste of time and energy.
How much dominoes have to fall until the pressure on us is big enough to give my ideas a try? Regulated and supervised zoophilia is the only way the general situation will improve.
actuallynotazoophileok, I lied 4 points on 2016-07-18 21:00:50
forgive me for being stupid, but what exactly was your plan again? something about how we're not supposed to tell people about being a zoo, but we're supposed to inform people about the correct definition of a 'zoophile', am I along the right lines there?
Swibblestein 5 points on 2016-07-18 23:43:00
Seconding this. I genuinely have no clue what 30-30's plan is, outside of "guys agree with me on things and everything will be better somehow".
Rannoch2002Deer Zoo 3 points on 2016-07-19 07:51:49
In short, I'm at times unsure if he knows what his plan is beyond some sort of thing involving cleaning up the "sex crazed perverts" he seems to think are ruining it for us all.
I don't know about you, but I seldom even see them and I'm doing fine with my place in the world.
actuallynotazoophileok, I lied 3 points on 2016-07-19 15:55:52
The more I read from him, the more I begin to wonder if he actually thinks we're the animal abusers he keeps talking about. That would explain why he thinks we should be guilty until proven innocent.
Rannoch2002Deer Zoo 3 points on 2016-07-21 21:44:57
There was a point in time when I would've disagreed with you and defended him, but the more he goes on about how "true" zoos are not attracted to humans at all (that would be "bestiality"), number only in the 100s, and all these strict criteria you have to be to be one... yeah, I think you pretty much hit it spot on.
actuallynotazoophileok, I lied 1 point on 2016-07-22 16:24:01
Is kinda sad. He writes some good stuff sometimes but the tone he uses in most if not all of his posts is one of condescendence to us lesser animal fuckers who cant possibly imagine the connection he had to his mare.
If I want to have my views on being a zoo challenged I can go literally anywhere else on the internet. The reason I joined here was so I could let my guard down with the only other people who really understand me. I dont get the point of his posts half the time, does he get off on being the only true zoo among a bunch of people he thinks are fakes? All I want is one place to talk about zoo stuff without him butting in and telling me I'm actually not a zoo according to these rules he made up himself.
I'm not one for banning people who cause a stir but there has to be a cutoff where if you come to this sub just to berate us you can royally fuck off. If it where up to me I'd have banned him already.
wright-oneursidae canidae pantherinae 3 points on 2016-07-22 19:22:57
... does he get off on being the only true zoo among a bunch of people he thinks are fakes?
ayup.
remember the few months earlier this year when he had taken a hiatus from this place? i do. fondly.
ursusem 1 point on 2016-07-23 05:41:52
As a zoo to another zoo I can tell you that talking with other zoophiles has been nothing but hell for me. Interacting with the community isn't comfy and cosy for every zoo person just so you understand. Fact is, zoophiles only approve of other zoophiles who are exactly the same as they themselves are to a T. Everyone here is the exact same way that 30-30 is. It is all very bizarre to me.
Rannoch2002Deer Zoo 3 points on 2016-07-23 11:22:01
I'm not sure I agree with that, but I am sorry you feel that way.
wright-oneursidae canidae pantherinae 1 point on 2016-07-22 19:21:36
this is absolutely the case. there's no doubt. or at least with me; i suppose i shouldn't speak in regards to his feeings about others. his comment about "my kind of zoophilia" (which i asked "how do you know me well enough to know what 'my kind' is?", and never got a response...) solidified that for me.
actuallynotazoophileok, I lied 1 point on 2016-07-22 22:35:40
what the hell, he actually said that? thats annoyed me. I must've read your posts for almost two years now and I cant see how he can come to that conclusion.
Rannoch2002Deer Zoo 3 points on 2016-07-24 11:37:24
Yeah, the two that really irked me was the one where he said people who are attracted to both humans and animals are NOT zoophiles (WTF man? Like society has an issue with the HUMAN part?), and then proceeded to tell me our methods were such a failure that maybe we somehow want the world that's been dealt to us (I'm still kindly waiting for clarification on whether or not that means I wanted those pillls shoved down my throat all those years)...
I think he's socially inept, to be quite frank, and I've advised him repeatedly to forget about this and go spend time with his mares. I hope that someday happens.
[deleted] 5 points on 2016-07-19 00:08:32
[deleted]
30-30amator equae 1 point on 2016-07-19 05:35:30
Cold you please show me where exactly I demanded that?
If you could quit your intentional misunderstanding/misinterpeting my words, that´d be fine. For anyone with a few brain cells left, it should be self explanatory...but I´ll try to make it clear for the ones without functioning neurons: My proposal is meant to be a substitute for the common "legalize it without any restriction and rules" attitude so common among our community.
Amongst other issues, the trust issue is one major factor that makes it incredibly hard for society to calm down a little bit when it comes to zoophilia. Nobody places trust in us when our bedroom/barn doors are closed...even if an outsider can imagine some kind of "consent" from the animal, there´s still the legit argument of an animal being unable to withdraw itself from a relationship that is abusive. My proposal shouldn´t be understood like you did, it is one tiny piece to tackle the real issues people have with us, one piece among a whole set of pieces like forming a professional zoophile lobby organisation, for example. The prohibition of "zoophilia" is a political problem and thus, it can only be solved politically, not with weak philosophical argueing about the definition of consent and all the other shit you all are quick to pull out like you did in the 200+ replies thread started a few days ago.
If you like it or not, every relationship includes an element of control. In a normal human-on-human relationship, this element is your partner. He/she is able to call the police when you beome violent and abusive. Animals don´t have that option, so it should be our task to provide them with such an option. The only way to achieve that is IMHO the inclusion of a control mechanism like unschedueled examinations by a vet, done in certain intervals.
With the common approach, the only thing you basically do it saying "Trust us! We don´t abuse animals.", what is rather ridiculous with all of that abusive porn out there serving as an example for "zoo" behavior. I really can´t blame society for its mistrust, the evidence hints at the oposite of what we insist to be.
My proposal would tackle two issues at once, the trust issue and the "animals can´t withdraw from abusive relationships" issue.
We only have a binary way of thinking, 1 and 0, on - off, legal-illegal. What we really need is something that enhances this binary way of thinking, a golden path, something in the middle, with elements of both extremes.
But if the only thing our community and organisations like ZETA can come upw ith is demanding complete and total unrestricted legalisation of zoophilia in any form, it´s no surprise societ and politicians won´t bother listening or thinking about an alternative.
Societ has a goddamn RIGHT to protect animals from unnecessary harm, but you SJWs totally deny that and have only your own interests in mind. "Me wants ma freeedum!" Yeah, that´s legit. But with freedom comes responsibility. Your total, unrestricted freedom can easily mutate into tyranny for another living creature; just take a look at the trigger happy US and their "freedom" tobuy and carry military type weapons. All the mass shootings, all the cvictims, only because some gun fetishists demand freedom without even the least little bit of control.
Finally, here´s my plan, just in case you aren´t smart enough to imagine how I meant all my proposals by yourself:
1) Form zoophile lobby organisations
2) Tackle the laws in an adaequate way.
3) Explain that laws are unable to make zoophilia disappear overnight, laws will only make it harder to spot the abusers among zoophiles.
4) Propose my idea of reglemented and regulated zoophilia as an alternative to prohibition that focuses on the wellbeing of animals in zoo relationships.
5) Keep proposing it until people discuss about it. In this scenario, every fencehopping case, any other horrible "zoo" incident in the news is increasing the pressure on politicians to find another solution for the "problem" of zoophilia instead of contradicting the common the theoretical discussions about how consentual zoophilia is.
6) When a turning point is reached and the public has understood that prohibition won´t benefit anyone, new doors are opened. (...and don´t you say that people never will question prohibition, just look at the US and their cannabis laws. 10 years ago, officially and legally selling weed was totally unthinkable to the vast majority. Today, even the conservatives have understood that regulation is the best way to deal with controversial stuff)
7) After the idea of regulation has been infused into the controversy and gathered enough momentum, offer another improvement to the overall situation. Report fencehoppers and abusers to authorities. Show society you´re standing on THEIR side. Reestablish connection, gain trust.
8) Once the public has accepted the new idea of regulation, there surely will be one region, one county, one state that is willing to give it a try. Help them to work out a set of rules obligatory for ANY zoophile.
9) If cooperation with the authorities decreases the number of fencehopping incidents and animal abuse, chances are pretty high that other regions will join the regulatory approach.
Summary: With my approach, several issues would be solved, prejudices debunked once and for all and trust is gained through cooperation. But don´t get me wrong, this is not an easy way. Our worldwide community of "animal lovers" has destroyed so much trust in the last one and a half decades and it seems almost impossible to regain even a small portion of it. It still will be a struggle, but one that is way more likely to succeed than the stoopid old "me wants mah absoloot, unlimitid freeeedum!" approach that never managed to create any progress in the nearly two decades it is pursued by our community.
According to Einstein, the definition of insanity is doing the same eperiment with the exact same frame conditions over and over again and expecting different results. I think it is about time we get rid of insanity now and focus on another approach. BTW, I´m not insisting that my idea is perfectly flawless and will bring tolerance for us effortlessly. I´m open for new ideas and adaptions. But if you don´t manage to recognize we all are stuck in a dead end, you can step on the gas or brake as much as you want; without a 180 degree turn, you will be stuck forever. There´s a huge, massive wall in front of us, fellas! And the first smart thing to do would be recognizing that simple fact. Only when we offer new solutions, we can hope for change.
So, no "just let me add your name to the sex offenders registry", but "Hello, sir. I´m glad you chose the official way and apply for a zoo license. That is a valid sign of real responsibility and shows that you place the animal´s wellbeing far above your own sexual interests."
As I said: this may not be perfect, but it surely is more promising than sticking to a philosophy that has constantly proven to fail.
Hit the reselt button. Or continue staring at the blue screen, wondering why everything is frozen...your choice, folks!
Rannoch2002Deer Zoo 2 points on 2016-07-19 05:55:55
As I said: this may not be perfect, but it surely is more promising than sticking to a philosophy that has constantly proven to fail. Hit the reselt button. Or continue staring at the blue screen, wondering why everything is frozen...your choice, folks!
If you think the 30+ years you've been watching is enough time to declare failure, and time to rethink strategy and "compromise" as you put it by effectively setting up a zoo registry (this has been proven in several studies that setting up minority based registries is almost always viewed as a negative thing to be on by the majority), then you are frankly... do I even need to say it? Delusional.
These kind of social changes take centuries, not decades. You haven't even started, and you're ready to declare failure? You're ready to compromise? Frankly, you haven't given it a fuckin' chance yet.
30-30amator equae 1 point on 2016-07-19 06:18:14
As I said: stuck in a dead end and too afraid to even take notice of that fact. Who expects broad change from a mindset that can´t even convince a single person? Just read through the 209 replies thread and try to understand....at least for once.
Yeah, change needs aaaagees...boy, it really needs time, like from the gay hating 80s to gay marriages of today...that´s ages, right?
Change really needs ages, it took centuries from the Reagan anti cannabis, anti drug era to 4 states legally selling weed to everybody. It really took ages from Rosa Park´s bus ride...it took ages from the 50s puritanism to the summer of love in ´68.
I´ll tell you a secret: it´s never a matter of time, but of determination. It depends on the receptiveness of the public, it depends on new ideas rather than on a certain time span. It depends on a coherent philospohy, on an adaequate strategy and also on professionalism. Not on delusional idiots playing the same old cracked record over and over again in desperate hope a fairy comes down from the sky, sprinkles a little fair dust on their flawed arguments, turning them into pure gold in an instant.
But I believe you still don´t care and continue with the already failed experiment. Just read Einstein´s definition of insanity once again and compare it to your reply. Notice something? No? Fine...onward, warriors! Yesterday, we stood on the edge of the Abyss...today, we´re a step further...
Rannoch2002Deer Zoo 3 points on 2016-07-19 07:42:49
Yeah, change needs aaaagees...boy, it really needs time, like from the gay hating 80s to gay marriages of today...that´s ages, right? Change really needs ages, it took centuries from the Reagan anti cannabis, anti drug era to 4 states legally selling weed to everybody. It really took ages from Rosa Park´s bus ride...it took ages from the 50s puritanism to the summer of love in ´68.
You're examples are outright arbitrary in their start dates.
Gays did not spectacularly appear in the 80s. They were pushed hard enough to finally push back enmasse then. Something similar will happen to zoophiles at some point, but not today.
Similar with cannibis, it's been arround and illegal in some form for quite a bit (though shorter arguably than many). Bottom line: Please quit picking arbitrary start dates for the existence of these things to support your equally ludicrous arguments.
And you know what I told you about the "209" reply thread. Please quit treating it like it proves anything.
Who expects broad change from a mindset that can´t even convince a single person?
Maybe YOU haven't convinced a single person. I've convinced at least 5 and I'm proud of that fact. Where are you, 30-30?
I´ll tell you a secret: it´s never a matter of time, but of determination. It depends on the receptiveness of the public, it depends on new ideas rather than on a certain time span. It depends on a coherent philospohy, on an adaequate strategy and also on professionalism. Not on delusional idiots playing the same old cracked record over and over again in desperate hope a fairy comes down from the sky, sprinkles a little fair dust on their flawed arguments, turning them into pure gold in an instant.
No, it depends on how hard people are pushed, or alternatively, the size of the minority.. I live in a Canabis friendly state and there were several events leading up to it's legalization despite the fact they were playing the "same old cracked" record. In short, they did not change their arguments, they got big enough to push over the establishment and effectively become the majority. That's the only reason they did not take a large amount of time. The amount of time for social change to happen decreases with increasing size of the minority in question... We're a small one. It's GOING TO TAKE A WHILE. It's not the arguments man, it's expecting results NOW when our movement basically had no cohesion until the age of the internet. You've given it what? 20 years? That's a joke.
fuzzyfurry 1 point on 2016-07-19 08:24:28
when our movement basically had no cohesion
We have a cohesive movement now?
I agree though. Back in the gay hating days there still was a flourishing LGBT "underground" scene. Establishments like Stonewall Inn etc.that were frequented by dozens to hundreds of people. There's nothing like that for zoos and we don't go out on the streets to protest like they did in response to police harassment.
Rannoch2002Deer Zoo 1 point on 2016-07-19 08:49:50
The term cohesion was being used in the loosest sense. ;)
We do however, finally have an idea of our identity, and what zoos need to realize is it's not time to redefine that when we are obviously in the early throes of our social development... let alone starting a movement.
I'm all for reporting animal abuse. I'm curious, in your story
"Dear BF users, I just want you to know that user x (Polish guy) is a dick hitting and brutalizing his animals. I visited his and have seen the brutal way he sometimes handles his animals with. If they disobey, he hits them right on the head without hesitation. I was disgusted seeing that and immediately ended friendship with user x. This is not zoophilia. Don´t believe him anymore. He talks gentle , but acts like a barbarian.
was that user x reported?
How exactly would your zoo registry help? Abusers are not going to register themselves. They just keep doing what they are doing now: Abusing animals secretly until they are caught. Meanwhile the right to privacy of those that registered and are surveilled by the state is severely impaired.
30-30amator equae 1 point on 2016-07-19 11:00:57
How would registering help? Are you really asking me that?
If registering isn´t helping, why do you have to apply for a driver´s license? I hope we agree that it´s very beneficial for everyone if you have to prove your driving abilities before you are allowed to drive on public streets.
I think you forget something very essential: every licensed zoo will be more likely to report any abuse from an unlicensed "zoo" because he has nothing to fear anymore from authorities. And if there´s a possibility to live out your orientation authorised by the law, who would NOT try to get a license?...except those who know exactly they would fail the zoo test miserably, of course.
We zoos are dependent on trust. We depend on society trusting us in not turning from Mr Jekyll into an animal abusing Mr Hyde when our doors are closed and locked. If we can´t trust society, why do we expect them to trust us?
And I´ve been waiting for the privacy crap to come up for quite a time now...let´s tackle this,then. Your right of privacy only applies to yourself. As soon as other individuals are involved, other rights also come into play. With your interpretation of privacy, it should be legal to beat up your wife in private, right? Cause privacy outweighs everything, every other right. I´m not concerned if my "privacy" is "invaded" once in a while. That´s a sacrifice I´ll be happy to make if I get safety for me and my mares in exchange for that. Nothing comes for free,pal! Always remember that. Additionally, it is kinda funny and disturbing to emphasize privacy these days....with every single little post under the surveillance of the NSA,CIA and FBI. Don´t you think with the invention of the internet, privacy simply isn´t possible anymore? Don´t you think "they" already know about our "little smutty hobby"?
As I mentioned before: we need to restart and rethink all. We will need to say goodbye to old and comfy, but ineffective habits and viewpoints. The times have changed, but we haven´t since the begining of the nineties, nor have our arguments. The parroting of old and ineffective approaches must stop.
fuzzyfurry 2 points on 2016-07-19 11:47:45
With your interpretation of privacy, it should be legal to beat up your wife in private, right?
No. But with your interpretation of privacy, it should be legal for the authorities to have surveillance on the bedrooms of any (heterosexual?) married couple, because the man may beat his wife, right?
And if there´s a possibility to live out your orientation authorised by the law, who would NOT try to get a license?...
I wouldn't.
except those who know exactly they would fail the zoo test miserably, of course.
That's what you assume, I know. But your assumptions are biased.
Think about that other thread where you asked whether nonexclusive people would choose the human or the nonhuman partner if they had to choose. Great gotcha? Not really. It's not a question: I choose the nonhuman partner every time.
If you can guarantee me that a researcher is unbiased, I'd let them watch my every interaction with animals 24/7 and report me for animal abuse if they deem it necessary. If you can guarantee they are unbiased. But not the state.
Rannoch2002Deer Zoo 2 points on 2016-07-19 12:46:04
If you can guarantee me that a researcher is unbiased, I'd let them watch my every interaction with animals 24/7 and report me for animal abuse if they deem it necessary. If you can guarantee they are unbiased. But not the state.
If we're talking in the context of a zoo registry reporting type situation, personally, I'd protest it just based on principle by not registering. And I am the most likely to pass any such test (at least with does) you will ever find.
[deleted] 3 points on 2016-07-19 16:45:37
[deleted]
fuzzyfurry 5 points on 2016-07-20 07:13:12
there´s still the legit argument of an animal being unable to withdraw itself from a relationship that is abusive.
Is also my biggest concern.
That exact sentence applies to all "pet ownership" and I don't see 30-30 arguing about invading the privacy of everyone with pets.
Mandatory regular examinations of any and all pets where vets look for signs of abuse, including sexual abuse - fine by me. I actually like the idea. Singling out zoophiles as possible abusers while presuming innocence for all other people with pets - nope.
Hirtenhund1411 3 points on 2016-07-19 07:41:04
To me it should be simple, decriminalization, and just leave the current animal abuse laws in place which are sufficient if there really is abuse. This talk about licences and such, no one else needs that to have a relationship with their partners and that just lets government have the right to snoop in on your sex habits, I'm sorry I'd like government out of the bedroom, it's a private matter, it only becomes public when there is physical/emotional abuse to the partner. As for fence hoppers and such well...that's still trespassing and belongs to someone else. You can't just go and ask oh can I date your horse etc(though it be pretty funny if that were the case). Unfortunately animals aren't given personhood legally to be able to choose who they want to do it with(though I thought of limited personhood but that's a stretch, we're still behind the EU in animal rights, I mean I'd like to see docking and cropping be banned like the EU does, ban the practice unless there's a medical reason for it, same can be said about neutering, I'm very much of the philosophy of "if it ain't broke don't fix it". If we're allowed to be open about being zoo and our relationships, perhaps people will be able to look after each other more, like if you know someone who's abusing their animal you can get the law to check it out(similar to how maybe the family or someone knows someone else who's in an abusive relationship, however, because we're forced underground it makes it extremely difficult do that cause exposing one guy would threaten you and all your friends because the current laws see the act regardless if it's consensual or not as criminal(similar to the era where homosexual acts were considered criminal), so having an underground culture is simply in a similar situation that gays were in the 1960s prior to Stonewall. Everyone is responsible for their own sins, no one will pay for the sins of another.
Hirtenhund1411 1 point on 2016-07-19 07:47:13
PS I would also like to add that fundamentally, sexual orientation has NOTHING to do with your morality or your ethics, this is a bullshit connection people make time and time again and still do.(such as how people viewed gays, that they're inherently sinful or evil), being zoo is simply you're just attracted to animals in some shape or form, but that has nothing to do with your ethics, you're gonna have zoos who are cool, and love their animals, you're gonna have zoos who are borderline, you're gonna have some zoos like some people who are just in it for the sex(which some human relationships are like that), they are some who are assholes, but that's humans for you, we can be all or any of these things, no one is a pure saint or soley a sinner, we're complicated just like anyone else, and I would want us to be treated as such and not be singled out to be watched more closely or treated differently.(this goes for regardless of ethnicity, sex, orientation or religion)
30-30amator equae -3 points on 2016-07-19 10:32:04
Your approach still fails to solve the problem of animals being unable to leave an abusive relationship. You can twist and turn like an eel, but this is one valid counterargument from the anti side. And it´s also a huge difference to any other sexual orientation not involving animals.
Your reply just shows what is wrong with our community. Instead of directly adressing the problem, things quickly mutate into some kind of "wishing well" with everyone just voicing his/her personal preferences. By the way, decriminalisation would also benefit the wrong people, as their conduct would also be legitimate. I also am fed up with that "huh? fencehoppers already can be punished for trespassing" attitude. Yes, trespassing is illegal, but the punishment is a joke and as a fencehopper, you literally can just walk out of the police station you were brought to because of trespassing and immediately hop over another fence. What can happen if a fencehopper knows no boundaries and legislation fails to deter through the right amount of consequences, you easily can see in the Espenau case. If the law can´t or won´t protect your animals from fencehoppers, it´s very likely that some individuals will take the law into their own hands.
And, FYI, zoophilia was made illegal in 2013 in Germany; before that date, you were literally free to do whatever pleases you. This quasi-legal status we had until 2013 hasn´t had the effect of "everyone will look after each other", it was the exact opposite. The absence of any law actually encouraged people to flood the net with self made animal porn, "friendship gatherings" emerged where a few "zoos" met to abuse one or two animals together, "lending" an animal to another "zoo" also became popular in certain circles...let´s be clear on this: without any limitation, without any regulation of zoophilic behavior, things will get nasty in an instant. If nothing deters you from it, things will get out of hand.
There has to be a control mechanism that ensures the "zoo" isn´t suffering from selective perception. I understand that in an era of "only god can judge me" and "MGTOW" attitudes, it is incredibly hard to see that it is essential for our claim of non harmfulness to include neutral experts. It´s basically the same as with judges who aren´t allowed to judge relatives and family members. Neutrality is the only way. What if a so called 100% genuine zoo no one iis suspicious of inflicting pain onto his animal is in reality a sadistic asshole, but hides his abused animal behind closed doors? How can you ensure the animal´s wellbeing without "snooping around his bedroom" ? Again, that is the big difference from other orientations not including animals...and as a zoophile, I have to say that not even one animal should ever suffer from a person´s "zoophilia" or our entire code of conduct, our idea behind interspecies relationships is nothing but a hollow shell.
I really hope we all agree on the fact that certain preconditions have to be met before anyone can even think of some form of legal/tolerated zoophilia. One of them is giving authorities the possibility to inspect our relationships. Your argumentation makes me kinda sad, because it is truly focused entirel on the human, animal casualities of your laissez faire approach don´t seem to matter.
If we truly believe in "the animal´s wellbeing is always placed above your own sexual gratification", then there´s no other way but to allow society into our privacy once in a while. Without such checkups, the common allegations of harmfulness, physical and psychical damage inflicted on the animals and icreased stress for the animals will be there to stay forever. But I understand: it´s easier to spit out one of those handy wannabe-arguments from the debunking lists....but all of that theoretical nonsense won´t prove a fucking thing. And we need actual proof, not philosophical ping-pong and mindless contradicting ("It´s harmful! - No, it´s not! - Yes, it is!! - No, it´s not!!" etc...).
Just think about that....and M**erfcking stop comparing zoophilia with homosexuality! These two are entirely different from each other. Just stop any comparison! They are NOT the same, forgodssake!
Hirtenhund1411 2 points on 2016-07-20 07:24:35
I mean lemme make an analogy, a lot of people are concerned about Muslim minorities and now you have right wingers calling for extra checks on Muslims, or banning them from coming in(without proving whether they're dangerous or not) or asking them whether they have certain beliefs or not, which to me is absurd. People have the freedom to practice whatever religion they want, sure fundamentalism is a problem, but people who are just living their lives shouldn't be punished because a small portion of them are assholes. Same with the zoo community, most people I met are fine, if I really knew someone who was legitimately abuse going on with their animal I'd report them. And if someone is abusing their animal, well I would say anyone can do that not just zoos, so I think if you want to have the government monitor zoos they should monitor every animal owner. Even with people abuse happens behind closed doors often they are trapped by circumstance, they are people out there who are assholes, their orientation does not push them to be good or evil, it's just there. The thing is the US constitution forbids spying on people in the 4th amendment without a warrant, if there is suspicion there's a abuse, then you have to have a search warrant, and to me doing that process is just fine. It's just to me for the government to snoop on me simply because of my sexual preferences is admitting that my orientation is somehow wrong and I'm a potential abuser(the same that a Muslim should not be subject to special searches just because of his religion, because that is to admit he's a potential criminal as opposed to most of society where they're considered where they're under presumption of innocence). To me I do not accept the concept of presumption of guilt, I believe in individual rights along with social responsibility, but this, at least in the United States should be honored.(I'm against the NSA, Patriot act and such btw because of this). The reason why I compare zoosexuality with homosexuality, is just that it's the way it works is similar to other sexualities, you fall in love, you get physical and emotional attraction to a species/gender etc, of course animals are different, with different levels of intelligence. To me I'm like we don't need to specifically target zoos(which is discrimination btw), we should call for general animal welfare reforms. Like in Germany all their shelters are no kill(last time I checked) and their animal welfare laws oppose euthanasia unless it's a terminal illness or of uncontrollable aggression, they issue dog licences(to show the person is competent with dog training and such) and a small dog tax to fund the shelters,much of the EU bans docking and cropping, a lot what Europe does is pretty good and I'd be ok with that. However I'm not surrendering my right to privacy simply because I just happen to be in a certain group.
TotesMessenger 1 point on 2016-07-23 10:39:34
I'm a bot, bleep, bloop. Someone has linked to this thread from another place on reddit:
/r/zoophilia archive
Normally I like seeing ALF tags wherever I encounter them. Not here though.
TIL the anti zoo scene in brazil is exactly like the one we have seen everywhere: Small, loud and showing the same old shock images and "comparisons" to pedophilia to passers-by.
But the really offensive thing about this video: Why a
horizontalvertical video? Seriously, who does this?You mean 'vertical' video?
He meant "anal video"
Damn.
On one hand, that´s for sure a bizarre scene in the video. A handful of "activists" yelling their slogans on the streets... But on the other hand, Brasil is one of the main sources for "professional" animal porn and that fact had to arrive in the consciousness of the "normal society" some day. I predicted a worldwide ban of sexual activities with animals a few years ago and until today, my prediction hasn´t failed yet...the reasons for this downward spiral on which zoophilia is travelling are still not recognized by all zoos, let alone all the issues that stand in our way. Yes, it´s quite funny how comparable these Brazilian activists are to others from other countries. Yes, it´s quite funny how similar the methods of influencing the public are. But what´s not funny at all is how defenseless our community is and how inept also in finding valid responses beyond the usual "debunking " list arguments and half hearted separation from animal abusers. We still lack proper solutions for a few core issues in zoophilia: the consent argument , the lack of a real separating line between real zoos and the rest ; the lack of real possibilities to prove the wellbeing of our animals is also important here.
As I said: without a major change in our viewpoints, our way of thinking and our willingness to draw a line defining true zoophilia once and for all, everything we can do to defend us is totally in vain. I proposed a few solutions for the core issues, but since they demand some sacrifices and contradict the sex lib agenda that´s so terribly common and unchallenged by our own community, any counteactions are a waste of time and energy.
How much dominoes have to fall until the pressure on us is big enough to give my ideas a try? Regulated and supervised zoophilia is the only way the general situation will improve.
forgive me for being stupid, but what exactly was your plan again? something about how we're not supposed to tell people about being a zoo, but we're supposed to inform people about the correct definition of a 'zoophile', am I along the right lines there?
Seconding this. I genuinely have no clue what 30-30's plan is, outside of "guys agree with me on things and everything will be better somehow".
In short, I'm at times unsure if he knows what his plan is beyond some sort of thing involving cleaning up the "sex crazed perverts" he seems to think are ruining it for us all.
I don't know about you, but I seldom even see them and I'm doing fine with my place in the world.
The more I read from him, the more I begin to wonder if he actually thinks we're the animal abusers he keeps talking about. That would explain why he thinks we should be guilty until proven innocent.
There was a point in time when I would've disagreed with you and defended him, but the more he goes on about how "true" zoos are not attracted to humans at all (that would be "bestiality"), number only in the 100s, and all these strict criteria you have to be to be one... yeah, I think you pretty much hit it spot on.
Is kinda sad. He writes some good stuff sometimes but the tone he uses in most if not all of his posts is one of condescendence to us lesser animal fuckers who cant possibly imagine the connection he had to his mare.
If I want to have my views on being a zoo challenged I can go literally anywhere else on the internet. The reason I joined here was so I could let my guard down with the only other people who really understand me. I dont get the point of his posts half the time, does he get off on being the only true zoo among a bunch of people he thinks are fakes? All I want is one place to talk about zoo stuff without him butting in and telling me I'm actually not a zoo according to these rules he made up himself.
I'm not one for banning people who cause a stir but there has to be a cutoff where if you come to this sub just to berate us you can royally fuck off. If it where up to me I'd have banned him already.
ayup.
remember the few months earlier this year when he had taken a hiatus from this place? i do. fondly.
As a zoo to another zoo I can tell you that talking with other zoophiles has been nothing but hell for me. Interacting with the community isn't comfy and cosy for every zoo person just so you understand. Fact is, zoophiles only approve of other zoophiles who are exactly the same as they themselves are to a T. Everyone here is the exact same way that 30-30 is. It is all very bizarre to me.
I'm not sure I agree with that, but I am sorry you feel that way.
this is absolutely the case. there's no doubt. or at least with me; i suppose i shouldn't speak in regards to his feeings about others. his comment about "my kind of zoophilia" (which i asked "how do you know me well enough to know what 'my kind' is?", and never got a response...) solidified that for me.
what the hell, he actually said that? thats annoyed me. I must've read your posts for almost two years now and I cant see how he can come to that conclusion.
Yeah, the two that really irked me was the one where he said people who are attracted to both humans and animals are NOT zoophiles (WTF man? Like society has an issue with the HUMAN part?), and then proceeded to tell me our methods were such a failure that maybe we somehow want the world that's been dealt to us (I'm still kindly waiting for clarification on whether or not that means I wanted those pillls shoved down my throat all those years)...
I think he's socially inept, to be quite frank, and I've advised him repeatedly to forget about this and go spend time with his mares. I hope that someday happens.
[deleted]
Cold you please show me where exactly I demanded that?
If you could quit your intentional misunderstanding/misinterpeting my words, that´d be fine. For anyone with a few brain cells left, it should be self explanatory...but I´ll try to make it clear for the ones without functioning neurons: My proposal is meant to be a substitute for the common "legalize it without any restriction and rules" attitude so common among our community. Amongst other issues, the trust issue is one major factor that makes it incredibly hard for society to calm down a little bit when it comes to zoophilia. Nobody places trust in us when our bedroom/barn doors are closed...even if an outsider can imagine some kind of "consent" from the animal, there´s still the legit argument of an animal being unable to withdraw itself from a relationship that is abusive. My proposal shouldn´t be understood like you did, it is one tiny piece to tackle the real issues people have with us, one piece among a whole set of pieces like forming a professional zoophile lobby organisation, for example. The prohibition of "zoophilia" is a political problem and thus, it can only be solved politically, not with weak philosophical argueing about the definition of consent and all the other shit you all are quick to pull out like you did in the 200+ replies thread started a few days ago.
If you like it or not, every relationship includes an element of control. In a normal human-on-human relationship, this element is your partner. He/she is able to call the police when you beome violent and abusive. Animals don´t have that option, so it should be our task to provide them with such an option. The only way to achieve that is IMHO the inclusion of a control mechanism like unschedueled examinations by a vet, done in certain intervals. With the common approach, the only thing you basically do it saying "Trust us! We don´t abuse animals.", what is rather ridiculous with all of that abusive porn out there serving as an example for "zoo" behavior. I really can´t blame society for its mistrust, the evidence hints at the oposite of what we insist to be.
My proposal would tackle two issues at once, the trust issue and the "animals can´t withdraw from abusive relationships" issue.
We only have a binary way of thinking, 1 and 0, on - off, legal-illegal. What we really need is something that enhances this binary way of thinking, a golden path, something in the middle, with elements of both extremes. But if the only thing our community and organisations like ZETA can come upw ith is demanding complete and total unrestricted legalisation of zoophilia in any form, it´s no surprise societ and politicians won´t bother listening or thinking about an alternative. Societ has a goddamn RIGHT to protect animals from unnecessary harm, but you SJWs totally deny that and have only your own interests in mind. "Me wants ma freeedum!" Yeah, that´s legit. But with freedom comes responsibility. Your total, unrestricted freedom can easily mutate into tyranny for another living creature; just take a look at the trigger happy US and their "freedom" tobuy and carry military type weapons. All the mass shootings, all the cvictims, only because some gun fetishists demand freedom without even the least little bit of control.
Finally, here´s my plan, just in case you aren´t smart enough to imagine how I meant all my proposals by yourself:
1) Form zoophile lobby organisations 2) Tackle the laws in an adaequate way. 3) Explain that laws are unable to make zoophilia disappear overnight, laws will only make it harder to spot the abusers among zoophiles. 4) Propose my idea of reglemented and regulated zoophilia as an alternative to prohibition that focuses on the wellbeing of animals in zoo relationships. 5) Keep proposing it until people discuss about it. In this scenario, every fencehopping case, any other horrible "zoo" incident in the news is increasing the pressure on politicians to find another solution for the "problem" of zoophilia instead of contradicting the common the theoretical discussions about how consentual zoophilia is.
6) When a turning point is reached and the public has understood that prohibition won´t benefit anyone, new doors are opened. (...and don´t you say that people never will question prohibition, just look at the US and their cannabis laws. 10 years ago, officially and legally selling weed was totally unthinkable to the vast majority. Today, even the conservatives have understood that regulation is the best way to deal with controversial stuff) 7) After the idea of regulation has been infused into the controversy and gathered enough momentum, offer another improvement to the overall situation. Report fencehoppers and abusers to authorities. Show society you´re standing on THEIR side. Reestablish connection, gain trust. 8) Once the public has accepted the new idea of regulation, there surely will be one region, one county, one state that is willing to give it a try. Help them to work out a set of rules obligatory for ANY zoophile. 9) If cooperation with the authorities decreases the number of fencehopping incidents and animal abuse, chances are pretty high that other regions will join the regulatory approach.
Summary: With my approach, several issues would be solved, prejudices debunked once and for all and trust is gained through cooperation. But don´t get me wrong, this is not an easy way. Our worldwide community of "animal lovers" has destroyed so much trust in the last one and a half decades and it seems almost impossible to regain even a small portion of it. It still will be a struggle, but one that is way more likely to succeed than the stoopid old "me wants mah absoloot, unlimitid freeeedum!" approach that never managed to create any progress in the nearly two decades it is pursued by our community. According to Einstein, the definition of insanity is doing the same eperiment with the exact same frame conditions over and over again and expecting different results. I think it is about time we get rid of insanity now and focus on another approach. BTW, I´m not insisting that my idea is perfectly flawless and will bring tolerance for us effortlessly. I´m open for new ideas and adaptions. But if you don´t manage to recognize we all are stuck in a dead end, you can step on the gas or brake as much as you want; without a 180 degree turn, you will be stuck forever. There´s a huge, massive wall in front of us, fellas! And the first smart thing to do would be recognizing that simple fact. Only when we offer new solutions, we can hope for change.
So, no "just let me add your name to the sex offenders registry", but "Hello, sir. I´m glad you chose the official way and apply for a zoo license. That is a valid sign of real responsibility and shows that you place the animal´s wellbeing far above your own sexual interests."
As I said: this may not be perfect, but it surely is more promising than sticking to a philosophy that has constantly proven to fail. Hit the reselt button. Or continue staring at the blue screen, wondering why everything is frozen...your choice, folks!
If you think the 30+ years you've been watching is enough time to declare failure, and time to rethink strategy and "compromise" as you put it by effectively setting up a zoo registry (this has been proven in several studies that setting up minority based registries is almost always viewed as a negative thing to be on by the majority), then you are frankly... do I even need to say it? Delusional.
These kind of social changes take centuries, not decades. You haven't even started, and you're ready to declare failure? You're ready to compromise? Frankly, you haven't given it a fuckin' chance yet.
As I said: stuck in a dead end and too afraid to even take notice of that fact. Who expects broad change from a mindset that can´t even convince a single person? Just read through the 209 replies thread and try to understand....at least for once.
Yeah, change needs aaaagees...boy, it really needs time, like from the gay hating 80s to gay marriages of today...that´s ages, right? Change really needs ages, it took centuries from the Reagan anti cannabis, anti drug era to 4 states legally selling weed to everybody. It really took ages from Rosa Park´s bus ride...it took ages from the 50s puritanism to the summer of love in ´68.
I´ll tell you a secret: it´s never a matter of time, but of determination. It depends on the receptiveness of the public, it depends on new ideas rather than on a certain time span. It depends on a coherent philospohy, on an adaequate strategy and also on professionalism. Not on delusional idiots playing the same old cracked record over and over again in desperate hope a fairy comes down from the sky, sprinkles a little fair dust on their flawed arguments, turning them into pure gold in an instant. But I believe you still don´t care and continue with the already failed experiment. Just read Einstein´s definition of insanity once again and compare it to your reply. Notice something? No? Fine...onward, warriors! Yesterday, we stood on the edge of the Abyss...today, we´re a step further...
You're examples are outright arbitrary in their start dates.
Gays did not spectacularly appear in the 80s. They were pushed hard enough to finally push back enmasse then. Something similar will happen to zoophiles at some point, but not today.
Similar with cannibis, it's been arround and illegal in some form for quite a bit (though shorter arguably than many). Bottom line: Please quit picking arbitrary start dates for the existence of these things to support your equally ludicrous arguments.
And you know what I told you about the "209" reply thread. Please quit treating it like it proves anything.
Maybe YOU haven't convinced a single person. I've convinced at least 5 and I'm proud of that fact. Where are you, 30-30?
No, it depends on how hard people are pushed, or alternatively, the size of the minority.. I live in a Canabis friendly state and there were several events leading up to it's legalization despite the fact they were playing the "same old cracked" record. In short, they did not change their arguments, they got big enough to push over the establishment and effectively become the majority. That's the only reason they did not take a large amount of time. The amount of time for social change to happen decreases with increasing size of the minority in question... We're a small one. It's GOING TO TAKE A WHILE. It's not the arguments man, it's expecting results NOW when our movement basically had no cohesion until the age of the internet. You've given it what? 20 years? That's a joke.
We have a cohesive movement now?
I agree though. Back in the gay hating days there still was a flourishing LGBT "underground" scene. Establishments like Stonewall Inn etc.that were frequented by dozens to hundreds of people. There's nothing like that for zoos and we don't go out on the streets to protest like they did in response to police harassment.
The term cohesion was being used in the loosest sense. ;)
We do however, finally have an idea of our identity, and what zoos need to realize is it's not time to redefine that when we are obviously in the early throes of our social development... let alone starting a movement.
This quote is likely misattributed to Einstein.
Shootings? Don't you know that we are at fault?
I'm all for reporting animal abuse. I'm curious, in your story
was that user x reported?
How exactly would your zoo registry help? Abusers are not going to register themselves. They just keep doing what they are doing now: Abusing animals secretly until they are caught. Meanwhile the right to privacy of those that registered and are surveilled by the state is severely impaired.
How would registering help? Are you really asking me that? If registering isn´t helping, why do you have to apply for a driver´s license? I hope we agree that it´s very beneficial for everyone if you have to prove your driving abilities before you are allowed to drive on public streets.
I think you forget something very essential: every licensed zoo will be more likely to report any abuse from an unlicensed "zoo" because he has nothing to fear anymore from authorities. And if there´s a possibility to live out your orientation authorised by the law, who would NOT try to get a license?...except those who know exactly they would fail the zoo test miserably, of course.
We zoos are dependent on trust. We depend on society trusting us in not turning from Mr Jekyll into an animal abusing Mr Hyde when our doors are closed and locked. If we can´t trust society, why do we expect them to trust us? And I´ve been waiting for the privacy crap to come up for quite a time now...let´s tackle this,then. Your right of privacy only applies to yourself. As soon as other individuals are involved, other rights also come into play. With your interpretation of privacy, it should be legal to beat up your wife in private, right? Cause privacy outweighs everything, every other right. I´m not concerned if my "privacy" is "invaded" once in a while. That´s a sacrifice I´ll be happy to make if I get safety for me and my mares in exchange for that. Nothing comes for free,pal! Always remember that. Additionally, it is kinda funny and disturbing to emphasize privacy these days....with every single little post under the surveillance of the NSA,CIA and FBI. Don´t you think with the invention of the internet, privacy simply isn´t possible anymore? Don´t you think "they" already know about our "little smutty hobby"? As I mentioned before: we need to restart and rethink all. We will need to say goodbye to old and comfy, but ineffective habits and viewpoints. The times have changed, but we haven´t since the begining of the nineties, nor have our arguments. The parroting of old and ineffective approaches must stop.
No. But with your interpretation of privacy, it should be legal for the authorities to have surveillance on the bedrooms of any (heterosexual?) married couple, because the man may beat his wife, right?
I wouldn't.
That's what you assume, I know. But your assumptions are biased.
Think about that other thread where you asked whether nonexclusive people would choose the human or the nonhuman partner if they had to choose. Great gotcha? Not really. It's not a question: I choose the nonhuman partner every time.
If you can guarantee me that a researcher is unbiased, I'd let them watch my every interaction with animals 24/7 and report me for animal abuse if they deem it necessary. If you can guarantee they are unbiased. But not the state.
If we're talking in the context of a zoo registry reporting type situation, personally, I'd protest it just based on principle by not registering. And I am the most likely to pass any such test (at least with does) you will ever find.
[deleted]
That exact sentence applies to all "pet ownership" and I don't see 30-30 arguing about invading the privacy of everyone with pets.
Mandatory regular examinations of any and all pets where vets look for signs of abuse, including sexual abuse - fine by me. I actually like the idea. Singling out zoophiles as possible abusers while presuming innocence for all other people with pets - nope.
To me it should be simple, decriminalization, and just leave the current animal abuse laws in place which are sufficient if there really is abuse. This talk about licences and such, no one else needs that to have a relationship with their partners and that just lets government have the right to snoop in on your sex habits, I'm sorry I'd like government out of the bedroom, it's a private matter, it only becomes public when there is physical/emotional abuse to the partner. As for fence hoppers and such well...that's still trespassing and belongs to someone else. You can't just go and ask oh can I date your horse etc(though it be pretty funny if that were the case). Unfortunately animals aren't given personhood legally to be able to choose who they want to do it with(though I thought of limited personhood but that's a stretch, we're still behind the EU in animal rights, I mean I'd like to see docking and cropping be banned like the EU does, ban the practice unless there's a medical reason for it, same can be said about neutering, I'm very much of the philosophy of "if it ain't broke don't fix it". If we're allowed to be open about being zoo and our relationships, perhaps people will be able to look after each other more, like if you know someone who's abusing their animal you can get the law to check it out(similar to how maybe the family or someone knows someone else who's in an abusive relationship, however, because we're forced underground it makes it extremely difficult do that cause exposing one guy would threaten you and all your friends because the current laws see the act regardless if it's consensual or not as criminal(similar to the era where homosexual acts were considered criminal), so having an underground culture is simply in a similar situation that gays were in the 1960s prior to Stonewall. Everyone is responsible for their own sins, no one will pay for the sins of another.
PS I would also like to add that fundamentally, sexual orientation has NOTHING to do with your morality or your ethics, this is a bullshit connection people make time and time again and still do.(such as how people viewed gays, that they're inherently sinful or evil), being zoo is simply you're just attracted to animals in some shape or form, but that has nothing to do with your ethics, you're gonna have zoos who are cool, and love their animals, you're gonna have zoos who are borderline, you're gonna have some zoos like some people who are just in it for the sex(which some human relationships are like that), they are some who are assholes, but that's humans for you, we can be all or any of these things, no one is a pure saint or soley a sinner, we're complicated just like anyone else, and I would want us to be treated as such and not be singled out to be watched more closely or treated differently.(this goes for regardless of ethnicity, sex, orientation or religion)
Your approach still fails to solve the problem of animals being unable to leave an abusive relationship. You can twist and turn like an eel, but this is one valid counterargument from the anti side. And it´s also a huge difference to any other sexual orientation not involving animals. Your reply just shows what is wrong with our community. Instead of directly adressing the problem, things quickly mutate into some kind of "wishing well" with everyone just voicing his/her personal preferences. By the way, decriminalisation would also benefit the wrong people, as their conduct would also be legitimate. I also am fed up with that "huh? fencehoppers already can be punished for trespassing" attitude. Yes, trespassing is illegal, but the punishment is a joke and as a fencehopper, you literally can just walk out of the police station you were brought to because of trespassing and immediately hop over another fence. What can happen if a fencehopper knows no boundaries and legislation fails to deter through the right amount of consequences, you easily can see in the Espenau case. If the law can´t or won´t protect your animals from fencehoppers, it´s very likely that some individuals will take the law into their own hands. And, FYI, zoophilia was made illegal in 2013 in Germany; before that date, you were literally free to do whatever pleases you. This quasi-legal status we had until 2013 hasn´t had the effect of "everyone will look after each other", it was the exact opposite. The absence of any law actually encouraged people to flood the net with self made animal porn, "friendship gatherings" emerged where a few "zoos" met to abuse one or two animals together, "lending" an animal to another "zoo" also became popular in certain circles...let´s be clear on this: without any limitation, without any regulation of zoophilic behavior, things will get nasty in an instant. If nothing deters you from it, things will get out of hand.
There has to be a control mechanism that ensures the "zoo" isn´t suffering from selective perception. I understand that in an era of "only god can judge me" and "MGTOW" attitudes, it is incredibly hard to see that it is essential for our claim of non harmfulness to include neutral experts. It´s basically the same as with judges who aren´t allowed to judge relatives and family members. Neutrality is the only way. What if a so called 100% genuine zoo no one iis suspicious of inflicting pain onto his animal is in reality a sadistic asshole, but hides his abused animal behind closed doors? How can you ensure the animal´s wellbeing without "snooping around his bedroom" ? Again, that is the big difference from other orientations not including animals...and as a zoophile, I have to say that not even one animal should ever suffer from a person´s "zoophilia" or our entire code of conduct, our idea behind interspecies relationships is nothing but a hollow shell.
I really hope we all agree on the fact that certain preconditions have to be met before anyone can even think of some form of legal/tolerated zoophilia. One of them is giving authorities the possibility to inspect our relationships. Your argumentation makes me kinda sad, because it is truly focused entirel on the human, animal casualities of your laissez faire approach don´t seem to matter. If we truly believe in "the animal´s wellbeing is always placed above your own sexual gratification", then there´s no other way but to allow society into our privacy once in a while. Without such checkups, the common allegations of harmfulness, physical and psychical damage inflicted on the animals and icreased stress for the animals will be there to stay forever. But I understand: it´s easier to spit out one of those handy wannabe-arguments from the debunking lists....but all of that theoretical nonsense won´t prove a fucking thing. And we need actual proof, not philosophical ping-pong and mindless contradicting ("It´s harmful! - No, it´s not! - Yes, it is!! - No, it´s not!!" etc...).
Just think about that....and M**erfcking stop comparing zoophilia with homosexuality! These two are entirely different from each other. Just stop any comparison! They are NOT the same, forgodssake!
I mean lemme make an analogy, a lot of people are concerned about Muslim minorities and now you have right wingers calling for extra checks on Muslims, or banning them from coming in(without proving whether they're dangerous or not) or asking them whether they have certain beliefs or not, which to me is absurd. People have the freedom to practice whatever religion they want, sure fundamentalism is a problem, but people who are just living their lives shouldn't be punished because a small portion of them are assholes. Same with the zoo community, most people I met are fine, if I really knew someone who was legitimately abuse going on with their animal I'd report them. And if someone is abusing their animal, well I would say anyone can do that not just zoos, so I think if you want to have the government monitor zoos they should monitor every animal owner. Even with people abuse happens behind closed doors often they are trapped by circumstance, they are people out there who are assholes, their orientation does not push them to be good or evil, it's just there. The thing is the US constitution forbids spying on people in the 4th amendment without a warrant, if there is suspicion there's a abuse, then you have to have a search warrant, and to me doing that process is just fine. It's just to me for the government to snoop on me simply because of my sexual preferences is admitting that my orientation is somehow wrong and I'm a potential abuser(the same that a Muslim should not be subject to special searches just because of his religion, because that is to admit he's a potential criminal as opposed to most of society where they're considered where they're under presumption of innocence). To me I do not accept the concept of presumption of guilt, I believe in individual rights along with social responsibility, but this, at least in the United States should be honored.(I'm against the NSA, Patriot act and such btw because of this). The reason why I compare zoosexuality with homosexuality, is just that it's the way it works is similar to other sexualities, you fall in love, you get physical and emotional attraction to a species/gender etc, of course animals are different, with different levels of intelligence. To me I'm like we don't need to specifically target zoos(which is discrimination btw), we should call for general animal welfare reforms. Like in Germany all their shelters are no kill(last time I checked) and their animal welfare laws oppose euthanasia unless it's a terminal illness or of uncontrollable aggression, they issue dog licences(to show the person is competent with dog training and such) and a small dog tax to fund the shelters,much of the EU bans docking and cropping, a lot what Europe does is pretty good and I'd be ok with that. However I'm not surrendering my right to privacy simply because I just happen to be in a certain group.
I'm a bot, bleep, bloop. Someone has linked to this thread from another place on reddit:
If you follow any of the above links, please respect the rules of reddit and don't vote in the other threads. \(Info ^/ Contact)