I under that many of us Zoophiles are vegans and a perhaps larger number are omnivorous/eat a lot of meat. How do both groups feel about one about? Do vegans in our community hate those of us who eat meat? Do those who eat meat view vegan zoos with the same annoyance or hatred they have towards the antis who often spam and harass us? For example what if a zoo loves cows? They adore them and love being around them yet they encounter a zoo they loves eating filet mingnon or hamburgers? That would likely be a stressful encounter would it not? Or a zoo who feels more connected with their canine spouse and so they enjoy the same diet of fish or pork or beef or chicken or lamb or venison together? Or what about the few people who cannot go vegan? I'm sure such people exist in the world, because they have a rare disorder or have a multitude of allergies? Could such opposites despite being Zoophiles live in harmony? I know we all can't get along, personalities and ideals clash and such but can we accept vegan and omnivorous and carnivorous Zoophiles amongst us?
/r/zoophilia archive
I eat meat and I don't really have anything against vegan/vegetarian zoophiles.
I mean, it's their choice and it truly shows how they love every animal.
But I just dislike the fact that we get judged for it, we have our reasons just like they do.
Not every zoophile loves every animal and well, what you said: ''Or a zoophile who feels more connected with their canine spouse and so they enjoy the same diet of fish or pork or beef or chicken or lamb or venison together?'' is a good example.
And don't misunderstand me here, I know what happens to most of these animals and I feel bad.
But we are already one of the most disrepected groups (maybe even the most) so we have to stay together to stay strong.
EDIT: And y'know, there's always room for improvement for me.
EDIT2: Also there's no single chance that I'd anything other than chicken, pig, or cow.
I think this is also the condescension from antis who think "Oh they can rape an animal but won't eat an animal" mindset more likely. Or from the more militant vegans or trollish meat eaters.
I'd say we're tied with pedophiles as far as groups that are hated for having taboo attractions. The bad press doesn't help either, seems there's a surplus of horrific stories of animals being raped and the perpetrator saying that they're a Zoophile and that they "loved" their animal despite brutalizing them. But you're right, we're stronger together despite our numerous differences.
Oh really? And what rational reason you have to keep eating meat?
FYI: know that by eating meat, you are almost surely supporting the murder/abuse of innocent animals and the destruction of the environment. So, you better have a good rational reason for it.
You know who else dislike to be judged for doing harmful actions against others? Rapists, murders, thiefs and so on. If you don't want to be judged and feel bad about it, then stop doing a needless behavior that is obviously harmful to others.
So, we should ignore obvious unethical behavior done by zoophiles just to stay strong? No thanks, animals should be priority number one.
What makes you think that the haters will believe that we don't mean to harm animals with our relationships if we can't even stop ourself from needlessly eating them? What you want is for zoophiles to put their own sexuality above the animal well being. No thanks.
IMO; Being meat eaters makes zoos weaker, not stronger.
Wow, still tries to argue after I told him I've partly agreed with him.
Ugh, here we go back to timewasting, I guess.
Yes, we have our reasons.
Like not caring about other species, not being able to afford / find vegetarian food, not having control on what the fuck we eat, preffering the taste.
And you know who else dislike being judged for their behavior?
Not just guilty people, bad example.
Reminds me of how anti-zoophiles say things like: ''That's what a pedophile also would say!''
I already told you why we need to stay strong together, and that's because we're already an extremely disrespected group.
If we separate eachother, it's only going to get harder.
You can refuse to cooperate with non-vegan/vegetarian zoophiles.
That's up to you man! Aces! But yeah, atleast I've got other zoophiles who want to cooperate, goodies!
You know that most of these ''haters'' also eat meat, they actually don't give a shit if zoophiles eat meat or not.
Also, I would NEVER in my life eat a canine.
I'd rather starve.
What makes you think that you aren't also ruining our image?
You defend pedophilia and everyone knows about it.
The people who are onto you also use this as their examples of why we're such retards.
And finally, I've got something else that doesn't add up to our discussion, I mean pointless argueing.
But I just HAVE to say it.
You remind me of a 14 year old ''zoophile buster'' who tried to witchhunt me with a group of people.
Just like you, he's attracted to the word ''animal, consent, bestiality'' and tries to prove his point when it pops up.
Oh, nevermind: imgur.com/a/yN60t that sums it up I guess.
You make videos of fuckin' with yer dogs to prove bestiality isn't wrong, right?
I wonder if he does the same, but in this case to prove it wrong.
Whahaha, wouldn't be surprised.
EDIT: Thanks Aluzky!
At this point, you're not even turning me into a vegan/vegetarian, but you're just making me question why the fuck I'm a zoophile.
I mean, no point in that if I'm so cruel against 'em. I guess I'll push myself into being an asexual. Thank you for curing me!
I felt my comment was needed, if not for you, for others to see it.
Thanks for reinforcing my point. All those are not valid reasons to eat animals.
-Preferring the taste or not caring about animals is not a valid reasons to support their abuse.
-Not being able to afford it is not a valid reason because meat is always more expensive than vegan options.
-The only one that may be a valid excuse is if you are a child and you can't force your parents to not feed you animals. But we are talking about ADULT, who chose what they eat, so they have no excuse to not change their diet. So, again, not a valid excuse.
If you mean us, being a non-rapist zoophile in of itself is not harming others. So them being judgemental of all zoophiles is not based on facts or reason. Unlike people who is judgemental of meat eaters for actual factual and rational reasons.
Such argument is a guilty by association fallacy. Such argument is irrational and thus irrelevant.
I don't see why we can't stay strong and not support animal abuse by not eating them. Supporting animal abuse by eating them, makes us weaker.
If they we can't show that we love animals enough to not eat them, what makes you think they will believe that we won't rape them?
I will cooperate (I never said that I would not cooperate) that doesn't mean I like the fact that they eat animals.
I know and I let them know how hypocritical they are every time I can.
Your point?
I only defend pedosexuality and innocent pedosexuals who have not done anything criminal with a child and who wish to keep it that way. Sorry, but I won't be a bigot against a sexual minority (the pedosexuals) just to not being seen in a bad way by the zoophobes. If I treat innocent pedosexuals the way zoophobes treat us, I won't be any different from a zoophobe.
And if you think that discriminating innocent pedosexuals is the right thing, then you are as bad as the zoophobes.
Their arguments are irrational. Why do you care so much that they make such irrational argument? We have reason and logic and facts on our side, we should not fear them.
What was all that about?
So, you rather not be a zoophile and eat animals than to be a zoophile and not eat animals? Is that what you are saying?
Also, being a zoophile/zoosexual is not something you can chose to be or chose to not be. If you are one, you will always be one.
No, I wasn't talking talking about adult-only zoophiles, not every zoophile is an adult.
I don't even control what I eat, so yes, that is a valid reason.
And no, I didn't mean us.
I meant all innocent people.
I'm not sure what you're trying to tell here, that every meat eater is guilty?
I hope for you that I'm misunderstanding you here.
It doesn't make us weaker if we eat meat.
Most people who are against zoophilia don't even see eating meat as a bad thing.
I know I already said that, but it proves that it doesn't affect our image.
Even if we were all vegans, it wouldn't prove anything.
I told people I'm against animal abuse, their opinion of me did not change.
Also, defending pedophilia is quite, I mean, a VERY dumb move.
It creates a bad image for us, especially with you being such a popular doggie humper.
There's no reason to defend pedophilia either, they're just another group of monkeys we don't need to help.
Why do you even try to communicate with them?
You can't even convince people that zoophilia isn't wrong.
Also what makes you think we always have reasons and logic on our side?
We're not fucking scientists. I know, shocking!
Our "enemy" team is atleast 100 times as big as us.
You're telling me not to fear a fuckload of people who'd report us and kill our so called "partner" on sight?
I'm surprised that out of all people, you'd say that, especially after these recent events involving you.
By the way, ignore that last part really, it was fun comparing you to some other kiddo who also can't resist his urges to talk about zooph/besti.
I'm not trying to say any of that. You make me question why I'm still defending zoophilia.
I may not be able to change my sexual orientation, but I sure as hell am able to ignore it.
But still thank you for curing me!
I feel so free now and can live a normal life! Great!
Are you a child? Like i said, if you have no option, then I find that to be excusable. If you are an adult, then you can chose vegan, if you don't then you have no valid excuses.
Only the meat eaters who are informed on how bad their behavior is and can avoid eating meat but chose to not do it for selfish reasons are guilty.
Most of the time is a bad thing. Is just a mater of letting them know why. Some of them realize that they are in no position to judge us as what they do (by eating them) is much worse.
I disagree. Vegans already point out the inconsistent of us loving animals while we are eating them. And again, how can anyone trust that we won't rape animals if we can't even stop from abusing them by eating their flesh? We should do what is best for animals, show that we care about them, being a vegan is a great way of doing that.
Even if that is true, it would still be beneficial to animals, so why not be a vegan?
Is hard to trust some one who says to be against animal abuse who is also eating meat hamburgers (and supporting animal abuse by doing so)
So be it. Like I said, I won't be a bigot just to create a better imagen of zoosexuals. I won't be like the homosexuals who use homophobe arguments against zoosexuals just to not look bad in the eyes of heterosexuals.
They are just like us. They need as much help as we need it.
Why not? I communicate with everyone.
False, I have convinced plenty people in the past 10 years.
Because we have. And I'm talking about the zoosexuals who use factual arguments.
I very rarely see zoosexuals using fallacious arguments where with bigots, they only have fallacious arguments. On a battle of facts and logic, we flat out win every time.
I'm telling you to not fear their empty arguments, feel free to fear their acts of violence and make counter measures to defend yourself from violence.
Do I look afraid of their arguments? NOPE. Do i look afraid of violent acts? YES. Wich is why I don't let them know where I live.
Well, if you feel better now, good that I could be of help.
I'm not going to answer your first question, but like I said: I have no control of what I eat.
Holy fuck, you are being serious about us being guilty. You've done it now, you left me speechless dude.
You don't have to be a vegan to prove that you love animals.
There's a big difference between rape and eating.
It's not like I killed them.
Wait, what?
It's hard to trust somebody because he eats meat and is against animal abuse?
That's one of the most dumbest things I have ever heard.
Look, I know that's hypocritical in your eyes, but even if it was true it doesn't mean you can trust them.
Wait, you want to prove zoophilia + bestiality isn't wrong but you just say "so be it" like our image doesn't matter.
You don't HAVE to support pedophilia to not be a bigot.
They don't need help, why not just leave them to rot where they are?
What use are they to us? We are always compared them.
I'd rather have them gone so we'd actually have 1% chance of moving to the public.
What makes you think zoophiles win most of these arguments?
Define "winning" in this case.
We could be just delusional degenerates wasting our time.
I won't take "but our answers make sense" for an answer.
What they think is wrong could be right, and vice versa.
We have to fear their arguments, just not online.
Nobody gives a fuck about what gets said online, it won't change anything.
Their arguments are believed by many and we can't do shit about it.
EDIT: So you're saying to not fear dumb arguments and ignore them?
You've outdone yourself here, because that means I'm going to have to ignore you, too.
Like i said, if you have no option, then no, you are not guilty and you claim to have no option, so i'm not acusing your of being guilty.
Is hypocritical to claim that you love animal while you murder them and eat them against their consent. Clearly, such actions contradict the words.
Missing the point. Both rape and eating animals is harming an living being against their will. Both are unnecessary actions. And if you are an adult capable of making your own choices, there is no excuse if you chose to rape or eat animals. That is just a fact. Is up to that people if they can live with themselves knowing that fact.
And people who pay child molesters to rape children and film it so they can watch those videos and jerk of to it, they didn't rape any children, but their hands are just as dirty as the scumbags who did the act. People who are supporting the abuse and murder of animals are almost as guilty as the people who do it with their own hands. That is just a fact.
As I explained above, is contradictory to claim that you love animals while you are murdering them and abusing them just to eat them.
And the 5 year old who hears an explanation about quantum mechanics says: That's one of the most dumbest things I have ever heard.
Is a fact that it is hypocritical, facts stay true in everyone's eyes.
Our image mater, but not to the point of telling lies or discriminating against others. If we do that, then we are not better then the bigots.
I agree. But if you don't want to support them just because it makes you look bad, then you are pretty much bigot. No different from heterosexuals or homosexuals who doesn't want to support zoosexuals just to avoid looking bad in the eyes of others.
Many herosexual and homosexual say the same about Zoosexuals. You are as despicable as they are.
Selfish much? You only help others if you gain something?
Anyways, if you want to gain something, think about it this way, they are being discriminated for irrational reasons, same as us, fighting against pedophiles is the same as fighting against zoophobes, they both have irrational beliefs, irrational ways of thinking. They often overlap (pedophiles are often zoophobes too) We have a common enemy, united we stand a chance. There are millions of pedosexuals who could go around defend us (without letting other know they are pedos, if that is what you want) are you going to reject that help? You rather have those millions to be against us too?
Again, selfish much? You pretty want to sacrifice them and walk over their corpses just to archive our goal. I don't find that to be ethical at all.
That almost always we have facts to back up or arguments and they don't have any facts.
The one who prove that their argument is true win.
Majority of us aren't.
In 10 years off debating them, they have failed to prove that what they think is wrong is right. Like I said, they have no evidence to back up their claims.
It is pointless to fear their arguments.
You are doing a hasty generalization fallacy and self fulfilling prophesy
You are doing a self fulfilling prophesy.
Dumb is subjective, you finding my arguments to be dumb is subjective and not a fact. And I have never said that. You are attacking a straw man.
I'm just going to ignore the first part because you're just going to use the same arguments again and you're stubborn.
But still, these animals are dead, I didn't pay them before they died.
So your example makes no sense.
That's not what a five year old would say, but okay.
No, I haven't met a single person who agrees with what you say.
It doesn't stay true in everyone's eyes if no one agrees with it.
Just stop calling that everything you say is a fact.
It doesn't work that way.
I don't care if I'm selfish?
I couldn't give a shit less about humans who aren't in the same group as me.
I don't see why their lives are useful in anyway if they aren't related to me.
Also, just saying most zoophiles have facts doesn't prove anything.
In their eyes it's the exact same situation.
Okay, people may care about what gets said online, but never will it change anything.
EVEN IF you are able to convince someone, the result isn't really useful in any way.
EDIT: I'm going to stop wasting my time here.
You can see it as me running away, fine, I don't care.
All of this argueing is extremely useless.
In the end it wouldn't matter anywhere.
Zoophilia only loses it's meaning if we continue.
[deleted]
You shut your ass even more.
I hate to admit it, but Aluzky can actually use his mentally-defect brain in some cases. (Which he also believes himself.)
And I know you're telling me that it's weird how most people don't agree with us, but that doesn't prove shit.
There's so much (invalid) reasons why people aren't on our side.
It could be just because it's the norm or because people couldn't give a shit less, or because they legitimately think zoophilia is wrong.
More people does not mean more truth.
It's pretty sad that I have to explain that to you.
But hey, people be people.
And thanks for letting me vent my misanthropy on you.
Works well on these so called normies/dumbasses.
[deleted]
I'd rather believe mr dumbass Aluzky things than someone who follows the norm like a sheep.
Also, my bias doesn't mean shit.
I don't follow things mindlessly, just no.
Do you also have ANY evidence on that I'm mentally "miswired"?
You calling this simple proves how you don't know anything about this subject.
[deleted]
"OmmmMMGggg xD fucIGn funNy meems u got thER XXD"
Just no.
I've been tested, nothing came out. No diseases, no mental illnesses.
Besides, there is no need to since I'm in normal mental health.
It's indeed not your job to educate me because you don't even have the knowledge to do so.
Please continue to blabber about how and why animals cannot consent to sex with humans.
Please, it's just an old joke at this point.
[deleted]
But that's you just assuming I didn't know what you were pulling. And don't worry mate, I won't be raping or abusing any animal.
That's not what real zoophiles do.
FACT: Sex with animals is abnormal. Anyone thinking the opposite is deluded/ignorant.
nobody is normal, and in your comments, you have made it clear that you are irrational and delusional (you have used several fallacies and made baseless accusation as if they where facts) and when show evidence that your claims are bullshit, you run away.
Again, homosexuality is not brought up in these threads because we compare ourselves to homosexuals, it is brought up because you use "arguments" that were used in the exact same ways against homosexuals. You think you must be right, because as a "normie" you are in the majority? Well, so did the normies in the homophobic majority not too long ago. And in some countries there is still a majority against homosexuals and of course they think they're right and they're not biased.
That's basically why an argumentum ad populum is bad.
Do you have any idea how this "therapy" is supposed to work? What is the therapist supposed to do? What is the end result of that therapy? Is there literature from psychology of how such a therapy should look like, how effective it is, etc?
Would you say it is Ok for some one to buy child porn of some one who is raping children and video taping it? The child already got raped, the person didn't pay him before he raped the child. Is that Ok?
If your answer is NO, then the same is true for you. You are still supporting animal abuse/murder by paying people to murder animals. Don't act as if they won't get more animal sand continue to abuse them and murder them because they know you will come to buy more meat.
Feel free to prove that anything I have said is not factual.
FACT: They don't have facts. If they think they hae facts on their side, they are lying to themselves.
Again, self fulfilling prophesy and not a factual claim. Remember, I used to not being a vegan. I was converted through the internet, myself is proof that your claim is false.
That is your subjective opinion and not a fact.
You know I'm right and you run away.
PS: if you don't want to hear about me anymore, then don't reply to this comment any more and run.
[deleted]
Prove it. Give me a link of people agreeing with it.
[deleted]
You are giving me several links with dozens of comments, you expect me to read all of them to find the single one that proves your point? Learn to give valid evidence.
You are superposed to quote the person, give the name of the person and post the link from where you got that quote to prove your point. Only copy pasting a link won't do it.
As I said, it's fine.
I totally don't have better things to do and rather discuss actual zoophilia instead of a subject that I will never touch again and has no use to me ever. /s
PS: No, replying seems fun and you take the bait damn easy.
And yet you deny to be immature.
I. Fucking. Called. It.
You were going to reply within this hour.
Good morning Aluzky!
Have fun argueing online again!
Y'know, I'm rootin' for ya!
And actually, I can admit that I'm immature at some times.
Like now, but that's just because I'm not depressed for the first time in 3 days!
Boy, WHAT an accomplishment! /s
Will do.
See, doesn't feel better to not lie to yourself/others?
Good for you (not being sarcastic)
[deleted]
Trust me. We know.
I personally eat meat but even if I didn't my daughter is a carnivore so she kinda need to; you can't raise a cat on tofu. I personally am against the main industries and how they treat animals that's why I try to buy local. I don't care if you're a vegan or not as long as you don't force it on anyone or anything else. Live and let live.
Cats as I understand it are strictly carnivorous so feeding a cat only on a herbivorous diet could be lethal. Luckily I live in an area where I can quite literally buy locally, I rarely buy meat from big supermarkets except for the few times I go to Costco but that's about it. I also have the same live and let live philosophy for life so I'm not too preachy about eating meat or being vegan.
There are commercial vegan cat foods that are supplemented to meet their dietary needs. But it's pretty useless discussing this. I've seen too many threads in /r/vegan that are variations of this:
I think that's about it.
Really, what it comes down to is simple:
Unfortunately, that doesn't stop some owners from trying anyway, to the detriment of their pets' health.
There's also those who feel it's unnatural to feed a cat a vegan only diet
Well, I personally don't have any general animosity toward other zoos. I'm proudly vegan, but I have been omnivorous before so I understand what it's like and I understand the mindset. I also understand that depending where you live, it can truly be hard to eat a wholesome vegan diet. I'm a fan of any little steps that people take to reduce their impact on the animal industry, such as avoiding commodity companies that test on animals, eating vegetarian or vegan meals, buying free range and organic, hunting instead of buying from the grocer, etc.
I've never experienced animosity from zoos in particular either, but I have gotten those snide remarks of course about me not eating meat, or about how vegans are all crazy hippies and they don't bathe and they're all militant and triggered whatnot. That's not me, nor is it most vegans.
Edit: also I just thought I'd add that I have been present for conversations with zoos regarding eating of one's choice species, like eating horse meat. Before I went zoo I still wouldn't have considered eating horse or dog ever(though im not attracted to horses), and i think that in part even influenced me going vegan. Some horse zoos I've met would eat horse though, and others would try dog, etc. I personally wouldn't be able to stomach it. It depends on the individual.
Oh and also my dogs both eat high quality dry and wet food, omnivorous diets.
I think this is most likely due to the more widely known vegans typically seen on YouTube that often do act "triggered" or call people who eat meat "carnist bloodmouths" and say meat eaters should be hunted and killed so they know what animals feel like or those who feed their carnivorous(as in strictly carnivorous animals) pets a vegan diet(even a raw vegan diet) then act surprised when their pet becomes dangerously ill or worse their pet dies. I think it's that perception of vegans and veganism that make people think that vegans are all lunatics. I don't actually eat that much meat simply because I just don't. However I wouldn't eat horse or dog not simply because those are the animals that I'm attracted to but because it doesn't appeal to me personally.
Yeah, there's some crazy people out there.
I've seen crazy atheists, crazy christians, crazy vegetarians, crazy meat-eaters, crazy feminists, and crazy MRAs.
It's fun and fine to have a laugh at the crazies, but I try not to judge any movement by its most visible members, because those tend to be the most insane.
When ever I first started playing Battlefield I ran into a lot of stereotypical 10 year old kids cussing me out and saying they did my mom, I didn't stop because of that I just ignored them.
You're quite correct and the insane visible members part.
I'm a vegetarian, and really, I've noticed no animosity on the subject from other zoophiles.
The attitude tends to be "hey, I totally understand where you're coming from" on both sides. At most I've seen strong opinions expressed politely.
That is good to know. I posted this because I understand that things can be quite tense between vegans and those who eat meat, lots of name calling and slander and threats thrown around and vicious mocking. I wondered if there were fellow zoos who had either participated in or were targets of such things. It's good that you've seen the more civil sides of such debates.
I have been called a lot worse by some, but using this user name I was recently called "selfish" by /u/Aluzky for not wanting to go vegan even though if I did I would still need to buy meat for my cats. Like I said I have no problem with vegan or vegetarians as long as they don't force it on or shame others like the oppressive religious do.
Well you're eating meat and buying meat for your girl and your little one so that's not a selfish act. However this is strictly my opinion on your reason for not going vegan.
You think is wrong to shame others for doing behavior that are harmful to themselves, the environment and animals?
Tell me, you have problems with people who shame others for stealing, murdering or raping? Because it is the same thing. We are trying to make people understand that their actions are selfish and are harming others. The minimum we can do with our limited power is try to make them feel shame for their selfish actions.
FYI: I would not be a vegan if vegans had not made me feel ashamed of my behaviors.
By the way, veganism is about doing what is humanly possible to not harm animals, for your case, you could try to be a "vegan" even if you still have to buy meat for your cat. But to say that you will eat meat just because your cat will also eat meat, that is by definition selfish.
"I would not be a vegan if vegans had not made me feel ashamed of my behaviors." ....niiiiicee!
Yeah....it´s not about a conviction , it´s about group pressure and missionizing....sheesh, you´re probably one of the bigger self fooling eejits around. And how does your veganism mix with publishing animal porn,huh? Speaking about morality and such, how does it mix? Could it be you´re just one of those "lifestyle" vegans trying to preach others, but with a huge cemetary of skeletons buried in your own backyard?
If your veganism is nothing but the result of being hassled by other vegans/vegetarians and not a rational decision you have come up with all by yourselves, then your veganism is , as other things coming from you, just a pile of self righteous shit. If you needed others to go vegan, you´re just a follower, bowing to group pressure.
Oh well, I´m wasting my time with stoopid again....guess I´ll go back to work...you know , curing and harvesting 4 nicely grown MK Ultra plants...more rewarding than arguing with an obvious moron who scolds others for not being vegan, but publishes animal porn himself. There are many ways to exploit animals....meat eating is one of them, can you guess another one where a camera is involved?
Back then I was not a vegan and I don't see how one has to do with the other.
I don't care about morality. I care about facts. So, try to make that question in a different way.
If I have skeletons, they are not buried. Anyone can find those skeletons or ask me to show it to them.
Is both, if they had not brought the topic to me and made me aware of my irrationality I may have never reach the rational decision to become a vegan.
Ans what "other self righteous shit" are you talking about? Or you just say that for stuff that you dislike? After all we know you are a very bitter person who dislikes almost everything.
I don't need to, but is best for everyone if others go vegan too. And I'm an adult, I don't bow to group pressure, hell, I didn't bow to group pressure even when I was a child. I only bow to facts and logic.
If you dislike wasting your time, why you keep coming to this place? Just leave once and for all, nobody will miss you.
I have no problem with animal exploitation, my problem is with harming animals. You can exploit animals all you want as long as you don't harm them, can you do that to get animals meat? NOPE. This is why I'm against it.
PS: Don't you own mares and have sex with them? That is also exploitation for your own benefits, but like i said, I have no problems with that as long as the animal is not harmed and consenting. So, you are a hypocrite for being against exploitation when you are also exploiting animals for sexual, emotional or oral (as in food) satisfaction.
Well, well, well...look what we have here....someone who calls a relationship (not only for sex, FYI) exploitation. That´s a rather dull weltbild, but not that I´ve expected otherwise from you...
Seems as if "Mr Zoo" himself can´t tell the difference between love and sexual exploitation. Also, this said "Mr Zoo" uses the usual defense of "Oh, the porn! That just was a blooper from my teenage years". I´m really sick and tired of you, especially after that "I´m not against animal exploitation". Wow. That´s surely something every zoo yearns to be known for...fact is: you don´t even understand a single iota of zoophilia. It´s there, in plain sight, thanks to your loose mouth/fingers on the keyboard. You, Sir, are a bonafide, first selection bestialist, with all that comes along with it.
I am a hypocrite? Yeah, right...from the mouth of Mr Animal Porn, this sounds rather satirical. Blaming others for not being vegan is something only the real vegans would never do as they live this way for a little longer than a few years (in my case: vegetarian since ´86, vegan for around 2 decades) and have experienced how futile it is to talk people into veggie. LET ´EM MAKE THIS DECISION FOR THEMSELVES, for fucks sake. Stick your preaching where the sun doesn´t shine! Not even I do that although I´m probably longer into zoophilia and veganism than you.
Maybe you´d be better off to learn more about zoophilia as it is clearly visible you don´t know shit about it. Yes, I have three mares, yes I sleep with my Tinker mare (only with her!), but since my relationship with her is still pretty fresh and new, she´s the one in charge. I do not, I repeat, NOT exploit her in any way...just like a normal guy who´s in love with his girlfriend does not exploit her. If that´s your problem, then it´d explain an awful lot of your remarks and actions. You basically equaled sex with exploit, showing that you don´t know shit. Plus, with horses it´s different. Horses aren´t as nearly as adapted to humans as dogs, horses really have a strong mind of their own (unlike dogs who usually will return to their owners even if he dealt a serious beating to them just 10 minutes ago).
You, Sir, are the numero uno example why the so called "zoo community" is so fucked up. You consider yourself an insider, but you´re vacant inside, an ignoramus. Just another proof of my theory of "The louder they are, the hollower inside".
I don't know what a dull weltbild is. So, i don't get the point of that comment.
There is no difference, it is all exploitation. In one, the animal is exploited to satisfy an emotional need, in the other one it is exploited to satisfy a sexual need.
of course, I can make a difference between exploitation that is bad (where animals are harmed) and exploitation that is acceptable (where nobody is harmed)
I have no problems with harmless exploitation. Where you have problems with harmless exploitation just because you find it immoral for subjective/irrational reasons.
There is the door, leave and never come back, nobody is stopping you. Or, I believe you can block me so you don't ever see my comments.
FTFY: I'm not against HARMLESS animal exploitation.
Your subjective opinion is meaning less to me and others. I hope you know that.
Yes, you are a hypocrite.
No true Scotchman fallacy. And I only blame people who know that eating animals is wrong and continue to do so.
Yea, I know you think that educating people is futile. Not just for veganism but for zoosexuality to, I won't be surprised if you find futile to explain people that murder, rape and stealing is wrong too. But I don't find it futile, so I will keep doing it.
You probably are, good for you. I wish it where the same for me.
Subjective opinion, not based on facts.
Deluded human. Just owning mares as pets is exploitation on itself. But like I said, I have no problems with it as long as it is harmless. I'm not a bitter irrational person like you.
Me? I though it was you. Nobody like you over here, are you blind to not see that fact.
You are doing projection. You are as laud as me, making negative comments on every thread, being an asshole to everyone on purpose.
"You are as loud as me..." ...nooo, I don´t molest outsiders with my totally bullshit arguments like you do below youtube vids. That´s a big difference....while I play the asshole only in here, zoo territory , you´re doing this out in the open. That´s a huge difference...I don´t fuck up our public image like you do.
Projection and wishful thinking. 99% of my arguments are fact checked, aka, they are supported by facts and they are non-fallacious, aka they are not bullshit. Your arguments on the other hand are based on your subjective morality, subjective = bullshit.
We can't believe you.
Yea, sure. /s
And the fact is that there are people who can't go vegan! I'd rather no animals be harmed ever, but just as there are animals who can only sustain on meat there are people who need meat in their diet. Being vegan or not isn't an anomaly in nature and we're animals too. No one is every exactly the same 100%.
And like I have said before, is such people have a VALID reason to not go vegan, so be it, let them not be vegan. But like 99.999999999999999999999999999999% of the human population have no valid reason to not go vegan, they are being selfish and supporting animal abuse on purpose (or out of ignorance)
And like I said, if that is true, it is VERY VERY RARE and I have no problem with them eating meat as long as they have a valid reason to do so.
Citation Needed, and on that percentage point only 1 person in the world can't go vegan
You are asking me for citation? He is the one claiming that not everyone can go vegan, you should be ASKING HIM to provide citation for that claim. Asking me is a shifting the burden of proof fallacy.
I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt that such people does exist, I find it very unlikely to be true. So, why are you asking me for citations?
Saying that only "99.999999999999999999999999999999% of the human population have no valid reason to not go vegan" means only 1 person in the world can't go vegan which is disproved because I personally know 2 people who can't go vegan because of allergies or deficiencies. I can believe his claim from personally experience but not yours, so I asking to be proven wrong by the almighty genius with some sources.
I will call bullshit on that (not on your claim but their claim) Tell me what allergy or deficiencies they have that they can't go vegan? Take your time to call that people and ask what they have and why they can't go vegan. After that, I will prove to you that they can perfectly go vegan if they actually wanted and that they are only making excuses to not go vegan.
He doesn't force them, as he said of his previous relationship when he was widowed his partner called the shots. He wouldn't smack her if she didn't show interest or tether her and force himself on her. Sure I'm not such a saint myself either seeing that I've watched porn, I've masturbated too it, I've posted pictures of animal genitalia past and present. But I can still tell the difference between a caring relationship and some bastard who just wants to ease his aching hard on or make money doing taboo porno. Again a relationship doesn't strictly mean sex!
Doesn't eating animals equal to them being exploited or are you only going by your narrow opinion?
He is against sex with animals. So, I'm pointing how much of a hypocrite he is as he fuck mares.
And my problem with eating animals is that it is harmful to them almost always. Like I said: "I have no problem with animal exploitation, my problem is with harming animals."
Can you murder a cow without harming the cow in order to eat the cow? Nope. This is why I'm vegan now. This is why I know support veganism.
My "narrow opinion" is based on the fact that you can't do that without harming animals. I like to think that harming animals for no valid reason is wrong, sue me.
He also eats meat because of his connection with his partner and daughter who NEED to eat meat as going vegan would kill them despite the replicated nutrients. Perhaps it is because of his bond with his loved ones he eats meat or perhaps because he is cat like? Not that I'm accusing him of being a therine or otherkin or anything like that I'm just saying his bond with his partner is very strong.
Not a valid reason to eat meat.
False, you can have a cat on a vegan diet, it would not kill the cat as long as you make sure the cat is eating everything that he/she needs and making sure her/his urine PH is normal. It is just a pain in the ass to have a cat on a vegan diet, if the person is not responsible enough, he will end up harming the cat (just like some vegans end up harming their kids/babies because they gave an improper vegan diet)
Again, none of those is a valid reason for him/her to continue to eat meat.
Good for him for having such strong bond to cats, but again, not a valid excuse for him to eat meat.
Indeed, SilverPluto.
And not only that, some people love eating meat with their pet because their pet does too.
It is a valid reason to eat meat.
If you don't like it, too bad, they do.
But no worries Pluto! Have a look at this: http://imgur.com/a/KrtKA
Can you still take him seriously after that?
It is not valid. That is no different from saying my dog loves to kill cats, so is Ok for me to go and hunt cats to torture them and kill them.
I know that, but I don't have to be compliant with their belief. Same way I'm not compliant with people who thinks that stealing, murdering or raping is Ok. Even if they believe (in their delusions) they have valid reason to do those things.
It is valid.
My dog's enjoyment > farm animals.
If dogs were never domesticated, they would've killed alot of animals.
I respect what canines do, and one of these things is killing things and eating meat.
I don't care much about your opinion, by the way.
Especially when you see dogs as sex toys.
Again, with that logic: My dog enjoys dismembering live cats > cats.
You know some people gets live kittens or puppies and feed them to their dogs, right?
Bet you have no problems with piton owners who feed live cats and dogs to their snake. After all, their snake enjoyment and them enjoying it comes first, right?
Your logical fallacy is: Hypothesis Contrary to Fact
It is irrelevant if that where the case because it is not the case.
FTFY
I don't see dogs as sex toys, again, that is your deluded fantasy, not mine. Even if I where to see dogs in that way, there is nothing wrong with it as long as the dog is treated in a humanly way, just like a loving zoosexual would treat their dog.
No, I obviously would care about people using puppies as food.
You know why? I see canines as better beings compared to most animals.
If you could only save 4 out of those, which one would you choose?
You see, everyone would have very different answers here, you're going to care more for one species than another.
But she still has prey drive.
If I let her into the wild now she'd stay near me, but if she'd see a bunny, she'd kill it for sure.
As I said, I care more about other species than other.
You can't simply love and care for everything equally.
And I'm the one being called childish here.
Nice facts bro, where'd you get them? The Bible? The Quran?
You'd fuck any dog you see.
Okay okay, I realize my mistake: You see dogs as LIVING sex toys!
Your logical arguments tells the opposite. So which one is it? Are you acknowledging that your previous claims are bullshit? Because you can't have both beliefs at the same time as they are logically inconsistent and opposites.
Sorry, but that example is not the same, when feeding a dog/cat you can chose to feed a vegan diet without harming anyon. With saving those you have no choice but to harm some one (as saving one will result in the others death) assuming that is a "save only one" type scenario.
Depend, if I have time to act rationally, I will save the ones that have more chance to be saved and less risk for myself. I won't swim 50 meters to rescue a dog over a child that is 2 meter away from shore. Child comes first, even if I dislike children. If I have no time to think, yes, most likely I will unconsciously save the dog.
Irrelevant, you out to not do aniaml abuse just to make your pet happy.
I know that, but you would still get punished with animal abuse if you chose to act in that way. And even if you care more about one species than the other, that doesn't justify abusing other species.
I'm not being immature by fixing your claims.
More of you being immature.
Only if they are into sex with me.
Again, wrong, I see dogs as living beings, not as sex toys. You have the unfounded belief that having sex = you must see them as sex toys. This is not always the case.
Go ask people who have one night stands if they see humans as sex toys. Majority will say NO. Again, you are making a unfounded claims, just to throw shit at me because you hate me for some childish reason. Grow up.
I already told you.
My dog > Canines > Others
Still, my dog > other canines > other animals.
There is no time to save them.
You have four buttons, one to press.
You're kind of avoiding the idea of the question.
Yes I do. As I said, my dog > other canines > other animals.
But it does mean that I care more about the happiness of my dog than others, and so I will sacrifice others to make my dog happy.
Lmao, maybe not, but your behavior says otherwise.
Nah, they aren't sex toys to you at all.
Go ask people who have one night stands if they see humans as sex toys. Majority will say NO. Again, you are making a unfounded claims, just to throw shit at me because you hate me for some childish reason. Grow up.
You really take this ''sex toy'' thing seriously?
You know exactly what I mean.
It means you're a pervert, professor.
Also, people who have one night stands can lie just like you.
If people would fuck every human that wants sex, they're perverts just like you.
Hey /u/Hedonist-glen are you still active?
Got a mate for you here.
So you are defending people who feed puppies to their pit-bulls. OK...
Well, seems you are a bit of a speciesist, Ok... I won't judge you for that. But supporting the harm of innocent animals for no valid reasons, I can judge you for that.
Then, like I said, I most likely save dog in an unconscious way.
Again, you are supporting people who feed puppies to their pit-pulls. If that is the claim you want to make, be my guess.
Again, you are making assumptions that are false.
Finally, too you long enough to understand.
I take everything seriously. Are you trying to say that you are just trolling me? Should I call a mod to give you a talk so you stop trolling? Such behavior is not welcome in here.
I don't know.
I'm guilty of that, not a crime to be one.
All of them telling a lie? And who says that I'm telling a lie?
Nothing wrong with being a pervert. Are you now going to be judgemental of perverts? Because almost everyone in /r/zoophilia are a perverts.
What is the point of you showing me that person quote to me?
I have way too much shit to deal with in my life right now to worry about if me, my family, and my pets are all on their diet and pills to keep them vegan and healthy.
Another thing there is an emotional disconnect to cow, fish, and foul for me. I understand my cats, I love felines, I respect them. To be honest I wouldn't be opposed to tasting dog or horse more resistant, but I would never even think about eating anything feline.
Is not that hard... well, a cat on a vegan diet, that is hard to keep. But like I said, at lease you humans could try to be vegan or vegetarian or cut how much meat you eat per week to once a week or something like that
Can't you empathize with other animals from a rational point of view? I have an emotional disconnect for humans, but I support laws that protects humans from abuse and torture and i don't want to see humans being slaved, murdered and eaten against their will.
Wow... I personally have difficulty interpreting emotions it's one of the symptoms of my autism, however I can understand them and empathize. if you literally can't empathize with a fellow human... You are a psychopath.
I eat meat, but of course I respect people who don't. It's understandable, especially considering how most meat is produced.
How much meat you eat? Have you try being a vegan?
I've never tried to be vegan, but I did eat a lot less meat when I lived in a part of town that didn't have a supermarket. I still ate eggs and milk, and plenty of lentils and such. But my level of vitamin b12 started to decline and I started to experience predatory urges that I don't think are socially accepted.
I also think it's silly when vegans don't eat honey. Apiculture is good for the environment in most cases. Vegetarianism I understand. Veganism I respect from the point of view that I think people are allowed to make their own choices, even when I think some of them are silly.
Now, since my boyfriend is much more picky with food than I am, we eat meat almost every day. I try to cook some more vegetables, but it's pointless if he doesn't eat them anyway (he is underweight and really needs to eat!).
Vegans are superposed to take B12 supplements. If you where eating eggs and milk, you where getting B12 from there unless you had some medical problem that makes it harder for you to absorb B12.
I agree. One problem with veganism is that it is very dogmatic, some times to stupid levels. But that shouldn't not be a reason to not become 99% vegan. Or at least 80% vegan. I know that won't be a real vegan but is better than nothing. Some one who break vegan rules once a week (specially stupid rules like not eating honey) is better than some one who eats meats every day.
By the way, I don't understand why you need to eat meat just because your boyfriend does, can't you eat something different from what he eats? Are you two conjoined twins with the same digestive system?
I do most of the cooking, I don't want to cook two different meals every time. When he cooks, well, he only knows one vegetarian recipe...
Also, it does seem like my family has a harder time to absorb b12. My mother and my grandmother (also omnivores) have trouble with this. So, it sounded like my doctor didn't want me to be vegetarian/vegan (although he didn't say so in explicit). I think it's better to get nutrition from the food I eat if possible, I already take so many pills.
I don't think there is anything wrong with killing animals for food in principle, I just dislike the industrial meat industry. My ideal would be to raise my own animals for meat and eggs. But you can't really have chickens and rabbits in a small apartment in the city. In the mean time, I try to by only meat from countries with good animal protection laws and try to slowly get my boyfriend used to more vegetarian meals (he enjoys my chickpea curry).
Anyway, I don't think it's a good idea to try and convince people like this to become vegan. The more people try to convince me about it, the more I just want to bite a raw steak. Childish? Perhaps. But I do find it annoying with people who nag.
So, your answer is, I'm lazy.
More reason to take B12 supplements.
If you become vegan, one more is not going to kill you. (Unless you choke on it, Joking)
Care to explain the logic behind that principle where murdering animals is Ok? FYI: To me, murdering an animal is only OK if you have absolutely no other options.
Yea, is a terrible idea to try to convince people to have a diet that is healthier, that doesn't support animal abuse and that has a smaller destructive effect on the environment. PS: I'm using sarcasm.
Killing the animal for their meat would still be unethical.
I hope that people don't think that way about other stuff that we also try to convince them from not doing, mainly murder, rape (of humans or animals) and stealing.
Everything in nature kills or harms other things in order to live, unless they are able to do photosynthesis. Herbivores eat plants, carnivores eat animals, omnivores eat a varied diet. Humans are just another species of animal, it is impossible for us to live completely without harming other organisms. It is not wrong for a hedgehog to eat a worm, it is not wrong for a bear to eat a human, just as it isn't wrong of the rabbit to eat a cabbage.
Humans are just another species of animal, and if other animals eat meat, then we can too. We are animals, therefore we consume other organisms. And even if we would eat only plants, we kill a lot of animals to protect our crops. Insecticides, change of habitat and so on. Cruelty free doesn't exist. We can only strive to lessen cruelty.
Eating less meat (especially less red meat) is good for the environment. That is why I try to incorporate vegetarian meals. But killing a salmon or a chicken in itself, is part of the natural cycle. Life cannot exist without death. But, if I would choose, I would still choose for those animals to live a happy life before their death. That is why I would prefer to have chickens in the same way as my grandparents do. Free to walk outdoors, varied diet, small flock...
If another species would decide to farm humans in a similar manner, I wouldn't find it unethical.
Veganism is about doing what is humanly possible to reduce that harm to the minimum. The goal is not to do ZERO harm. Harming 100 animals per year is better than harming billions of animals per year. Agree?
Is not wrong because they don't have mens rea. They can't judge if their actions are good or bad. We humans can make such judgment. Which is why we like to think that humans should act more like humans and not like mindless animals.
I know, I agree.
That is good, not the best you can do but still good.
Majority of humanity would find it unethical. Then golden rules applies, don't do to animals what you as a human don't want to experience.
Raising humans or animals in a ethical way to then come one day and end their life to eat them, is not really ethical at all. Sure, is more ethical than torturing them by placing them in horrible conditions and then murdering them, but is still unethical because they didn't agree to have their life taken.
I hate to break it down to you (Well, that may have been a lie...;) ), but all of your bullshit veganism does absolutely NOTHING for any animal. The meat YOU don´t eat is being eaten by others. When the local meat market suffers from low sales because "vegans", then the meat is exported elsewhere. In Germany, we had an increase of vegetarianism and veganism in the last 25 years and what once was a teeny tiny minority of 0,3 % of Germans abstaining from meat and/or animal products, is now at a whopping 8-10 % vegetarian and 2 % vegan population. But still, Germany is one of the biggest meat exporters in the world. Germany´s meat consumption decreased, but the meat production INCREASED. Your simple "don´t eat animals, then everything will be fine" weltbild is bogus and bullshit. The market mechanisms aren´t effected the least little bit. Also, animals are killed when producing veggie products. Deer are killed when harvesting, Mice, hedgehogs and other small animals, too. Although I´m a longtime veggie myself, I don´t buy that simple POV anymore...it´s comparable to the delusions of some "legalize it!" fools stating that legalized marijuana will bring world peace, definitely.
You simply don´t have an "ethical upper hand". Not a single cow, not a single pig, not a single animal less will be slaughtered because you´re such an "ethical" vegan. Your POV is delusional, but that´s nothing that surprises me anymore after the previous exchange of agruments....
Remember: Your bubble does NOT equal the real world!
The only effect vegetarianism/veganism has is on your own, personal "karma"...as a veggie, you´re not directly responsible for torture and slaughter anymore, but seen objectively, that´s but a "feelgood" decision.
CITATION NEEDED.
That doesn't prove that being a vegan does absolutely NOTHING for any animals. So try again. So, where is your proof?
Again, that doesn't prove that being a vegan does absolutely NOTHING for any animals. So try again. Where is your proof?
Tell me, what happens if if vegans continue to grow in numbers till reaching 100% in all the world? Guess, what, getting to that 100% is impossible if you have your mentality of "being vegan is pointless".
Also, it is not pointless, Germany may be an exception but in other places, they have to low production if people is not eating their meat, those animals are feed with crops, to make those crops animal sand land have to be killed, all this adds to animal suffering and pollution and destruction of nature, so, it is a fact that being a vegan overall is doing good to animals, the environment and your own health. Deny it all you want.
I know, but is a much less numbers than the animals that die to raise meat. And again,is not just about animal,is also about the destruction and pollution of the environment. Being vegan is better for the world and the animals and your health.
"Deer are killed when harvesting, Mice, hedgehogs and other small animals, too. Although I´m a longtime veggie myself, I don´t buy that simple POV anymore...it´s comparable to the delusions of some "legalize it!" fools stating that legalized marijuana will bring world peace, definitely."←Veganism is about doing what is humanly possible for you to do to not harm animals or destroy/pollute the environment. Veganism has never been about NEVER harming animals, as for a human to life, some animals have to be harmed on purpose or accidentally.
Keep thinking that if it helps you sleep at nigh.
Keep thinking that if it helps you sleep at nigh.
Where is the evidence that my POV is delusional?
What bubble?
Citation needed that being a vegan has only an impact on the human and never has an impact on other animals or the environment.
You talk a lot but where is the evidence to support your claims???
I'm vegetarian and have thought about going vegan. I don't hate or look down on people because they eat meat.
Well, you are most likely still doing harm to animals by consuming cheese, milk and eggs, so, it would be hypocritical if you did looked down on them.
You should try to be a vegan, just cut the non-vegan things from your diet and replace them with vegan things. There are plenty vegan forums with people that can help you to achieve that change.
I eat meat but only once or twice a week.
But why?
I eat it mostly as Chinese take out. Sometimes though I would ask for "insert beef dish" without meat. Not to many places serve "Mongolian tofu". I'm too lazy to cook much but when I do it is vegan.
I don't eat meat and plan to become vegan in the future. I don't bear animosity towards meat eaters, and I think it's ridiculous for anyone to do otherwise.
Everyone has the right to do what they feel is right, and everyone has the right to try to influence others towards the things they feel are right... but to claim some moral superiority because you chose to do this thing as opposed to other people who do that other thing just comes off as so annoyingly overbearing to me.
This seems to be a pretty heated argument in the community. I've seen people claim they could not understand how meat eaters considered themselves true animal lovers. I do personally take offense at how animals are treated in general by humans and this is why I try to limit the power I give to those who are, in my opinion, committing these moral faults. But I will never use this to try to think of myself as someone who is "better." Some people chose to close their eyes to animal suffering. Personally, I try not to, as it is something that affects me. But I recognize that I close my eyes to many other issues only because they don't affect me as much. Issues that may seem paramount to other people. I use products made in countries without worker unions, I don't always buy from sustainable and fairtrade sources, I rely on fossil fuels, I could have reported animal fuckers to to the police but didn't, etc.
Stay classy reddit.
That's the more prevalent stereotype of vegans that they think they're all superior to meat eaters. I'm able to buy local and I do this because the way the meat industry treats animal just to make more profits or out apathy for the animals that will be killed is awful.
You really said that? So, if some one thinks that rape and murder is right, they should just do it or influence others to do it? Or, you poorly chosen the word and what you said is not what really mean to say?
Who is superior when it comes to animal ethics? Some one who kidnaps kittens and torture them to death or some one who doesn't do that and is even a vegan ass to reduce the harm that is done to animals?
I'm sure you can agree that vegans are ethically superior to meat eaters when it comes to animal ethics. What is so "annoyingly overbearing" about acknowledged this fact?
If that is wrong to do, and you can avoid doing it, then why you do it?
If animal abuse is involved, you should do it.
Ethics are subjective. There is no objective superiority or inferiority in ethics. Different people have different values, and none are "better" or "worse" than others. Just different. Do I really have to spell it out for you? On a forum for dogfuckers, of all places?
And are you aware that the overwhelming majority of the human race thinks you commit animal rape? Do you think what you are doing is right? Do you think it is just to convince and encourage others that it is right as well? With your countless crusades on the subject, I'm going to go with "yes".
Of course, certain rights come above others in my opinion. The right of life and safety of others comes above one's desire to kill and assault others.
Because money is important to me. Given the choice between a cheaper but less ethically "pleasing" option and a more expensive but fairer product, chances are I'll go with the cheaper option. Again, different values for different people.
That was meant as a joke more than anything. But it just goes to show that some people may think the commendable and ethically "superior" thing to do when confronted with a zoophile is to report them to the authorities.
Yes and NO.
99.99% of humans and the animals that we talk about dislike pain and death and do their best to avoid it, As such, we have reached the logical conclusion that is unethical to harm or kill others against their will (for obvious reason as we don't want to be harmed or killed against our will)
If some one thinks that it is ethical to harm others, that is their subjective deluded opinion, doesn't change the fact that it is objectively unethical to harm others.
Yes, I'm aware of that. Yes, I think that what I do is right (for objective reasons)
That sentence lacks context.
Did you mean to say: Do you think it is RIGHT just to convince and encourage others that it is right as well?
If you mean to say that? If so, No, I think is right because there is objective evidence that it is right. If there was objective evidence that it is wrong, then I would believe that it is wrong and I would be crusading against people who thinks that it is right.
Buying plant protein is cheaper than buying meat.
Not funny and not the time nor place to make such jokes.
I don't believe in objectivity of ethics. Morals and ethics are not mind-independent, platonic concepts that exists immutably in the universe. They exist subjectively in the mind of each human which is why they vary wildly across nations, cultures, epochs and, of course, individual humans.
Wait, wait... Who is "we"? 99% of humans? So in that case, something is right because 99% of humans agree with it?
"If some one thing [sic] that is ethical to rape dogs, that is their subjective deluded opinion, doesn't change the fact that it is objectively unethical to rape dogs."
Okay... Well you know, I also have objective reasons to murder a bunch of people, too. Humans are objectively responsible for the destruction of ecosystems and the death and suffering of many. Therefore it is the objectively ethical thing to do to just drop a few nukes here and there... Completely fucking bonkers.
just
adjective \ˈjəst\
Simple Definition of just
: agreeing with what is considered morally right or good
: treating people in a way that is considered morally right
: reasonable or proper
Source: Merriam-Webster's Learner's Dictionary
My initial comment is: I don't eat meat and plan to become vegan in the future.
Now tell me, is there something that is as nutritious and cheap as milk that comes entirely from non-animal sources? As someone who needs between 4000-5000 cals a day not to lose weight, dairy products, and especially milk, are a stable of my diet.
Oh, lighten up dogfucker.
If 99.9% of humans believe something and that something is supported by scientific facts, can't you agree that it is almost entirely morally objective? I already gave you an example of this.
We = humans.
Something is right because facts supports it.
Thing is, I'm sure that if we scrutinize those "objective reasons" we will reach the objective conclusion that the reason are nothing but subjective.
I don't get your point.
Again, I don't get your point, why are you giving me the definition of a word?
I believe you said that you value being efficient with money. Which is why I said that plant protein is cheaper than meat. Same goes for milk, you can buy plant protein power and use that as a milk replacement, it will be cheaper than buying milk.
Average person needs 2000 to 2500 calories per day. You sure you need that many? You a body builder or something? Anyways, glass of milk has 100 calories, glass of soymilk has 130 calories. Replacing milk for soy is not going to reduce your caloric intake (unless you go for non-fat non-sugar added soy milk) And is not like you can't eat some other high calorie food to compensate for any caloric lost in changing the diet from vegetarian to vegan.
So popularity and science are the final arbiters of what is ethical? You are aware that these two things can be incredibly skewed, right?
Something is true when facts support it. Whether we see that as "right" or "wrong" depends solely on our subjective interpretation.
The point is that objective observations of reality are no basis to claim objectivity of morals. Just like with statistics, you can claim any ethical position using facts. There are facts and statistics to defend any position. In the end, all that remain is subjective appreciation of these facts and very subjective ethical conclusions that are drawn on them.
Holy fuck, do you know me? At 2000 to 2500 cals per day, I'd be able to play xylophone on my ribcage in two weeks.
Actually, yes. There are less calories in soy milk than in regular milk. You say your opinions are based on facts, so try to get your facts straight. Milk is also rich in saturated fat which is important for testosterone (I also have very low testosterone.) It also has way more calcium than soy milk and can provide you with vitamin A, vitamin D and vitamin B-12, whereas soy milk is completely lacking in these regards.
You know Aluzky, you like to think you are some master rhetorician, but you're actually quite a crapshoot. Your entire argument can be summed up to the is-ought fallacy.
The right word is OBJECTIVELY ethical. And yes, if almost everybody agrees with it and facts agrees with it. Then yes, that is as close to be objectively ethical as it can get.
Your point?
Can you say it is a subjective interpretation if 99.9% of humans have the same interpretation? Ok, if you want to split hair, that 0.1% who disagree, makes it subjective. But like I said before, the people who disagree, are deluded, mentally ill or have weird fetishes.
By the way, i was using the word right as a synonym of true, correct, factual.
Again, if 99.9% of people reaches the same ethical conclusion (and this conclusion is also supported by scientific facts) can you call that subjective? You have to agree that it is VERY objective in such cases.
That is why I asked if you are a body builder or something. I don't know you, I only know the averages.
This claim is bullshit, I did my research: milk has 100 calories, soymilk has 130, chocolate soy milk has 150. Non-fact non-sugar added soymilk has 69 calories.
Please, fact check your claims before pushing the save button.
That is correct, and I got my facts unlike you who is denying that soy milk has less calories than milk.
You can get that from other food, you don't need it from milk.
Some commercial soy milk adds supplement to their milk and they have as much if not more calcium than milk. And even then, you can always get your daily intake of calcium from other sources or even take pill supplements.
Just like above, you can get all those from soy milk that has been supplemented, or you can get it from others food or you can take supplements to compensate a unbalanced diet (FYI: you do need b12 supplements as a vegan)
As long as you eat milks, eggs, cheese, billions of animals are being abused and murdered to get those for you to eat them. If you care about animals, you should go vegan as soon as possible. If you don't give a shit about animals, then keep doing what you are doing. The fact that you seem to defend drinking milk (when you can eat other food and get the same nutrients) seems to imply that you don't care about their suffering.
That is your subjective opinion and is not something you can prove to be a fact.
I don't see how that could be the case, care to elaborate on it? If you can prove that I'm doing that fallacy, I will correct my arguments to not do that fallacy anymore.
There is no objective ethical thing. Objective ethics do not exist.
The point is that since these two things can be erroneous, it makes no sense to pretend we can draw absolute, immutable conclusions from them.
Alright. Then in that case you should probably stop fucking dogs, because 99.9% of people reach the conclusion that it is morally wrong and bestialists rely and conjecture supported by absolutely no science. The only ones who disagree are deluded, mentally ill or have weird fetishes, right? You said so yourself.
One cup of whole milk: 148 calories. Total fat: 8g (4.6 saturated, 0.5 polyunsaturated, 2 monounsaturated.) Carbs: 12g. Protein: 8g. Vitamin A: 7% of daily recommended intake. Calcium: 27% of daily recommended intake. Vitamin D: 31% of daily recommended intake. Vitamin B-12: 18% of daily recommended intake.
One cup of soy milk: 130 calories. Total fat: 4.3g (0.5 saturated, 2.3 polyunsaturated, 1 monounsaturated.) Carbs: 15g. Protein: 8g. Vitamin A: 0% of daily recommended intake. Calcium: 6% of daily recommended intake. Vitamin D: 0% of daily recommended intake. Vitamin B-12: 0% of daily recommended intake.
Yes, enriched soy milk exists. It doesn't even have everything regular milk has, and costs roughly the same price. For the same nutritional value, you will pay more and end up with way more solid, difficult to digest food. The end. This isn't a fucking debate. Why do you think GOMAD is so popular?
The is-ought problem is the classic fallacious argumentative of deriving ethical conclusions based on facts with very little in between. Something is that way, therefore we ought to do that. The problem is that when you ask why, the premise quickly falls appart.
Vegetarianism/veganism make sense from an utilitarian position, for example. And again, it makes sense only to an utilitarian worldview that specifically attributes value to animal life and freedom. Animal life and freedom don't objectively have intrinsic moral value (nothing has.) You only subjectively attribute value to these things. Can science, fact and empiricism be used to correct this? No. If someone believes that only human life has value and animals are there to serve humans, and he uses the FACTUAL and OBJECTIVE observations that humans have more cognitive capacity than any other animal, who are you to say he is wrong? And this is why using the FACTUAL and OBJECTIVE to support a moral position is fallacious. Because when you ask why, it quickly stops making any sense.
Let me demonstrate an example of the is-ought fallacy and you'll see pretty quickly why it doesn't work:
Humans have evolved to eat meat, therefore we should still eat meat.
The premise is a fact, backed by science, with which 99,9% of the human race will agree. The conclusion, however, is fallacious. There is no ethical correlation between the premise and conclusion.
So, the fact that 99.9% of humans and animals find it wrong to be harmed, and that 99.9% of humans agree that it is wrong to harm others for this reason, that is subjective?
Care to explain why?
You have to prove that it is erroneous for an individual case, you can't dismiss it all by saying that it may be erroneous. To do that is fallacious.
Is pretty much the same as saying that any zoophile making argument about zoophilia is lying because they could be bias. You have to prove LIE and bias, not just assume that everything is lie just because bias can exist.
Zoosexuals are about 10% to 15% of the human population and there are plenty non-zoosexuals who supports us, so is more like 70% of people who find it morally wrong and when we analyze why they find it morally wrong, we can reach the objective conclusion that they don't have OBJECTIVE MORALITY to back up their bigoted conclusions.
You seem to be unable to understand this.
Ok, I see the problem, I used the information of milk with 1% fat. Were you are using milk with 3.25% fat.
But even then, the difference in calories is minimal. And like I said before, you can just compensate the 18 calorie lost by eating more of some other high calorie food.
Glad that you acknowledge it.
I know that, for everything that it doesn't have, you can get it from some other food source.
The reason milk is so cheap, is because of the mass abuse that cows are forced to endure, which cheapens the cost of milk. Also, milk is subsidized. If soy milk where subsidized with the money of milk, it would cheaper than milk (and without all the animal abuse involved)
Not really, since I went vegan, my monetary expenses in food have gone down. If they go up, is probably because you are spending your money in expensive stuff (like meat imitation products)
Also, is cheaper to not buy soy milk but buy soymilk powder and make the beverage at home. If you buy it already made, you have to pay for the box that it comes, for the price to move gallons soy in a truck, for the cost of having it in a store and os on.
I haven't had that problem. How do you back up that claim?
It is a debate. GOMAD, is popular because is cheap and nutritious, why is cheap? Because of money given for free to milk produces to make milk cheap and because of animal abuse done to cows to keep milk cheap.
In all the rest of that comment, I failed to see an explanation of where and when I have made use of such fallacy, I will ask again, can you provide evidence that I have used that fallacy?
I don't see the relationship between one and the other, I don't see how his conclusion is supported by that fact. I can't say he is wrong, but I can't say he is right, I would need more evidence from him that supports his argument to see if his conclusion is right or wrong. If it is wrong, then his moral opinion is subjective and not objective.
If 99.9% of people agree it would be wrong, the meat industry would not exist. Can you please explain why it does?
To say something must be right because a lot of people believe it is is in itself a fallacy. Popular appeal. And science can't be erroneous? Holy shit. I guess Euclidean relativity was right after all.
I don't know if I should laugh or cry. If you truly believe this, and judging with your obsession with facts, you must also believe that empiricism backs these statistics up, then all I can say is that you are completely, utterly delusional. One in ten people... Holy fucking shit. I think saying one in ten people is gay would be an exaggeration. Now, one is ten fucks animals?
I sometimes don't know in what world other zoos live in, because it's clearly not the same as mine.
Ok, I get it now. It's not objective morality when YOU don't agree with it. Ok. So science or popular appeal aren't the ultimate arbiters of ethics, you are.
I'm really done here. You are as incapable of understanding simple logic as you are delusional.
Yes you are correct. Is this what you what to hear? Keep raping dogs and thinking you have some moral high ground because you've been vegan for two months. Yes, bravo.
Hey, playing the "judgemental asshole" is MY part in here....;)
The horse ladies have their prick, but the dog ladies need theirs too!
What the fuck?
What. The. Fuck.
What the fuck am I reading? Oh Aluzky, I WISH you were right for once.
EDIT: Wait a sec, you always use facts for your arguments, how'd you come up with this conclusion?
Alfred Kinsey Study on sexuality. He did a survey on how many people has had sex with animals and about that is the number of people who responded with "Yes I have had sex with animals in the past, present"
I know is hard to know how many people there is who has zoosex, but that study is the best we have to know a close number of how many there are.
Also, furry surveys gives a number of 15% to 10% of zoophiles in the furry fandom.
So, an educated guess is, 10% to 15% of humans are zoophiles. The number is probably a bit higher as there is plenty people who will not disclosure that they are into that, I'm giving an educated guess that is on the low numbers. Real number could be 20%.
Just because someone had sex with an animal does not mean they are a zoophile.
And zoophiles don't always have sex with animals, either.
That's like saying you're only gay if you fucked another man.
There's alot of people who are just horny fucks, whores who do it for the money, animal rapists, etc.
And the furry community is quite big, but not too big, only 15% - 20% zoophiles in the community does not mean much.
If there were really that much zoophiles, I bet my ass and my dog's ass that we wouldn't be so discriminated.
And this may not prove much, but look at the subcriber counter of /r/zoophilia and compare it to hundreds of other subreddits.
Why are you telling me all that? I already know that. If you are letting other know that, then yes, that what you said is true.
What is that supposed to mean?
Women are 51% or more of the population, yet, in some countries, women are discriminated and treated like crap. So, one doesn't have to do with the other. You can be the majority and still be discriminated. Zoos are still a minority and zoos are still being discriminated, that is a fact.
Yea, it doesn't prove much. Not everybody use reddit or the internet nor subscribe to sub-reddit. Like I said, we are a minority.
Then don't make it look like you don't know.
It means that about 20% of an average group is not much humans.
Like you said: ''Yea, it doesn't prove much. Like I said, we are a minority.''
This is partly true.
If 80% of humans were zoophiles I bet we wouldn't be discriminated much.
It's just how it works because more people = more normal.
Also, those countries are islamic pieces of shits.
Ofcourse they discriminate against women, just like their shitty religion.
I didn't intend to do that. You are reading stuff that I never said nor believe.
I know that, I never said the opposite. So, why are you telling me this?
Who know. We don't live in such world.
If 1% of the human population where super rich and with super high scify technology, they would have the power to discriminate 99% of humanity, so, numbers alone is not all there is to it. With power, majorities can be discriminated.
Artificial supplementation is still unhealthy and not everyone can go vegan. Some people have food allergies and others don't process certain fruits or vegetables well. I'm no expert on diets but there are people who thrive on a meat diet and others who don't.
Citation needed.
99.99999% of the humans can go vegan. That 0.000000000001% who can't go vegan, I don't mind if they continue to eat meat.
They can always find something else that is not animal to eat that doesn't give them an allergy. By the way, the stuff in meat is present in other food, if they are allergy to plant protein, then they are also allergic to meat protein. If they have gluten or some other form of allergy, there are plenty food that don't have gluten or allergens that they can eat.
Then they can eat some other fruit or vegetable that thy can digest property, problem solved.
Your claim is unscientific poo. Everyone can thrive as long as their diet is balanced to what their body needs and to what their body can digest.
Citation needed.
Translation: I have nothing else better to say.
Citation needed. You're a liar because you still criticize and wish harm upon people who don't follow your rules. You are a liar. I don't need to write you a fifty page essay on why you're a liar. However I'm sure you'll demand a fifty page essay as "proof" since you're likely too lazy and mentally stunted to edit your comments.
You really asking me for a citation that I don't mind?
That is not an accurate translation, I mean to say that his claim is bullshit. I though I was clear enough.
What is exactly the lie that I have toll that you are blaming me for? Where is the proof that I lied?
And what exactly are my rules? And two who I have wished harm that didn't deserve it?
That is a very vague accusation, every human tell lies here and there, you and I are no exception. So, what is exactly that you are accusing me of laying about? Where is the evidence that i have lied about that?
If you want your accusation to be true and not just a baseless accusation, yes you need to provide objective evidence to support your claim.
I only demand proof. if you can proof your accusation with one word, that will be fine. I don't care about the size of the evidence as long as it proves that you claim is truer.
You are who I was talking about. You need animal products to not die or become gravely ill.
It seems relatively toned down in this community really, From what I seen anyways. However like anywhere I'm sure it's there. I really don't judge people for there lifestyle choices, generally :p
That's good to know, I have nothing against vegans at all or those who's diet is mostly meats. It's nice to see vegans get along with others even if it just the Zoosexual community.
I was wrong it got worse.
i dont hate non vegan zoophilies (anymore than normal anyways, which isnt much) , but i do think theyre being pretty hypocritical.
I understand that sentiment and that of those who eat meat
I have no ethical problems with some one eating animals if it is done for unavoidable reasons. Like a rare disease, allergies, stranded in a deserted island with only animals as food, ect. That being said, almost all humans eat meat not out of necessity but as a needless luxury that directly or indirectly harms animals and the environment.
Is only rational for people who cares about animals and the environment to let other know that their behavior is harming others.
PS: I don't think hate or animosity is the right word to describe what I feel for meat eaters. Do I even have negative feelings against them? All I have is reason and logic to use against them. If reason and logic sounds hateful to them, then so be it.
What about over population of quote "prey animals"?
Largely bullshit (in the fact that they need to be controlled). they use clear cutting and predator kills to drive up game animal numbers. then they use the increased numbers to sell more tags (which means more money), keep the rednecks happy and likely to keep them leaders in power, and acts as an excuse to keep hunting, something that would have almost completely died out in civilization years ago, alive.
Think of it this way: before humans started hunting on a large scale, did you think nature had any trouble taking care of populations? Any natural population issues were ironed out by the power of darwin thousands of years ago.
Some overpopulation problems are certainly the result of over hunting predators historically. They also come from introducing non-native species into new territory with no natural predators to control their growth. An easy example are the 'wild' pigs in the southern States. They destroy crops, property, and injure people. They also decimate the environment for native species, clearing away vegetation (food sources for other species, as well as habitat). Introducing them into the environment was indeed a mistake, but that doesn't change the current situation, which is putting the ecosystem at risk. To curb the negative impact of those pigs, from what I understand, there is no limit on hunting them. I suppose it is man's way of trying to correct a mistake that wouldn't have occurred in nature.
And how well is that working?
Generally not well, even if the population is cut by 30%, because of their breeding capability and no predators, it can bounce back in 2 years
Then wouldn't it make sense to stop them form being able to breed?
That is true, but keep in mind that the hogs were brought there for hunting in the first place. Hunting caused the problem, and it's been doing a poor job of solving it.
Yes Eurasian wild boar were brought here in the 30s for hunting, however wild pigs (descendants of stray farmed pigs) have existed for a much longer time. The explosive wild pig population has less to do with where they came from (as there was no spike in population for over 50 years of wild Eurasian boar, or hundreds of years for feral pig) and more to do with eradication of population controlling diseases found in both domesticated pig and therefore adjacent wild pig populations. It is advancements in animal husbandry and domestic disease that has had the greatest impact on population growth, limiting the population growth inhibitors to almost zero.
Regardless of the Eurasian wild boar's import for hunting, wild pig populations would have seen a huge increase in the 1980s and onward, year over year, because of farming improvements. There would be a possible difference in the temperament of wild pig populations, however their ability to destroy habitat would be comparable.
If that happens because of human intervention, then humans should do something to fix the problem. If it happens because humans murdered almost all predators, then humans should put back those predators in place to their previous numbers so they can control such prey numbers. If it happens because humans imported a different species that has no predators (like some cats or pigs are doing in island with no predators and plenty easy prey) then that species should be totally wiped out in order to protect all the other species from extinction.
TL;DR /u/Aluzky is pissed everyone doesn't bow down to him and worship his every word and he's angry because the homosexuals are being uppity by not supporting Zoophiles and the rightfully reviled and hated subhumans known as Pedophiles. He also whines as usual and claims his false rate of winning arguments simply by screaming fallacy and logic again and again to appear smart and to make things worse he's an advocate for fence jumping and is known for going after animals that don't belong to him. But cries about /u/WarCanine being a horrible person for having the NERVE to eat a a hamburger. You're like a Black person who cries about racism and unity but will call another Black person a coon or an Uncle Tom or a House Nigger or a Bed Wench(often used to insult a Black woman for dating or having sex with a White man or any man who isn't Black) for not worshipping Al Sharpton or Oprah. Basically you're pissed that people accept the LGBT community and so you're pulling the "uppity faggots" sour grapes card. I'm surprised /u/Aluzky hasn't been kill by a horrified dog owner yet after discovering he raped their pet.
What the fuck.
This guy actually fencehops?
I knew he did dumb shit but... what?
Is there any proof of this?
Because this made me extremely curious.
/u/Aluzky got into a bitching contest(something he's actually good at) with some random people in the comment section of a YouTube video about some bestiality documentary. One guy claimed he would jump fences years back to go after his neighbors cows but stopped when his "favorite" cow finally had enough and nearly trampled him to death. Another person pops in and calls the guy a rapists, cow diddler says he's not and that they cow loved him(because trying to kill people you love is normal I guess) and /u/Aluzky jumps in and says the cow diddler did nothing wrong and that there's nothing morally wrong with fence jumping and how sex with animals is all fine and dandy. He seemed way too hung up on the fence jumping part and focused on how jumping a fence was harmless and a good experience for the person and the animal unfortunate enough to be present. Granted this was an old event and I viewed the argument from my primary account instead of my throwaway account(I use a throwaway so I don't get fired for the things I say).
I fucking knew there was something off about Aluzky compared to other zoophiles.
He barely seems to understand sarcasm and simple sentences.
Looks like he wants everyone to be a vegan because he's afraid he doesn't get to fuck that one animal.
Okay people, you all owe me alotta money if he replies and says: "But that was just my old me!"
Bonus points if he also calls himself a dumbass because he also wasn't vegan back then.
Oooohh...wait, with all of the facts that have been presented by AlphaOmegaSith, what does that mean? Am I, the sub´s known asshole, actually right condemning Aluzky? Wooooo...no, I´m not goona say it.....aaaarrrgggghhhllly, aaaah fuck it, I´ll say it anyway: "I told you so"
My usual credo still is valid: "the louder they are in public, the more they have to hide". My entire image I have gained from "Aluzky" , watching his "efforts" for more than 2 years, does not seem to be so far from the actual truth. People apparently think of me as an asshole who is judging quickly, but I can assure everybody that everything I say and write is the result of a long and hard process of thinking. Too bad this perspective of mine is wiped off the table automatically because "30-30 is an asshole".
Congratulations, Alpha and WarCanine...you´ve made it through the veil of "harmless zoo" propaganda. An open mind also needs open eyes and ears. You two are what lets me keep up hope, hope for a better tomorrow; where we zoophiles will actually begin forming our public image and stop being held hostage by the loudmouths like Aluzky and ZETA.
Okay okay, we know what Aluzky is like.
EVERYONE knows what Aluzky is like.
I don't think you're an asshole, though. You're just... you, I guess.
Also, I have a question. Not something to argue about, but I'm just curious.
You don't like zoophiles trying to ''push'' themselves into public, right?
I understand that people like Aluzky are a VERY bad example of a zoophile. Hell, even people on a furry porn site complained about him.
But how do we get ourselves into the public without talking about zoophilia or convincing people?
I mean, you also want us to become accepted in the public too, right?
Yes, absolutely. Look, we as zoos have one major problem...we´re not trustworthy enough for society to leave us alone. This has several reasons, starting with the image that´s propagated by the masses of animal porn , moronic "justifications" of/one sided propaganda for animal fucking and our own special form of twisted tolerance towards otherwise intolerable conduct such as fencehopping.
I do understand why we´re not trusted by society...we may TALK , but we actually don´t do things to keep bad shit from happening under our name. We failed in keeping our own turf clean...in the name of tolerance. Now, fencehoppers, fetishists and other highy dubious individuals are what represents us in public.
So, here´s my alternative scenario:
Imagine we stop doing this futile "teaching" to the public and replace it with REAL actions...or, as it is said "Let your ACTIONS do the talking". We all know how bad , for example, fencehoppers make all of us look. Why not create a group that ACTIVELY helps prevent any fencehopping actions? Or catches fencehoppers in flagranti, tie them up and leave them for the owners/police to pick up, with all necessary evidence recorded by headcams? As it is now, all our statements on how we zoos are against animal exploitation, fencehopping etc. are what we Germans call "Lippenbekenntnisse", something you just say to defend yourself, but do not mean it seriously in any way. Although we zoos are totally against certain practices, I´ve not seen any actions taken to STOP that shit from happening. Actions do talk louder than words...but as I see it, we never actually used that louder voice.
Plans for a guerrilla group that actively protects other peoples´ animals are spooking around my brain for quite some time now...just imagine the freakin´faces of the antis when they learn about this group and how it attacks "its own kind" , how this group protects innocent animals and owners from unwanted nightly visits. If a letter that addresses the motives of such a guerrilla zoo group is left, in which the group unveils their credo, their ideals, their viewpoints and what led to taking action against "their own kind", i bet you we will soon have alliies openly praising us for keeping their animals safe although we are also part of that disgusting "animal fuckers". Everyone reading this: please think it through for some time. Do not activate the usual defensive automatisms.
Another thing we need to do in order to get a foot in the door: HONESTY!!! Just a quick example: we all heard about animal brothels. We all know the automatism that sets in to deny existence of such a brothel...we actually talk like we have complete and total knowledge. But, when seen objectively, none of us has that. I simply cannot exclude the possibility of such a brothel existing somewhere. We gotta have to end all the trench fights, we need to end the black-and-white mindset. Until today, nobody believes a single thing we zoos say because there´s enough reason , enough plain and clear evidence we´re not talking the truth, but just parrot propaganda. Any time I had to talk to an outsider, I directly addressed all the grey areas of our orientation, I spoke out loud and clear against it. I talked about AP, about fencehopping and why this isn´t zoophilia at all, I talked about everything that might frighten outsiders. I took their doubts and objections serious and avoided the usual fuckfaced arrogant attitude that is so commonly displayed by "zoos" when they realized that their bold and unsinkable ship they consider themselves on is sinking quicker than a nutshell with a hole. We simply have to respect our enemies, even if it hurts.Bein´ completely against zoophilia is NOT a sign of intolerance, of conservatism or any other "reason" zoos tend to lie to themselves about...not liking the same ice cream flavor as you is NOT a sign of being an intolerant nazi.
What also needs to be addressed: we zoos basically are looking for a deal with society, right? We want them to leave us alone as long as our animals are treated good and with respect. But every deal, every mutual agreement has two sides. So, let me ask you, what do we have to offer society? Today, the so called zoo rights fighters are after a pretty onesided deal, basically saying "Everything should remain the way it is today, the porn, the fencehopping, the easily recognizable abuse of animals, but from now on, tolerate us, you intolerant fucktards!" Do I really have to point out this ain´t gonna work? ;=) So, what do we have to offer in exchange for tolerance? What is it we have to give? I´ll tell you: nothing. And that´s why we even aren´t considered genuine partners for discussion. Would you discuss with someone who has nothing to offer, but demands his total and complete freedom?
Yet another point directly linked to the one above: we zoos should definitely learn that we will never win total victory and be more open for compromises. What if your government says that zoophilia will be tolerated tomorrow, but it is tolerated only when you restrain yourself to one animal and aren´t allowed to have other relationships with animals or humans? What if the gov says that you won´t be punished for your orientation as long as you register and allow unschedueled visits from a neutral vet in certain intervals? Whenever I propose that, the only I get in response is "Hell no! Either total freedom or no freedom at all!" See? Here´s the basic problem...zoos do not seem to be the most open folks for compromises and that´s biting their ass constantly. Everything or nothing, that´s what our scene seems to be after. Not a good position to negotiate with an entity that outpowers and outnumbers you, right? Most of that can be traced back to the damaging habit of forming "zoo bubbles" like this or other forums. And if you have seen what fierceful reactions you get when you dare to criticise the status quo within our own community, within our own minds, you swiftly begin to understand the true origins of our situation nowadays.
Finally: the lack of political finesse is what has turned into a huge obstacle. We are seen as a group from the outside ("THE zoophiles") , but the predominant attitude among us is "I,I,I". Egosim, self delusional conduct, mistaking parroting stupid shit you´ve read on the internet for an actual discussion. When your opponent gets the notion that you are brainwashed like a cult member, he´ll lose interest in continuing the discussion with you...sadly, most "pro zoo fighters" do exactly that, they mimic a broken/scratched record. I demand more open discussion about everything, I demand a higher consciousness for the controverial nature of zoophilia. As I have written in another thread, for some unlucky individuals, it´s traumatizing to hear from someone that he has sex with an animal. We should stop acting like we´re alone on this world. We should organize...and that is possible without showing off faces or names. We should turn to politics, now that politics have turned on us. Professionalize. Live our credo instead of using it as a shield when we´re under attack, but quickly get rid of it when pants are unzipped. We need to apply the existing zeta rules, we even should actualize them as the situation has changed since the rules were created. And we should have the principle of being held accountable, if one of us violates these rules. That´s how you create trustworthyness...publish your principles, and then , for fuck´s sake, stick to them, no matter what. Avergae Joe does not know about zoophilia, for him, we´re aliens from space. Our Joe will only trust us if we propagate our principles and goddamnfuckin´ ACT according to them. Do a quick test and ask yourself how many of the "zoos" you know actually know, let alone obey, the zeta rules...with no exceptions, with no whiny "But I´m special, so this rule doesn´t apply to me" or other poor "reasons" why they cannot obey the rules.
Oh, before I forget to do a disclaimer: this isn´t meant as a blueprint, I´m open for discussion. But I hope you see the basic direction I am pointing to...reliability, honesty, respect, trustworthyness...all of that needed to gain enough trust so the average person can still sleep well although a zoo is living next door. Everything is connected. Only when WE change, we can expect change from the outside.
What is zeta and what are the zeta rules?
ZETA is a small group of self proclaimed "zoophilia advocates" active in Germany since 2009. Here´s the link to their page, parts of it are available in English, also. www.zeta-verein.de
The zeta rules originate in the IRC chats we zoos used in the beginning of the nineties. We felt the need to put out some basic rules for ourselves in order to make it easier for Average Joe to find a connection to us "weirdo perverts". The original zeta rules involved condemning animal sharing, involvement in animal pornography in any way ("no watching, downloading, uploading, making,etc."), animal cruelty of any kind, using animals as simple and sole sex toys, etc. Parts of the original zeta rules you can find on the ZETA homepage, but the original ten rules were "condensed" to 7 rules now. The other three rules involving sharing and porn were abandoned on purpose because "if you don´t fit the rules, the rules have to fit you" idiocy.
You do realize that the claims about animal brothels are the actual propaganda, right? Yes, there are probably people who do something like that, but this is some underground shit that really is rare. Imagine newspapers printing stories like "Child brothels are 'spreading through Germany" or "There are even 'erotic kindergartens" which people can visit to abuse children". This would be obvious propaganda designed to make people agree to cutting their civil rights away. What do you think why all the people and organizations that were so concerned about actual existing animal brothels or who even had "evidence" did absolutely nothing once the laws in denmark and germany passed? What is the last time you remember the people behind an animal brothels getting prosecuted in front of a court for it after an anti bestiality law passed? The people spouting this stuff are not interested in closing animal brothels, they are interested in spreading propaganda in order to get a pointless law made.
There is nothing wrong with conceding that there surely are people who do stuff like that - after all even child trafficking which is probably seen as "more ethical wrong" and which is obviously much, much worse on the legality side, is committed from time to time. What should be called out however is this moral panic about animal brothels "spreading" and how it's an "epidemic", etc.
That's a stupid rule.
I have already told you that that's bullshit, but not because of that reason. There are many ways people abuse their pets every day. Why single out zoophiles? Mandatory routine vet checkups every month or every two months for every pet owner? I would vote for it any day. Why only try to implement measures against sexual abuse when you can implement measures against many forms of abuse instead?
He has a point, I know it is single us out from all pet owners, which we already do ourselves, but it seem like the only way for us to become at least a little accepted. Also, if this was done and an overwhelming majority was found not to abuse their animals then maybe steps can be made to remove that violation of privacy.
I'm kind of in the "30-30 is an asshole" camp for obvious reasons, so win me, please!
And seemingly wants the target animal to be weakened for easy access.
/u/Aluzky had my account suspended for "harassing" him. Despite him replying to my comments and proving him to be a liar with these set comments: Both to me and /u/LadySaberCat
He uses this an excuse for his behavior.
Which is lying in case your resident dipshit didn't notice
He might not jump a fence but he feels the need to penetrate or be penetrated by anything with four legs that barks that he's alone with unless he wants to run a train on the particular dog he's with.
He claims to not be from America. Claims to have lived in America. Just like he claimed to have an IQ of 134, 135 or 160 it's difficult to keep up with his lies.
No no no nooo.
You don't understand!
The animals like it, riiiight?
And when their owner isn't around, the owner is basically saying: I'm leaving you two alone so you can fuck together!
In the mind(more like toxic goop) of /u/Aluzky yes that's what they're saying.
That is not what they are saying. That is not what I'm thinking. Is making up bullshit the only thing you people can do?
Accusing someone of making up bullshit while all he does is citing your own writings....that´s genius! Well, sorta...
Well he claims to have an IQ of 135 but then said its 160. And everything that's being said about him is from his own quotes. If he really did have a high IQ he'd know this.
I have never claimed to have an IQ of 160. So, your claim is bullshit.
Quotes that you people are misquoting or misreading either on purpose or out of stupidity.
I have an above average IQ, which is why i know that I have never claimed that i have an IQ of 160, which is the highest genius IQ (something I don't have)
This is why I know that your claim that I have said that I have an IQ of 160 is bullshit.
He has yet to cite text from me that supports his claim. Till he does that, his claim is just bullshit.
There is plenty video evidence that they like it or don't mind it.
They are not saying that.
Indeed. So what?
Still doesn't make it right to fuck others dogs because they like it.
Stop being delusional.
Oh look /u/30-30, he finally realizes!
Well, kinda "Aluzky realizes"...what means admitting it, but telling everyone that he hasn´t admitted it...I´d bet my ballsac he´ll be trying to suck out of it again.
He is claiming that they don't like it. Evidence proves otherwise.
I don't understand your point. Why is not right?
Citation needed. Where and when I have been delusional?
When I have not realized that? I have always realized that...
Show me this exact quote.
Obviously you don't.
It is not right because you do it behind people's backs.
I can't just let anyone 'borrow' my dog.
There is a reason I bought her, just like anyone else.
And don't tell me sex isn't different, it is.
You can change a non-sexual dog into a very sexual dog by doing this while an owner put in effort to get rid of that behavior in the first place.
By not being able to realize what is wrong and not.
Oh so you actually realize you can't do shit with other's dogs because they don't tell you not to?
Or are you going to play innocent again?
"Uehhh didnt doo it, wait nvm i diiiiid, the owners didnt say no so i can just fuck em you bigoted my iq is high so im right 100% proven by my opin- facts!"
He's trying to plead insanity
He doesn't have to plead insanity he's already fucking insane!
Oh right.
;)
here is what you said:
You are doing a fallacy know as: Ignorant elenchi fallacy.
I asked; Why it is not right to fuck other dogs even of they like it. I didn't asked: Why it is not right to do something behind some one else back.
So, you are saying that she is your property and only you get to have sex with her/him even if he/she wants sex with others? Aren't you treating him/her too much like an object and not like an actual sentient living being?
Sorry, but dogs are sexual beings, if an owner wants to stop a dog from being sexual, then that person should not own a dog in the first place.
That doesn't prove that I'm delusional, that would only prove that I'm ignorant of facts. And you have yet to provide objective evidence that it is wrong. If you say it is wrong for subjective reason, that is never a fact and not seeing something subjective in the same way as you do is not proof that I'm delusional. You can't not be delusional about stuff that is subjective. Delusional comes from denying REALITY and fact.
I didn't said that. Learn to read.
Play innocent about what? When I have play innocent?
What? Can you please speak in english? And by that I mean, use basic grammar.
That is the reason.
It's not right to fuck other's dogs BECAUSE you do it behind people's backs.
How is that treating her like an object?
She is my property, it is a fact.
And of course, she is MY dog. MY partner. That would be cheating on me.
I'm not harming her if she doesn't get to. But then again, she doesn't want to as she has only shown sexual behavior towards me.
And yes, I make the rules, even though I give her free will if it isn't risky.
Are you saying that you can do things to other's dogs?
Oh, I guess we could say the same for aggression, then.
If my dog is aggressive I should just let her then.
If people don't want sexual dogs, let them. There is no harm in doing that.
Nope, you can't see obvious shit.
I did in my previous comments in this thread.
Yet you implied that with your behavior.
You're doing it again.
''Oh what did I do? Oooh, I did nothing at allll!''
What? Can you please speak English correctly? And by that I mean that I want you to use basic grammar.*
There, corrected it for you.
Also, I could say the same for your posts as they clearly lack basic grammar from time to time.
According to you they are. You're one fuck up away from getting mauled and honestly that might be what you need. By the way /u/Aluzky had my account suspended despite never once saying he was being harassed. Guess he can't take any criticism now can he? Oh and by the way he had Sith suspended too. Childish behavior from the likes of Aluzky aren't shocking. However this is just pathetic.
I already corrected your non-factual statement by saying: "They are not saying that." and I have never claimed that they are saying that so you claim that "According to you they are" is also a non-factual claim. You are talking bullshit.
That is very very unlikely to happen. And why woudl I need to get mauled by a dog?
Maybe so you'd learn to stop using strange dogs?
I would not learn that. You know how to make me stop? If people stop being bigots, it that happens, I would have no reason to do that without the owner permission, instead, I would have no fear to ask the owner for permission first.
I would not learn that. You know how to make me stop? If people stop being bigots, it that happens, I would have no reason to do that without the owner permission, instead, I would have no fear to ask the owner for permission first.
So........you're just doing this because you're SCARED of being told no? That's why you're doing that?! Are you that spineless and pathetic that your justification is "but the mean bigots might say no so I use dogs behind the backs of their bigot owners" that's your justification?! Slaves(Black and Irish)had bigger balls than you and had more to lose than you do and they still found a way! But YOU thinking screwing dogs that belong to people that likely won't approve of you is your way of trying to show otherwise? No wonder people hate you and send you death threats! No wonder other Zoophiles are sick and tired of you! If /u/30-30 used a pathetic excuse like this to justify something like this you'd criticize him nonstop for it.
English is not my main language. Some "simple sentences" are not that simple, they may have slang terms that I don't know about. Also, some "TOO simple sentences" may be irrational or lack context which is why I don't understand them.
Also, there is something called POE'S LAW. The rule says, without body language, tone of voice and other CORPORAL HINTS, telling sarcasm or satire from non-sarcasm non-satire in plain text comments is almost impossible to do.
Which is why you should say SARCASM at the end of a sarcastic sentence, or /s for short, if you don't want your sarcastic sentence to be taken seriously.
I'm only into dogs (and maybe raccoons) I don't live in china, over here we don't eat dogs. I'm against animal murder because it is animal abuse, it destroys the environment and is unhealthy for humans. It has nothing to do with sex.
English isn't my main language either.
And you're about 12-ish years older than me, you've had so much time to study, and I never even studied English.
And it's weird how other people can understand my sarcasm yet out of all people, you can't.
'Maybe' raccoons?
What, you don't even know what you're attracted to?
I'm against animal abuse too!
Especially when people use them as sex toys!
Is my english so horrible? And if it is about the slang word, I'm I supposed to learn the millions of slang words that exist? Not to mention the 100s of new slang words that are created every day?
I read everything literally. if you want to use sarcasm then write /s or /sarcasm at the end of the line. There is something called poe's law. Sarcasm in plain text is impossible to differentiate from serious arguments, you could say "earth is flat" in a sarcastic way, yet I will take that seriously, because there is people who does say that in a serious way. Anything you say in a sarcastic way, there is people who say it in a serious way, so I can't tell if you are serious or sarcastic (unless you make it clear by writing sarcasm)
Never been around coons to know if i can be sexually or emotionally attracted to them, but from the looks, they look sexy.
Animal abuse definition: To cause unnecessary distress, harm or death to an animal.
Even if I where to use my dogs as sex toys, how is that animal abuse if I'm not causing them unnecessary distress, harm or death?
You are incorrectly using the word animal abuse as a synonym with "seeing/using them as sex toys"
Using animals as sex toys or seeing them as sex toys is not always the same as animal abuse. You can see animal as sex toys and use them as sex toys without ever doing animal abuse to them. If you where intelligent enough, I would had no need to explain this to you.
Depends on what you think is horrible.
Compared to the dumbasses who can't even speak one word right in English in my class, you'd be considered a teacher already, sadly.
I'm talking about that I have to rephrase things and get mad at me for when I don't.
Out of all people, you're the only one who cannot read my sarcasm.
This isn't a coincidence of some sort, there's clearly something in your head why you can't see it.
Also, it's very clear that I was sarcastic in some cases because I was acting dumb on purpose.
It's very obvious with the overreaction and such.
Do I have to repeat the same thing again?
Out of all people, you can't read my sarcasm.
And I knew I was both romantically and sexually attracted to foxes and wolves before I even touched one and seen one in person.
Your harm their minds by thinking it's okay to fuck with everyone almost every day.
Looks like you gave me another weapon to use on you.
Holy shit, that's very ironic by the way.
Citation needed. Give us link to that video comments and directions to the comment that supports this bull shit claim.
I'm 100% sure that you are not remembering well what you read or you are totally misunderstanding what I said because I would never say something like that. So, prove us wrong, show us the evidence,
It was for the documentary Animal Passions and the comment was made a few years ago, granted the account that posted the movie was deleted after the user violated the terms and agreements of YouTube. So you gote there, I can't link the video but you've outright admitted to going after pets that are not yours and since you were so adamant that Cow Diddler's "lover" was willing despite internationally trying to trample Cow Diddler l. And you say you comend people who have better control than you. Don't cry like a bitch just because your true nature has been revealed. You're a rapist pure and simple and since you're lying about the comment on the Animal Passions video it's not surprise that you'll lie like a prayer rug on the floor about raping animals.
He's not a rapist he is a fence hopper, I would like to believe all his action are consensual with the dogs, but he's still doing it with someone else's dogs with out the owner's knowledge which I find assholeish that he doesn't respect their opinions of how they would want their dogs to be cared for.
Who knows if he's telling the truth about his acts? He already admits to LYING to people about what he does to their pets and outright says he can't control himself. I don't buy what he's saying.
I have never admitted to that. FACT: Nobody has ever asked me: "Did you had sex with my dog?" since nobody has ever asked me that, I have never had to lie about it.
Again, I have never admitted to that either. If I had sex with a dog is because I chose to do it and not because I can't help myself from doing it. I'm not addicted to dog sex.
Says the person who spread lies about me.
I have never fence hopped. Fence hopping is defined as: TRESPASSING some one else property to fuck their animals.
I have never trespassed property to have sex with dogs.
Nobody has ever told me to not do sexual stuff with their dogs, so, how exactly I'm not respecting their opinion? Is not like they told me to not let their dogs fuck me and i ignored them and let them fuck me anyways.
Believe me, if I could ask for permission first without committing social suicide, I would do it, but we don't live in a society where we can go to some ones and say: Hey, if your dog happens to be horny, can I let him fuck me in the ass?
I don't deny it. I agree it is a bit of an asshole move. But nobody is being harmed, the dog is having fun. Owners also never told me to not give belly rubs to their dogs yet I give them belly rubs if they like them. Sue me. Why make a such a fuss about sex but not about belly rubs? To the dog, a hand job or a belly rub is the same, he enjoys both. To me, both sex and a belly rub is the same, I enjoy making the dog feel good, be with sex or belly rubs.
How convenient that the proof to your "claim" is located in a video that no longer exist. Accept it, your claim is bullshit or you misread/misunderstood something.
Is like the people who accuse me of supporting child rape when i claim "I support pedophilia" ←FACT: supporting pedophilia is not the same as supporting child rape, pedophilia and child rape are totally different thing. One is a sexual orientation that doesn't involve sexual acts with real children and the other is a sexual act with real children.
I don't deny that and that has never been a secret. Also, is not a secret that I don't do fence jumping and that I'm against it.
I didn't said that. What I said is that I support people who chose to not do such sexual acts under such circumstances as they give a better imagen of the zoophile community.
I have never said that I can't control myself. I have no problems in not having sex with dogs if I chose to.
My true nature has never been a secret, my only problem is when people start spreading BULLSHIT that is false. I will correct such bullshit. I'm not "bitching"about having sex with other people pets, everybody knows I do that, is not a secret, I don't mind that people know about it.
I'm "bitching" because I'm being accused of raping, not having self control and other bullshit claims that have no evidence to be substantiated.
where is the proof that I rape dogs? If you don't have proof then your claims is no different from homophobes who claims that gays are child rapists.
You mean the comment that you can't prove that existed? The comment that you are obviously pulling out of your ass? You have no evidence to support those accusations, you are the one who is telling lies.
But when people call your claims bullshit and provide proof that you're a liar then you stomp your feet and cry. Oh and you claim to be an animal lover but you'd deprive a dog or cat meat because you personally don't like meat. I'd never that do my dogs, they love meat. My youngest absolutely LOVES venison and bison testicles and so I provide this for her when I can. My two older dogs enjoy raw chicken hearts and liver and gizzards, the small one loves fresh beer loin flap meat and the bigger one loves room temperature fatty meat. They thrive better on these combinations with a bit of dry dog food(Blue Buffalo) mixed in at times. Sometimes as a treat they get raw food for breakfast, lunch and dinner. They enjoy this immensely and the thought of depriving them of the food they love and do well on is too cruel. Even though I really hate chicken gizzards(creepy looking) my dogs enjoy them. Since I'm going to be moving into a bigger place sometime soon I plan on getting another dog, most likely a mid content Wolfdog pup or a Malamute puppy. I intend to feed her a more "wild" diet if she's been weaned but I'm going to introduce the food to her gradually as to go easy on her stomach. The point I'm trying to make here? I'm not going to enforce my diet rules onto my four legged or no legged family members.
Is not the same. My claims about me are not accusations, It doesn't affect me if you don't believe that I have an IQ of 134 or that I like tacos. Your claims about me are accusations, the burden of proof is on you people to prove that those accusation are true, if you can't prove it then your accusation are bullshit and they get dismissed.
You can call my claims about me bullshit all you want, but you have no proof that they are bullshit. Where you people failing to support your accusations about me, that is proof that those accusations are bullshit.
Hyperbole? Because I don't do that.
I love meat, what I don't like is when it is obtained through animal abuse (which is almost always the case)
FYI: Dogs can cats can live on a vegan diet.
They would do well on a balanced vegan diet too. It is not cruel to deprive them of meat. There are many things that dogs enjoy (antifreeze for example) but there is nothing wrong with depriving them from it.
That is your choice, but know that you are supporting animal abuse by doing so.
But you said they were accusations so which is it then?
I already did however since you don't have a firm grip on reality you're clinging to the belief that your the real victim here.
Well after I appropriately referred to you as a bitch your comments got noticeably bitchier afterwards. So while you may not be stomping your feet and actively screaming and crying(you could be doing this for all I know but I'll thankfully never know since I mercifully don't live with you)
Care to elaborate or are you just going to claim this is a typographical error?
Ok I'll be sure to tell that to the Cheetahs in Africa. Or I'll take a chance and tell this to a group of Hyenas, I'm sure they'll listen to me.
Speaking of hyperboles.
Considering I'm planning on adopting a dog that would live a longer and healthier life were she allowed to eat the diet of a wolf and pondering whether or not to also adopt a Savahnna cat along with a Carpet Python I know the risks well enough and I'll be able to live with myself after the fact. However I won't force my horses to be meat eaters.
Please, read my comment again... the claims I have made about me are not accusations about me. Example: if i claim I have an IQ of 134 in response to a bigot accusing me of being unintelligent. I don't need to prove that my IQ is 134, in the end, the bigot is the one who made the accusation that I'm unintelligent, he is the one who has the burden of proof to demonstrate that I'm unintelligent, if he can't prove it, then his claim is just irrelevant bullshit.
Oh really? Then you won't have a problem providing a link or a quote to the place where you prove it. Right? Can we see that evidence?
I'm not doing that, i'm a mature and intelligent human being. Such emotional response is irrational.
Elaborate on what? Your text and quote doesn't give enough context on what you need me to elaborate.
irrelevant, you don't own a cheetah as a pet. Dogs can digest plant matter thanks to thousands of years of selective evolution, cheetahs don't have that on their side.
Again, irrelevant, you don't own them as pets and those animals should not be owned as pets top begging with.
That was not a hyperbole. Dogs likes the taste of anti-freeze and will eat it and DIE. There is nothing cruel from not letting them enjoy the taste of anti-freeze. Same goes for me. They won't suffer from not eating meat.
Quote: One remarkable example is that of Bramble, a 27-year-old border collie whose vegan diet of rice, lentils, and organic vegetables earned her consideration by the Guinness Book of World Records as the world's oldest living dog in 2002.
Fact: Humans on a vegan diet like on average 9 year longer than meat eaters. I will make an EDUCATED GUESS and say that the same is likely to be true for dogs. I bet my ass that you have zero evidence to support the claim that a dog on a wolf diet will be healthier and live longer than a dog on a vegan diet.
You should not have wild animals like a python or a savanna cat as pets. They are wild animals... is kinda wrong to take will animas and keep them as pets for your amusement.
He didn't directly say he fence jumped but this is the same guy who said right here in this sub-reddit that he's ok with animals being exploited. I'm hardly a zoo-ally(/u/Aluzky would probably consider me dangerous for the things I've said) but isn't animal exploitation supposed to be something you guys HATE?
It seems that he doesn't mind it as long as no animal is harmed.
That's all, I'm not even going to disagree with him because I KNOW he will try to fire up another argument.
And when I get sick of it, I "run away and know that he's right."
You won't disagree with me because you know that my argument is true and doesn't have any logical holes in it.
Exactly, is like people who deny evolution or believe earth is flat, they get sick of it when people show them facts and prove that their beliefs are bullshit. If they had facts on their side, they would not run away from defending their belief. Do you ever see scientist ruining away from the ignorant who deny facts? Nope.
I won't disagree with you because I KNOW you will argue.
Like now.
I like how you assume that I think these things, but you don't have any proof.
Can you look what's in my mind? No? Thought so, Mr. Fuck A Dog.
Also, we haven't even talked about this yet and you're already saying you're right, holy shit dude. 100% Aluzky 👌 👌
And I ''run'' away from talking to you because you're insanely annoying.
Seriously, even on a furry porn site they complained about you crying around on Youtube.
I also ''run'' away because there's no good reason to argue.
Maybe 5 or 10 people will see this and won't give a shit.
Oh look, we're argueing again. Funsies!
FTFY
Your comments are proof, you have already done that in the past.
Then debate me, prove me wrong. Show me evidence that I'm wrong and you are right.
I understand how being proven wrong can be annoying to you. For me, it is not annoying, I have no problem with being proven wrong, it makes me happy to be proven wrong.
And? People do the same everywhere about homosexual activist "crying"
Yet you go around saying stuff that will cause an argument. You could have just said: "It seems that he doesn't mind it as long as no animal is harmed. PERIOD."
If you had said only that, then I would not be here arguing. But you seem to want to pick up a fight with me, I don't want that, so, can't you keep your dislike of me to yourself and not make it public?
PS: I don't hate you and I don't mind I you hate me.
And I'm the childish one.
My comments don't tell you any of these things.
Also, you haven't told me which specific comments.
Huh, weeeeeird.
No?
Also, if I refuse to argue, this does not mean I lose.
But if that's how it goes in your mind, then okay.
I'll make you happy for once and enjoy your fake victory.
I don't find it annoying to be proven wrong.
I have been proven wrong in same cases in the past and thanked these people.
Yet you force your ''facts'' and opinion down people's throats and harass them.
It means you're annoying, duh.
I could indeed have said that.
But I'm not looking for fights here, no no no.
I was just horrified that you would harass me again like always.
And did you just say for me to keep my opinion silent?
That's extremely ironic, I say.
PS: I don't care what people think of me.
So keep your useless opinion about me.
Again, doing that is not childish, that is what you think. Be truth to yourself.
Your comments does say that, you make excuses to run away when you see that you argument can't be defended. You admit this.
Examples:
See, when you can't win, you run away, you can't be humble and accept that you lost the argument.
You make an argument and then run when challenged. In debating that is a lost. Call it a fake victory if that helps you sleep at nigh.
Then why run? why not acknowledge that you where wrong?
This is a public forum, replying to a comment made by you is not harassment. And what you mean I force facts? How ones does to force facts on others throats? And I don't like sharing opinions, opinions are irrelevant, facts are relevant.
I know that people find it annoying when they are show that something they said is false or they find annoyed when their beliefs are showed to be false. But is very immature to act in that way just because of being annoyed.
Then next time, just say that.
Then prove it. Act more mature and you won't see me again. I hope this stop.
That is childish, you are putting words in my mouth and say you ''fixed'' my sentence.
Oh nooo, you're not the childish one here.
Yeah, did you actually read that?
Because I wasn't lying. You can't tell me that I'm lying because you can't read my thoughts, fortunately.
Nope, did not admit that you won.
I admit that I started to argue once, but you started it most of the time and I'm not looking to argue in the first place, so you're forcing me to argue with you or it means you're right. (In your head, atleast.)
Because I get tired, duh.
Do I have to repeat the sentence above again?
That's because I don't want to be challenged in the first place, especially not when that person just keeps telling everyone that he's the #1.
Indeed, replying is not harrassment by default, but it can be, like now.
Also, did you really not get that ''facts'' was sarcastic?
Well, I don't blame you, you lack some special features.
Obviously I was referring to your opinions that you call facts.
Opinions are relevant because you force them down people's throats.
That's some people, not me.
Next time, don't tell people what to do.
I don't have to prove this.
It's my mind, I tell you what I think. Nothing to prove here.
Oh look, cute broken English.
Anyways, you want this to stop?
It's funny, you always have to say something when you don't agree with it, there's times when to talk and when to shut up, but it seems that you don't know the difference.
But then again, you HOPE that this stops, right?
Well in that case I love argueing with you, I enjoy a human's dissapointment. Especially when I hold a grudge against 'em.
I will stop it, I won't reply any more. I said everything that I had to say, now is up to you to accept facts and grow up.
Like I said, I don't hate you, sorry that you find me annoying, I can't do anything to fix that.
FYI: I never claimed to be number one: Again, you seem jealous of me being intelligent, even when I never boasted to be intelligent.
I know you aren't sorry, but it doesn't matter, I don't need useless sympathy.
FYI, that was partly sarcastic, you still try to act smart though.
Also, I don't see any jealousy in my comments, anyone who acts smart are very annoying.
I'm sorry.
Cut it out, I can't read sarcasm... unless you write /s or (sarcasm) at the end of the sentence.
You are annoyed by intelligent people for a reason. If not jealousness, then what?
And like I said before, I don't try to act smart, If I look smart is without trying. There is a significant difference between idiots who try to act smart and intelligent people who looks smart without trying. Your hate against me is unjustifiable, I don't try to act smart, stop judging me for something that I'm not doing.
I'm annoyed by annoying people, not intelligent people because I actually respect them.
Also, yes you are trying to act smart.
You keep saying that you use facts and that bigots don't have any.
You also say that you are above the average IQ.
I'd rather believe in religion than that lmao.
Circular logic fallacy.
That is your deluded fantasy.
Because I do use facts, because bigots don't have facts, I have debated them for 10 years, I know that what I say is true. Problem?
And I said that because you keep accusing me of faking being smart. And I say that because I have took IQ tests and that is the result that I get. I'm not assuming to be intelligent, I know for a fact that I'm intelligent.
My rational arguments talk for themselves, if you don't believe it so be it.
Yes you are trying to act smart.
EVEN in your own comment you fucking say it.
You are just trolling me. STOP.
I wished you had stopped earlier, yet you didn't.
Still, no loss, we only wasted time.
Nobody in this goddamn world gives a shit about us.
This sub probably gets a headache from all the shit that's going on.
I don't know for the sub, but for my own part, reading this thread has been the most entertaining thing I've done since watching the elections.
This has to be the most hilariously ironic thing I've read in months.
Are you for real /u/Aluzky? Are you just a troll? Because if you are, you are doing a damn fine job.
I'm real and I'm not a trolling nor a troll.
And why you find that to be hilarious and ironic? Where is the irony?
I have to call bullshit on that one
What are you calling bullshit?
You don't believe that he actually thinks that?
Well, he'd fuck any animal as long as they are both left alone.
He is honestly thinking that it's fine to exploit them as long as they are not "harmed", and that everything he thinks and says is 100% true.
Or did you mean that it's bullshit to think that it's fine to exploit animals without harming them? Then yes that is true.
Exploitation is disrespectful and it simply shouldn't be done.
They aren't slaves.
Man, I can finally say it out loud without Aluzky flipping out.
I mean, I'm a troll anyways amiright? eggs dee xd xd
No I'm talking about his habit of lying to people and saying he wouldn't take advantage of their pets or trust yet he does. I doubt he cares about the animals he exploits. Exploitation is exploitation.
I have never fencehoped. Please, don't spread rumors that are not based on objective evidence. I'm against fencehopping. I have made this clear on comments in the past and present.
I have no problems with animal exploitation as long as the animal is not harmed and consent is respected. So, stuff like owning a pet and having sex with him/her with his/her consent is OK, stuff like raising chickens to murder them to eat them is not Ok.
Keep up that lie long enough and you'll believe it.
You yourself admitted to raping animals that don't belong to you while also pimping out your own dogs. I don't have to lie or spread rumors about you when proof of your behavior is everywhere. You claim to be against Fence Jumping but by definition of violating the trust that people have in you not do anything to their pets doesn't that fall into the Fence Jumper category?
That's like me saying I'm against nudity and then going to a gentlemen's club.
Keep burying yourself.
I don't believe you since you admit to your habits, especially since you are now lying about the comments you routinely make on YouTube which I'm sure you'll go delete if you haven't already. You call yourself an activist when really you're a just a societal scab that inflicts itself on animals while pretending to do no harm.
Who's consent exactly?
So is lying to people and taking advantage of their pets and forcing yourself on them too according to your batshit logic.
But raping someone's chickens and lying about it is ok.
Is not a lie. And you people don't have evidence that it is a lie.
I have no reason to trespass property to have sex with dogs. I have my own dogs. Even if I didn't had dogs, I have internet porn and my hand.
Where and when I have admitted to raping dogs that don't belong to me? Show me the link to the comment, I dare you.
Pimping is the act of taking a cut of the earnings of a prostitute that you manage. For the act to be pimping there has to be an exchange of money or good in trade for sex and the pimp must keep a commission of that.
All the times that I let my dog fuck other humans, I never charge a dime. I gain no money nor pleasure from it. I never prostituted my dog. The only reason I let him fuck other humans and not just me, is because he enjoys fucking humans, I let him fuck others for HIS HAPPINESS.
Where is the proof? Copy the link and quote the comment here that has such proof. I dare you to show me the proof.
For it to be fence jumping, the person has to ILLEGALLY TRESPASS (jump their property fence without permission) some one else property in order to have sex with some one else animals.
I have never invaded some one else private property without their permission to have sex with their dogs. What I do is not defined as fence jumping, I don't jump anyone fences. I have sex with their dogs after I have got permission to enter their property or when their animals are given to me and I become the temporal care taker of the animal.
Also, I have no violated anyone trust, nobody has ever told me to not do sexual stuff with their dog. If they had told me that, I would respect their wishes.
You got me really curious. This isn't the first time I'm seeing your handle while dicking around zoophilia related stuff on reddit. And seeing what you wrote here, you seem surprisingly impartial.
What is your stance on zoophiles?
Truthfully my stance on zoophilia is far from positive but seeing this /u/Aluzky guy is just disturbing. I mean I've seen some cringy ass stuff in this community but Mr. I Pimp My Dogs and Rape Other Folks Pets takes the cake! I actually feel a little sorry for you guys but don't mistake this for acceptance or approval. I mean if you ask me there's too many guys like /u/Aluzky running around and the last conversation I had with a Zoophile creeped me the fuck out. But still seeing as /u/Aluzky is supposed to be some activist just makes it worse.
Never pimped my dog and never raped a dog. The only reason you dislike me is because of rumors you are making about me.
I don't have to make rumors about people.
The stuff you say about me are 99% rumors, so yes, you are making rumors.
Yet you haven't disproved that you're a liar.
Burden of proof is on the person who makes the claim. You people claim that I'm laying, the burner of proof is on you to prove it and not on me to disprove it.
I have never fencehoped. Please, don't spread rumors that are not based on objective evidence. I'm against fencehopping. I have made this clear on comments in the past and present.
It was actually pretty believable, especially when it's about you.
But alright.
Believable? All he has are rumors. Not a single scrap of evidence.
Bias much? Seems you will believe anything as long as thy say something negative about me. Why is that? Do you hate me or something? Have I ever done anything bad to you? Stop acting like a child, grow up.
Oh now I'm acting like a child because I don't like someone.
It's normal to hate people, you know.
I'd say adults hate more people than kids hate people because adults have experienced the real horrors of life.
I am the one who needs to grow up?
Well in that case, you too.
You might not have aged well if you see dogs as sex toys.
EDIT: I wonder, how do you NOT realize why I hate you?
Truly delusional as always I see.
Quite alot of people hate you, you know.
Doesn't justify acting like the way you act. You are being immature.
Where I have been immature?
I don't understand what that supposed to mean. Also, i don't see dogs as sex toys, that is your deluded fantasy and now how I see dogs.
I don't know. You probably have some childish reason to hate on me. Probe me wrong.
Mind you,where I have been delusional? Can you back up that accusation with evidence
I know that, but all of them do so for childish or bigoted reasons. So, what is your reason?
It does. I hate you, end of story.
No big concept behind that?
I didn't say that, I told you to grow up too.
Oh ofcourse, it's MY fantasy right?
You see dogs as sex toys.
If someone leaves their dog, you'd fuck it.
That's not normal at all.
Especially if you already have dogs.
No, I cannot prove that with evidence since you'd ignore it anyways.
But I'll tell you: You fail to realize simple things trough most of your comments.
Please dude, you didn't even know what Reddit upvotes meant.
Such an easy-to-understand concept.
Oh? This time you not only pulled the famous ''bigot'' card but now you keep repeating the ''childish'' card.
Well, that's going to take time to get used to.
Aluzky, let me ask you.
Wouldn't you hate a person if he went everywhere to prove people wrong all the time?
And on top of that, he refuses to believe anything you say.
And even worse, he thinks he's the smartest and knows everything.
Wouldn't you hate a person like that, mmmmnn?
You are literally like a child. Sigh.
Why do I need to grow up, I'm not the one who is acting in an immature and irrational way.
It is your fantasy. Also, it seem that you are doing projection, read your comments, you refer to dogs as "its" where I always refer to them as "them" or "he/she" I never refer to them as "its" as that is the word used to refer to OBJECTS. The one seeing dogs as objects is YOU, not me
I never ignore evidence. You are making excuses because you have ZERO evidence and you know it. Is clear that your anger of me is unjustifiable, you are like a child throwing a tantrum. Seriously, grow up.
I never gave attention to that function nor I care about it. Once the concept was explained to me, I understood it. And I still don't care about it.
Irrelevant. Are you going to answer or not? What is your "mature" "non-bigoted" reason for hating on me?
I don't hate people for correcting non-factual claims made by others, I don't hate people for refusing to believe bullshit, I don't hate people who believe to be intelligent when they are actually intelligent. I'm not a child.
Seem that your anger against me is because I'm intelligent and because I correct stuff that you say that was false. I'm I wrong? It is jealousy that I'm more intelligent than you? Or maybe I hurt your pride by showing others that you are not perfect? Either way, grow up.
I don't hate you, I have no reason to hate you. And you have no valid reason to hate me. Grow up.
Hating someone does not mean they act like a child.
Because you clearly haven't aged well.
It really feels like you've been traumatized as a child.
I also call human ''it's'' until I know their gender, same for dogs and everything else.
Trust me, I also look down on people who call my dog an ''it'' when they know her gender or call her ''the dog'' instead of her name.
My anger against you is unjustifiable?
No, sorry Aluzky, that's not how it works.
You can not read my mind.
You know very well why I hate you.
The constant argueing was an obvious sign.
Yet it was so easy to understand.
I never really cared about it either, yet I knew what it was the first second I saw it.
Obvious things are obvious, obviously.
Because of your constant harassing, duh.
Don't tell me you go on anti-zoophilia and anti-bestiality videos and try to convince people.
You also think you're everything and that you're smart.
That's fucking annoying, I tell you.
My anger has nothing to do with your intelligence.
See? You're pulling that ''I'm smart'' card again.
I was proven wrong by different people and thanked them for correcting me, but I never really agreed with you so does makes zero sense.
Also, you can not hurt my pride since I have nothing to lose anyways.
You should grow up and respect other people's opinions and such.
Besides, you're the troublemaker here.
No wonder so many people hate you.
I know that, but YOU ARE ACTING LIKE A CHILD with your comments. I'm talking about you specifically.
English is not my main language, i don't understand what is that supposed to mean. Can you word that in a different way?
I have been, I was bullied for most of my childhood, even by my siblings. Being the younger brother means everyone picks on you. What of that has to do with our discussion here?
Sorry, can't believe you. I never call a dog nor a human an it, even if I don't know the gender of the dog. But don't mind me, you don't have to prove anything to me. But please, consider removing the word it from your vocabulary when referring to humans or dogs.
I seriously don't know. If I knew I would not be here making assumptions. So, instead of making excuses, why don't you just tell me why you hate me? If I did something to anger you and your anger is justifiable, I will apologized and try to make it right.
I never gave it a look, I only read the comments and reply. That is all.
You are misusing the word harassment. This is a public forum, making a reply to you is not harassment, specially when you are talking about me and I reply because of that. If you hate me because of this, your hate is unjustifiable.
I actually do that. If you hate me because of that, your hate is unjustifiable.
I don't know what is that superposed to mean, english is not my main language. Can you reword that in a different way?
I know for a fact that I'm above average in intelligence. If me knowing this fact makes you hate me, then again, that is an unjustifiable hate.
So far, none of the things you say are a justifiable reason to hate me, you literally are acting like a child. Find me to be annoying is again, not a valid reason to act the way you do.
You are the one who keeps bringing how intelligent I'm and saying that you find it annoying. If I remember, you where the first one to call out on my intelligence. You brought that topic up, it wasn't me, I never used the "I'm smart card"
So, the only reason you thank them but you hate me and run away from arguments is because you find me annoying, very immature of you.
A couple of months ago, I let some one know that dogs have a knot in a youtube video, me and another person did the same thing. Almost same reply, the person I reply hates me, in her reply to me, she insulted me and acted like a child making up a lot of bullshit, to the other guy who said the same thing, she answers in a polite way and thanked him for letting him know about it, she said that she didn't know dogs had that. You are doing the exact same thing. Stop acting irrational, swallow your irrational "you are annoying" emotions and grow up past that.
Ok, if you say so. Though I don't believe you, prove me wrong, next time, admit you where wrong and thank me when talking with me like you do with others.
I don't respect opinions unless based on facts or harmless. If some one gives an opinion that is based on BS, then i will let that person know that his opinion is false. Ignorance doesn't need to be respected, it needs to be exterminated with education.
My goal is to educate, if that causes troubles, well, not much I can do about that.
And like I have proven, majority of the time, their hate is not justifiable at all.
English isn't my main language either.
I'm way younger than you. That's no excuse mate.
Because things that happened to you as a child can affect your whole life.
You can't believe me?
What the fuck? I have no reason to lie.
Also, calling everyone a he/she is a mouthful, "it" is easier and faster.
You call anyone who doesn't agree with you a bigot, you always try to have the last word and just keep on letting your mouth flow.
It is a valid reason to hate you.
Hating annoying people is normal.
Not going to repeat what I said above.
I hate you for trying to act smart.
That is annoying and so it's a valid reason to hate you.
That is not immature, in fact it is mature.
If I refuse to continue, it only means I want to be left alone and want peace.
The fact that you do not realize this is beyond me.
Not surprised that she said that, if you are hated then that's what happens.
I said I thanked them, not that I have to, so I shouldn't thank you even if you were right.
You'd also have to prove me wrong first.
You're harassing and annoying people by doing so.
Intended or not.
It's normal to hate annoying people.
It is my excuse, so,are you gong to reword that or not?
I still don't see the relevance.
You have lied before, which is why I have a hard time in believing you.
Just like it is easier to claim that I see dogs as sex toys (a lie you have said many times) than making a rational mature argument?
False. Some times I call them ignorant. And in the rare occasions where I'm wrong and they are right, a congratulate them for correcting me from my error and I apology if i called them ignorant (FYI: I have never been wrong when dealing with bigots)
Not a crime to do that. And that is not always true, if the person accepts that what I said was true and that their claim was false, I move on and the argument ends there, with them having the last word. Or some times, when the argument is pointless, I just leave (like when their reply is just nonsense and insults)
Appeal to tradition fallacy. And is not a valid reason to hate, is an irrational reason to hate for that reason.
Is clear that you don't care to have mature conversation, as you avoid clarifying your sentences even when I ask in a polite way....
That is only true in your deluded mind.
Doesn't change the fact that you are being totally immature. If you acknowledge it and change your behavior, then the problem that you have with me will be over.
Again, that is your FANTASY. I have never tried to act smart. You are hating me for something that I have never done. You are acting like a child. FFS
She is a zoophobe, we previously had a conversation. Her hate was not justifiable.
At minimum you can acknowledge that you got proven wrong and not just act like a child and run away. But what ever, you ruining away is the same as admitting defeat. I just think that it shows that you are the "better man" if you do that, but, feel free to not do that, I can't force you.
Pretty sure I have already done that a couple of times. And remember, you running away is the same as admitting defeat, something that you have already done.
Again, replying to a public comment is not harassment. If they find it annoying, well, that is their problem. Maybe they should not make public comments as to not attract people comments to their comments?
Not normal to call me annoying and hate me for something that I'm not even doing.
Nope, not a valid excuse. Try again next time.
I already explained it to you.
You also lied a fuckload, and proof please?
I already told you, it was not supposed to be taken seriously, but you are still a pervert. In this case, you are also a liar because you assume things that are not true. Example: "You run away because you know I'm right."
Wrong again.
It's normal to hate annoying people because they annoy you.
Even children understand this.
Just because you ask politely doesn't mean you're going to get what you want. That's what a child would think.
If I'd ask you politely to come over? Would you? Ofc. not.
Could've said the exact same thing for anything you say.
Stop making use of "out-of-jail-cards".
You keep calling me immature, but what does it truly prove?
You're also being childish.
I accept you still growing up in your thirties, but it's getting a bit annoying.
" (FYI: I have never been wrong when dealing with bigots)". Or are you telling me you're actually smart?
Lmao.
Because someone does not agree with our perverted animal fucking group does not mean that person is wrong by default.
It's not admitting defeat, it's getting sick of argueing.
I have no choice to argue with you because otherwise it's an instant victory in your head.
Quite funny how even non-animalperverts don't have use weird logic.
Sadly you haven't yet, but keep trying!
You can win when I get sick of useless argueing again.
You still fail to realize what I'm trying to say.
You keep trying to argue and such.
It is normal to call someone annoying.
Also, read the first parts of my comment.
Stop trying to act innocent.
No wonder you were bullied, guys like you are usually indeed fixed with violence.
At this point you are just trolling and I'm going to ignore you and possibly report you for trolling if you continue. Bye.
Oh look at you, you gave up.
You didn't have to, I was close to getting sick of it too.
I'm not trolling and you know that very damn well too.
I was strongly convinced that you were a troll yourself, making us look bad all the time. Look, nobody loses this argument by getting sick of argueing.
Your sudden change in begavior intimidates me, it's fucking weird.
You are trolling, your comments have gotten pretty obvious that you are doing that. Not going to feed you any more.
No, you're making that up.
Good, run away and feel how I've felt.
Argueing with nothing but a stubborn, untrainable mule.
I have no reason to troll. I may enjoy other's misfortunes but I never really cause it, I just laugh at it.
Read my post history, I'm serious.
But if you don't believe me, fine, it isn't worth convincing you in the first place.
In the end, nobody gives a shit about us.
You'll laugh it off tomorrow.
You'll realize how useless this was.
I'm not running away from an argument like you did, I'm running away from you flat out trolling me. And I'm reporting you.
Yes you are.
I'm not trolling you.
Report me, fine.
OooOOoo, I'm afraaaaaid!
Can't take any justified criticism so he screams trolling.
Have you read his comments? He is flat out trolling. I have asked several times in here and in another thread to clarify sentences that he made that I didn't understand and he refuses to do so and replies with sarcastic comments instead of clarifying the sentences. His behavior makes it clear that he has no interest in having a mature and rational debate, aka he is just trolling.
PS: I have no problems with taking FACTUAL criticism.
You haven't exactly been helpful or mature yourself either
Where I have been immature?
And I'm way more helpful than unhelpful. Remember that reddit that attacked us like 15 days ago (public health watch), that was not only zoophobia but also racists and homophobic, I got their reddit banned, I have turned zoophobes into supporters my actions. Are you as helpful as me? If not, then you are in no position to judge some one who is actually doing something to defend zoosexuals.
Taking the cowards way out eh?
I'm not running from an argument that I can't beat like he has done in the past, I'm running away from his troll behavior, I have asked several times to clarify his sentences so i can reply back and he refuses to do so, it is clear that he has no intention of having a mature rational debate with me. I he doesn't want to have such debate with me, then I'm gone.
If ignoring a person troll comments makes me a coward, then so be it.
You're the one who has been immature lately! Do you realize what you have done to us?! You act like you're the definition of what a Zoophile is when you are far from it! You tell antis you want to convert to watch your videos in which many of them are silent! How do you think that looks to others who hear about Zoophiles? You act like you live in an echo chamber, you're not the only person in the world.
Where and when I have been immature? Prove it.
Instead of asking, why don't you tell me?
Zoophile: Some one who has a sexual orientation for animals.
Fact: I'm a zoophile. I don't try to act like one, if I act like one is without me trying because I'M ONE.
All my videos have audio. Either you are not putting the speakers to max volume or you are watching videos that some one else edited and removed the audio. Try watching the originals. You are talking bullshit.
I don't know, because none of my videos are silent.
Duno what is that sentence supposed to mean.
ви ідіотська м'якотілість лежачи сука!
That doesn't help either.
Use Google Translate then you moron. Or complain about being harassed like you tend to do you spineless twit.
This is a english speaking forum. The onus is not on me to translate comments, the onus is on the poster to write in english.
If that is a descriptive claim, nope, i have an IQ of 134, the opposite of a moron. if that is an insult, it shows how immature you are, it shows how you hae no valid arguments against me or my claims.
Last time I check, harassment is a crime. Or again the sire rules. Do you support harassment? From your comments it sounds like you are pro-harassment.
I tend to do that? I don't remember reporting anyone for harassment? Do you have evidence that I have reported anyone for harassment?
Again with the false descriptive words or with the immature insults.
If you had a spine you'd tell all the owners of the dogs you use what you do to them. All of them but you never will because you're a pathetic coward. You're so pathetic that's you have to train dogs for sex.
Is spine synonym for brave? Yes, I'm not brave, over here, it is social suicide to come out as a zoophile, not to mention it will be punishable with jail in the near future. For my safety and my dogs safety, I can't risk coming out of the closet. Or maybe the word is not brave, I'm not stupid enough to come out.
Would you tell a gay person that they are a coward for not coming out in a country that would jail them for life or even punish them with death?
Citation needed. What objective evidence do you have that I train dogs for sex?
FYI: I'm personally against training dogs for sex. None of my dogs have ever been trained to do any sexual acts. Prove me wrong, show me the evidence that I train them for .
The one who is pathetic is you, you have to keep making lies about me for who knows what reasons.
Surprised you even known what a synonym is.
This isn't remarkable news. You too lazy to stick to your dog so you use dogs of others. Just get your own dogs instead of using those that aren't yours. But you're too weak for that.
That is no excuse for the things that you do.
As if you care about their safety. Do you care about the dogs that you use as your personal fuck toys? No you just care about getting back at antis.
Stupid? Absolutely. Stupid enough to come out? Maybe.
No because they're not doing anything awful. You are specifically using antis' dogs to get back at antis that hate Zoophiles for that exact reason. They think we will do what you do. They think we'll lie to them but abuse their dog or train them to have sex.
You seem to be a personal advocate for it!
Ah but you will support those who do it. You will support those who don't respect a dog to leave them alone and make them want sex when they didn't. If don't tried to train me to want to have sex with men that would be rape. I don't want to have sex with human men. If I was a dog you'd support people doing this to me when I didn't want it.
You keep changing your stance on everything. You say that sausage isn't an animal but if someone eats sausage you'd call them evil for eating it because an animal died to name the sausage. Now you say animal sex training is good when in the past you said it is bad. You said you go after animals just because yet you do it because you're scared the owner will say no. Make up your mind already.
I'll wait for you to say it.
I didn't have to train my first boyfriend to fuck me, I didn't have to train my second boyfriend to let me suck on his cock and I won't have to training my third boyfriend for sex either. If he wants to lick me I'll happily allow him to lick me. If he wants to mount me I will let him. If he doesn't object to me sucking his cock then I will suck his cock.
You're the one that keeps changing their stances. What's next typing up dogs in ropes and letting multiple people have sex with them is ok?
But you replied back to him anyway. Keep up the lying /u/Aluzky.
I stop replying to that thread.
Yet here you are
Only because you are making me reply to you.
Oh did I put a gun to your head and make you comment? No I didn't. So I'm not making you do anything. You are replying of your own free will here.
Is normal to reply to some one who is making a comment to you in an open forum. If i make a comment to some one in an open forum, I expect that person to reply back.
Yet you complained that I replied to you and that I'm making you reply to me. If you don't like my comments then ignore them and fuck off. It's not that difficult.
So that's why you fuck dogs that belong to non-Zoophiles.
No, I do that because I like sex with canines and those dogs likes (or don't mind) sex with humans.
No you do it specifically to get back at people who don't like Zoophiles because you're a disgusting human being that can't keep his dick in his pants long enough.
I have been having sex with dogs since I was 12 (maybe even earlier) back then, I didn't know other people like me existed, nor I knew that zoophobes existed. And I never knew about other zoophiles till i was 15 and about zoophobes will I was like 18. I have always had sex with dogs because I like it and because they also like it (or don't mind)
If you have evidence that I do zoosex to "get back at people who don't like Zoophiles because I'm a disgusting human being that can't keep my dick in mys pants long enough" then prove it. Where is the objective evidence that your claim is true? If you can't prove that your claim is true, then you are making a baseless accusation.
Yet you said this
So translation: I'm scared of the word no and if you don't agree with ME you're a bigot.
Your translation is not accurate.
I'm not scared of the word NO. I'm scared of what comes after the word NO, some people are bigots, they will attack you, even kill your dogs, get you fired, jail you and social ostracize you. That is what I want to avoid. I don't live in a society where the majority of people is tolerant. I'm surrounded by religious zoophobes and homophobes. Coming out is not safe in here.
Considering that 99% of my claims are factual. Yes, if you don't agree with facts about zoosexual, you are a bigot by definition. The other 1% are personal subjective opinions, not necessarily facts. Would never call some one a bigot for not agreeing with a subjective opinion.
That's not a valid excuse. That would be like me looting and burning down buildings because someone doesn't like Black people.
Well if it makes you feel any better I actually like zoozoo, 30-30, WarCanine and other seemingly trustworthy Zoophiles. Because if I left my horse(who I do not have, haven't adopted her yet) with 30-30 he wouldn't try to molest her. If I left my dogs with WarCanine he wouldn't think that meant it's fine to have sex with them. So while I don't approve of Zoophilia I don't dislike the Zoophikes I've mentioned. Secondly it's not illegal to disapprove of something.
What is not a valid excuse? Your reply lacks context.
Doing that is a criminal behavior X2. I'm not doing any criminal behaviors. So, I don't see how your analogy explains anything. Faulty analogy is fallacious.
Can you see the future? Read minds? Your claims are opinions, not facts.
I agree. But not approving it makes you a bigot as there is no rational reasons to not approve it. Prove me wrong, give me a single rational non-bigoted reason for why you don't approve it.
Also, bigots tend to discriminate those of who they are bigoted against. Discrimination based on sexual orientation is a crime.
What you do in your country will be illegal so so technically yeah you'll be breaking the law. And have said you will continue to do so.
I don't approve of the Los Zetas Cartel. Does that mean I hate Mexicans?
For one WarCanine said he wouldn't touch someone else's dogs because that's not what he does. I'm more inclined to trust him with my dogs for a full day than trusting you around them for three seconds.
And because you want to feel sly against bigots.
I don't know. What is the definition of sly?
Sneaky. Deceptive. For a so called smart person you are stupid. That's facts not subjective.
I don't have need to feel sly against bigots. Other than avoiding being outed to avoid harm to myself or my dogs (harm caused by those bigots)
If is a fact, then you won't have problems in proving it, so where is the evidence that I'm stupid?
That fact that someone has to tell you not to use their dog otherwise you think this means it is ok to use the dog. That's one glaring fact right there. You claim that trainings dogs to wanting sex is wrong for you but others can do this despite the dog only doing this for treats rather than truly for sex.
I don't get emotional over the internet. I have blank non-emotional face when I read or write comments. So, you thining that I'm pissed is not a fact.
I don't need that and people not doing that won't piss me off.
Angry is not the right word, annoyed is more accurate.
By the way, you just admitted to be a bigot by calling pedosexuals subhumans. They are as humans as me and you. Calling them subhumans the same shit that nazis did to jews of racists did to blacks. Congratulations, you are on the same level of Hitler or KKK.
Screaming is writing like this: THIS IS SCREAMING.
I almost never do that, if I use capitalization, I do so on a few words to show IMPORTANCE and not as a scream. So, that claim is bullshit.
Also, I only lose like 2 or 3 arguments per year (almost never zoosexual related) this is because i almost always fact check my claims before posting them, almost every thing I said is factual. And is I say something non-factual is because of doing poor research or a misunderstanding in interpreting the evidence. I know I'm not perfect, like I said, I lose a couple of arguments per year because of such mistakes. (unlike the bigots that I debate that use 100 fallacies per debate with no evidence at all to back up their arguments)
I don't try to appear smart, I have an IQ of 135, if I happen to appear smart, it is without trying and is because I'm actually quite intelligent.
I have made it clear in old comments (as old as 10 years) that I'm against fence hopping. And I have never fence hopped. And yes, I go after animals that don't belong to me (without fence hopping) and like I have said in the past, I know that this behavior is rude and applaud and support people who can stop themselves from doing that.
I'm not harming anyone pets or feelings by having sex with their dogs. He is causing cows to be MURDERED by buying a hamburger, or eggs or milk to eat it. My actions have not harming anyone, his actions are supporting the harming and murder of thousands of animals per month.
Can you understand know why his HARMFULL actions are way less acceptable than my HARMLESS action of having sex with some one else dog without fence hopping?
Not the same. Not worshiping those doesn't make your racist or disunited. Such logic is fallacious. Where my arguments are factual and logically sound.
Again, pissed is the wrong word, annoyed is more acuate. And yes, I'm annoyed that there are zoophobes that use anti-homsoexual arguments against us, yet they support homosexuals. They are stupid enough, irrational enough to not understand why their arguments are not factual nor rational. They are hypocrites for supporting one group but not the other.
Seriously, you won't believe how many people I have seen saying: Zoosex is unnatural wrong and gross, you people can't have babies, only straight sex is Ok. BTW I support LGTB, I'm not a homophobe.
Can't you see the hypocrite of that? My job is to call it out and show other that they are hypocrites
Never raped anyone pet. If I where to rape people pets and harm them physically and emotionally, they would find out that I'm raping their pets, you moron. The reason people don't find out I have sex with their dogs is because their dogs loves me and they know I won't harm their dogs. They trust me enough to leave me alone with their pets. Me having sex with them may be rude (if they ever find out which is very unlikely to happen) but is not causing them any harm. Again, not comparable to eating animal products that does cause REAL HARM to animals.
If we where to compare my actions to some one who eats animal in terms of crimes, my actions would be like stealing a candy from a store and their actions comparable to robbing a bank at gun point and shooting several people to death.
You horny fucktard.
THIS is why people hate us.
You know what people call us zoophiles, huh? HUH?
''Lonely men who can't find a girlfriend and break into people's home to fuck their pets.''
The fact that you admit this is just cancer. Cancer, I tell you.
Also, do you really think that all these dogs love you?
I'm not surprised we are called delusional and dumb.
How can you fucking do this... I don't understand...
I fucking give up. Dogs are not fucktoys.
I honestly can not trust anyone who is a zoophile anymore.
I'm fucking happy now that we're treated like shit.
YOU fucking deserve it atleast. I'm almost convinced that we're all autistic horny retards who should be killed.
Thank you Aluzky.
And thank you society too.
EDIT: You WILL be caught someday, and we WILL hear about it, and I WILL laugh at it.
EDIT2:
(Even though I'm an atheist.) OH MY GOOOOOOOOOOD
EDIT3: I want to apologize, he is not a real zoophile.
Shouldn't have flipped out.
I don't even know this "Aluzky" guy, but he reminds me of a certain youtuber, Vegan Gains. Very autistic, suffering from borderline sociopath.
Listen "Aluzky". You're not cool, you're not smart. You are a tryhard man, who never grew emotionally past his teenage years.
But yes War canine, there are genuinely members in this community that deserve to get exposed. No one will disagree with that. Some of the things I've seen people do, makes me sometimes question if we really are in the right, or whether we're just as bad as the public makes us out to be.
I understand you.
Especially with Aluzky being such a popular zoophile and everyone seeing him as a big example because he harasses EVERYONE. I don't think anyone really here deserves to get exposed, there's usually nice people here who aren't that dumb and abusive.
They are REAL zoophiles.
I know that's a bit hypocritic after saying that we deserve it and that we're retards, but I say things like that when I go completely bonkers because of this cuck's logic.
It fucks with me, you know.
But the thing is, only YOU know if you are good or not.
I don't think real zoophiles are abusive, because I don't think you'd abuse something you are romantically attracted to.
I can understand that. Most of people seem very kind and supportive. Wouldn't mind meeting some of them, as normal human beings of course, no fence hopping or such nonsense. Just chatting as real people.
But people can be very delusional, I've been abusive towards people I cared deeply about, but what really matters is whether you learn from those experiences.
Seems this Aluzky guy has ALOT to learn.
That's interesting to hear.
But you're right, it also matters if you learn from these experiences or not.
But I can tell you did, you even said it yourself that you were abusive.
Realizing what you did wrong can help alot.
Like argueing with Aluzky.Everyone was there once!
And yet, pedos say the same thing.
Well, it makes sense doesn't it?
I mean you wouldn't hurt anything you love, unless you don't realize it yourself that you're hurting your loved ones.
THANK YOU!!! OMG!!! THANK YOU!!! There is hope left for us,OMG!!!
All the shit I´ve taken in here...at least it wasn´t in vain. THANK YOU!!!
I'm guilty.
False, not everybody does that, some one hating all zoosexuals for that reason is not founded on reason and facts. Such people are jus bigots.
Again, bigoted belief, they are doing a hasty generalization fallacy.
I rather tell the truth than lie. And like I have said before, I know is best for zoos not not do what I do. Is best to ask the owner for permission, but we don't live in a world where we can do that.
I do. From the way the dogs act and what the owners says.
Do what?
I agree. Who says that I see dogs as sex toys?
That is an irrational reaction. If you tell me to not fuck your dog I will respect your wish and not do it, I'm a person that keep his promises till the grave.
Dude, you have problems if you really think that...
If I do get caught, I will come back here and let you know. If you don't hear of me in 40 years, means I'm dead and I was never caught.
Your point?
Duno what you are talking about.
No shit sherlock.
You're right, everyone who does not agree with king Aluzky's opinio- I mean facts, is a bigot.
This is indeed bigotry, but this came to people's minds because of people like you exist.
You're fucking their pets without the owner's permission.
You should ask the owner, because a pet is their property you dumbass.
Just because they'd always say no doesn't mean you should and can.
Why do you even have sex with them?
You have dogs yourself.
Tell me.
If you tell me not to steal everything in your house I will respect your wish and not do it.
So I can just steal stuff before you had the chance to say ''no''?
Besides, this stuff is standart.
I never told you not to kill me, but that doesn't mean I'll allow you to kill me. Hello Aluuuzky!
My exact reaction to your logic.
You made me change my mind about zoophilia.
But you're right, I shouldn't let my opinion change because of one person that I shouldn't take seriously in the first place.
There's no ''if'' for me.
I'll be enjoying my next few years waiting for it.
Hilarious comment.
Then you haven't read my post.
I didn't say that. Bet yes, anyone who doesn't agree with facts about sexual orientational are bigots as they use that disagreement to discriminate sexual minorities.
And people like me exist because bigots like them exist. If bigots didn't exist, I would ask for permission to the owner before doing anything sexual. But as it is now, doing that would be social suicide.
I also don't ask their permission when I give their dogs a belly rub or a scratch in the ear or when I give them waters if I see them thirsty. Is sex, to a dog is no different from a belly rub, both feels good. Is not like I'm removing their dog kidney without telling them.
Also, while a pet is legally property, they are also sentient beings, capable of making their own choices.
Some would say yes.
Same reason why I play with them and give them belly rubs. Because they like it. We both like it.
Maybe you see sex as something else, but I see sex as something fun that feels good, same way dogs see it.
Stealing is a crime, having non-abusive consensual sex with a dog is not a crime.
Bad analogy you chose.
Again, murder is a crime.
A better analogy would be: If you tell me not to masturbate in your home bathroom, I will respect your wish and not do it. So I can just jerk of in your bathroom before you have the chance to say NO?
Answers YES.
I may like that you do that or not mind or dislike that you jerk of in my home bathroom, but as long as I don't find out what you are doing that instead of taking a shit, I will never know and it will never be an issue. Everything will continue their normal path. So, jerk off in the bathroom as much as you want, just don't get caught, you aren't harming anyone by doing that, IMO is ok if you do that in my bathroom or anyone else bathroom.
See, this analogy is better, jerking off in some one bathroom is not a crime, the action is not harming anyone. It may be immoral and rude, but harmless, similar to what I do, my actions may be rude and immoral, but I'm not harming anyone.
And like I have said before, I acknowledge that my behavior is not something that zoophiles should imitate. And I don't defend my actions, I know that my harmless actions makes others look bad, i ask the bigots to judge me for my action and not judge others for MY ACTIONS.
FYI: For a couple of dogs I had the owner permission. But only because I knew they where not zoophobes, only then I was free to ask without worries.
Don't act like it then.
Yes, you need to ask an owner before you can touch it's dog.
If owners allow their dogs to be touched without asking, they are irresponsible.
Anything could happen to them. And may even bite because of sudden movements.
Hardly believable, nobody wants to get their dog fucked.
Tell the police.
Tell the police exactly this.
Even if they weren't "zoophobes" (wtf?) (?) they wouldn't allow you to.
What fucking reason do they to get their dog fucked?
This is the weirdest thing you've told me to date.
Man, gonna list this one.
I'm not trying to act like it either. You are making a baseless assumption.
Seems you misunderstood. Yes, if I see a dog that I don't know next to their owner I ask for permission. If the dog is leaved on my charge or is a dog that I have interacted in the past (and I had the owner permission) why do i need to ask for permission in such cases?
People have touched my dogs without my permission and I don't mind. If my dog bites them because of their action, is their fault. If I get bitten is also my fault (ironically, I got bitten yesterday, I got a hole in the palm of my hand from petting a dog through a fence)
So be it.
FALSE. Some people like me don't mind, some people even get off from watching that.
I don't understand your point.
Sorry, english is not my main language and I can't understand what you mean to say. Can you rewrite that in a more clear way?
Are you asking why would anyone let me have sex with their dog? Reasons: To be nice with me, to be nice with their sexually deprived dog (as they find it too gross to help their dog with their own hands) and because they find it sexy to watch such thing (only watching, they don't like doing it)
You WHAT?
You would let others fuck your dog?
Not even normal people would get their gf/bf get fucked.
Can't take you seriously on this one..
Because it is a crime, duuuh!
Please mate, are you going to say fucking dogs is legal now?
Boy, why have you been hiding? Hey /u/anon-opbeast where are you? It's alright, you can come out. It's not a crime anymore!
Sorry, I don't sympathize with humans.
Nice IQ there, mr no-speak-Americano.
Makes no sense.
Unless they're allowing it for the humor.
I have already let that happen.
Nobody is normal, I'm not normal. There is something called "open relationships" google it up.
It is not a crime. It is a victimless crime. There is a big difference between crime and victimless crime.
For example gay sex is illegal in some countries, even p0unished with death, but gay sex is not a crime, gay sex is a victimless crime. Same is true for zoosex. To be a crime, some one has to be harmed (or their property)
Legal in my country (illegal in the near future) and is legal in several places. You really didn't knew that?
Again, I don't get your point... stop trolling or I will also ignore this thread. And I seriously will report you. You calling anon-opbeast here, seem that you are one of their spys looking to cause trouble. At least that what is seems you are doing with your troll behavior.
Fetishes don't always makes sense.
Ah look, he's back in the ring!
I guess I should get back to trolling amiright?
Thank you. We know.
A crime is something that is against the law, for this reason it is a crime.
Well in that case I'm not surprised.
I still don't see why you're argueing on YT for zoophile and bestiality rights then...
I mean, you said that it'll be illegal in the near future, so I guess it's finally only a crime then!
And I'm accused of trolling again.
Just fine and dandy.
Also, you will also fuck yourself over if you report me, the mods will see what you have done.
And me, a spy?
Oi mate, I don't think OPBeast would make a fucking account which also posts in non-zoophile subreddits to "hide" as a spy.
You're just saying that to avoid any further argueing.
I suggest you read this very carefully and get it in your mentally unstable head of yours.
Not even the guy who tried witchhunting me didn't act this dumb.
He was actually 14 years old and he acted more mature than you.
You just keep spilling out the same things. "I am smart and we both know it.", "No, you are false." and "You are a troll."
You would let others fuck your dogs.
Do I really have to point out why that is wrong?
Dogs aren't sex toys.
They can learn so many things, yet you waste your dog's time by fucking it nonstop.
You'd basically turn them into perverted beings, or maybe even the opposite.
Real zoophiles don't see animals as sex toys like beings that should be fucked when they have the chance to.
You're quite sad, Aluzky.
Nobody is on your side at all.
Also since you were bullied as a child you might wanna see a therapist if you can't control yourself because of past events.
Isn´t it marvelous? Now you´re a spy, a troublemaker for calling Mr Fetishist out on his bullshit. Filter bubble. I couldn´t have made up a better example of what is wrong with the so called "zoo community". I really fear that Aluzky mistakes carnal desire for love and actually believes these two are the same. It´s just sooo desperate he won´t even realize that it´s zoophiles criticising him and his dubious conduct. As I said, the worst enemy we zoos have isn´t the shouting antis, it´s the individuals like Aluzky. They think they´re doing us a favor, but in reality, they keep backstabbing us like hell. How will we ever be able to get our point across to the public when a fencehopping fetishist who doesn´t even realize he is one, also pimping out his animals, what makes his home into an animal brothel and is aggressively carrying propaganda into the public he totally fails to understand himself....
Hey, Aluzky, get used to the fact that you´re alone in "your" crowd. Nobody likes animal pimps, fucking fencehopper retards who actually think you´ll literally have to hop a fence to be one and fucking orgy-brainfucked idiots mistaking animals for sextoys you can share and trade among your "zoo friends". Such a perfect example why we never connect to the public. Just imagine we try to teach an outsider that we´re not like you and a second later, you appear, shouting the z-word all over the place and what a tremenduous "zoophile" you are. I really think Aluzky has some kind of mental defect, all red flags are there, unable to understand metaphors, unable to lift his communication above the first grader level , the usual megalomania ("I have such a huge IQ, man!") and total denial, total incapability to see his own conduct from another perspective. It´s called self reflection and our smartass obviously has never done anything like that, so additional egomania also involved. My diagnose: autism and maybe some Asperger. A huge fluctuation of sex partners is also a good indicator that he basically is incapable to establish real and deep relationships and I feel soo sorry for all the animals he has and will abuse.
It´s just sad...
It's getting very fucking annoying, yes.
But I feel bad for him.
It seems that the guy just wants to fit in but can't.
You see, he calls himself smart all the time to boost his ego.
Again, he was bullied and he is a zoophile, and for that reason he feels left out and never had a childhood.
Why he sees dogs as sex toys for people? I don't know.
But you know what's worse?
He DESERVES to get caught, yet his dogs would pay the price and give us a bad name.
Fucking hell man...
That's the only downside of him getting arrested. And to think I've defended this sicko!
What was the giveaway?snark
I left the other thread because you where trolling, if you start trolling here and acting immature I will also ignore this thread and report you for trolling.
I hope you know that you are not normal either. There is nothing wrong with being abnormal.
Nope, seems that my explanation went deaf on you...
Here read this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victimless_crime
By your logic, gay sex is a crime (remember it is illegal in 70+ countries) reality, gay sex is a VICTIMLESS CRIME.
Anything can be made illegal, look at nort Korea, even wearing the wrong hairstyle is illegal, but not everything that is illegal is a crime.
Like I said before, there are things that are illegal but are not crimes as they don't have a victim.
Because is easier to find NEW videos with zoophobes in the comments that I can try to educate.
Being illegal doesn't mean it is a crime... again... is a mullet hair site a crime? If being gay a crime? Learn the difference between crime and victimless crime.
Based on your past behavior hand present behavior, Jeeez I wonder why.
If i have done something that is against the rules or that is disruptive to the forum, feel free to report me. I'm 100% sure that I have not trolled anyone.
Then why are you calling zoophobes to come here? Can you see how disruptive that is?
Considering how twisted your perception of maturity and immature is, then if he was more immature than me, that means that he was more mature than me (as to you, maturity = immaturity and vise versa)
Also, why bring that up? Do we care that you got wichunted? NOPE. Does him has anything to do with me? NOPE. I'm I wich hunting you? NOPE.
If you troll you get called a troll, as simple as that. If you accuse me of being stupid, I will correct you, as I know for a fact what my IQ is. And if you make bullshit claims, I will call them out. This is the only rational response to people who makes bullshit claims, trolls, and call some one who is intelligent stupid. So, yes, i will reply with the same things over and over and over because ther eis only one rational reply, same way 2+2= will always be replied with 4.
And?
Yes, provide scientific evidence for why it is objectively wrong. If you can't do that then it is just your SUBJECTIVE OPINION that it is wrong. No different from people who things that zoosex or gaysex is wrong.
I agree. Your point?
My dog only had sex with me once or twice per week. That is far from "fucking it nonstop" also you are calling my dog an "IT" for some one who is against calling dogs "sex toys" you are very quick to refer to dogs as mere objects. Admit it, the one who sees dogs as sex toys is you, is not the first time you talk about dogs as if they where mere objects.
And so what if my dog was a pervert? There is nothing wrong with being a pervert.
Agree. Your point?
Subjective non.factual opinion.
Plenty people is.So far, only bigots and stupid people who thinks that rumors are fact are against me.
I have no problems in controlling myself. The bulling only made me asocial.
You left because you are a coward making excuses to stop argueing.
You complain that I wrongly accuse you of things yet you have no evidence that I am trolling.
A lottle joke = doesn't mean trolling.
Thanks captain obvious.
That's why I told you we knew.
Victimless_crime
c r i m e
Mate, I don't have to explain this to you, right?
Yet you never explained where I trolled you and how.
"erh mah gehd im gone for a few days and peepl are talkng shut abut me whine"
Based on your past behavior hand present behavior, Jeeez I wonder why.
You have caused an uproar.
Look at these threads, a mess, and one is even all about you.
And no, I won't report you. I don't need to hide behind the people with power "because a big bully is meeeaaan to me ;,("
"Zoophobes"
sigh This cringy community with it's weird terms.
Anyways, the result of that was not disruptive because nothing happened.
But hey, I could get a 'zoophobe' to talk with you.
If he has a giant hatred against me, he definitely will be even a bigger fan of you!
Age does not specifically mean that they act less mature.
And indeed he was more mature than you.
Should I call him so he can thank you?
For the fact that a dude about 15 years younger than you, who uses the dumbest arguments is smarter than you.
Ofcourse not, but this question is irrelevant.
You both act the same, so yes.
Ofcourse not, but this question is irrelevant.
By that logic: If you act stupid you get called stupid, as simple as that. If you accuse me of being a troll, I will correct you.
And now in correct English please.
So what I translated out of this: "I know I'm right so I'm just going to repeat it just like how I repeat everything else."
Now you made it a sex toy for everyone, just like a whore.
Because you are wasting all it's time by letting it get fucked.
You see them as sex toys because you also let others fuck it all the time.
That was my point, mr innocent.
I don't know it's gender now do I?
I call everything an it until I know it's gender.
He/she is a mouthful.
And I am the one who thinks they are sex toys?
Now tell me, with how many dogs did I have sex?
Is my dog a virgin?
If you can't answer these questions then you don't have any evidence.
"Ahhh so what if I raised my child to get fucked by everyone? She's enjoying it."
It is indeed wrong, dogs have so much other skills and things to do and you use it as a sex toy.
So yes, there is something wrong with being a pervert.
Life is not just about sex.
That was my point.
Indeed.
Ask everyone here.
C'mon, ask 'em.
Whenever someone doesn't agree with you, it's instantly stupid and a bigot. Awwwwh, how saaad.
Your sexual behavior with dogs says otherwise.
I left because you where trolling. I keep asking you to rephrase arguments that you made (So I could address them) and you keep making excuses and avoid doing so. That shows that you had no intentions in having a mature debate with me. YOU ARE THE COWARD, else you would had rephrased your arguments when I asked.
The evidence is in those comments for everyone to see. If i saw that you where trolling then anyone can see it too.
Since when being immature and being not interested in a debate while making the other person waste time = A little joke? Seems you don't even remember what you did.
Explain what? What is your point by bolting the word crime and adding spaces?
Only in your deluded head that is true. I gave a explanation on that comment before I left.
I also wonder why.
Me? The bigots coming here to post shit are the one responsible for that. And is not against the rules for them to do that.
Again, I didn't made those threads, other people did.
Not that you can report me.
Yea, nothing happened, that bunch of threads made about me in here with bigots attacking me and the zoophile community in general, had absolutely nothing to do with you linking me and the forum to their forum. /sarcasm.
Like said, your sense of maturity is twisted (inversed to be exact)
Thank me for what?
Oxymoron. How can he use dumb arguments and be smarter than me? Like I said, you have a twisted sense of maturity and now even intelligence. Idiots are intelligent to you, me who is intelligent is an idiot to you. You are deluded.
I doubt about that. Even so, it is IRRELEVANT.
That is true.
You where definitely trolling. Why don't you accept that you where? Or you are so deluded that you can't even see that you where trolling? Are you like the racist who don't see that they are racist?
That is correct.
What it are you talking about?
Again, what its are you talking about? Are you talking about dogs? If so, the one who sees them as objects is you (as demonstrated by you referring to them as "ITs"
You can call him a dog. You ca say he/she. You can call him a canine. You can call him "them". Several words that can be used to address a dog that does never require the usage of the word "it" .
Referring to them as if they where objects is disrespectful and it also objectify them. Again, for some one who is so against seing dogs as objects you are the first to refer to them as if they are objects.
Not my problem.
There is more evidence that you see them as objects than evidence that I see them as objects. I can tell you that much. Maybe start by not using the word it to refer to living beings if you don't want people to see you in that way.
You calling dogs "it" is enough evidence that you don't respect them and that you objectify them. And you don't even want to stop doing it because it is a "mouthful" Is clear that you don't give a fuck if people see dogs as objects as you are doing that yourself. Don't be a hypocrite. Either stop referring to them as "it" or stop making arguments against people who see animals as objects.
You will be braking several laws by doing that and you would be harming that child mentally and physically. And even if no physical harm is done, mental harm will be done. So, your hypothetical is not the same for what I did. My ADULT DOG is not a child nor a human. He was not harmed physically nor mentally.
Unless you can provide OBJECTIVE evidence that it is wrong, it is just your SUBJECTIVE opinion and not a fact. Subjective opinions are IRRELEVANT.
Unless you can provide OBJECTIVE evidence that it is wrong, it is just your SUBJECTIVE opinion and not a fact. Subjective opinions are IRRELEVANT.
Straw man fallacy. Nobody said that life is just about sex.
Ask them what?
If they don't agree with a rational factual argument, then yes. They ar either bigots or stupid. Same goes for people who deny evolution or climate change or earth spherical shame. This is how REALITY works. You can't deny facts and logic and be bigoted against minority without being stupid or a bigot.
My sexually attraction to dogs came before the bulling. Your argument is similar to those homophobes who claims that homosexuality is the result of child abuse.
Nope, you left because you don't like losing.
You have no real proof that I'm trolling.
I am no coward, I don't run away like you.
Not really.
Nobody is agreeing with you, so you're on your own on this one.
You'd also need evidence, but I clearly stated that I'm not a troll.
Make more excuses to not talk to me, go ahead, coward.
Arguing on the internet is already a waste of time.
So you did exactly the same.
The fact that you can't read.
What we do is also considered a crime in many countries.
Crime doesn't mean bad, but it's still a crime here.
The opinion that I'm trolling is also only true in your deluded head.
The explanation isn't working very well since it's not even true.
Except for the fact that you know you're losing.
I obviously knew that you were delusional, you don't have to admit it right here right now.
If you didn't do your disgusting fencehopping acts this wouldn't have happened.
Also, do you have any scientific evidence or even any screenshot evidence at all that all these people are entitled to their opinion?
You deserve to be exposed.
Technically I can. And you can't report me either with that logic.
Awwwwh, somebody got a little too much attention that he didn't ask for!
You could've shut up about your disgusting acts and nothing would have happened.
Subjective opinion, not a fact.
No evidence, not true.
This is another subjective opinion.
Do I really have to repeat that every time?
You can't doubt that since I only know you two.
Also, it is relevant since you act the same.
Damn, last time the guy even said he was the smartest in the world.
Goddamn, you're both so pathetically similar it hurts.
Comparing me to racists, irrelevant.
Also, I know that I'm not trolling.
You can't know what is going on in my mind and in your head I'm the one trolling because you don't have anything else to say.
I'm talking about pimping out your dog.
Seems like you forget what you said. I feel bad for you.
I call anything a he/she when I know it's gender.
You keep whining about a word which does not change anything.
Not my problem you whine about one word.
I respect dogs more than anything.
Me, using a different word does not make me devalue them in any way.
Just because I want to keep my words simple doesn't mean I don't give a fuck about dogs.
Let's get the fucking dictionary here, because your brain really is blind on some spots.
I see dogs as persons, in case you didn't know.
That's not devaluing dogs in any way.
That's not what I meant.
That is my evidence.
Dogs would rather much play and do other stuff, yet people like you train it to be sex toys.
Sex is something dogs like, but you should give them a chance to be different and like other things.
If I lock my girl all day up and she likes it for some reason, it's wrong.
That's exploiting and brainwashing them.
And being a pervert has the same reason.
Your behavior tells otherwise.
You say that I'm a troll, I can call you this with the exact same logic. Ouchie.
I'll let you reread my message.
I won't explain the same stuff again.
I can also just pretend not to understand stuff like you and call it a win.
Except this isn't the case.
Not everyone who agrees with your opinions isn't a bigot, adumbsky.
In that case I agree with you.
But you really didn't have to go over defensive with that one.
Or did I hit the ouchie spot when you were bullied?
Hey, /u/LadySaberCat
Just in case you want to know, he's still bullshitting like a madman.
I'm just letting you know, nothing special. I'm assuming you were the one who gave me gold for it, so yeah.
TL;DR I don't wanna get in trouble for my disgusting behavior and to cover my own ass I'll call you a spy! Hur dur.
But raping animals people trust you around is.
He is linking bigots to this thread, he wants bigots to come here and post shit.
Citation needed. Do you have evidence that I rape dogs?
You're more delusional than I thought.
Your online videos.
Do you have objective evidence that I'm delusional? Or you are being delusional by thinking that I'm delusional with no evidence that I'm delusional?
Which of my online videos proves that I rape dogs?
Well you think a dog being left alone with you means that the owner wants you to have sex with the dog simply because the dog is alone with you. You also claim sausage isn't an animal.
I don't think that. Your claim is not factual.
Because a sausage (food item) is not an animal.
An nothing in your reply support the claim that I rape dogs. You are no different from homophobes who accuse gays of raping children.
You yourself said that unless someone says don't do anything with their dog you'll do something with the dog.
Well then I guess people aren't selfish for eating blood sausage and boudin noir then. No animals involved.
Besides you not accepting that some dogs won't mount people at all but you are ok with such dogs being trained? Despite not respecting the dog not wanting sex. Yeah no that doesn't sound rapey at all.
Last I checked gay guys don't try to fuck the first guy they're alone with for two seconds.
Yeah I'm sure that's why you were bitten.
Is that sarcasm? Because if you believe me, then why make a comment saying that you believe me?
Yes it is actually :)
Which I don't. I'd sooner believe a guy in a suicide vest that says "This isn't a suicide vest."
Not unless you're /u/Aluzky apparently.
If the owner is not around, why would you need to ask the owner? If the owner is there, yea, ask the owner first.
I'm pretty sure that hundreds of people pets dogs through fences, I have seen it happen, I have no problems with it.
Also, there is no law saying "it is illegal to pet some one dog without asking the owner"
Asking the owner is more to avoid petting a unfriendly dog and getting bitten. If you don't ask you may get bitten (like it happened to me)
Technically, it IS illegal to pet another one´s dog. As sad as it is, but the dog is the owner´s property and the owner has the say. If the owner sees you and tells you to stay away from his animal, you can be sued if you continue petting the animal. Say, could it be you´re just completely uninformed? Could it be you´re picking the raisins out of the vast available "zoo moral" texts out there, the ones fitting your own, twisted beliefs? Even Hitler thought he was a good guy...
Not where I live. And if you have to say "technically" that makes me believe that it is not illegal anywhere.
He may have a say but is not illegal to just touch/pet the person property. Specially if that 4 legged property walks outside their land property to be petted by others.
Sued with what charges or arguments? Hey, like lawyers say, you can even sue a ham sandwich, that doesn't mean you can actually punish the sandwich (or person)
I'm all ears, educate me, what argument or law can some one use to sue some one for petting their dog?
Duno what that means nor i understand what your point is.
He did do good stuff, like, didn't he made several animal protection laws in Germany? That was very good. But people is also bad. Ying and Yang. People is not only 100% good, they also have bad stuff in them.
TL;DR I'll molest the dog without asking the owner because I have zero self control and I think the entire world revolves around me me me!
Which will happen again except the dog might bite your dick off this time.
Asking a dog for sex and having consensual sex with the dog does not fit the definition of molestation.
Me choosing to have sex with the dog doesn't show that I have zero self control. A person who has no self control will have sex with the dog no matter what, even in front of others (like some people who let dogs fuck them public in the front yard of their home or in the street) when I have sex with dogs I CHOSE to have sex with them.
And I don't think that the entire world revolves around me.
Aren't you tire of making a ridicule? Almost everything you said (if not everything) is false or insults. All you doing is showing others how immature, irrational and unintelligent you are.
According to statistic, dogs mostly go for the hands when they bite. Not for the dick. And I'm pretty sure that I won't get bitten them (at least not in an intentional way, I have actually being nibble down there by inexperience dogs who got too exited while licking)
Since you think "lone dog=ok for sex" I'm not inclined to believe you.
It does when the reason is simply because the dog is there.
You mean like you do?
Something you'd probably do if you weren't so afraid.
Simply because you're alone with them and they're a dog.
Given how much you complain when you don't get your way, that claim is bullshit.
Ridicule? No. Pointing out the things you say and constantly backtrack on? Not really.
Prove it. I'll emulate you here; prove your accusation to be true.
Says the person who will fuck a dog just because it's nearby and complains when people online tell you that you cannot touch their dogs and calls that bigotry. Yeah but I'm the immature one.
Well if you keep waving your dick in the dog's face it's likely to get bitten. I can see this happening.
Considering you'll use or try to use any dog you're alone with you're bound to pick one that doesn't have a sweet temper and likely has a history of aggression. You won't pay attention to the dog because you'll just be excited to be in the presence of one you won't notice a thing until you get bitten.
Yeah you're definitely gonna fucked up real bad one day.
And Ted Bundy said his victims wanted it and that they were asking for it😡
Isn't that guy a serial killer? If so, it is not the same, there is EVIDENCE that he murdered people. Where there is no evidence that I rape/abuse dogs. His claims do not match the evidence, where my claims so far, matches any evidence or lack of it.
In simple words, there is no evidence to support the baseless accusations that bigots have been spreading about me.
Your behavior and quotes and you telling antis to watch your videos doesn't help your case are paint a good image of Zoosexuals. Who needs OpBeast when we have you.
How so? If some one claims that a dog would never ask a human for sex and I have a video of a dog asking a human for sex, how is that video not proof that his claim is bullshit?
And by "good image" do you mean that we should lie just to paint a good image? Should we never let them know that rude zoosexuals or rapist zoosexuals exist?
IMO telling lies to pain a fake image of zoosexual is on itself painting a bad image of zoosexuals.
Look at heterosexuals, they have rapists, people who on purpose have sex with other people wives/husband behind their back (which is similar to me having sex with some ones pet behind their back), they have people who is rude, people who see humans as sex toys (and use and abuse prostitutes) Zoosexuality is no that different from that.
But just like heterosexual is not all bad, same is true for zoosexuality. This is the part that bigots don't see or don't want to see. This is where I come into the picture and let them know that not everything is bad, that many of their beliefs are fallacious and not factual. That they acting in that way is discriminatory and bigoted.
Aluzky, Glorious moments, Scene one: "The reason people don´t find out I fuck their dogs..."
Cut
Aluzky, Glorious moments, Scene two "I don´t fencehop"
Ignored.
30-30...
Don't you understand?
He basically gets the owner's permission by not asking them!
You see, that's how things work.
Do things first, ask later. (Or don't ask at all, pfff, who cares? It's illegal anyways!)
This is why people think we're monsters and cannot be trusted. You call /u/AlphaOmegaSith a liar but you just admitted to being a liar. You lie to people about what you do to their pets. You admit to having zero self control. You have lost all credibility in this debate. I'm not going to listen to the words of an narcissistic, mentally stunted troll and apparent habitual liar such as you. Makes me wonder if you are indeed a rapist now and if the animals you claim to interact with are actually willing.
Really? From the thousands of bigots I have debated in the past 10 years, almost none was against zoosexuals for such reasons. Almost all of them had the ignorant non-factual belief that animals can't consent to sex and use this as an argument to be against zoosexuality.
First, almost everybody is a liar, if you ask me where I live and my real life name, of course I will lie about it. Ask me about anything else and I won't lie about it. And duno if I call him a liar, if I did, is because I had evidence that he is.
False. I have never lied to them. That being said, none of them has ever asked me if I had sex with their pets. If they never ask I never have the chance to lie or tell the truth.
I have never admitted to that.
This is an ad hominem fallacy. Even if I where a liar, my arguments validity is not dependent on me being a liar. And argument validity is dependent on FACTS and LOGIC.
Do you have evidence that I'm a troll, or mentally stunted or narcissistic or a liar? Or you are just making up bullshit about me to use them as an excuse to ignore my factual arguments?
I have no problems with showing live on cam how I have sex with my dogs. Actually... I had no problems doing that in the past. Now that is going to be illegal I can't record any more the stuff that I do. But if you look around or ask around, there is people who saw me live on cam (on beast forums) having non-rape sex and there are dozens of videos that I made in the past of me having non-rape sex with dogs.
All your rape allegations are baseless. Anyways, is not up to me to prove that i don't rape dogs, innocent till proven guilty,is up to all of you to support your bullshit claims with evidence, something that you people can't do because... well, your claims are bullshit.
And now you've given them more reasons :(
That is only a reason to be against me and not against other people who doesn't act like me.
Same way heterosexuals who have sex with other people wives/husbands is only a reason to be against such people and not against all heterosexuality.
And me having sex with some one else dogs doesn't change the fact that making all zoosex illegal is discriminatory and bigoted, doesn't change the fact that adult animals can consent to sex, doesn't change all the other facts that I speck about in my comments.
They are using my rude but harmless actions as an ad hominem attack. Let them, that is the "best" they can do to fight against facts and logic.
You honestly don't see what you're doing to us do you? You don't get it.
Oh really?!
Because they don't think they have too don't you see that?!
So you would in fact lie to that person then?
Explain this then: "And yes, I go after animals that don't belong to me (without fence hopping) and like I have said in the past, I know that this behavior is rude and applaud and support people who can stop themselves from doing that."
No it's pure deception is what it is!
Because liars are dependable people?
How can you be trusted to be honest about facts and logic after all that you have done?! How can we rely on you to be honest with the community how can we huh?
Look at your own comments you fool! Put yourself in the shoes of an anti and tell me what this all sounds like right here! You are making things worse for us with the way you act especially now! You know what an anti sees when they hear people say that having sex with other people's dogs is ok? They don't hear sex they hear rape!
Oh you're going to play the Beast Forum card? Oh all the websites! There have been more than several instances of them allowing videos on their owned websites that are clearly instances of rape! They're not a group that truly supports Zoophiles they only support the past of society that just wants to see people do forbidden things for a tickle! And you've greatly eroded my opinion over you with your latest behavior, I defended you and made myself look like an ass because of you! Yet now I wonder if perhaps these people are right and you're not who you say you are.
If you have a complain, then say it.
Yes really, I have never lied to them about me having sex with their pets.
I see that. And in the end, it is still true that I have never lied to them.
I don't know, I can't see the future. I may lie to the, I may not lie to them,it would all depend of the circumstances.
Nowhere in there I said that I have no self control. If you assume that I have no self control from the poor choice of words that I used in that sentence (remember, english is not my main language) then that is an ASSUMPTION. Your assumption can be true or false, but I'm telling you, your assumption is false.
I have sex with dogs because I want and not because I can't stop myself from doing it. I can chose to not have sex with them as easily as I can chose to have it.
Here, let me fix my sentence: I know that this behavior is rude and applaud and support people who CHOSE to stop themselves from doing that.
Is that more clear now on what i mean to say? Bigots love to take words out of context or pass asumtions as facts, you are falling for their bullshit.
I don't understand. What deception? And the validity of my arguments has nothing to do with my actions. This is why the argument that I lost credibility for my arguments is an ad hominem fallacy. (google it if you don't know what an ad hominem fallacy is)
That is relevant, again, the validity of an argument is irrelevant to the person character. If I where a liar and I say earth is round, does that makes my argument invalid? NOPE. Earth is round because of facts and logic, me being a liar has no effect on the argument. The arguments I use are factual and logical (you can use a logical syllogism to see that they are logical)
And again, I have not lied (the fact that you people are making a fuss about me having sex with other people dogs is because I chose to not lie about it and be open about it) I dislike lying, the only time I will lie is to protect myself from bigots, almost every zoophile will also lie under such circumstances, specially if they live in a country where just being a zoo is punished with life in prison or death. Lying is not always a bad thing. If I ever lie, is not for a evil reason, I think they are called white lies?
Again... my character is irrelevant, you can go and check that the facts and logic is CORRECT. I have never told anyone to trust my word blindly. I always tell them to look the evidence for themselves. I have even scolded people who blindly trusted my word (I accused them of being non-confrontational sheep) and told them to be skeptic about people making claims.
And seems that I will say it here too, don't trust what I said, trust in EVIDENCE AN LOGIC. Feel free to fact check every claim I make to make sure that I'm not lying. Trust your own eyes.
I don't see the problem. What I'm supposed to look at? Where I have lied? Where i have been narcissistic? Where I have been mentally stunted? (not that is relevant if I'm narcissistic or mentally stunted)
Like I have said before, bigots will attack us if we start fighting back, if you want for us to win, then endure their attacks.
And? What they hear is not factual. How is that my problem when they are the ones causing the problem out of nowhere?
Again, what are we supposed to do, never defend from bigoted attacks because they will make more bigoted attacks against us? Maybe you are the type that want to remain in the shadows and is against people for doing activism, but I'm not that type.
Irrelevant, has nothing to do with me.
Irrelevant, has nothing to do with me. You are missing the point, the point is that i have showed live and on recorded videos on how I have sex with dogs, people can see that I don't do the things that I'm being accused off.
The only true accusation is that I have sex with other people dogs, that is not a secrete, I have always been open about it because I don't like lying.
You have the right to feel that way because of my behavior of having sex with other people dogs. But doesn't change the fact that the arguments that I use to defend zoosexuals are factual, doesn't change the fact that I'm doing something to defend zoosexuals where the majority of you does nothing.
You defend the things about me that where right and true. Nothing wrong with that.
Like I said before, believe in facts and not in BASELESS rumors from the zoophobes.
Oh look a dog rapist with nerves of steel.
But calling you out pisses you off.
Angry fits because you're rushing to justify raping other people's animals and letting people rape your animals.
Yeah because not trusting people who's victims I literally have to prevent from killing themselves on a daily basis and have to read files detailing the horrific injuries sustained as a result of being raped by pedophiles makes me such a bigot. I wonder why you're such a White Knight for them. I hope no one is dumb to leave their children alone with you or you might pimp them out to your pedophile friends.
After what you've said about what you do to other people's animals and what you allow to be done to your own animals I can say right now that you aren't a human being. You're filth just like David Westerfield is and just like the subhumans I see daily that swear up and down that the child there raped was willing all the way up till the pictures of their injuries are presented that show otherwise.
If it walks like a rapist and talks like a rapist and acts like a rapist it's a rapist.
Ah there's that shining /u/Aluzky tantrum when no one bows before you.
Something you've also done before.
Yeah and you'll claim it's bullshit that you shouldn't be trusted with a dead animal let alone live ones.
Like I said. Stomping your feet and screaming fallacy until your opponent walks away doesn't count as a win.
Something you do a lot
No shit! Tell me something I didn't know!sarcasm
You lose them because you're a terrible liar and an mentally ill narcissistic parasite.
And I'm the President Elect of The United States of America.
Says the guy who openly admits to pimping his animals and abusing others behind their owners backs.
Not entirely you aren't
Bullshit.
And lie about it. Sounds like you're also a sociopath or psychopath that gets off on betraying the trust of others.
But you do it anyway because........
Oh so a dog fucker with ZERO SELF CONTROL on top of that too! What's next raping passed out people at parties because you can't control yourself?!
Uh-huh sure. And Iowa is known for its sprawling coastline and beachfront houses.
I think the only reason you feel this way is because you're mad you didn't get a chance to rape the animals that were killed. You don't actually give a shit about what happens to animals at all. It's just a show.
So you say.
As sad as it is there are people who don't want to die because of their delicate systems and don't have the money to go vegan and by supplements to keep themselves healthy. My aunt and several cousins and a few friends are like this, one my friends couldn't go vegan even if he wanted to 100%. He does better when he eats meat and can actually keep on weight. His income is steady enough that he can afford to buy from local hobby farms that don't factory farm their livestock, he also hunts deer and rabbit and he fishes. Last week he brought over a deer kidney and chopped liver and heart for my dog, he's massive and this sort of raw diet is keeping him healthy compared to how he looked when I found him. He's able to keep this particular mix down, has normal bowel movements, he's gaining muscle and fat and he doesn't get sick as often. I'm not gonna take an animal that's primarily a carnivore and turn it into an herbivore. If I wanted a herbivorous pet I'd ask my neighbor if she knows anyone with horses for sale since she's pretty big into the equestrian thing.
You're literally trying to justify raping animals by saying at least you don't eat them. Congratulations you're only one step above Ed Gein.
Factually and logically sound? Says the proven liar and untrustworthy sexual predator.
The only annoying thing here is you.
Sour Grapes. Not like your lying predatory ass is helping much.
Says the guy who fits one of the definitions Fence Jumper and can't be trusted.
You calling someone else a hypocrite is hypocritical in itself.
Says the flaming hypocrite.
I'll believe that when a literal winged pig lands in front of me.
Which you do and also subject your animals to trauma by pimping them.
Which I hope they do find out.
Oh look the liar is calling me a moron. What's the matter did I hit a nerve?
Actually because you lie and you say you'd never hurt them but do.
Big mistake on their part, trusting something like you around their pets.
Prove it.
As I said you're one step above being better than Ed Gein except instead of raping children(but given your support of pedophiles it wouldn't shock me if you made children available for pedophiles to molest) and eating them you rape animals behind their owners backs. But you don't eat them.
Hello hyperbole!
Being called out with facts doesn't piss me off. Being called out with non-facts don't piss me off either. But, since such comments are non-factual, I will correct such person with the actual facts or call out their bullshit by asking for citations.
I have never raped dogs nor let anyone rape my dogs. I have never justified any of those either. Your causation are baseless. Feel free to prove me wrong by providing EVIDENCE to support your accusations.
You seem unable to tell the difference between a pedophile who is against rape and never rape children and a pedophile who is a rapist.
By your logic, I should call you a rapist (I assume you are heterosexual) I should call you a rapist and be against heterosexuality because I have hear of heterosexuals who raped women. All heterosexuals must be rapist, derp‼111 ←This is what you are doing.
Fact: not all pedophiles rape/molest children and not all people who rape or molest children are pedophiles. You are acting like a bigot for discriminating against all pedophiles.
If you only discriminated against RAPIST pedophiles, then you would not be a bigot, but since you include innocent ones in your discrimination,l that makes you a bigot.
I don't have pedophiles friends (not that I know anyways) and I would never pimp a child nor an animal. It doesn't feel right for me to do that in exchange for money. And I'm a white knight for EVERYBODY, from pedos to homos to blacks to women to trans to indians and so on. I¿'m not bias, I'm not bigoted,
I defend anyone who is innocent regardless of their color, nationality or sexual orientation.
Subjective bigoted opinion, not a fact.
Fact: not all pedophiles are rapists. This is why your arguments are bigoted, you assume they are all rapists.
What?
There is a difference between screaming and using capitalization to give importance to SOME key words. Using capitalization is what I have done in the past.
Why I shouldn't be trusted with a dead animal or alive animal? And prove me wrong, show me where I have screamed before? I said I rarely do that, but I can't even recall if I have ever done that.
Why not? They make an argument, I point out that their argument is fallacious, they walk away and chose to not defend their claim any more, how is that not a win?
If some one claims that earth is flat because god. And I point their argument is fallacious and he walks away, how is that not a win?
Citation needed.
No, I lose those arguments because I misunderstood evidence or used outdated evidence. I lost such arguments because of human error and not because I lied on purpose.
If you where Thrump I think everybody would know about it. You are clearly not him. or maybe you are him and you are a women sexual harasser.
Where and when I have admitted to pimping my dogs? Even if I had admitted to such thing (which I haven't) how does that proves that I'm not intelligent? Where and when I have admitted to abusing dogs? Even if I had admitted to such thing (which I haven't) how does that proves that I'm not intelligent?
Never done fence hopping, never said that I support fence hooping and i have said plenty times that I'm against fence hopping. I can't be any more clear than that.
You have no evidence to call my claim bullshit. You accuse me of fence hopping and you have no evidence to support that accusation, the one saying bullshit is you.
Lie about it? I just said that yes, i go after animals that don't belong to me, where I have lied? Or, are you saying that it is all a lie? That I don't go after other people dogs?
I don't think I have ever betrayed the trust of anyone. Where and where I have betrayed some one trust? Also, even if i did that, it would not make me a sociopath or psychopath.
Because being rude is not a crime (and is only rude if they find out) and I'm not harming anyone with me doing it. That is why I do it, if something is harmless and legal, why not doit?
Who says that I have zero self control? You are confusing the act of choosing to do something with the act of doing something when you don't want to do it.
I have self control, I do it because I want and not because I can't stop myself from doing it.
I'm not into humans. And me not being under control is your baseless accusation, not a fact.
I don't know what that means.
I'm only into dogs (and maybe raccoons) animals that get killed are not dogs (i don't live in china)
And I 'm against that because of animal abuse reasons, environmental reasons and health reasons. It has nothing to do with sex.
Citation needed. You have any evidence to back up that accusation?
If my actions had harmed some one I would tell it here when asked. I have no reasons to lie about it.
Eating animals is more expensive than eating vegan. Seems that you don't know what you are talking about.
All of them are being selfish and are harming innocent animals for unnecessary reasons. Yet, you are here attacking me with false accusations when you should be attacking them with TRUE accusations that they are harming animals.
That diet has nothing to do with him being healthy, as a dog on a balanced vegan diet would be equally healthy.
Same would haven with a vegan diet. So, your point?
Dogs are omnivores and just like humans, they can be feed a 100% vegan diet. Dogs evolved next to humans by eating left overs, they can digest plants that wolves can't. A dog is not a wolf.
Where and when I have defended rape? Also, no, me being vegan has nothing to do with me justifying consensual harmless zoosex. Consensual safe zoosex is justified by his own merits.
Ad hominem fallacy. Where and when I have lied? Where and when I have being untrustworthy? Where and when I have been a sexual predator?
Irrelevant.
What?
Ad hominem fallacy.
Last time I check, the definition of fence jumping is to trespass on some ones property to have sex with animals. I have never trespassed some one property.
That doesn't make sense.
Citation needed. Where I have been a hypocrite?
You have no evidence to believe that I rape dogs. Innocent till proven guilty.
Citation needed. Where is the evidence that I intentionally harm animals with sex? Where is the evidence that I pimp my dogs (pimping is the act of keeping a share of money from prostitution business)
They won't find out because I don't rape their dogs... you people are seriously unintelligent...
I said moron as in a unintelligent person (which is what you are)
Citation needed. Where is the evidence that I lied to them? Where is the evidence that i hurt them?
Subjective opinion.
I have uploaded videos of me having sex with other people dogs, you are free to go and look that they are not harmed.
Is a fact that vegans are better than non-vegans. And citation needed, what evidence do you have that I rape dogs?
Part 1
Your recent behavior proves that's a lie.
Everything that doesn't fit your beliefs pisses you off.
Says the guy who's lies are finally catching up with you now. This, what you're doing right here is scrambling to save face.
Part 2
As I've said before I have your quotes and your numerous comments that cast doubt on your statements that you're not a pimp or a rapist.
I have your quotes where you admit to being a liar and making your dogs available to other people under dubious circumstances, which begs the question of what else you lie about.
Oh no I can tell the difference just fine. However I've seen far more pedophiles that have raped children than I have seen ones who swore to never touch a child. I don't expect someone like you and with your mentality to understand the things I see on a daily basis and even if you did you would excuse those horrific acts. A lot of the kids I see and treat, the same ones who often wake up SCREAMING and crying, the ones who are often on suicide watch were raped by pedophiles who said that they never ever would touch a child. Not child molesters, pedophiles.
Now that's actually a fallacy and so no just because I like women(human women, in case you get confused by what I mean by women)doesn't make me a rapist. Plus heterosexuality isn't scarily close to the biastophilia spectrum as I've seen more than enough pedophiles who literally get off on their targets being unwilling and in pain. That's just the female pedophiles. I'm not going to pretend you know what biastophilia is but if you defend it as an orientation or HAVE defended it I won't be surprised. So while every pedophile isn't a rapist or consumer of pedophilia I'm not exactly going to parade children around these people.
So calling a spade a spade is now wrong? Just because they all don't rape children doesn't mean I'm going to welcome them with open arms.
Being rational and not leaving pedophiles alone with children makes me a bigot?
It's called vigilance not bigotry. I wouldn't leave my door unlocked, I wouldn't wear a Rolex in a bad neighborhood. Are you going to call me a bigot over this? Probably.
Difficult to believe considering your habit of bending the truth and outright lying.
A child? Maybe maybe not. An animal though? You admitted to using animals that aren't yours, you admitted to making your dogs and possibly others available to people you know to do they can use them. You claim this isn't pimping but loaning out animals to others is in fact pimping.
Again this is a dubious claim.
Unless they follow each and every one of your ideals
But if they disagree with you then you won't support them and will in fact hope that they die.
Actually you are.
Not sure about bigoted but you sure as hell are childish.
Again as long as they follow your ideals. But if they don't all that care and support goes out the window.
Actually it is a fact. They claim consent and zero harm up until the pictures of the bloodied and bruised up pictures of their victims are shown. So you can pretend that doesn't happen all you want, it's not going to change a damn thing.
I was actually talking about the ones that rape in that quote but since you're an idiot you didn't notice that.
I'm not talking about using caps moron. I'm talking about how you act when no follows your standards, when you don't get your way and when you're called out for your actions and when proof is provided. That's what I'm talking about.
Why shouldn't you be trusted with living or dead animals? Isn't it obvious? Plus your tantrums are all over Reddit where you just complain about bigotry and the world being out to get you and how you're such a great person when you yourself prove time and time again that you're the opposite of what you say you are.
Part 3
Because you're childish and delusional and people walk away from you because talking to you is a waste of time because of your inability to listen. You don't want anyone to have their own opinions, you want everyone to be exactly like you and when someone doesn't fit YOUR pre-approved values you get angry and call them selfish and evil to the point that people ignore you. Not because you're allegedly a factual person.
Actually you're acting like a "flat earther" here not everyone else. When someone proves you wrong of thinks for themselves you act like it's blasphemy.
Which again is something that happens often even when people quote your exact words as proof against you. You can't accept facts let alone reality and it fuels your delusions and rants.
I was being sarcastic you jackass.
You really don't know you're saying all of this do you? You must really be a retard then.
You lie about doing other people's pets who's to say you don't lie about literally fence jumping? By definition you ARE a fence jumper, you use animals that aren't yours.
I do and I've posted such evidence but you keep saying you didn't say it when you actually did.
No you lie to people about going after their dogs, since you mention a lot of those pets you rape aren't the pets of Zoophiles.
That's because you're utterly incapable of acknowledging what you do hence your lack of remorse and enjoyment of doing things behind the backs of others.
Well it'll be illegal in your country soon so that won't be a problem because one day you'll go after the wrong dog and either get killed by said dog or the owner is going to beat the shit out of you or kill you. It'll be YOUR fault and your fault alone.
Wow you are a such an IDIOT!!! Because right here you said:
You admit you have no self control only to throw a bitch fit when it's pointed out to you.
The quote above the quote I'm replying to here proves this is a lie.
Part 4
Well let's hope no man or woman passes out near you in an animal costume then.
"I know that this behavior is rude and applaud and support people who can stop themselves from doing that." You're still lying.
Sarcasm! Iowa is a landlocked state!
So getting mauled to death is in your future?
Oops I mean getting infected with rabies is in your future. Those poor raccoons. But at least their deaths will not be in vain if they bite you.
So if you saw a dog eating meat you'd call it animal abuse.
Besides you say exploitation is ok? You only just started saying that you support harmless exploitation to backtrack and pretend you made a mistake.
You have lied about so many things here so lying about harm wouldn't be shocking.
Depends on where you live and your income.
I grew up in and live in an area where people often hunt for their food or raise their own food and while these people aren't rich they can live quite comfortable. So actually I do know what I'm talking about. I buy my food local and I buy my dog's food local or as I said before my friend brings him some organs.
Oh so my Cherokee aunt, my Black friend and his son and daughter, my other relatives(they're White so you probably hate them anyway) are selfish for not wanting to die? They're selfish because they literally could not go vegan because of their health? Like I said you only support people that fit your ideals and if they don't then you wish harm upon them. So much for you not being a biased bigot then. Like my aunt(not related by blood she married my uncle) who is Cherokee and while some would call this stereotypical(which it is not) she hunts and raises a small head of cattle and a few goats. She tried to go vegan, cut out everything that was made with animal products and it nearly killed her. She was in the hospital for two weeks, which shocked everyone because she's a tough woman. She could've died yet instead she chose to live but you would want her to die for eating meat to live. My uncle didn't want to lose his wife, my cousins didn't want to lose their mother, I didn't want to lose my aunt. But according to you she should kill herself because of something she has absolutely zero control over. My best friend is 6'3 and when he attempted to go vegan he dropped to 130 pounds. He looked like a dying Ethiopian, his daughter has SEVERE food allergies and his son isn't any better either but he should die and his kids should die because you think people shouldn't eat meat. I'd rather see these people live and if that pisses you off then I guess you should clarify that you only defend and support "Blacks and Indians" who are exactly like you.
You're a proven liar /u/Aluzky and no amount of tantrum throwing will change that. I'm not going to fax you my aunt's medical records or my friends medical records and I sure as fuck won't fax you the records for his children. I'm not going to send you a picture of my aunt when she was in the hospital either because I have a feeling you're going to ask for the proof of her hospitalization and the medical information of my friend and his children and my other friends and anyone else in my immediate circle.
Part 5
You don't know a single goddamn thing about my dog and no I'm nothing going to send you a picture of him or his medical records either. I don't want you to try and send one of your supporters out to steal him so you can pimp him out to the rest of your disgusting friends. I'm the one who takes him to the vet not you. I'm the one who walks him daily not you. I'm the one who nursed him back to health not you. I'm the one who brushes him two to four times a day not you. I'm the one who interacts with him every single day not you. I'm the one that's helping him regain his trust in human beings not you. I'm the one who feeds him not you. I'm the one who knows what he likes to eat and doesn't like to eat not you. I'm the one he accepted as family not you. I'm the one who looked past the fact that he might not be a full blooded dog not you. I'm the one who made a commitment to care for him for the rest of his life not you. I'm the one who lives with him not you. I'm the one who Kleng greets happily at the door by yipping and howling not you. You don't know a goddamn thing about HIS needs and his life but I do. So don't tell me how to care for a dog you don't know jack shit about and never will.
Still trying to tell me how to feed a dog that prefers to eat meat? Aren't you the one who says the dogs should decide what they want in life? Kleng prefers to eat meat, he actively tries to hunt squirrels and more than likely has killed and eaten them before when he was wandering around. Again you know nothing about him.
As I said before, Kleng might not e even be a dog. He could be part Coyote or part Wolf given that he doesn't actually bark and instead vocalizes using howls yips and basically anything else that isn't even close to barking. At a glance he doesn't really look like a Coyote or Wolf but up close its clear he's not a full dog either.
Again I'm not going to take the word of a proven liar unwilling to accept reality.
You said yourself that you can't exercise self control around animals when alone with them already and that you lie to the owners.
You might lie about fence jumping for all we know, it wouldn't be a surprise if you did. But you go after animals that are not yours just like a fence jumper does.
When you complained about me feeding my dog meat despite him choosing to only eat meat, proudly proclaiming to be a White Knight(I actually think White Knights are pathetic) but apparently wanting my Cherokee aunt to die and my Black friend and his Black kids to die because they don't fit your ideals. You claim to be against fence jumping but admit to having no self control and will go after dogs that not only don't belong to Zoophiles but don't belong to you either and you think loaning them out is normal. But people with certain dietary needs should die and my dog should die because of your feelings? Need I go on?
I have your words as evidence. Deny it all you want it won't go away.
You're a liar and you likely lie about getting money for the animals you pimp and you said you do it because you enjoy it.
Says you?
Actually you're the unintelligent one here.
I know what moron means. I'm not you so I don't need an explanation.
Your very comments are evidence.
Why would I want to look at that shit?! I don't want to go to jail and certainly not over watching you rape animals! That's like asking you if you want to look at a naked woman. You really are a disgusting creature.
Actually that's just your opinion and if you hate the fact that my dog(well hybrid actually)enjoys and thrives on meat and the fact that my friends didn't want to die and that my relatives didn't want to die then so be it. I'm glad my friends are alive, I'm glad my relatives are alive and I'm glad Kleng is alive and well. Because Kleng is my family now, wherever he came from that's hopefully behind him now. He was treated worse than I originally thought he was when I found him. Likely he was being kept so he could be used as a fighting dog. He's still warming up to people and he now vocalizes LOUDLY and wags his tail when he sees me now and "hugs" me, he does the same with my neighbor despite him more often trying to eat her saddle and bridle on sight. He practically tries to tackle my friends because he knows they always have venison liver or sheep parts for him. He does well on a leash but he has a fairly high prey drive but he thankfully isn't interested in the cats around here but I doubt it'll go over well if he eats a squirrel.
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha! You don't get emotional over the Internet! Hahahahahahahahaha! Oh that's a good one, good joke there dude I think several people pissed themselves laughing at this!
Your comments say otherwise actually.
No whiny and entitled is the right word.
Your comments say otherwise yet again.
Fixed that for you. But to be nice I'll say 35.
Which is never.
Immaturity. Entitlement. Delusions of grandeur. Not hallmarks of an intelligent person.
Let's zoom in shall we?
Hmmm let's get closer
One more time
Because you enjoy the feeling of deception.
I guess you forgot about this?
But you do it anyway because you don't care about the feelings of others and only care about yourself and you enjoy deceiving others.
So in fact you can't stop yourself? Or you won't stop yourself?
Something you're incapable of doing and openly admit this in the quoted comment.
Sad as that may be animals will eat other animals and some only eat other animals. Human beings are animals are we not? Some of us eat meat, some of us eat plants and some of us eat both. Some people thrive on diets that consist solely of meat(or primarily), some thrive on diets that consist solely of plants and others thrive on healthy portions of both.
You won't admit to causing harm because of your ego and need to talk to others and belittle others simply for not following your ideals.
Unfortunately life isn't so black and white and as much as you wished it were so there will always be those who must eat meat. Self preservation is a powerful instinct in case you didn't know that. Every human being won't be exactly alike, every human body isn't exactly alike, every dietary need isn't exactly alike and that there is a fact and perhaps if you read more books you'd know that but you don't seem like the type of person who would a book and would in fact have an aversion to them for a multitude of reasons.
Perhaps it's as that Zoophile girl said. As a Zoophile who likes dogs he's perhaps more doglike? Perhaps he's more like a dog that prefers to eat flesh? /u/WarCanine would you like to weigh in here, sorry I dragged you into this.
There's nothing healthy about being a habitual liar that sees deception and abuse of trust as healthy. What's to stop you from killing an animal for fun then? Who's to say you haven't killed already? Because keep in mind you did say this:
Can a person with no self control ever be trusted? No they can't.
Well you're angry and throwing accusations of spying and sabotage around because people are questioning you and quoting the fucked up things that you say. Of course your older comments are likely deleted by now so you can somewhat safely accuse everyone of making up things. However you can't say that about everything that you say.
But not worshipping you counts as bigotry in your book that much is clear enough.
Got anything to back up that claim?
Nah I'm going with angry because that's how you act.
So really it's just envy?
So because they don't kowtow to you they're stupid.
And I'm a hypocrite for smoking weed but not supporting the Los Zetas cartel what's your point? No one is obligated to support you.
And cry when you don't get your way.
Prove it. Prove it within the bounds of legality that you have never committed rape. And no posting your "videos" doesn't count. There's been several cases where men or women claimed that the sex they had with a rape accuser was consensual until later evidence is found that the victim was deliberately drugged or threatened with violence.
Who's to say that you don't know exactly how to harm an animal without leaving obvious marks on them? Secondly most people aren't in the habit on looking over their animal's privates for signs of trauma so the dog has time to heal up before they notice unless the dog is prolapsed or dripping blood or limping. So you very well could be hurting animals but you cover up your tracks or explain away odd behavior of signs of trauma. Lastly most people don't think someone they know would rape their pets.
The majority of rape or pedophilia victims know their attacker or abuser and often love and trust that person. The man in Washington who raped and murdered Diamond knew her and her family. The family said she was friendly with that person.
Huge mistake on their part just like the people who leave children alone with known sex offenders.
Prove it then.
So basically "Hey you're evil for eating a burger! I'm not evil for raping that poodle next door because I can't help myself and the owners trust me!" is what you're saying? You're not helping your case here at all.
You're more delusional than I thought you were.
You're not good at trying to paint yourself as compassionate and noble and just.
Part 2
Never accused him of sabotage. And I say that MAYBE he is a spy, because he is calling support from a anti-zoophile hate group to come to the zoophile forum to attack me. Something that a zoophile is unlikely to do, something that a spy would likely do.
False, what I said to him had nothing to do with this false accusations. The debate with him was over him being angry against me because he doesn't like that I "act smart" and I keep telling him that I don't act smart on purpose, that I look smart because I'M SMART. That is why he has been behaving like a child to me and even trolling me.
I never delete my comments. If such comments are deleted is because some one else deleted them. The burden of proof is on the person making the accusation, if they claim X or Y or Z about me and they can't support their claims with evidence, then their accusation are bullshit, period.
I will only call an accusation bullshit when it is bullshit.
Not worshiping some one doesn't count as bigotry. Your claim is again a false assumption. The definition of bigotry is very clear on what is and what is not bigotry.
Sure, look for any of my arguments and try to find one that is irrational or illogical. Good luck on that snipe hunt. (google snipe hunt if you don't know what that is)
Do you realize that you are claiming to know how I act from plain text, right? Plain text that I use has no emotions. You are talking bullshit.
Envy? I'm pointing the hypocrisy of their bigoted behavior. Why would I envy what bigots do?
If they had normal or above normal level of intelligence you would be able to reason with them and they would be able to understand their error, yet, almost all of them can't be reasoned with. Yes, most of them are too stupid or bigoted to be reasoned with.
You are not a hypocrite for not supporting them as they are know to violate human rights. My point is that they are hypocrites and bigots and stupid. All I can do is point what they are and hope that they don't like to be that and do something to correct themselves as to stop being that.
I know. But they just don't support us, they are also actively AGAINST US AND DISCRIMINATE US, that is the problem. Discrimination based on sexual orientation is a violation of human rights. That is the problem.
I only cry when a dog that I know dies or over other sentimental dog stuff. I don't cry over that. Again, more false accusations.
Innocent till proven guilty, I don't need to prove that I have never raped a dog, the people who are accusing me of raping dogs are the ones who have the burden of proof, they are the ones that need to prove that I have raped dogs.
Moving the goal post fallacy. Such videos are evidence that some dogs desire sex with humans and that they can consent to sex with humans. Those videos show that I can have consensual sex with dogs. And yes, those videos can't prove that I don't rape dog, I can't prove a negative claim and like I said before, I don't even need to prove it because I'm not the one who has the burden of proof.
And those Rape accusers didn't had to prove that they didn't rape the victim. The victim is the one who have to prove that she/he was rape (again innocent till proven guilty, the alleged rapist is innocent till proven otherwise, burden of roof is on the accusers side, not on the alleged rapist side)
I don't know how to do that and even if that where possible, the emotional trauma caused to the animal can't be avoided, that animal would show signs of mental abuse and the owner would notice it and suspect abuse. FYI: I have an above average thick dick (5.5 fingers in thickness almost 6 finger) I can only have penetrative sex with very big dogs (like great danes) or medium sized dogs who who have been previously worked for months with fingers exercises to stretch the sphincter in the vagina (or possibly, medium bitches who have been breed before and have had litters) I have even had a golden retriever in heat at my care for a whole day on 2 different times, I just can't physically fuck her because she has not have such sphincter training. Her pussy is one finger wide, my dick is almost 6. If I wanted to rape her, I would need to split her vagina with a knife to do it. So, can you understand why I can't rape a poodle (like you accused me in a joking manner I hope) much less a big golden retriever even if I wanted too? I would get caught in minutes/days for doing animal abuse if I where to start raping dogs. Ludicrous and baseless accusation are ludicrous and baseless.
Also, maybe you don't know this, but until very recently, I have only being the bottom for male dogs (where it is damn obvious that the sex is consensual and not rape) and I still got accused of raping dogs just for doing that. Ludicrous and baseless accusation are ludicrous and baseless.
You people are no different from homophobes who accuse homosexuals of raping/molesting children with no evidence what so ever that they really did that. Bigoted ludicrous and baseless accusation are bigoted and ludicrous and baseless.
Guess what would happen if I where to force myself into a dog anus or vagina with my thick dick? Hint: prolapsed, dripping a lot of blood, major genital fissures, limping, whining, emotional trauma, etc. They would notice that something is wrong with their dogs right away.
I don't do that and is not up to me to prove that I don't do that. If you make the accusation that I do that, it is up to you to prove it. Else, you are just making up rumors. And like I said before, if I where to rape dogs, it would be hard to impossible to cover up the kind of harm that I would cause with my thick dick.
Specially when their dogs are returned unhurt and their dogs get all happy when they see me.
And the majority of non-rape non-victims who have sex with humans often love and trust that person. Your point?
There is evidence he did those crimes, where in here, you people are making BASELESS ACCUSATIONS about me.
Huge mistake if I where raping and abusing their dogs. Me doing consensual stuff with adult dogs without harming them is not comparable to raping/molesting CHILDREN.
Amore valid comparisons is comparing what I do with people who does adultery. I have no problem with being accused for doing "doggy adultery" I know my behavior is seen as "immoral" to some people. But if you are going to accuse me of a serious crime like rape or trespassing, you better have actual evidence to prove your accusations, else, I do have a problem with it.
What the eyes don't see, the heart doesn't grieve over. Their feelings can't get hurt if they never find out that I do sexual stuff with some of their dogs. So far, none of them know that I do that.
That is not exactly what I'm saying and I don't rape poodles or any dogs. But yes, I'm not "evil" as my actions are not harming anyone, where people who know that is bad to eat animals and keep doing it even when they can avoid doing it, they are "evil" yet, instead of them being attacked with TRUE accusation of supporting animal abuse, I'm the one who gets attacked with bullshit accusations...
Prove it. Where and when I have said something that is delusional? If you can't prove it then it is your subjective opinion and not a fact.
First, who says that I try to paint myself as such? Second, how so? I rescue dogs and cats and pay with my money, I'm vegan, I donate money to animal charities. Maybe I suck at doing PR for myself, but that doesn't change the fact that I'm compassionate for animals. What ever image you have about me is not based on facts.
You did.
You really are fucking stupid.
You really are grasping at straws here. It's pathetic.
No it has to do with that fact that he thinks for himself and doesn't worship the ground you walk on.
Actually you've proven beyond a doubt that you are not smart.
Says the person who's throwing a tantrum because you didn't get your way.
That's a lie.
Prove it. Who deletes your comments?
Yet everyone has provided evidence. Your quotes and your recent behavior.
Which means anything that doesn't fit your standards.
To you it does.
Your behavior says otherwise.
Unless you're delusional which you are.
Well there's this argument and that fact that you're too weak to defend yourself because you know that you're critics are right about you.
The only one on a fool's errand here is you and you're proving to be quite the fool.
Look at the way you're posting your comments. You're accusing people of spying on you because they're disgusted by your behavior, you're accusing Zoophiles of not being Zoophiles because they don't bow before you, you call people liars for pointing your clear and well documented lies here and you repeatedly keep saying you're smart. You sound like an insecure person with a God complex who's upset that several people had the nerve to not bask before the great /u/Aluzky's presence.
And I know tantrum when I see one and you're throwing one right now, because you're not getting your way.
So Zoophiles are bigots if they don't blindly support you?
Ah yes the error of not following you and not bowing to your standards right? Right.
TL;DR They're thinking for themselves and using their brains and that makes you angry.
Because they don't follow you blindly and think for themselves. So in your book that makes them bigots.
Assuming that you care about the atrocities committed by cartels is a wasted effort.
For not following you.
So you're basically going to try to shame them into supporting you again?
Your behavior says otherwise.
Who are "they" exactly? People who don't blindly support you just for being a Zoophile? I guess I should support Hitler because I'm White and he was White.
The other Zoophiles are discriminating against you? And themselves?
You're a liar and a rapist /u/Aluzky and no amount of sugarcoating and crying and anger is going to change this fact.
Your behavior is the problem.
Or runs away from you.
I find that doubtful.
Well you're complaining about fair amount of active Zoophiles here not groveling at your feet and calling you out for you disgusting behavior.
Actually you do. Just as a prosecutor must prove that the accused is guilty the defense must prove that the accused is innocent.
This is also your burden.
And you must prove that you didn't.
Do you have proof of this?
Soundless videos of you with flailing female dogs that appear to be trying to get away from you and who's body language suggests that they are not enjoying their experience call into question if what your doing is enjoyable to the dogs in question.
Yet the videos are suspiciously silent and the body language of the dogs that you try to penetrate shows that they're more than likely NOT having fun. Hence why the videos would have zero sound.
Well well you finally admit it.
You can disprove it
Actually you are indeed the one who most prove you are innocent.
You mean the accused has to prove they didn't rape the accuser and yes they do. One side must prove that what happened was rape while the other side must prove that happened wasn't rape. You're not knowledgeable about how the legal system works are you?
The burden of proof is on both sides. Something that you're obviously ignorant about.
And I should believe you because?
As if you'd care. You go after random dogs anyway so who's to say you don't rape strays? I wouldn't put that past you at all.
Well if the owners are anything like you they wouldn't care and would likely pass the dog to the next for their turn. Or as I said what stops you from raping strays? Or raping dogs are the pound? You could lie and say that the dog was raped before being turned in.
Why the fuck would I want to know about your dick? Why?
Well the chance of you getting killed by a large dog just went up.
Seriously you're mentally ill.
I hope this dog wasn't raped by you just because she was alive and in your vicinity.
Oh good you didn't rape the dog this time.
I spoke too soon
I can actually see you doing something like this and claiming it will help the dog.
Or won't admit to doing it
I wasn't joking and you did in fact rape a male Cocker Spaniel
Oh so you wanted to rape her? Oh wait you shoved your finger in her.
Who's to say you haven't? Who's to say you don't kill the dogs or after your done with them you pretend you found a horribly abused dog?
Then prove me wrong.
If it had to do with raping dogs then no. If I want sex I have sex with women and I don't need to rape them to get sex. Nor do I have the desire to rape women or anyone for that matter.
But apparently you don't like being the literal bitch in the situation and bossed around so you went back to female dogs?
Fucking gross and I'm worried that the dogs might catch something from you. Plus just because the dick is hard doesn't mean it's consent either. A woman was jailed for raping a 14-year old boy, she claimed it was consensual because he was erect and she was on top. However the boy said that the entire time this was happening he was trying to push her off of him and that he didn't want this woman touching him. Something you ought to know already.
Prove it
Well there's evidence that you're a rapist so that doesn't make me a bigot.
Prove me wrong then and prove that you're innocent.
So instead of whining you're going to just going to say big dick every 5 seconds. Yeah again that just proves that you're immature.
You're still a liar and a dog rapist.
Unless you rape stray dogs or the owners are just as stupid as you are and won't care.
Actually it is up to you that prove you're not a liar.
I've posted quotes you and caught you in lies now you must prove that you're not a liar and a rapist yet you can't
Unless the owners are delusional just like you are or you rape stray dogs.
Ah yes when in doubt claim you have a giant dick. This isn't high school.
Or you just didn't pimp out those specific dogs or kept your dick in your pants for once with that dog and instead raped a stray.
Oh so you don't have anything intelligent to add to that statement? Shocker.
Your links prove that you are indeed a liar so it begs the question of what else you lie about? Especially those silent videos.
Well you lie to a lot of people about what you do with their dogs and you post videos of strangers dogs and friends dogs without their knowledge.
You could also blame injuries on other dogs. Perhaps if someone notices their female dog is sore and bleeding you can play the blame game like you did with the Doberman.
While adultery is a touchy subject it's not comparable to raping dogs.
And lying to people who place their trust in you.
I've proven my case now you must prove that you're innocent. That if a dog is left with you for more than a minute you won't start trying to do stuff to him or her.
Ah there's an admission of guilt and lying yet again.
Soundless videos of you with struggling dogs with YOU on them.
So says the liar
But earlier said people who are unable to subsist on a vegan diet for health reasons have no choice but I guess that's a lie then like everything else you say. I even provided examples of this, other Zoophiles have said that they cannot go vegan yet you whined. So you don't care about Zoophiles either and would rather Zoophiles who don't meet your standards to die.
Well you're a proven liar and an animal abuser who rapes animals but mutes the videos to hide the fact that the dogs are crying out in pain.
You told Zoos that can't go vegan to go vegan anyway despite the likelihood of them killing themselves in the process and you've expressed this sentiment towards others, you said you aren't a liar but you said you will still use dogs that don't belong to you, you uploaded videos of you penetrating dogs that are clearly not willing and the video is muted which raises the question of what don't you want people to hear?
You try to paint yourself as the galant Zoophile Activist who fights to prove that his people can be trusted, that you aren't monsters, that you're honest people who would never harm or exploit animals of force them to do things against their nature. When in fact YOU are the complete opposit of all of that.
Yet why do you rescue these dogs? To trade them to bestialists? The cats too?
Who no doubt would try to force a snake or a wild cat or a crocodile to be vegan simply because you don't like meat.
Dubiously
That's putting it lightly. The KKK can do better PR than you and that's actually sad. You suck more than the KKK.
To the point that you want animals to be exactly like you, to eat like you, yet you still trade them around like toys.
It's based on your statements. If what I'm saying bothers you so much then get a lawyer.
You're acting like this because some people don't treat your word as law. Sith is right you're just throwing a fit because some Zoophiles decided to think for themselves and their not kissing your ass. When you don't get your way you get angry and cry about lies and people spreading rumors about you. You brought this on yourself now deal with the consequences of your actions. Gut up and grow a pair and start acting like an adult /u/Aluzky! You got yourself into this mess now fix it! I'm not your nanny or your mother and neither is WarCanine, 30-30, peacheslala97, SilverPluto or any other Zoophile or Non-Zoophile here. Get that through your thick skull into that puddle of slush you call a brain!
Acting how? What you mean by treating my words as law?
A Fit? What is a fit?
And I like that people think for themselves as long as they do it in a rational way. I don't need people kissing my ass, if they do so, they do it out of their own will.
I have not been angry in months. Certainly I have not been angry over text comments. So, that accusation is false. I don't cry either, so, another false accusation.
So, blame the victim and not the bigots who attack the victim?
That is what I'm doing by asking you bigots to provide evidence for your accusation. And you bigots respond by giving ZERO evidence to defend such accusations. Conclusion: You bigots are making false accusations.
Citation needed. Where and when have not acted like an adult?
The mess was not caused by me, the bigots who decided to spread false accusations about me are the one who created the mess.
Your point?
You have taken issue with people that don't approve, and for good reasons, with you using dogs who are not yours.
Feigning ignorance isn't going to help you here. Throwing a fit, a tantrum, a hissyfit ect.
Your recent actions have said otherwise.
You are no victim here. You posted your comments yet are surprised when you get ridiculed or when actions that are incredibly horrific by ALL standards are pointed out to you. Yet you're playing the victim card.
Again people like you created this current system.
Whining when you don't get your way, saying one thing when you mean another and not accepting that actions have consequences.
So it's false that you will often not disclose to people that you will use their dogs?
You want everyone to take you seriously but in the end you expect everyone else to cater to your every whim and damn near coddle you from reality.
What issues I have taken? What are those good reasons? How does any of that proves that my word is law? I don't understand your point.
I'm not feigning ignorance, english is not my main language, there are some words or slang terms that I don't know the meaning. Ok, if fit means that, then no, I have not done any fits, nor tantrums nor hissyfits. Part of the definition of those words is being angry and I'm not angry at all, so I'm not doing any fits or their synonyms.
How so? Explain yourself. If you can't prove it, then you are making more baseless accusations.
I'm being falsely accused of telling lies, of being untrustworthy, of raping, of trespassing private property and several other things that are false, how I'm not the victim?
PS: I don't mind being ridiculed, I have been ridiculed by bigots since ever. And the "horrific" actions I'm being accused of doing are again FALSE ACCUSATIONS.
Again, blaming the victim and not the bigots. The bigots are the ones who created the system of being bigoted against sexual minorities.
You nor anyone have yet to provide objective evidence that I have whined. So, where is the evidence that I whine?
I never do that, when I say one thing I mean to say that thing (excluding typos or poor choice of words because of Spanish to english translation) and doing such unintentional mistakes doesn't prove that I'm acting like a child.
Where is the evidence that proves that I don't accept that actions have consequences?
Like I have said before, that is the ONLY accusation that is true and that has never been a secret. If they had come here with just that accusation, it would not have become a mess. The problem is when they come with 10+ false accusations, some of them being criminal charges that a mess is created.
Correct.
Citation needed. provide objective evidence that I want everyone else to cater to my every whim and damn near coddle me from reality. Can you defend that accusation or you are making yet another false accusation?
You did accuse /u/WarCanine of spying and trying to sabotage you. You've accused zoos that have been here for a good long time of being spies.
I've seen your videos /u/Aluzky and no. You don't have an abnormally large dick. At you're 2 1/2 close to 3 inches think but you're not close to being 6 fingers thick.
I never accused him of sabotage. I accuse him of possibly being a spy for the zoophobes as he tagged zoophobes n one of my comments to command them to attack me, (and just now, they are attacking me)
Tell me, if you had a dog/cat that you love and he died and I where to go to your comment where you talk about this and tag a butch of hate groups and then the people from those groups where to come to the thread and start talking shit about you, would you suspect that I could be a spy for the haters for doing such behavior? What rational reason could a zoophile have to tagged zoophobe groups into a comment other than to lure their members to attack you?
A single alleged zoo is not zoos (plural) you are falsely accusing me of accusing several zoos of being spies when I have only done that to a SINGLE ONE. And with good evidence that he may be one.
Google "Aluzky motherless" Picture of my dick can be found there. The middle of my dick is thicker than the base or the tip. The middle is about 1.8 inches in diameter. Where the average dick diameter is 1.5 so, it is a fact that I'm above the average in dick diameter. Which makes it difficult for me to be compatible with most big bitches. Much less with a poodle (they are accusing me of raping small dogs, something that is not physically possible to do for me with my thick dick without killing the dog in the process)
Their accusation are obviously ludicrous and false. They probably think that I have a dick as think as a pinky finger or that small dogs have HUGE vaginas.
I'm being accused of being a spy in a sub about animal fucking 'n whatnot and there's argueing about how big someone's dick is and that you can just find it on Google.
It's really about time that humans start killing off their own species faster.
The progress is still slow, but we're getting there!
Fear not!
/u/LadySaberCat
/u/Aluzky
/u/peacheslala97
Be good friends and see the end ceremony with me.
Umm I don't have any beef with you, I don't really know peacheslala97 except for she was depressed for a long time which I actually commented about in support of her recovery and we don't have to worry about killing off humanity because of /u/Aluzky. One of these days he's going to fuck up and try to "play" with a dog he doesn't truly know and he's going to get mauled by said dog for trying to stick his dick in him or her or trying to touch him or her. So no worries.
You dont't have any beef with me?
Boy, I'll tell you: We both have a nice juicy piece of beef.
Well, don't worry about Aluzky, he will get caught someday and I'll fucking enjoy it. (Except for the fact that all the zoophiles get blamed for it.)
But hey, atleast he'll land in jail sometime and his asshole will end up being bigger than any dog he's ever fucked.
No I mean I don't have anything against you personally. Like at all I really don't.
My money's still on the possibility of trying to fool around with a strange dog because he just HAS to be with him. Only to get mauled by said dog. But you're right, you guys are going to get blamed for it.
I still say mauling but he could get in trouble for his animal trading habits.
Hey, was just kidding man.
It's hard to be serious when around such a fool.
I think it's better to ignore him because he's pretty much a bigot himself as he thinks he's 100% right and won't believe anyone else.
So yeah, it's better just to ignore him and let him have his 'win' in his fun little game.
You've got to admit, it's hilarious.
The broken English, the constant useless argueing, the irony and hypocrisy...
Not only that, ignoring him is more disrespectful and he'll likely think he'a a smart kiddo for 'winning' the argument since you won't reply to him.
Mauling or getting caught, who cares?
It's his pain that counts.
The pain of the guilty feeds me.
Sounds edgy, but hey, shrug.
Hey no worries still. But I know how you feel but unfortunately I don't back down so easily and I don't care. I'm like a hellish cross between a cat and a honey badger. I'll reply a few more times then return to my usual Reddit habits.
True that. He's bitching at me for feeding my dogs meat, despite digesting it easier, he also got mad at me for calling him a bitch despite being the literal bitch in the relationship with his dog. Then he proceeded to refer to himself as a bitch several times.
He's winding down actually and I held my ground firmly when dealing with him. When this is over I'll look back on this and smile knowing I stood my ground against Aluzky. I've seen politicians more honest than him which is saying something.
Sounds like a good course of action.
Hopefully he'll learn something but I'm not going to hold my breath.
Well if anything happens he only has himself to blame.
Meh. I've said worse.
Wait wait wait what?
I didn't want to reply to end the conversation since there was no good reason to continue it, but what?
It is wrong... to feed dogs meat?
You mean an animal that hunts and enjoys meat a fucking lot?
Really now?
sigh
Just get a fucking rabbit if you want to feed your pets shit.
Taking away meat from their life is quite sad.
I can understand people being vegan but this is some dumb shit.
It's so ironic, they want to give a shit about animals yet don't give their dogs what they really crave for.
A nice, juicy, healthy, delicious piece of fucking steak.
Aluzky, do you really love your dog so much?
Oops, wait, shouldn't have asked! We know already.
No.
He's probably one of those people that thinks killing wild cats will help end the suffering of animals. And no I don't think he actually loves animals anyway. He's slipping up too much.
Will cats?
Says the person who eats animals and literally supports their mass murder.
Subjective opinion, not fact.
WILD CATS!
I eat and exercise for my continued good health and survival and if the fact that I cannot make any dietary changes upsets you so much then that's your problem not mine. Self preservation, Aluzky it's a very powerful instinct I don't want to die and unfortunately that means a select number of animals will die so that I may live. I'm not going to allow myself to die just to preserve your feelings. If you are offended by this then sue me and have me charged with murder then.
Prove it. Prove it or lie some more /u/Aluzky.
Ok, sorry for the typo. Wild cat?
When I said "wild cats?" I'm saying: "What do you mean by wild cats?"
Do you mean this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wildcat or something else?
"I eat and exercise for my continued good health and survival and if the fact that I cannot make any dietary changes upsets you so much then that's your problem not mine. Self preservation, Aluzky it's a very powerful instinct I don't want to die and unfortunately that means a select number of animals will die so that I may live. I'm not going to allow myself to die just to preserve your feelings. If you are offended by this then sue me and have me charged with murder then." ←Fact: Vegans exist and they don't die just because they became vegan. Nobody is asking you to die. And is not to preserve my feelings, is to SPARE THE LIVES OF INNOCENTS ANIMALS THAT DON?T NEED TO DIE FOR YOUR SELFISH EATING HABITS.
Your fallacy name is: Shifting the burden of proof fallacy.
You are the one claiming that I'm "slipping to much" you made the claim, the burden of proof to prove the claim is ON YOU not on me. If your claim is not subjective bullshit, then provide evidence that shows that your claim is a fact.
Also, citation needed that I have lied. Where and when I have lied? If you can't prove those accusations, guess what, then the one who is telling lies is YOU not me.
How long did it take you to get that right?
What the fuck did you think I meant? A strip club?! Oh and sorry to disappoint you but the club doesn't feature cats that strip. Or dogs, since you're into dogs. But seriously what the fuck did you think I meant?
No I actually meant the cheerleader squad from Old Boston, Texas obviously.
I didn't even say that you retarded bitch! Can you at least TRY to pretend you know how to read?! I'd expect a former U.S. resident to be able to understand basic English! Clearly I was wrong!
Well you are since being a vegan nearly killed me dumbass! Does that compute?!
Actually it is because you whine at people who can't go vegan, provide reasons that they can't go vegan and say go vegan anyway.
Because me personally going vegan fucked up my health. If I could have remained a vegan I'd still be a vegan. However since I had to choose between getting sicker and sicker and going back to an omnivorous diet I picked the latter. I'm not ashamed of my choice, so call me a murderous genocidal carnist bloodmouth and whatever else you want to all you wish.
Because being unable to go vegan without causing further damage to my health makes me selfish.
Big words Aluzky, I'm surprised you could type all of that correctly.
I already cited your comments. If you have trouble reading them that's your problem not mine. I cited the one where you claimed to be from the United States, I cited one where you said you were not from the United States.
Try reading this very slowly, wouldn't want you to die of a stroke for putting too much stress on that lemon sees you call a brain. This is a conversation I had with a very understanding rational vegan.
I tried combination after combination after combination after combination. More fruits, less vegetables no grain. More vegetables, less fruit one type of grain. More grains, more fruits and more vegetables. I tried only eating one kind of group(only fruit or only vegetables or only grain). I exercised daily before going vegan and did so for a while after going vegan until I couldn't walk anymore because I was so physically weak. I could barely go to work after that. I also forgot to add to that quoted conversation that my skin pale and greying. Oh and wanna hear the best part of all this? The Neosporin insertions! It's so fun having to slather three fingers of a latex glove in Neosporin so you can soothe the pain on the inside and outside of your sore, bleeding completely raw asshole! Hey maybe I'll go vegan just to please your personal feelings! Just let me know where to send the pictures of my pale skin and raw asshole. Oh and as a bonus I'll send you videos of my struggling to stand without nearly falling and additional pictures of my dark urine and shit. Let me know if that's alright with you :)
And he whined about several of my relatives and friends not going vegan for health reasons. Even though he said he has nothing against those who don't go vegan because of their health. So more lies.
It's funny, he doesn't even believe things like that.
'huh, ur frinds are lying and kil animuls'
Don't worry about our old little friend over here, he's hopefully starting to get sick of himself.
Considering the self proclaimed bitch had me and another person suspended for fake harassment I'd say he's finally losing what sanity he has left.
I never whine.
I have no problems with some one who has absolutely no option and has to eat animals, you have yet to prove that this is the case for your relatives. I asked you to provide information on what health issues they have. I ensure you that they can perfectly have a vegan diet and they are just making excuses to not go vegan.
Is not a lie, if you can provide information that they have a illness that makes it impossible for them to go vegan then I will let you know that I have nothing against them not being vegan.
I told you, take your time and ask in detail what illness they have and what reasons they have to not go vegan and post them in that thread. I'm waiting for you to reply with that information (if you already did address that comment,then I will eventually address that comment as right now I still addressing other people comments)
Why the hell would anyone send you private information about their family members? What's next demand their addresses?
Why would he not let me know what illness they have? He is the one bringing the argument that 2 of his a family members can't be vegan for health reasons. If he wants his claim to be taken seriously, he at bare minimum has to name the illness that they have.
How does that would have anything to do with veganism?
Since you're still being a little bitch:
He's folks are related to a few of those from the Maasai tribe among a few others. The region they're from they primarily eat meats with some people pretty much eating meat exclusively at times. His wife is American(she's African American with South African ancestry) but she's sensitive to a lot of foods so eating for her is a delicate process. Certain things she can digest with ease and others don't digest so well and if she eats soy she'll literally vomit it back up almost minutes after the fact. Her system won't tolerate beans at all. For their kids, it's a mix of both. They inherited a lot of their father's side and my friend's daughter is just like her mom only slightly worse. As for my friend personally he doesn't do so well as a vegan either, he's almost as bad as my aunt is.
Has severe nut allergies and is also allergic to several kinds of fruit and fungus with an intolerance to some vegetables. When she went vegan her blood sugar plummeted among other issues and she was hospitalized for a long time. Her doctor told her that if she tried to go vegan again she'd die. She almost died once before and my uncle doesn't want to lose her, not now.
It's a mix of allergies, system intolerance, metabolic issues problems with certain supplements ect. So these people aren't just lazy and looking for excuses. I don't come from a lazy family. Everyone at one point or other decided to try out being vegan or a vegetarian but it either made them ill or damn near killed them.
They only way he'd likely eat fruits of vegetables is if someone starves him. He might lick cabbage or nibble on an apple but he won't actively seek out fruits and vegetables. He'll eat rice though.
From an ethical point of view, yes. It is wrong for the same reason that humans eating meat is wrong. Well, eating meat is not wrong if you are eating like a road kill or an animal that die from natural causes or old age. Nor wrong if there are absolutely no other options other than eating meat.
Dogs are not wolves, they don't live in the wild, they eat what humans feed them.
This is you doing anthropomorphize. A dog won't be sad if he doesn't eat any more.
Is the same shit. If you can understand people being vegan then you should also understand dogs being vegan. By the way, most kibble that humans feed to dog are already on their majority plant protein.
Male dogs crave to fuck every bitch in head, does that means we should let males dog fuck every bitch in heat that they want? Doing so would lead to an explosion of dog overpopulation and a lot of animal suffering that comes from it. Dogs also love to eat anti-freeze and chocolate (wch is deadly to dogs) so, I guess they should eat as much as they want because they crave it, right?
Sorry, just because a dog crave something that is not a valid reason to let them do as their swish.
I do.
Sorry, but your assumption is false. I do love him very much, never loved some one so much in my life.
Okay, I don't really care about your opinions.
Anyways, I've got a dog to feed.
It's a whole chicken this time, still got a big sausage for her left, too! Yummy!
Fucking delicious piece of pizza with chicken and bacon...
Looks like I'll be enjoying my evening with her!
EDIT: Just noticed...
The same counts for sex, yet you do it to most dogs.
Aluzky, stick a sausage up your ass so you can both commit bestiality and necrophillia at the same time.
It really fits you, boy.
Translation: I don't care if animal gets abused and murdered for my selfish reasons.
You are doing and supporting something unethical to feed your dogs or yourself with meat. When I have sex with dogs, I'm not harming anyone, my actions are thus ethical or at bare minimum, not as horrible as your actions.
Bestiality is sex with an animal. A sausage is not an animal. Necrophilia is the name of the sexual orientation for HUMAN corpses. Zoonecrophilia would be for animal corpses. A sausage is not an animal corpse. Sticking up a sausage up my ass would neither be bestiality nor necrophilia nor zoonecrophilia.
Translation: You are putting words in my mouth like a child.
Harmless? Please tell me how you have to 'widen' bitches to fuck them.
Also, you're secretly fucking other people's pets behind their backs.
I can't imagine the feeling when they find out... Poor people and innocent doggies...
Brb, my girl's hungry.
This time the pizza's got some extra toppings and cheese.
Want some, big Al?
I apologize for giving my dog what she needs (not pizza, but meat, which is important for a dog.) and won't force her to eat fake food.
Again, replying to sarcasm.
I don't have anything to say to that.
You're just biting a like a fish again.
^^^I ^^^wonder ^^^Aluzky, ^^^would ^^^you ^^^fuck ^^^a ^^^fish?
If he's left alone with one yeah he will.
I'm not into fish. I'm only into canine looking animals.
Well now fish owners can rest easily knowing that their aquatic friends will be safe from violation. Oh by the way:
You said you were against sex training.
Who say that I'm a rapist?
I'm personally against it, meaning, I don't do it, never trained any of my dogs to do sexual acts. But I have no problems if some other people do it.
Same way, I'm personally against piercing my dick, I would never do that to my dick, but I have no problems if some other people do it.
So if a dog didn't like sex you'd approve of someone training it to like sex instead of leaving the dog alone then?
If the dog doesn't like sex for irrational reasons. I have no problems with the dog being trained to remove the irrational dislike and then trained to do the now neutral behabior in exchange for a reward that he/she likes.
There is no animal cruelty in doing that, it is no different from training a dog to give the paw. You may find it immoral or gross, but morality or disgust is not a valid justification to be against something.
Like I have said before, I find it immoral to train a dog to do sexual acts, I DON'T TRAIN MY DOGS TO DO SEXUAL TRICKS, but I don't judge people who chose to train their dogs to do sexual tricks. This is the rational/intelligent position to have.
If a dog doesn't want sex simply leave the dog alone. Let them decide if that want that or not. I thought you actually cared about the opinions of dogs, guess that's a lie too.
Words that you said with your actions.
Only done that 2 times, first time with a great dane in heat, did that for like 5 minutes before penetrating her. With my bitch, I began when she was entering heart, too like a month I believe to finish, I did once a day secession, lasting 2 to 5 minutes each section. First I start with one finger for like 5 days, then 2 finger for like next 5 days, then 3, then 4 then 5, then my dick.
How is me doing that, harmful to the bitch?
And I'm not harming anyone by doing that.
They won't find out. Well, they could find out if some one decides to track me and out me. But in that case, any emotional pain caused to them, would be the outer fault.
I don't eat animal products and I can't eat through a computer screen, you asking me if I want some, is totally irrational. A lot of your comments are very irrational, makes me wonder if you have some mental problem or just unintelligent.
Dogs can live with a vegan diet, she doesn't necessarily need meat. And what you mean by fake food?
How I'm I superposed to now if that is sarcasm or a serious comment from some one who is unintelligent?
PS:Learn to put /s or / sarcasm at the end of a sarcastic coment.
Not really, but okay.
Holy shit, another cringy story I don't need to hear. Out of all these 'zoo stories' this one is the least that turns me on.
And sure, ripping open a vagina is not harmful at all.
Except people's IQ's and feelings.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bG0WMquKUM4
you taking that seriously, is totally irrational.
You keep using words like that.
Do you even know what they mean? Because it's very ironic when you use these words. Which is extremely hilarious.
Also, some examples please?
Some other people had the same thought about you.
Oh wait a second, they're just bigots, right?
Well in that case you are too.
Anyways, you're not a doctor so you wouldn't know, which makes this lie even more hilarious.
Dogs can live without sex, they don't have to be fucked every time they see you.
Anyways, it IS a part of her diet. Canids eat meat and they won't ever stop. (Luckily!)
Meat is really healthy for dogs and that's why I give her a fuckton of chicken.
It makes her live longer, healthier and happier, which is more important.
Superposed? Oh, you mean supposed?
Hopefully you do, because I'd really feel bad for you if you didn't.
I am not unintelligent, this is just a fad that keeps playing in your mind.
It's incredibly funny how you think you are the true superhuman.
Which even makes it funnier, because you're more disgusting than the average human.
Learn to spell words in English correctly.
Learn to use common sense.
Learn about sarcasm in text.
''ohhh but im 2 dumb 2 c if its sarcusm :(((''
Why, out of ALL PEOPLE, do you not realize that I'm sarcastic in these cases?
Oh, and I talk to a lot of people online, but why do you have to be an exception?
Ooooh ouch, I shouldn't talk about your weak spots before you pop another vein.
So apparently it's fine to eat meat sausage because it's not an animal according to Aluzky.
Don't worry, he's been keeping that secret for a longer time now.
Remember when he said he also fucks with male dogs? Well, there's your animal meat, right stuffed up into his ass and face.
I feel sorry for the dogs. No telling what they might catch from him D:
Dunno what bitching means. But all I'm saying that feeding your dogs a vegan diet would be better than feeding them meat as feeding them meat supports animal abuse.
I didn't got mad. What is up with you people reading non-existent emotions from plain text... I said that you are either making a non-factual claim or throwing childish insults. You admitted to throwing childish insults.
You are not calling me a bitch as a compliment and I'm not a literal bitch for letting male dogs have their way with me.
Winding down? How exactly I'm winding down?
That is not an achievement an d you could do the same without recurring to using false accusations and misunderstanding my comments.
Where and when I have been dishonest?
Look up the definition or use your brain to figure it out.
Considering I want to adopt or legally acquire a mid content Wolfdog feeding her a meat based diet would be far healthier for her, however she will not solely be fed meat. I intend to feed her exactly as a wolf would eat. Same goes for AlphaOmegaSith, as his dog Kleng may in fact be a High Content Wolfdog or a upper mid content given the area that he lives in having a recent influx of stray wolf hybrids. A topic that we've discussed in private messages but I have his permission to disclose this information. He's even provided me with a picture of the happy dog and he looks like a Wolf/Caucasian Ovcharka mix and no I will NOT send you of all people a picture of the dog. His dog thrives on a diet of meat, passes healthy bowel movements, urine is a healthy color and not too acrid even for a male, his body hosts healthy levels of fat and muscle, his hips are sound, he has no joint problems and despite being shy he is starting to exhibit signs that he is territorial but respects his alpha's word.
Besides you constantly complaining about a dog eating meat and people not adhering to your beliefs and ranting about how giving my dogs meat is somehow evil. If it makes you feel better I give them veggies too but more often than not they'll eat meat and ignore vegetables. And I don't believe in feeding my dogs processed canned or dried gunk.
Didn't admit to calling them childish but I did say the only insult I called you was dumb.
Well by definition you are indeed a bitch because 99% of the time you're the one with a dog's cock up your ass not the other way around, even if you had a pussy you'd still be the bitch in this particular situation.
Well you're not as whiny as you were earlier.
You're the one who makes the comments and complains about people misunderstanding them. Your mess your problem.
"I would not learn that. You know how to make me stop? If people stop being bigots, it that happens, I would have no reason to do that without the owner permission, instead, I would have no fear to ask the owner for permission first."
I have no problems in believing in evidence and facts. Almost always, when I make a claim, I fact check it before making it. So, 99% of the time I'm always right because I did previous research that what I'm about to say is right.
You are immature, that is the only reason you find non-hilarious comments hilarious.
That you and others started.
False non-factual accusations.
If a person can't defend their claims or accusations then yes, I win the argument. This is why scientist who claim earth is round or global warming is real wins VS the deniers. The deniers run away or provide fallacious reasons to support their claims.
Mmmnnnmh, keep biting mate.
It's fun to play around with you.
Outsiders, look at this dumbass trying to defend himself at all costs.
He really thinks it's some kind of videogame you can win.
Bitting what?
Are you admitting to trolling?
Citation needed. What objective you have that I will defend myself AT ALL COST?
What objective evidence do you have that I'm a dumbass? Or you are just throwing childish insults again?
Citation needed. What objective evidence do you have that I think that this is a videogame?
And yes, as long as it is a rational debate, I can win it 99% of the time.
I said biting.
What is 'bitting', big Al?
I'm glad you asked instead of assuming bullshit this time.
I'd say no, but you wouldn't believe me anyways.
No point in saying 'no' if I can't get it in that half head of yours.
You seriously need 'citation' for that?
Maybe because you instantly go in defense mode with everything?
All your posts are evidence.
Please stop, my I'm getting lungcramp from your stupidity.
It's leaking trough the screen! Stop duuude!
STOOOP MY SIDES! STOOOOOP I CAN'T BREATHE!
You play this like some sort of game.
You're trying to be the very best. ^^^like ^^^no ^^^one ^^^ever ^^^waaas!
https://youtu.be/FOn_82MKmFg?t=1m9s
What animal trading habits? I have never traded animals. Can you support that accusation?
You meantioned that you regularly make your dogs and perhaps others available for "friends" which is indeed trading.
Trading definition: 1- The action of buying and selling goods and services. 2- a skilled job, typically one requiring manual skills and special training. 3- exchange (something) for something else, typically as a commercial transaction.
All definitions of tradings requires the exchange of money or goods. And the trade is permanent. I have never given my dog away in a permanent or temporal way to anyone nor I have "traded" him for goods or money.
So, I will ask again. What animal trading habits? Can you support that accusation with evidence? Or that is one more of dozens of false accusation that irrational haters have throw at me in the past few months?
And if you want to know if I have made other people dogs available for others, you only have to ask. The answer is NO, I have never done that. So, instead of making assumptions about me, why don't you just ask? Making assumptions about others is not a pretty behabior.
I know what the definition of trade and trading is. Unlike you I have great comprehension skills. Maybe that's why I can take no for an answer?
Did I say permanent? No I didn't. But you said it gets you off watching him with others. So you trade/give/loan your dog out and in turn watch him with other people because that's payment in your mind.
Your comments that I've quoted 100 times by now. If you're too retarded to understand what you say then that's your problem.
TL;DR Why won't the normies and sane Zoophiles accept my fucked up behavior?! Why?! Conspiracy!!!
Because expecting a rational answer like you is like expecting horse shit to be sentient.
This coming from a person who uses animals behind the backs of their owners because you're scared of the word no.
I don't have to make assumptions about you.
Neither is abusing dogs who belong to non-Zoos because you want to get back at them for not accepting you. If I left my dogs and my horses around /u/WarCanine, /u/peacheslala97 and /u/30-30 I could rest easy knowing that the people I named wouldn't do anything to them. Since they're capable of taking no for answer like adults and don't suffer from a victim complex among other mental issues. So unlike you.
I can be trusted. I will not touch your dogs as it would be improper of me to do that. You don't have to post signs for me.
Well that's because you're not insane. Or Aluzky.
I can take a tennis ball up my ass, I have no problems in accommodating a human dick. And while I don't enjoy gay sex, I don't dislike it either. And the only way I will end up in jail, is if I record the sex, which I no longer do. Or if I get seen by a cop, but I have sex behind closed doors, so that won't happen.
And wonders why he gets called a spy. Because wishing zoophiles to be jailed for doing a non-crime is something that a non-spy would wish. /s
Nah mate, these people in jail fuck you at 5 at a time.
Trust me, they're gonna crawl in their Aluzkyfriendo!
And yes, I'm a spy.
Arrrgh, ya got me!
Strange how I'm only against you, huh?
Meh, must be nothin'.
Like i said before, I have no problems accommodating human dicks back there. And I'm not a homophobe, I have no problems with having gay sex, is just that I don't enjoy it (I don't dislike it either) be 5 or 10, I don't mind.
I don't know if that is true, I don't stalk your comments. And IMO, you acting like a zoophobe in a zoophile forum makes you a spy.
Looks like someone is lying about being an exclusive zoophile.
Anyways, you don't have to be a homophobe to not like gay sex.
I'm not one, and I wouldn't want a human dick up my ass.
Disgusting, no thanks.
You don't have to stalk my comments to know that.
I mean, you were the one who replied to my first comment when you started even acting more like a special needs moron.
Zoophobe?
Let me get my dictionary...
''a person with a morbid fear of animals''
Last time I checked, I have a bitch I love very much, and she just happened to be an animal.
Oh wait, I get it!
It's another word you gave another meaning.
Please tell me how I am a ''zoophobe'' if I am a zoophile myself?
Really, your logic is lacking, like always.
And even if I was a ''zoophobe'' it wouldn't mean that I'm a spy.
Could you give me some evidence on that, mister professor lord master super mind Aluzky?
Huh? I'm only attracted emotionally and sexually to canine, so, how you reach the conclusion that I'm lying?
True, but homophones almost never like gay sex.
You say it is disgusting? Why do you find it to be disgusting? Do you find it to be disgusting for rational reasons or for homophobic reasons?
I will disagree.
No idea what you are talking about.
Depending of the context, zoophobe has 2 definitions: 1-Irrational dislike of animals 2-Irrational dislike of zoosexuals.
Similar to how homophobe has 2 definitions: 1-Irrational dislike of things that are the same. 2-Irrational dislike of homosexuals.
Homophobe and zoophobe are a contraction of the word zoosexualphobe and homosexualphobe.
Sorry that I remain skeptic about you having a bitch and that you are a zoophile. Your overall behabior makes me doubt your claim.
Subjective opinion unless you can prove it.
Why would a non-zoophile be in a zoophile forum and attack zoophiles like bigots do without being a spy?
About why I think you are a spy? I don't know, that you attack me, that you even call bigots from other anti-zoophile subreddits to attack me. If you are a zoophile then you are very toxic zoophile, the kind that will betray and back stab anyone just for the fun of it.
You have no problem with having human gay sex.
Duh, I don't think I'd ever fuck anything else than a canid.
There's a reason why I'm called a zoophile, not a 'fuck-everything-o-phile'
Do I really have to link you to that cheering video again?
And of course, I have to repeat the same thing over again.
Duh, I don't think I'd ever fuck anything else than a canid.
There's a reason why I'm called a zoophile, not a 'fuck-everything-o-phile'
What a popular one-liner, sadly it doesn't do much if you haven't even given a reason.
You claim that you don't stalk my comments.
Yet you were the one to reply to my first comment, you started arguing, not me.
Which means that you don't have to stalk my comments to know about them.
Nope, you just made that up.
You gave 'zoophobe' another meaning and it doesn't make sense.
Please tell me what behabi... ahem, beHavior makes you think like this?
Your comments.
I don't attack zoophiles. I 'attack' people with disgusting behavior, like you fencehopping.
Being a zoophile doesn't mean I have to respect you.
Okay, we share an interest, so? You a king or what?
Sure, I respect zoophiles more than most people but being a zoophile doesn't mean you are immune to stupidity, and you are the perfect example.
Please give me an example of this.
I just mentioned OPBeast's account which is inactive.
Just like always, you can't see jokes like a delusional person.
Also, give me an example of 'anti-zoophile' subreddits and where I mentioned their names.
Let me see.
/u/Warcanine:
-Points out disgusting behaviors, can sometimes be dicky when he does this.
-Gives people advice, or at least tries to.
-Usually comments on posts and gives his opinions.
Ahehehem...
/u/Aluzky:
-Fencehops. (Disgusting, by the way.)
-Forces opinions down people's throats.
-Thinks he is the smartest and that everyone else who doesn't agree with him is a bigot.
-You start to lose hope in humanity when you see him.
And what makes you think that?
Because honestly, I've never did something like that.
In fact, I'm more loyal to people who I like or share an interest, unless they make extremely dumb mistakes.
Given the way that you started posturing a bragging about your dick size and going into WAY TOO MUCH DETAIL you not as big as you claim to be.
I'm not giving that information to brag about. Maybe in your world of human sex, having a thick dick is something to brag about, in the world of dog sex, having a thick dick is the opposite of bragging, with dog sex, the thinner the dick the better. I hate my dick, I wish I had a thinner dick.
And like I probably said before, a picture of my dick can be found in motherless dot com if you look for that site name and my name. I'm not telling lies, I do hae a thick dick (1.7 diameter) which makes it impossible for me to have sex with the majority of dogs. If I where to rape them, they would end up with severe bleeding or death. So, the accusation that I rape other people dogs is ludicrous as if I did, I would get caught in less than a day.
Anyways, I'm not the one who has the burden of proof to prove that I don't rape dogs. You bigots are the ones accusing me of raping dogs, the burden of proof is on your side.
And I wouldn't trust you around either of my boyfriends because you would trade them like they are you toys! Your playing things to share back and forth as you please! Animals are not your fuck toys and the fact that you think this is absolutely disgusting! Yet you call yourself a Zoophile? You're nothing! You're nothing but a bestialist with an ego and and an over inflated sense of self worth. You pretend to be a zoo by calling your dog your boyfriend you act as if you care yet you doing things that stain Zoophiles as being untrustworthy and then wonder why we have bigots against us? You claim that you've been a great tool against bigotry but you're their biggest piece of ammo; the uncontrollable dog fucker that will fuck any dog he's left alone with and who will basically allow his buddies to probably take turns on your dogs without you knowing about it until something more horrible happens. Yet you wonder why we are hated and it's because of people like you Aluzky! You're one of the biggest problems in this community! Люди, як ви це отрута до товариства Zoosexual і чому люди ненавидять нас! Ви не піклуються про співтоваристві, але про вашу власну особистої вигоди і задоволення, вам не все одно, як ваші дії ефект нас!
Again, what evidence do you have that I would do such a thing?
Tell me, what is the problem with letting my k9 boyfriend fuck some one else? Do you have a rational objective problem with it or you are like 30-30 who believe that monogamy is sacred and you should never let your animal partner have sex with anyone else even if that animal desires to have sex with others. What gives you the right to deny your animal sex with some one else if he so desire?
Who says that i see animals as fuck toys? You are doing a false accusations based on no evidence what so ever.
Like it or not, i fit the definition of zoophile/zoosexual.
That is your subjective opinion and not a fact.
I don't pretend to be a zoophile, my dog was/is my boyfriend and will always be (though he is no longer in alive)
Sorry, but I'm not a perfect zoophile. And me not being perfect doesn't invalidate that I'm a zoophile.
Look at heterosexuals who have sex with some one else girlfriend or boyfriend, they are not perfect either, they stain heterosexual. Are they not heterosexuals just because they are not perfect?
Where is the evidence that I'm untrustworthy? And bigot hate zoophiles for irrational reasons, that is what they do. Even if i where a perfect zoophile, they would still hate us.Even zoophiles that are celibate get falsely accused of raping animals.
Then you don't have to worry about, because I'm a Nerf foam bullet. This ammo is pretty much harmless unless it hits you right in the eye and even then is pretty harmless.
What evidence do you have that I'm uncontrollable?
Any willingly dog. Guess what, the majority of those bigots will also fuck a human that is willingly seeking sex with them. Since when it is a crime to have consensual sex with someone when the opportunity happens? Or you are like 30-30 who thinks that you should be monogamous? Guess what? Not everyone is monogamous, lots of people don't have a problem with having sex with multiple people/animals.
My dog could only fuck some one once every 2 or 3 days. So, people taking turns won't ever happen. Also, it is unsanitary to do that, if one of them has a STD, it can past from one human to the other if they have sex with my dog in quick succession. Also, I only let my dog have sex with others when I'm was thereto watch and help (as my dog likes to drags people by the knot, some one has to be there to keep him calm so he doesn't do that) so the human doesn't get hurt.
And in the end, so what if I let my male dog have sex with some other human? What is the fucking problem with that? He is not being harmed, he is having fun. Is none of your damn business if he does that.
Oh really? So people who literally rape and murder animals are not a big problem? And people who trespass property to fuck animals are not a big problem either? Your claim is obviously irrational and bullshit.
And like I said before, bigots hate zoophiles for irrational reasons. Have you read all the false accusations that these bigots (you included) have made against me as a reason to hate me? You are all hating on me for irrational reasons.
Sorry, but I can't read that.
I have your words Aluzky.
For one you could get him sick. And you said you allow others to fuck him. Do you do this with the dogs of other people?
Oh yes as a matter of fact I do. I also don't believe in trading animals just because you get off on knowing other people fuck your dog.
What does this have to with /u/30-30 or monogamy?
If they did in fact WANT to have sex with others that wouldn't be an issue however since I don't know other Zoos and I have trust issues I wouldn't exactly invite people over and say "Oh my boyfriend is horny but I can't take care of him right now, so feel free to suck his cock all you want" or "Oh hey I'll be out of town for a while and my stallion has needs so feel free to just help yourself to him" because they might be bad people or they might in turn pimp them out. I'd get in trouble and would violate the trust my boyfriend has in me if I trust him to people that exploit him. I have communicated with Zoos who had open relationships however they only did this with other Zoophiles not people who just wanted to see what it was like to have sex with a dog or horse or a goat. And it wasn't a common occurrence either. The man who was married(as he called his relationship) to his goat allowed this once because she would often act stressed out in season and there were times he couldn't care for her needs. He asked a friend if he could help her and he agreed to do this but only if the goat was willing and receptive. However she wasn't interested in the other man and all he did was rub her vagina and her husband and his friend agreed that they would not try this again with her. They felt that to do so would be wrong because she didn't like other people or goats trying to have sex with her and her behavior showed she didn't like to be touched by strangers. I knew a man with a male dog(I think he was a Great Dane) who liked to be penetrated anally and liked for his owner to thrust fast into but he never was rough with him, he left his boyfriend in the care of a family friend who knew of his relationship and he ended up getting bitten several times over the course of a week while trying to do things with the dog. He got bitten after trying to suck him, he got bitten after trying to get the dog to lick his penis, he suffered a nasty bite to the leg after trying to have anal sex with him. Needless to say his friend was very displeased with that action because clearly the dog was not interested. My boyfriend never showed too much interest in other dogs but he did mate with a female my had briefly who died of parvovirus. But he didn't particularly like her he usually ignored her and would only initiate sex with me(he would nip at my legs and nudge me if he wanted to lick me or if I kneeled down he'd try to push me so he could mount me). My second boyfriend was similar but since he was taken from me he has been bred to four mares. He was a horny stallion and since I was around him almost daily he rarely exhibited signs of being pent up despite me never letting him penetrate me yet. However he was always satisfied to the point that trading him to people wouldn't have done him good.
Your behavior and your comments! You admit that you try to fuck anything that's a dog that you're left alone with.
With the inability to keep your dick in your pants around animals.
Then prove me wrong liar.
And that man in Ohio with the women in his basement called them girlfriends. Just because you call someone boyfriend or girlfriend doesn't make it so.
No shit!
It's your horrible behavior that does and makes me wonder if you're a real Zoo.
Our situation is more complicated because we're talking about animals! Don't you get it?!
You lie to people, you seem to think fucking a bigots' dog will change minds.
Your behavior isn't helping.
And people like you don't help.
More like a live grenade
Your actions in reality may not be harmless.
This sad excuse: I would not learn that. You know how to make me stop? If people stop being bigots, it that happens, I would have no reason to do that without the owner permission, instead, I would have no fear to ask the owner for permission first.
Either way I wouldn't fuck the dog of someone who doesn't agree with Zoophilia. I wouldn't do such a thing. Plus I don't go around fucking animals I don't know or barely know. I've seen beautiful stallions that I would love to be with and dogs I would love to be with but the owners are not Zoophiles or Zoo friendly so I don't violate their trust. If I want sex I will go home and masturbate with my two toys from Bad Dragon(I have a horse toy and a dog toy) but I will not violate the trust of others just because my pussy gets wet
You really don't understand the position that we're in.
We're Zoophiles you jackass! We're in a difficult position! We can't just fuck every animal we see just because we want too! We have to show restraint if we want to be taken seriously! Once people warm up to us then perhaps one day I can ask the folks down the road if I can blow their stallions because they seem pent up. Or ask the family across from where I live if I can have sex with their dog. Or any other dog in the neighborhood as long as I don't lie and bring several people with me.
What does this have to do with /u/30-30 and monogamy?!
Yes I'm aware of that you neurotic twit stay on topic!
Hopefully it won't.
Maybe you should consider this before letting your dog fuck everyone. Perfect YOU should take care of his needs more often!
And are these people Zoos or just people who think it's kinky to get fucked by a dog and they know you'll damn near agree to anything?
What if he gets sick? Secondly it sounds like your dog isn't really your boyfriend but rather just a fuck buddy hence him wanting to fuck anything and everything.
It is if you get him sick or other people sick. That's the last thing we need: an STD epidemic started by a nymphomaniac Zoophile who let his dog fuck anyone who asked. Great publicity!
I didn't say they weren't, you are indeed a moron. Of course they're a problem but uncontrollable people like are as well!
They are a problem but so are you!
Well I'm not who lets my genitals do all of my thinking nor am I the one who risks getting my dog sick by letting him fuck anything and I don't go around fucking dogs who live with "bigots."
And people like rapists, fence jumper and idiots like you don't help!
Between the soundless videos, constant flip flops, screams of conspiracy, accusations of spying and the fact that you think the way to win over big its is to fuck their animals it's no wonder people including other Zoos are starting to hate you even more. I actually defended you in the past, I got banned from two websites and a hate group here on Reddit because of you and I was glad. I thought I was standing up for a good rational person and protecting a good Zoophile. I wish I had never stood by you and defended you. I really regret that now.
No our reasons are indeed rational. You're the irrational one here.
USE GOOGLE TRANSLATE!
And again I've seen pictures of your cock before and the base isn't very thick at all. You are overselling yourself.
For fuck sake. If I'm overselling myself, I'm not doing it on purpose. If you are so damn interest on knowing my dick exact size, I will grab a string and measure the exact size. BRB. 13.5cm circumference is the result. That is 5.32 inches in circumference, that is 1.7 inches in diameter (there, I was wrong by 0.1, big deal /s) The average dick diameter is 1.5. So yes, I have an above average thick dick. That is a fact. I'm not over selling myself.
And the point is, my dick is too thick to rape a poodle dog without harming them. The bigots are claiming that I know some way to rape them without leaving any evidence of harm (which is obvious bullshit) as I said before, even a golden retrieve in heat is way to tight for me.
An anyways, Innocent till proven guilty. I'm not the one that needs to provide evidence that I'm not raping dogs, the accusers are the one that need to support their claims and so far, all they have are baseless accusations.
Yeah sure you're not.
You're a human so no. I'm just pointing out that you lied about your dick size.
Yet you're telling me any......
I've seen your videos Aluzky including the one where you pretend to mount a male dog. His dick was still bigger than yours.
I think that was sarcasm.
Well there are ways to inflict harm onto an animal or person that don't leave obvious signs at first. Similar to how abusive spouses or parents inflict harm on their victims without leaving obvious signs. There are legitimate courses about this in colleges. I think it has to do with law enforcement although I doubt they have classes that detail cases of Zoophilia related rape.
I've watched porn that simply featured dogs or horses mating and I've seen Golden Retriever females take knots and penises from other dogs that obviously were not the size of your pinky finger. Knots and penises I'm not sure I could take safely and I can take a Mastiff type dog safely in both holes safely. So perhaps this particular dog just didn't like you.
You constantly talk about lying so you are in fact guilty.
Perhaps you don't rape them but you're a proven liar so it's not unfair to wonder if you lie about rape.
Part 1
That was not a joke. You are very immature if you find that to be funny.
How so?
I don't whine. And I don't get what you mean by entitled.
As I have said several times, if I look smart, it is without trying. Since I'm above average in intelligent, I end up looking smart without trying. Same way that a stupid person will look stupid without trying or a fat person will look fat without trying.
You fixed nothing, my average IQ is around 135. Some one with an IQ of 13 or even 35 would be too stupid to even tie their own shoes, much less use a computer, make a reddit account and have a rational debate. Your claim is totally irrational, the fact that you think that I have such a low IQ shows that you are the one who has a low IQ (around the 90s I would say)
If that is true, why people keep accusing me of acting smart? Why people keep accusing me of being intelligent? The only people who accuse me of being stupid are the same people who makes several fallacies and irrational arguments in their comments (aka people who have low IQs, is clear they are doing projection, people like you who thinks that my IQ is 35 when obviously it is not)
Says who? Where is the scientific evidence that a person with an IQ of 160 can't be immature, entitle and have delusions of grandeur?
Also, you have yet to prove that I'm immature, entitled or have delusions of grandeur.
I don't understand. Are you saying that what I enjoy is deceiving people and not the having sexual pleasure or pleasuring dogs? I know myself better than what you know me, I have sex with dog to pleasure them for my sake and their sake, not to deceive people. Maybe you don't know this, but some of the dogs I have sex with, is with the owner permission, why would I do that if my goal is to deceive them? Again, your assumption is FALSE. This is what happens when you make baseless assumptions, most of them will be false.
I forgot what?
Is not a crime to be rude. Also, is only rude if they find out and happen to get offended (which may not always be the case)
If that where true, then why I do my best to not let them find out that I have sex with dogs? As long as they don't find out, nobody will have their feelings hurts. And in the end, that is the only thing at risk, me hurting their feelings. Again, not a crime to hurt some ones feelings.
And who doesn't? But you see, you forgot to mention that while that is true, I also care about not harming others. Which is why I don't let them know that I do that, which is why I don't harm their dogs, which is why I even became vegan. I live my life doing everything I can to avoid harming humans or animals. Do you do the same? Are you a vegan too? Do you rescue animal and pay large amounts of money to help them? That one who is free of sin, cast the first stone.
Fact: I don't get pleasure from deceiving others. Is that clear now? Stop making FALSE ACCUSATIONS.
English is not my main language, as such, I may not use the best words when translating from spanish to english. What I mean to say is: I support people who CHOSE to stop themselves from doing that.
I have no problems in stopping myself from having sex with dogs, I have sex with dogs if because I CHOSE to do it and not because I can't stop myself from doing it.
I never admitted to not having self control. That is YOUR FALSE assumption that YOU are making from a comment that was poorly worded. Your assumption is false.
This is why I dislike doing assumptions about people comments, because such assumptions may end up being false, this is why I ask people to clarify sentences that I consider to be unclear. Is better to ask them to clear it up and then reply once you know exactly what they mean to say.
Again, nowhere in that comment I said that I have no self control. That is your false assumption.
It has happened to me in the past that I make a comments like: It is a fact that homosexual sex is a sin according to the bible. And people then accuse me of being a bigot and a religious zealot. Guess what? I'm agnostic and I support LGTB right. My comment was factual in response to some one stating that gay sex is not a sin. Yet, people made false assumptions about my comment. You are doing the same. Don't read between lines looking for stuff that I never said that you wish to be true. If I never said it in clear words then I never admitted to it.
Clear like this: I admit that I don't have self control problems. Is that clear now?
Irrelevant, I'm talking about humans. Humans almost always have the option to not eat animals. And humans have mens rea, so there is no excuse for them to do harmful acts. If you are saying that humans should eat animals because other animals do it, that is an appeal to nature fallacy.
And some humans rape and murder. That doesn't make it OK, same it doesn't make it Ok to eat animals at the expenses of their life and torture.
A high meat diet leads to rabit starvation or to kidney/liver failure or high cholesterol levels which leads to hearth disease and vowel cancer. It is a fact that vegans live 10 years longer than meat eaters. The only meat eaters that have similar lifespan are the ones who eat a small portion of meat like once a week.
And in the end, all that is irrelevant, what is relevant is not abusing animals. Something that eating meat (even is small amounts) will almost always inevitable cause.
Ironic, you seem to be against abusing animals but now you are defending meat eaters who are in fact abusing animals, which side are you on?
I have not caused harm to anyone, if I did, I have no reasons to lie about it. Just like I don't lie about having sex with other people dogs (I could have keep that a secret to avoid the haters but I chose to not lie, I dislike laying)
Almost everybody eat meat as an unnecessary luxury, with the very few people who eat meat because they absolutely have no other option, I don't judge the ones who have no option. Though, something should be done so they can move on from eating animals to a vegan diet.
There is no excuse to support the murdering and abuse of animals for their meat when you have the means to eat vegan. Period.
Where and when I have told habitual lies? Where is the evidence to that accusations?
Where and when I have been deceptive? Where and when I have abused some one trust? Where is the evidence to those accusations
Morality and the law. It is illegal to do so and I don't find that to be fun. I'm can even faint at the sight of animal blood and suffering, my face turns white and my blood pressure drops and I lose balance and start looking at tiny white dots flying everywhere. This is why I didn't try to be a vet tech assistant.
The only times I have killed animal intentionally is to end their suffering. Breaking a rat neck that was poisoned. And a kitten that was mauled by a dog (a dog that I was taking for walk... that same dog also killed a baby bird... nothing I could do to stop him) the kitten had the skull fractured, blood pouring from the ears, mouth, nose, even with an eye hanging out, the cat would have die anyways, he was barely breathing, I helped him to die faster out of mercy. Those are different from killing for joy. Again, I have nothing to hide, if I had killed an animal for fun I would say it. PS: I do kill fleas and tick and I have fun doing so, as I hate those fuckers. Sue me. But unlike mammals, they don't feel pain, they don't have a subjective experience about harm, they have to die for the sake of me and my dog and the sake of other people health and dogs. Oh yea, as a child I accidentally killed a pet mice by squishing him/her (I had no mens rea anyways) FYI: I feel guilty about that baby bird and kitten and mice, their death was accidental but I feel that it was my fault.
Again, you are under the FALSE ASSUMPTION that I have no self control. Nowhere I have admitted to not having self control. Your assumptions false. I admit that I DO HAVE SELF CONTROL. Let that false accusation rest.
NOPE.
But you don't chose to stop yourself because you don't want to.
But you fuck any and all dogs you see because you chose to do so instead of showing restraint.
And because you don't care about anyone's feelings but yourself and you get off in doing things to dogs behind the owners back. Not because you're a Zoophile but because you're a bestialist that ENJOYS the thrill of abusing the dogs of unsuspecting people. You're a Zoophile you're in it for the taboo.
Just because you're an idiot doesn't mean everyone else is.
I don't have to read between the lines
You said it loud and clear.
It's clear. Clear that you're backtracking.
Something you're lousy at.
Yet you still criticize those that cannot go vegan for health reasons and wish them harm. You would rather that these people kill themselves than live. You would even force an animal to be vegan rather than let them eat naturally. You're the kind of person that would no doubt kill a lion for eating a Zebra.
So why is my great grandmother, great grandfather, my blood related aunts who are in the 80s, 90s and one will celebrate her 102 birthday next month still alive? I can count on one hand the number of sick relatives I have; 4. One is obese and this is her own damn fault because she lives off of ice cream, fried foods, pizza and other junk. One is a former heroine addict who wrecked her health, there's a first cousin who died of a heart attack and another cousin that had cancer but he beat it. The reason people get sick when eating meat is because they're eating animals that are so full of chemicals the damn things practically glow in the dark. Hence why my aunt(my Cherokee aunt) raises her own cattle and she let's be to live like cows, no medicine, no chemicals. I dunno if it's because of her background but all I can say is if she wasn't married to my uncle I'd probably marry her.
Yet there are indeed people who cannot go vegan. Look at Derek Nance.
They're saying that no humans are exactly the same. Just like everyone can't eat peanuts or soy. Some people are able to thrive on natural meat(no chemicals and such) without developing illnesses earlier or later in life, some people are better suited for a strictly vegan diet and others can eat both. What that person means is human beings are animals and no animals are exactly the same.
And that's reality. However you don't see me trying to kill my aunt, or my friend or my friends kids because they can't help that they're unable to go vegan. If they could without a doubt go vegan they would be vegans but since they're unable to they will eat meat. Like I said before unlike you I don't wish my relatives to die.
So are you going to be killing wild cats and wolves for not going vegan? Are you going to murder Zoophiles that can't go vegan? Probably. You'd probably kill Kleng because he prefers meat and only eats meat. Well you'd rape him first then kill him. Lastly I don't have a side.
Unless you raped the wrong person's dog and they decide to harm you. Secondly you say you do things behind the backs of owners because you're a bestialist not a Zoophile.
Which is indeed a lie.
Unless you live in some shithole country meat isn't a luxury.
People you claim don't exist.
Your reply to me proves this is a lie.
So in other words you do judge them and think they can in fact go vegan and would force these people to go vegan even if it kills then because once again you don't have compassion for people nor animals as you would deny animals who are carnivores meat and thus forcing an animal to abide by your rules rather than letting the animal rule his or herself.
Will you kill a dog or a wolf it a lion or a raccoon or a snake for eating another animal?
You've been caught in several lies right here in this very sub-reddit.
By stating that you abuse animals behind the owners backs and that you willfully do this.
But raping a flailing dog in a muted video is fun?
Oh isn't that also convenient? You had no problem with the flailing female dog you forced yourself on and you had no problems throwing a Doberman under the bus for bossing you around.
Or they noticed you kept getting hard around dogs and were suspicious of you being alone with them.
Sure.
Assuming that the rat couldn't be saved. Also didn't you say that the sight of suffering animals makes you physically ill? Yet you can pick up a dying rat and then kill the rat?
Oh look blaming the dog for something you could've prevented yet again.
Yet you said you faint at the sight of blood practically so there's another questionable claim.
Because you're already so honest?
They make animals ill so no one feels particularly sad about them.
Actually non-mammals do in fact register pain and in fact have an understanding of their surroundings. This includes sharks, lobsters, assorted members of the ray family, reptiles and amphibians.
You were walking a dog who in two separate incidents attacked and killed two animals yet you claim that you were unable to prevent this. If you knew how this dog behaved you would've been more diligent when walking him.
Your actions prove otherwise.
You said your IQ is 135. Not 160. Is that another lie /u/Aluzky? Make up your mind; is your IQ 135 or 160? Yes or no? And do try to be honest this time even though it's difficult for you to be honest. If people can't leave a dog alone with you without you doing something to them you're not a trustworthy or decent person. You're scum and filth. Frankly you're not even a Zoophile it seems as you think animals can be forced to adhere to your rules and traded back and forth to be abused and when something goes wrong you blame. You blamed the Doberman for biting you, you blames a dog for kill two animals despite you doing nothing to prevent this. You're a weak childish person who wants everyone to follow your rules without question and without hesitation. You lied and abused the trust of others, you've made your look like a bunch of subhuman trash and you have betrayed those who thought they could trust you alone with their dogs thinking you wouldn't do anything to them.
Correct, my IQ is around 134-135, no where I have said that my IQ is 160.
Nope, that is you making more false accusation.
I have said it hundreds of time, my IQ is around 134-135. I have never claimed to have an IQ of 160.
I have been honest all this time, with this account I'm an open book.
That is correct, I'm an indecent person.
The trustworthy part, I don't get it. If a person tells me to not do sexual stuff with their dog I will obey, is their dog after all. So, how I'm not trustworthy? Explain yourself.
Subjective irrelevant opinions.
I don't think that. More false accusations.
I don't blame him. More false accusations.
Actually, I finished the cat. So only the bird was fully killed by him. So, it is only one animal.
And I could have not prevented it. I can't see the future to know that there was a baby bird in the grass next to a side walk or a kitten behind a bucket dumpster in a public area.
And yes, he is to blame (in a non-legal way) as he is the one who did those things.
So, you did 2 false accusations more.
Weak, yes. Childish, no. One more false accusation.
I don't want that. Rules have to be questioned. Another false accusation.
Haven't lied. One more false accusations.
How exactly I have abused the trust of others? Explain yourself.
Subjective irrelevant opinion.
Again, how exactly I have betrayed people trust? Explain yourself.
You claim to have made a typo.
You made that typo not me.
You did with your alleged typo.
Unless someone asked if you did something to their dog.
Well at least you freely admit to it.
Why am I still NOT surprised?!
How oh how are you not trustworthy? Gee I dunno-Oh right! This!
I'm not the one who trades dogs like XBOX games.
As I said I'm not the one who trades dogs like XBOX games. At least the majority of the other zoos here find such behavior to be repugnant.
You only JUST recently said that you were to blame.
Diligence may very well be a super power these days given how many people let shit like this happen more than once.
You should've been more aware of your surroundings and paid attention to the dog's body language. He probably already noticed the birds and the kitten long before you did.
You were the one in charge of the dog, you failed twice and calling a spade a spade isn't a false accusation contrary to what you wish to believe.
You admit one yet deny another. I suppose slow progress is still progress.
Unless you're the one being questioned which you absolutely hate.
Just pointing out your statements.
Highly relevant since you've pretty much set your community back several decades. That's just when it comes to whether or not you guys are trustworthy.
Right here with this.
I claim that if I said that I have an IQ of 160. Then I must have made a typo or you are misunderstanding what I said. I don't know which one of those is the case as you have no quoted the text where I allegedly claimed to have said that I have an IQ of 160.
I don't know if that was a typo. You have yet to quote my text, so even you don't know if that was a typo. Either way, you are the one making the false accusation, I have said 100s of times that my IQ is around 134. Obviously that if 1 out of 100 is different that one who is different is either a misunderstanding or a typo.
Or you really think that I would be so stupid to claim that my IQ is 160 after I have said for the past 10 yeas for more than 1000 times that my IQ is 134?
You have yet to prove that I did such typo. Since you didn't quoted my words, from all we know you are the one who is telling a lie.
You are now making an accusation that I will lie in the future. Since you can't see the future, your accusation is baseless and irrelevant.
I have no problems in admitting to things that are factual about me.
What is that supposed to mean?
Sorry, but this sentence doesn't explain how I'm untrustworthy. Are you going to explain why I'm untrustworthy or you are going to keep dodging the question because you can't support the accusation?
Trade dogs? I don't understand what that means. I have never traded my dogs.
You have yet to prove that I trade dogs like xbox games.
I wonder if they have rational objective reason to find it repugnant.
I never said that he was to blame, this is why your claim was a BASELESS ACCUSATION. So far, you have done like 10 or more baseless accusations. Which shows that you are unintelligent and a bigot.
Your point?
Who said that I wasn't? Again, I can't read the future.
Maybe you don't know this, but dogs smell the grass and dumpsters because other dogs pee there. How should I know if the dog is smelling some one else dog pee or if he is smelling prey? He acts in the same way in both cases.
Nothing I could have done, I never saw either of them as they where hiding. Dog smell can see stuff that we can't see with the eyes.
You are not calling a spade a spade and you can't support your accusation with objective evidence. This is why your accusation is false.
Like I said, I have no problems in admitting to things that are factual.
I don't have a problem with being questioned. There you go making more false accusations.
That doesn't support your accusation. I will ask again. How exactly I have abused the trust of others?
Citation needed. Can you show me the evidence that I have set the zoophile community several decades behind? Or you are making more bullshit claims?
You people have yet to provide any evidence that I'm not trustworthy. Even if where untrustworthy (which I'm not) my behavior is not representative of all the other zoophiles. To judge others based on my behavior is a hasty generalization fallacy.
Sorry, but I fail to see how I have betrayed some one else trust. I will ask again: Explain yourself and provide evidence that I have betray some one else trust.
I don't feel any hate towards the vegans who strive to make a better life for animals.
Two years ago, I had been meat free and dairy free since my younger days, however my depression, my skin, my family, made it so difficult. And I finally gave in to eating meat when I was pressured by someone who I care about, and was on lesser fundings at the time, and now I just eat meat. I feel awful every time I do, (since I do think about the animals that have died to become this chinese orange chicken) but should I give up my mental health and the health of my skin and relations to others when I make no income to get my own meals..
I have respect for people who try to eat less meat and for those who simply cannot eat less meat, as well as strict vegans.
When I am in a better place, mentally, physically and financially, I will then become the person I used to be and eat no meats.
I was actually thinking of asking my family to not get a turkey this year and instead opt to get a vegan tofurkey for dinner. ^_^
As for my canine side of me, I would want my furry partner to be indulged in what is healthy and what he loves to eat, which is meat, and to try and get him to eat like a vegan would be in my view, kind of mean.
[deleted]
I think there is a parallel in this discussion with many non-zoos about pet ownership / veganism. A lot of the talking points are similar in what is perceived as a double standard (like some people elevating certain animals above others, pets that are considered family and not to be harmed vs farmed animals that are treated poorly and killed, etc). These ideals are reflected in our laws. It's illegal to beat a dog, but the factory farming industry is responsible for the systematic torture and killing of hundreds of thousands of animals yearly in the US and it is legally and culturally tolerated. It's cultural and legal justification might have to do with farming being a food source for millions of people, and companion pets mainly being a selfish luxury in the western world, but I'm not entirely sure.
Secondly, I don't think that just because someone is born with a zoo sexuality, that they are required to prescribe to a certain set of ideals, or that they aren't a 'true zoo' of they choose one lifestyle over another. I don't think I had much choice in the matter of being a zoosexual, just as any other sexuality. I don't imagine that my views on vegan/non-vegan diets would be so different if I wasn't a zoo. Although that is an interesting question, and very hard if not impossible to ascertain. Just as I don't expect homosexuals to all maintain the same perceived "ethics", I don't expect all zoos will line up either. The choices we make are complex and individual, we are not all the same people, in fact I'm sure one of the only things in common between us is our sexuality and social stigma, so i fully expect there to be a spectrum of heated opinions in this thread.
Personally, I eat meat. I am not really conflicted about it either. I am conflicted about the inhumane conditions of modern day farming (I. E. Torture), which means I care if animals suffer during their life. But I am not conflicted about the killing of animals for consumption as I see it as occurring in nature. Even if someone was to kill an animal we do not traditionally consume here in the US (like a horse, cat or dog), I may personally have an aversion to eating it, but I recognize that other cultures maintain a different relationship with such animals.
I also don't frown upon hunting, and although I currently do not hunt, I would not be opposed to hunting in the future. I think that if I am to be responsible for the death of something for consumption, that I would like to have a greater personal understanding of my impact (which is completely disassociated when shopping at a grocery store). That may in turn limit my consumption over all.
My grandfather used to kill a deer or two in the fall, split it amoungst a few families, and they ate venison all winter and made gloves, etc from its hide. There are ethics within hunting as well, like not killing does or young animals. However, these ethics aren't shared by all hunters (example: hunting for sport) or by all predators (most animals will target the young or weak specifically). It is arguable to say that, if you asked a deer whether he'd rather be killed by an 'ethical hunter', a sport hunter, or a pack of wolves, his answer would be "none of the above", and if asked whether he'd prefer his body to feed an ethical family, be mounted and stuffed, or feed a pack of wolves, his answer would be "I'd rather not die at all." Therefore even though unethical hunting bothers me personally, I cannot argue it, and if an omnivorous bear chooses to kill a deer instead of eating a ton of berries, obviously I'm not going to stop it. The end result of hunting in any regard is pretty much the same.
On a personal note, I had a vegetarian (and mostly vegan) diet for 3 years. I tried this for health reasons, although my impact on the factory farming industry would be positive regardless of my personal reasons for doing it. As an athlete that took in 3000+ calories a day, it was very difficult for me to maintain my health. It was not a matter of not trying, I had the assistance of a doctor and the dedication to take in nutritious foods. I spent a lot of extra time accommodating my diet (which wasn't as common at the time, so I had to go to a lot of specialty stores to get the right ancient grains, etc). I was determined to maintain my body on this diet because my body as a machine was the most important asset at that time. I genuinely strived for it to work. Unfortunately, for whatever reason, it didn't agree with me. My body suffered, it affected my health and my career. I then switched back to including meat and fish in my diet. It's just what works for me physically based on my own observations, I can't speak for others on that.
Lastly, for those of you who do eat meat, and want to minimize your contribution to the factory farming industry, but don't have the money to eat organic meat every week, there is a way you can get it for less. The concept is, if you have a big freezer (or second freezer), you can buy humanely treated, grass fed or organic beef for super cheap (cheaper than the cheapest beef at the grocery store) if you buy a 1/2 or 1/4 steer. Get a family or two together to split it with. You can also customize all your cuts. Once it's aged, it shrinks a lot, so don't worry if it sounds like too much to handle. More info on that here :
http://www.weedemandreap.com/purchase-grass-fed-beef-bulk/
This post has turned into a massive cluster fuck. Wish I'd never posted this now, instead of everyone being civil it's gone straight to Hell.
Only 1 person is fighting and being uncivil, I and a lot of other people are just trying to point out his disgusting hypocritical bullshit.
/u/Aluzky lecturing anyone about ethics is like /u/BSKped being hailed as a childcare expert. Wouldn't be surprised if they're the same people seeing that they're both abusive, nightmarish shit stains that strut around with the false title of activist and claim to be compassionate trustworthy and honest and being the best of the best in their respective communities. When in actuality they're either future inmates, corpses or asylum patients.
I only have one reddit account and that is me.
Where and when I have been abusive?
Subjective opinion, not a fact.
I have never claimed to be the best of the best.
Not a crime to have zoosex where I live (will be a crime in the future) I'm not mentally ill and I'm alive, but yes, everybody dies eventually, everybody will be a corpse in the future. Including you.
Maybe.
Do I have to go back and quote all your shit again?
Prove. It.
Your behavior says otherwise.
Well I guess you'll be jailed soon then.
Uh-huh so you say.
Some sooner than others.
At least I'll be leaving behind a legacy of helping people, I'll be remembered for being dependable and trustworthy. Can you say the same?
You have no evidence that I'm lying and I only have one account. If I had another account I would not lie about it and I would say so.
Considering that I have yet to see any evidence of me being abusive, yes, please, go back and "quote all your shit again"
Though, now I wonder, what you mean by abusive? That word has more than one definition, maybe you are using one definition and I'm reading it with another definition.
Burden of proof is not on me to prove it. You peel are the one making the accusations, you are the one that have to present evidence that your accusations are true. To ask me to prove it, is called a shifting the burden of proof fallacy.
My behavior also doesn't say that I'm the best of the best. You are making false assumptions about things that I never said or did or believed.
I have stop filming my sexual behaviors. Without evidence they can't jail me not fine me. And previous evidence of me doing that can't be used for the present law, laws re not retroactive, you can't punish something that used to be legal in the past just because it is illegal in the present.
Me saying "I fuck dogs" can't also be used as evidence, even if some one seems me doing it, that can't also be used as evidence as it becomes a "he says" VS "I say" and the person could be lying about it.
As long as I don't leave video evidence or fuck a dog in-front of a cop, they have no way of punishing me.
From what I know, I'm not mentally ill.
Correct.
Your "legacy" will be forgotten in 50 years (more or less, that is a fact) and nothing that you did when alive will mater to anyone in the future, nobody will remember you. Not unless you do something really amazing, like creating a cure for cancer or similar. Even then, the universe will end some day, so, even then, such great actions will be forgotten and thus meaningless.
Can't say the same. As I spend my time helping animals instead of people. People already have billions of people who help them, where animals are only helped by millions, animals need more help than humans. You don't see drying humans laying on the street with nobody giving a fuck about it, where you do see that with animals all the time. PS: People already know that I'm dependable and trustworthy.
Sure you would be honest about this. For all you know I have 10 accounts where I pretend to be a Zoophile. Perhaps I'm really one of the Moderators? Maybe I'm the real /u/Aluzky and you're a fake that's trying to ruin my reputation?
Your willingness to lie and conceal your actions calls into question your true character.
You know exactly what he means. When you pretend to be ignorant it just further proves that you are indeed ignorant.
No one has to peel anything to make accusations or fake accusations.
You act like you are.
Who needs to make assumptions about you?
Prove it.
Assuming you have indeed stopped filming. And assuming someone doesn't get you for anything recent. I wouldn't start strutting around like a Rooster just yet.
I can't imagine someone being a better liar than you are.
Well the way things are unraveling for you now I wouldn't be so sure about you not getting caught.
According to you? If you claim to be a God should everyone believe you?
No one will remember you either. You'll just be another corpse in the ground or in a jar. That's the fate of everyone, you're not a special person and neither am I and neither is Sith. You're one human out of seven billion who's only real claim to fame is posting videos of you screwing around with animals. There's billions of videos of just like yours. The people in the videos are just as hopeless and pathetic as you are. You're not unique.
Something you ought to remember.
Oh now there's a surprise.
Given your definition of help I can say that what you do is abject bullshit.
I prefer to help both because unlike you I'm not an egotistical maniac who thinks that by helping animals that one of them will magically wanna fuck me. Nor do I think that by helping people they'll magically wanna fuck me either. I help animals because most see them as less than and I help people because for that same reason. However when I die this won't be remembered. Most of the animals I've saved won't be alive by the time I die. I know I won't be remembered forever and that doesn't bother me. Now THAT'S a fact.
No one dries humans on the side of the road. Or animals for that matter. You mean dying right? Because frankly I think letting either die is horrible.
Your customers don't count.
You must be one of those kids who got participation trophies for everything. I do a lot of volunteer work when I can, dog shelters, wild animal sanctuaries, I donate to help victims of sexual abuse and assault, I've donated to people who want to start battered men's shelters ect. Then there's the stuff I do for Kleng to ensure he is happy and healthy and enjoys life.
You don't say.
Yeah I'm sure you help animals out of the kindness of your heart.
Actually depending on where you are in the world you'll see both.
What /u/LadySaberCat said.
Not really. In the 90s we didn't have such stuff and I'm not from US, over here we don't have such stuff either. I assume that it is a US tradition to give such trophies?
Question: Why are you talking about trophies? Or that sentence has a hidden meaning that I don't understand?
And good that you do all that.
I already said it...
Are you being sarcastic? Because if you acknowledge that I it for that reason (which I do) then why do you have to say it like that?
Weird, did I really say easy access? Can't remember why I said that... it makes no sense. You sure you quoted my words and not some one else words? Or you put part of your text in quotes by accident?
True, but I'm talking about my country. FFS... I said drying humans. Auto-correct fault. Well, my fault too for not proof reading before posting.
And he said what?
I can't believe this is still, like, being argued. Neither of you are winning an argument, you lose for starting an argument in the first place. If you want to talk, have a discussion; don't bring all this emotion into it. Thread locked, gg folks.