I am signing this not because I agree with this joke of a petition, but because I want to speak my mind to any animal abuser that currently supports this.
Top Kek
/r/PublicHealthWatch title: Deranged zoophiles create a change.org petition against the New Hampshire bill that bans bestiality; they call it "speciesist" and "bigoted"
with the comments starting with showing their obliviousness again:
Lol degenerates always have to invent bullshit words like "speciesist" to normalize the shit they do or insult people who are against degeneracy.
Yea right, we invented the word speciesist.
Problem is, these subhumans have no heart, or soul, or personality, making this point invalid.
These faggots will be smitten as sodomites by God, whether it is the Christian God or Kek. They will forever burn.
And we will laugh!
Maybe /r/PublicHealthWatch should take a look at /r/PublicHealthWatch as I sense an abnormally strong hatred towards fellow humans in there.
You should also probably not post in /r/PublicHealthWatch because you're getting automatically banned from at least one other subreddit when doing that.
30-30amator equae 2 points on 2016-08-02 04:34:32
The so called "normalizing" attitude is real,it has infested our community long ago and goes on to insubordinate any efforts made towards tolerance. Before anything else, our community should cease living in a self created bubble, closing its eyes, fingers stuck into its ears, manically chanting "lalalaaaaaaaa...I can´t hear you!" like a goddamn 5 year old infant with a bad temper and no social competence.Reactions like the one quoted are what naturally results from trying to force an unproven minority´s opinion down the throats of society.
Demanding "legal" zoophilia, without any form of regulation and control, only creates fear, distrust and anger in an Average Joe.
If our community still chooses to resist drawing the obvious conclusions and keeps on "fighting" for an unlimited illusionary animal fucker utopia, then nobody can and should complain about the dim results.
I think I know exactly who initiated the pro zoo petition, it´s Beastforum´s most annoying "zoo activist" Zqwm7, the one guy that sounds like a scratched record, always quick to point out how "bigoted and unjust" society is towards zoophiles in general, but totally blind towards actual harm done by "zoophiles" . Reading through some of his posts gives the impression of the usual, fucked-up-in-the-head "justice warrior" who has much to say, but no actual experience in what he likes to play the advocate for.The usual "internet-zoophile"...blah,blah,blah...
Without proposing reasonable compromises and offering society a possibility to ensure the animal´s wellbeing in a zoophile relationship, all of this is utter nonsensical pro zoo folklore.
We will see new laws prohibiting "zoophilia" popping up like mushrooms after a warm and rainy day in the forest. With our current attitude, there´s nothing that can be done about this.
The only two things that are left to do for us:
a) realising that the current "pro zoo" arguments are fundamentally flawed and don´t get anything done. Searching for another approach is obligatory then.
or b) Man up and learn to deal with a hostile environment/society.
It´s up to us...
actuallynotazoophileok, I lied 3 points on 2016-08-02 06:35:16
you have built up such an impressive straw man you've blinded yourself to reality. well done.
30-30amator equae 0 points on 2016-08-02 07:37:21
...says the community that hasn´t achieved anything...maybe you should open your eyes: although you insist on your "supreme attitude", more and more laws against interspecies sexuality are issued. Still, not a single adaption you´ve made in your approach. So, who´s the ones blind to reality, the delusional fucks? Just stay in your bubble, "actuallyNOTazoophile"...
Yeah, I´m blind to reality, living for more than 20 years in public stables, nearly open about my orientation, yet not a single incident threatening my mare and me occurred. What´s the experience you rely on?
actuallynotazoophileok, I lied 3 points on 2016-08-02 08:00:09
experience I rely on for what? leading the way to acceptance? the thing is, I really dont give a toss what the public think. according to you, you either are an animal abuser who wants no holes barred zoo acceptance, or a real zoophile who wants us to sign on to a registered sex offenders register. I dont want either of those things.
I honestly do not care to make any progress whether that be what your definition of progress where we have to proactively prove we're not abusing our animals (that still makes me lol tbh), or the other definition of progress where we are more accepted.
You seem like a spiritual kind of guy so I'm surprised you dont follow the philosophy of not being aggravated by things you cannot change. This is one of those things that you personally cannot change, especially harping to the same people here over and over again.
apparently you already have horses so why dont you just live in the moment and spend more time with them rather than trying to get acceptance for the rest of us. Unless, you actually DO want people to accept you as a zoophile hence why you are pushing so hard for it...?
Rannoch2002Deer Zoo 2 points on 2016-08-06 06:05:25
That's a very strange and not universal definition of what defines a word. Makes me think maybe YOU have political motivations for denying new words, hmm?
Language changes. Adapt or die.
[deleted] 2 points on 2016-08-06 06:10:34
[removed]
fuzzyfurry 1 point on 2016-08-06 23:05:58
It's amazing people like you actually exist. Does Peter Singer still teach? It would be funny for you to enroll in his class and start an argument about how "speciesism is a buzz word made up by propagandists in order to de-normalize the natural order of things".
Well, what can you expect from a carnist. Did I say carnist? Yes. Carnism. Look it up. You will enjoy it.
[deleted] 1 point on 2016-08-06 23:55:26
[removed]
fuzzyfurry 1 point on 2016-08-07 04:51:34
Says the walking naturalistic fallacy.
LykeWakeLizards 1 point on 2016-08-07 01:47:08
Speciesism as typically used, and in particular as used when popularised by Peter Singer, is identified as erroneously treating the species of an individual (or group of individuals) as a morally relevant characteristic. It's easy to get confused about this, because in biology as we know it species typically correlates with characteristics that are morally relevant: ability to feel pain, ability to have preferences, ability to reason, and so on. So species based reasoning is a good heuristic for our moral reasoning, even if it's easy to show that actually putting moral worth on species is mistaken by considering, for example, 'Hamans' from planet 'Eurth' which seem identical to Humans from planet Earth in every other way except for being a different species on closer scientific inspection.
"[D]ogs don't get to vote" because Dogs aren't rational beings, not because of their species; if dogs were rational beings like us, then we ought to integrate them into our society and let them vote. Likewise it's fine to rip a few leaves off of a bush because bushes don't feel pain, not because of their species; if bushes did feel pain when their leaves were ripped off, then we ought not rip the leaves off bushes. What matters for speciesism is not the outcome of our moral reasoning, it's the reasoning used to reach those outcomes. Non-speciesist moral reasoning could even arrive at the conclusion that eating meat is permissible and it'd still be non-speciesist.
[deleted] 1 point on 2016-08-07 02:17:51
[removed]
zetas212 1 point on 2016-08-10 05:23:41
Should rationality be a requirement for humans to vote too then?
[deleted] -1 points on 2016-08-06 02:45:16
[removed]
FrostfedoraCaptain Esports 2 points on 2016-08-07 06:21:12
I think you'd change your mind if you had a dog's dick in your ass.
Madoradus 0 points on 2016-09-08 08:27:43
You're a bunch of degenerate animal rapists. Just wanted to say that.
fuzzyfurry 0 points on 2016-09-08 10:49:35
I clicked on your username to see whether you went back a month just to post this or whether you came from /r/publichealthwatch and just kept reading because people like you are so fascinating. For example
children are conditioned to be gay today.
Why would anyone hold such a stupid belief? Have you even once visited the relevant subreddits and read personal accounts from the actual people you're talking about?
And no, I don't take anything you say seriously. You're a follower of a religious organization that until quite recently would have murdered me, so I'm just glad humanism with human rights has finally come out on top over your cult.
Madoradus 1 point on 2016-09-08 17:28:55
You're a delusional animal fucker who somehow thinks you don't deserve to die for raping animals. Even atheists hate you scum, lmao.
fuzzyfurry 1 point on 2016-09-08 18:04:30
I don't think anyone "deserves" to die. It's funny because as an antitheist my opinion is closer to this alleged Jesus guy then yours.
fuzzyfurry 5 points on 2016-08-02 00:50:56
In case this is actually serious, it would be a good example for the threads here about debating recently. I don't see how this text is supposed to convince complete outsiders to sign, it's just preaching to the choir and fails to engage with people who are unaware of the issues on their level.
I think I am so often missing the human side of these texts. Sure, there are some quotes "I do this, I don't do that, I would not do these things" but it's just not enough to empathize with them. Maybe zoos should think more about telling their story. About growing up with their childhood, schools, friends, jobs, political attitudes, social engagement, etc. Maybe some people would realize that they are talking about real human beings there and not about characters that are reduced to zoophilia and only zoophilia.
Also I'm tired and may be writing nonsense.
[deleted] 2 points on 2016-08-05 22:43:55
[removed]
fuzzyfurry 3 points on 2016-08-05 23:11:31
Yes, that is my point. That people would start seeing the people they are talking about as people instead of stereotypes like
nothing is better than raping Buster the Cat?
This is your image of zoophiles and what I am telling you is that this image is wrong.
/r/zoophilia archive
Obvious troll is obvious.
Top comment:
Top Kek
/r/PublicHealthWatch title: Deranged zoophiles create a change.org petition against the New Hampshire bill that bans bestiality; they call it "speciesist" and "bigoted"
with the comments starting with showing their obliviousness again:
Yea right, we invented the word speciesist.
Maybe /r/PublicHealthWatch should take a look at /r/PublicHealthWatch as I sense an abnormally strong hatred towards fellow humans in there.
You should also probably not post in /r/PublicHealthWatch because you're getting automatically banned from at least one other subreddit when doing that.
The so called "normalizing" attitude is real,it has infested our community long ago and goes on to insubordinate any efforts made towards tolerance. Before anything else, our community should cease living in a self created bubble, closing its eyes, fingers stuck into its ears, manically chanting "lalalaaaaaaaa...I can´t hear you!" like a goddamn 5 year old infant with a bad temper and no social competence.Reactions like the one quoted are what naturally results from trying to force an unproven minority´s opinion down the throats of society. Demanding "legal" zoophilia, without any form of regulation and control, only creates fear, distrust and anger in an Average Joe.
If our community still chooses to resist drawing the obvious conclusions and keeps on "fighting" for an unlimited illusionary animal fucker utopia, then nobody can and should complain about the dim results.
I think I know exactly who initiated the pro zoo petition, it´s Beastforum´s most annoying "zoo activist" Zqwm7, the one guy that sounds like a scratched record, always quick to point out how "bigoted and unjust" society is towards zoophiles in general, but totally blind towards actual harm done by "zoophiles" . Reading through some of his posts gives the impression of the usual, fucked-up-in-the-head "justice warrior" who has much to say, but no actual experience in what he likes to play the advocate for.The usual "internet-zoophile"...blah,blah,blah...
Without proposing reasonable compromises and offering society a possibility to ensure the animal´s wellbeing in a zoophile relationship, all of this is utter nonsensical pro zoo folklore. We will see new laws prohibiting "zoophilia" popping up like mushrooms after a warm and rainy day in the forest. With our current attitude, there´s nothing that can be done about this.
The only two things that are left to do for us: a) realising that the current "pro zoo" arguments are fundamentally flawed and don´t get anything done. Searching for another approach is obligatory then. or b) Man up and learn to deal with a hostile environment/society. It´s up to us...
you have built up such an impressive straw man you've blinded yourself to reality. well done.
...says the community that hasn´t achieved anything...maybe you should open your eyes: although you insist on your "supreme attitude", more and more laws against interspecies sexuality are issued. Still, not a single adaption you´ve made in your approach. So, who´s the ones blind to reality, the delusional fucks? Just stay in your bubble, "actuallyNOTazoophile"... Yeah, I´m blind to reality, living for more than 20 years in public stables, nearly open about my orientation, yet not a single incident threatening my mare and me occurred. What´s the experience you rely on?
experience I rely on for what? leading the way to acceptance? the thing is, I really dont give a toss what the public think. according to you, you either are an animal abuser who wants no holes barred zoo acceptance, or a real zoophile who wants us to sign on to a registered sex
offendersregister. I dont want either of those things.I honestly do not care to make any progress whether that be what your definition of progress where we have to proactively prove we're not abusing our animals (that still makes me lol tbh), or the other definition of progress where we are more accepted.
You seem like a spiritual kind of guy so I'm surprised you dont follow the philosophy of not being aggravated by things you cannot change. This is one of those things that you personally cannot change, especially harping to the same people here over and over again.
apparently you already have horses so why dont you just live in the moment and spend more time with them rather than trying to get acceptance for the rest of us. Unless, you actually DO want people to accept you as a zoophile hence why you are pushing so hard for it...?
[removed]
[deleted]
[removed]
It has a lot of references for not being a real word: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciesism#References
I don't feel like arguing with you, but I can tell you that you should argue with this guy about speciesism being a thing or not.
[removed]
So words born of political agendas aren't real words then? I got news for you bud... It's in the dictionary:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/speciesism
Why'd I even come back here, sheesh...
[removed]
That's a very strange and not universal definition of what defines a word. Makes me think maybe YOU have political motivations for denying new words, hmm?
Language changes. Adapt or die.
[removed]
It's amazing people like you actually exist. Does Peter Singer still teach? It would be funny for you to enroll in his class and start an argument about how "speciesism is a buzz word made up by propagandists in order to de-normalize the natural order of things".
Well, what can you expect from a carnist. Did I say carnist? Yes. Carnism. Look it up. You will enjoy it.
[removed]
Says the walking naturalistic fallacy.
Speciesism as typically used, and in particular as used when popularised by Peter Singer, is identified as erroneously treating the species of an individual (or group of individuals) as a morally relevant characteristic. It's easy to get confused about this, because in biology as we know it species typically correlates with characteristics that are morally relevant: ability to feel pain, ability to have preferences, ability to reason, and so on. So species based reasoning is a good heuristic for our moral reasoning, even if it's easy to show that actually putting moral worth on species is mistaken by considering, for example, 'Hamans' from planet 'Eurth' which seem identical to Humans from planet Earth in every other way except for being a different species on closer scientific inspection.
"[D]ogs don't get to vote" because Dogs aren't rational beings, not because of their species; if dogs were rational beings like us, then we ought to integrate them into our society and let them vote. Likewise it's fine to rip a few leaves off of a bush because bushes don't feel pain, not because of their species; if bushes did feel pain when their leaves were ripped off, then we ought not rip the leaves off bushes. What matters for speciesism is not the outcome of our moral reasoning, it's the reasoning used to reach those outcomes. Non-speciesist moral reasoning could even arrive at the conclusion that eating meat is permissible and it'd still be non-speciesist.
[removed]
Should rationality be a requirement for humans to vote too then?
[removed]
I think you'd change your mind if you had a dog's dick in your ass.
You're a bunch of degenerate animal rapists. Just wanted to say that.
I clicked on your username to see whether you went back a month just to post this or whether you came from /r/publichealthwatch and just kept reading because people like you are so fascinating. For example
Why would anyone hold such a stupid belief? Have you even once visited the relevant subreddits and read personal accounts from the actual people you're talking about?
You can start here: https://www.reddit.com/r/ainbow+gay+lgbt/search?q=i+don%27t+want+to+be+gay&restrict_sr=on
And no, I don't take anything you say seriously. You're a follower of a religious organization that until quite recently would have murdered me, so I'm just glad humanism with human rights has finally come out on top over your cult.
You're a delusional animal fucker who somehow thinks you don't deserve to die for raping animals. Even atheists hate you scum, lmao.
I don't think anyone "deserves" to die. It's funny because as an antitheist my opinion is closer to this alleged Jesus guy then yours.
In case this is actually serious, it would be a good example for the threads here about debating recently. I don't see how this text is supposed to convince complete outsiders to sign, it's just preaching to the choir and fails to engage with people who are unaware of the issues on their level.
I think I am so often missing the human side of these texts. Sure, there are some quotes "I do this, I don't do that, I would not do these things" but it's just not enough to empathize with them. Maybe zoos should think more about telling their story. About growing up with their childhood, schools, friends, jobs, political attitudes, social engagement, etc. Maybe some people would realize that they are talking about real human beings there and not about characters that are reduced to zoophilia and only zoophilia.
Also I'm tired and may be writing nonsense.
[removed]
Yes, that is my point. That people would start seeing the people they are talking about as people instead of stereotypes like
This is your image of zoophiles and what I am telling you is that this image is wrong.
No it isn't.
[removed]
It already passed in June.
Yea it's an old "petition" too.