None of those points are relevant, he is still owning mares and fucking them (in the present) that shows that he is still exploiting animal sin the present (something he accuses me of doing as if that where a bad thing to do) he is a hypocrite, period.

You are still a hypocrite

Care to provide evidence and an explanation for why I'm a hypocrite?

"Am I out of touch? No, it's the rest of the world that is wrong."

I'm not saying we do, I'm just speaking in regard to objective morality. I do not support him or his behavior, I don't know how many times you want me to restate that. I have already stated several times that I am just humoring on a possible mindset he might have. I just don't think that one should extrapolate their own assumptions or lies into actual rumors without defining evidence. Because while I don't support what he does, if hes not raping animals he shouldn't be labeled as one who does. It's honestly silly that this is even still being discussed by me because I am not his spokesperson, I don't know him.

I'm going to ignore the other bullshit of your message because it's just you acting innocent.

Translation: I have no evidence to back up my bullshit claims so I will ignore the parts where you demanded evidence for my claims. know that by not providing evidence when asked, you are acknowledging that your claims where bullshit.

Please tell me, how is hating pedophiles for raping children irrational?

I didn't say that, I'm talking about the people who hat all pedophiles, even the ones that don't rape children.

You? Support people not using the pets of others?

Did I stutter? Was I not clear on what I said?

Sure sure, and I'm Donald Trump's second cousin.

How is you being her cousin relevant to this topic?

I've seen heroine addicts with more self control than you have and they were at rock bottom.

That doesn't make sense. If they where addicts, then they had no self control.

You're not exactly helping.

I won't make my life or other dogs lives less fun just to appease the bigots.

Do you read a goddamn thing that you say?! Do you?!

Of course I read the stuff that say, that doesn't answer my questions. I will ask again:

Where I have admitted to lying to people? Where I have admitted to violating their trust? I'm pretty sure that I have never admitted to as I have never done that.

And again how are we to know that what you say is true when you conceal things from Zoosexuals then?

What things I have allegedly concealed?

How do we know we can trust you and accept you as our official spokesman when you see fit to go after that which isn't yours?

The validity of my arguments are not effected by me having CONSENSUAL sex with some one else pet without their knowledge.

By the way, I 'm not the official spokesman nor I want to be an official spokesman. I'm just an individual who goes around the internet correcting and educating the zoophobes.

If you want to select an official spokesman, then select one that doesn't have sex with animals at all to avoid such "problems"

Maybe later when people are more comfortable and fully accept us we might be able to have sex with animals that don't belong to us but with the knowledge of the owner.

I agree.

This isn't helping any of us right now and might be bad for us in the long run.

Do you realize that they are attacking me with false accusations, right? And is not my fault that they are attacking me. Or, are we superposed to not defend ourself against bigots? Because they attack me because I fight back against their bullshit.

"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win." - Mahatma Gandhi

We are in the part were they fight us. We have to keep fighting back if we expect to win.

But not for yourself? Do as I say not as I do?

I have no problems with people having consensual sex with animals, be with their own pets or with some one else pets. If some one chooses to only have sex with their own pets or chooses to never have sex at all, I support their choice, where is the problem with that?

You say that you do not!

I have never said that (unless I use a poor choice of words to make a sentence and end up saying something that I didn't mean to say, remember, english is not my main language, I do make grammatical mistakes from time to time or use words in a incorrect way or with a different meaning) People are just assuming that I don't have self control, assumptions can end up being true or false, in this case, their assumption is false.

But the owners will never know if I let the dogs mount me or I give oral sex to their stallions. You seem to think if the owner isn't informed or told heard that is is perfectly fine.

I get it that it is rude, I'm fine with people being rude, being rude is not a crime. Is your choice of you want to be rude or not. Trespassing on the other hand is a crime, I'm not fine with crimes.

And if I do this and am found out the owners would never trust me again

And you reap what you sow. Which is why you have the choice to do it or not doit. If I ever get caught, I will sow that I reaped and I will accept the consequences.

and think poorly of Zoos I want to be trusted and accepted.

That is a fallacious way of thinking, the actions of one person does not represent the actions of the whole group.

If I had a human girlfriend and I find out that a fiend of mine is fucking her, would it be rational to think poorly about all heterosexuals? I would be irrational to think like that, would it be rational to make heterosexual sex illegal because of that? My hypothetical friend was an asshole for doing that, the other heterosexuals who didn't do that, they have nothing to do with it. Same for the zoos, my actions don't represent the whole group. And like I have said before, if we lived in a more tolerant world, I would ask for permission first, if bigots don't want people like me acting in this way, then maybe they should consider stop being bigots so we can stop acting behind their backs.

You did!

Again, I have never said/mean that.

Look at your very comments!

Nowhere in my comments I have admitted to raping dogs or to not having self control.

Perhaps you should be more clear then others you are the one brings shame to us!

I know I'm not perfect, but again, my actions do not represent the whole group and my actions are not even worse than the actions of zoos who eat meat (their action are directly harming animals) And in the end, the people who are shaming all of you for my harmless actions are using a fallacy (a hasty generalization fallacy)

You're not making it better for either group with what you have said.

How so?

Oh sure tell someone who doesn't want to see people having sex with animals to watch soundless videos of you having sex with(albeit a lot of those dogs look terribly uncomfortable) dogs to prove you're not a rapist.

All my videos have SOUND. If you watched a soundless video of mine, is because some one else re-upload it and removed the sound.

albeit a lot of those dogs look terribly uncomfortable

From what I remember, only in one of my videos that is the case. And she was uncomfortable from being on her back with me on top of her and not related with the sex acts (me masturbating) if you see the other videos with her, you can see that she is happy and not uncomfortable with me masturbating near her, the problem was the position I chose. Was that rape? NOPE. Was the dog harmed? NOPE. Did I do that again in that way? NOPE.

What I do have see over and over is people confusing my dog behavior (he is the type of dog that will knot a bitch and walk around non-stop dragging the bitch around) with him being unconformable with sex. Almost every complain I hear about my videos is from people who misunderstood what they saw. Let me know which videos you have a problem with and I will correct you if your problem is invalid. If your problem is valid (like with that video I talked about) then I will agree with you.

You're the worst possible person to represent us Aluzky if this is how you think we will win over antis.

Beggars can't be choosers. Again, there is not a lot of people who does zoosexual activism. If you people where to also do their share of work, then I would have no need to do my share for YOU. If you can do a better job, then why don't you do it?

I got thousands of links of youtube videos with 100000 comments from bigots saying bullshit about us that needs to be addressed, where are you or anyone else for that matter? Is almost always me alone fighting them, if I don't do it then almost nobody does it.

And no, the worst person to represent zoosexuals would be an animal rapists fence jumper and meat eater bestialist. Like I said, I know I'm not the best of the best, but I'm very far from being the worst.

You're absolutely right, but given my dogs mannerisms I highly doubt either of them would be into bottoming especially for a stranger considering trying to top with them can be perceived as a display of dominance and also aggressive. If you can do so without hurting them and them having a good time from the experience, more power to you I guess but it'd still be breaking of trust lol.

Right we are in agreement, I just think that aluzky's apparent reason is sound enough to believe that he does care about animals and not rape them. Practically though he is still not being good. But that doesn't mean he should be labeled a rapist if hes not. I just don't see him raping animals being a likely conclusion to draw

He admitted to it. That shows at least a tinge of honesty.

Yes he admitted to being dishonest and when called out for it he said it was a lies.

and I would hope he will soon learn to diverge from that path rather than continue on it, before it hurts more than just himself.

It's more than clear now that he has no plans to change. He said sex with animals will be illegal soon in his country. He freely admits to sharing animals with people, who's to say someone won't hear about him doing this and reporting after this is illegal?

and ranting about him isn't going to accomplish anything.

I'm not just this because I feel like typing early in the morning when I should be sleeping. It needs to be said so this isn't a rant.

If it is so obvious, why can't you prove it?

Well for one according to you a sausage is safe to eat without ridicule because it's not an animal, you claim you only use animals because you're scared of bigots telling you no instead of just leaving their dogs alone, any Zoophiles who question you are branded bigots, you claimed to be from America but then said you were not and you previously stated that you thought trying dogs to wats sex was wrong yet you condone this practice despite not respecting the dog not wanting sex.

Hint: Because you are telling a lie.

Why would I have to lie about you when I can simply read your comment? What would I gain from lying about you exactly?

Again, I have never lied to an animal owner about that. Your accusation is baseless.

Your earlier comments prove that you're lying. If they knew you wouldn't call it rude and applaud people for controlling themselves!

Where is the evidence that I can't be trusted? If I'm told to not have sex with a dog, I will say "OK" and keep my word. But, If nobody forbids me from having sex with a dog, then I have no reason to not have sex with that dog. How does this translate into "I can't be trusted" ?

Must have a learning disability.

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.

Or you're just a disgusting person

There's a difference between people thinking that a premise is true, and a premise actually being true.

Eh, in the case of animal abuse/consent, let's just agree to disagree. I don't really hold it against anyone to think that sex with dogs is abusive. I don't think zoophiles hold some objective truth on this is issue. I have yet to come to a conclusion on this myself, even though I am attracted to dogs myself, so I can't simply dismiss the opinion of the average Joe just because they don't fit with the average zoo's very contrarian worldview.

My point here is to exercise caution. In this situation, I'm sorry to say, but all people on either side of the argument use to fuel their opinions is conjecture. There is little to no objective, empirical evidence to defend either position. Your conjecture isn't worth more than somebody else's.

I'm starting to wish I never joined Reddit now. The sheer insanity! I don't always see eye to eye with you(on many things) but at least you're trying to remind everyone here that we're in no position to say "Zoosexuals aren't evil." But then ignore or flat out condone people who have sex with, pimp out and possibly rape animals behind the backs of their families. Could you possibly try to talk some sense into some of the people here? Remind them that we don't have the privilege to advocate animal polyamory right now? Let alone fucking animals that aren't ours?

I don't really understand why this comment is directed at me. I agree with pretty much all your points on the subject. I guess rationally, it doesn't make a lot of sense from a zoophile "as long as the animal is willing, anything goes" perspective. But I, along with most of the human population, feel that these things are unacceptable and should be called out, regardless of the alleged animal's wishes.

A "zoo´s" desire stands high above any possible harm that could be inflicted onto the animal, that´s what it says, affirming the usual, common prejudices about how selfish our "love" for animals is.

Which is exactly my point. The only thing that matters in that context is a zoo's immediate sexual gratification. If we ever have a chance of defending or "orientation" in the public eye, it's by arguing we feel sincere and deep attachement to animals. Fencehopping or "sharing" just isn't a token of attachement. It's just using the animal to satiate biological urges.

If you´re discussing, don´t forget the owner has a relationship to his animal, too. I know, "animals are not things you can own", sure, but let´s get back our feet to planet earth, right? Animals can be "owned". And "his" animal is NOT "yours"...I really pray to all deities known to man I don´t have to explain the difference between "yours" and "mine"...just one hint: without private possessions, there is no private life.

Did you read my first response (or any of my posts at all, really)? I said:

Animals are property. And I know this sucks, as they aren't objects. But they are still property. And there is a reason why they are seen as property. It's exactly to stop people from doing whatever the fuck they want with other people's pets as long as it isn't abusive. And now we are talking about sexual activity, which most people do see as abusive to boot.

[deleted]

Then you're not too educated on the subject.

Sorry I'm not in the habit of fucking animals and the closest I got to that was fucking a brunette woman in a leopard costume at a Halloween party in 2012. The woman in question was a human being in case you're wondering.

Animals have sexually specific body language. In the case of male dogs, that would tend to be mounting and humping behavior.

Edit: I realized that I was rather vague here. Mounting and humping behavior, in addition to other pieces of body language which indicate quite a few things about how the animal feels. Mounting can be a sign of stress, or a form of play, as well as a sexual behavior, so it isn't sufficient on its own.

Oh so it is also a sign of stress? I already know that why the fuck do you think I'm worried about him? I found an abused stray dog in very bad shape, a dog who might not even be a dog, either I take him to the vet or a friend does, my neighbor checks in on him when she can, he's brushed, I feed him a raw meat diet that he's physically thriving on, I dote on the odd little guy. Ok maybe not so little, once he's back to his optimal health he should be 180 pounds. I don't want to imagine what being raped and traded back and forth behind my back will do to him. He's still getting used to being around me and as I said I'm not going to ruin that by trusting him to someone like you.

That said, the issue is certainly more complex than "oh look he's lying there better unzip".

I find it impossible to believe that. For all I know you'd think "Oh look his owner's gone and he's walking around. If you don't tell I won't tell so have fun!"

Furthermore, if you had read my other posts, you might have happened across this: I would have thought that this would be obvious, but let me make it a bit more clear all the same. One of the reasons for this is so that a person knows and understands the animal's body language in general, their temperament, and the way they generally express themselves.

You don't give a shit about the rights and feelings of the owner so I doubt you'd care about your future(or previous) victim's feelings and rights.

If someone were to have sex with your dog, by my standards, they better know him well enough that they understand everything you just listed about his temperament and his general demeanor, and a hell of a lot more.

People like you don't care about that. All you see is an easy hole to stick it in.

I don't get why you quoted my "No?" unless you were misreading the tone.

Oh I'm not misreading your tone.

"No?" in this case does not mean "golly gee I'm really not sure", it means "No, and also what the hell is wrong with you, why are you even asking such an idiotic question?".

Oh well excuse me for asking an admitted liar who turns a blind eye to his buddies raping the pets of unsuspecting owners what's wrong with him, you fucking sociopath. Guess you're not too much different than your friend /u/Aluzky are you now?

Sometimes tone does not come across very well over text, so I apologize for not being more clear, but allow me to remedy that. I have zero tolerance for rapists, regardless of what species they choose to rape.

Coming from a guy who says he won't snitch on a friend who rapes a dog that doesn't belong to them I going to have to call bullshit on your zero tolerance for rape stance.

On that note, it is not "gallant" to protect someone from being raped.

Well not you anyway.

It's the bare minimum to not be despicable.

Assuming you actually find such things despicable.

I've argued elsewhere that I think punishments for actual animal abuse (including rape) should be tightened to be in-line with abuse against humans.

But snitches get stitches if someone blabs about raping the dog of their best friend behind their back amirite?

You wouldn't know that, of course, because you've read very little about what I've said on this subject - understandable, of course, I don't expect you to go digging through my post history.

Well from what I know about you right now and your stance on abuse and personal views you apparently can't be trusted around other people's dogs especially if you bring one of you zoo buddies along.

However, it also appears you haven't even read what I've said in this topic alone, considering how you've so failed to understand my position.

You mean failed to understand why you'd freely allow someone to rape a dog that doesn't belong to them and then lie about to the owners face.

And that I will criticize you for.

Ask me if I care and I have every right to criticize you because of what you said.

That said, considering you've decided I'm a liar, I doubt anything I say is going to be taken seriously. It didn't have to decide you were a liar you said that yourself. So why don't you act like an adult and take responsibility for what you said instead of playing the persecution card because that game is getting old.

Doubting someone's sincerity in a conversation is a surefire way to end any chance at productivity that conversation had.

It's hard to believe someone who says that they will lie to cover up the actions of others while also admitting that they would lie to people that more that likely trust that person.

So I don't know why I even bothered with this, except that for as much as I dislike you right now for a number of reasons,

I don't give a fuck if you dislike me or not. People dislike me for doing my job anyway so a random guy on the Internet saying he dislikes me for thinking he's a lying zoophiliac sociopath who would lie to someone's face about what he lets his friends do to their pets behind their trusting backs doesn't particularly faze me.

I don't think you're coming at this from a bad position -

First smart thing you've said the entire duration of this corespondence.

I don't think you're insincere, at least.

I don't have the time for insincerity and I sure as hell don't violate the trust others have in me. I've seen enough people who had their lives ruined after trusting people who stabbed them in the back over it.

You know, what you said actually sounds rational and level headed. Granted yeah I guess I count as a "zoophobe" here but I'm not gonna discount what you said just because I disagree with your particular activities.

Ah so you're immature as well?

That is not the definition of bigot... And why would I make you lick the floor that I walk? Your comments makes no sense

It's called a phrase. Do you know what as phase is stupid little boy?

Question: Why do you want to distance yourself from me?

Because I want people to trust and respect Zoophiles. I've come out to one of my co-workers now, she was scared I'd done something with her dog but I explained to her that I didn't and never would. I've babysat her Newfoundland before and I had zero sexual contact with him. You on the other hand would have tried to do something to him and never would've said anything about it to my co-worker. I want to show antis and others that I am not like you. I can be trusted.

And what you mean by people like me? Aren't you a zoophile like me?

You mean an out of control loser that fucks any animal I see or happen to be alone with? Absolutely not! I am not like you.

Alrighty

Ask me if I care

Please see a proctologist. Maybe he can do what you can´t ...getting the stick out of your arse.

I´m sick and tired of this trench fight mentality. I don´t care if someone´s "OpBeast" , self proclaimed "zoophile" or anything in between. Additionally I heavily doubt the only reason for u/warcanine to attack Aluzky is a debate. It´s what Aluzky does, what picture he sends to the public. FYI: "Zoophile" does not mean to be okay with anything that involves animals. Stop this "groupthink" immediately...and while you´re at it, stop that stupid sex lib bullshit also. We as zoophiles are muthafukkin´ DEPENDENT on the goodwill of outsiders, we need to build bridges instead of burning them down "because sex lib BS".

In case you haven´t realized what happened in this very thread, here´s your briefing. Aluzky has been called out on his shit. Although there are some defenders left, many of us "vile animal fuckers" know that there has to be a limit somewhere...and Aluzky managed to turn out as a constanly lying pathological linestepper. Then, a member from another community appeared in here, a member from a community that cannot exactly be called "zoo friendly" at all.

This member spoke his mind and some of us (including me) agree on some points AOS brought up. When I backed up his valid and justified criticism, the impossible happened. We actually extablished some kind of communication instead of the usual namecalling. He even called me level headed and grounded. We showed mutual respect, we listened to each other. When you backcheck how a common meetup between members of CringeAnarchy and this subreddit usually turns out, I´d say that this can definitely be called a tiny progress. Exactly this is the way to MORE tolerance. AOS even made a statement he´ll not link stuff from this subreddit to his sub anymore when it´s not an issue of Aluzkyésque proportions. For me, this is a hand offered to this subreddit. Like some sort of peace offer.

By the way, this is the second time someone from CringeAnarchy told me that he/she thinks I´m level headed and kinda trustworthy. There must be something I do right that others don´t....I really wonder what this might be..;)

This isn´t a trench fight. Digging deeper won´t get us anywhere, blowing up the SWJ bubble also won´t . We have to deal with the world as it is, not as we like it to be. It´s a fact that zoophilia is frowned upon by the public. It also is a fact that it´s "us", the bestiality/zoophilia collective that´s to blame, ´cause it seems we are so self centered we lost contact to the real world entirely. If we want the outside to acknowledge zoophilia as a strange and uncommon, yet tolerable form of sexual orientation, we shouldn´t sabotage that with constant attacks towards the "normal" folks. I´ve said it so many times before and I´ll repeat it yet another time here: WE want something from them, NOT vice versa! WE have to make sure that not even a single outsider is forced to deal with our "animal fucker community" if he doesn´t want to. If we show no respect for someone else´s privacy, how dare we demand the very same for us? Aluzky laid bare how incapable he is when it comes to see his own conduct from another perspective. He can´t even figure out why we are so pissed when he said he fucks dogs without the owner knowing/consenting. Do you really think that ALUZKY is winning over new alliies with this? By unveiling that particularly problematic mindset, Aluzky is THE ONLY ONE to blame here, it´s not somebody else´s fault. Opposing Aluzky´s bullshit is the fucking least a true zoophile should do to prevent others mixing us responsible and respectful zoos with the hordes of beasties out there lacking ANY form of awareness or responsibility.

If we really want to live in peace with the outside world someday, we really shouldn´t fool ourselves into thinking and acting like we´re the only guys on this planet. We´re a teeny tiny minority and should put the emphasis on building bridges ´cause we won´t get anywhere WITHOUT the support of outsiders.

How often do I have to prove my attitude right until you all wake up from your pinkie puffy total sexual freedom dream/nightmare?

How often will you SWJ´s defend your defunct and outdated sex lib agenda until you finally notice your "freedom" is nothing but yet another cage you trapped yourself in? With the least little amount of empathy for the non-zoo, non-beastie outsiders, gaining trust and respect in our opponents becomes possible. With the least little bit of self reflection, it IS possible to overcome that incredibly imbecile "teamthink" attitude so common in here...folks, this is NOT the Superbowl or the NBA finals, this is NOT about "sticking to your team". This all should be about actual issues, about the undeniable repercussions our orientation has for the "normals". Again: We´re NOT alone on this planet!

If a "zoo´s" neigbor cannot keep an animal outside without having to fear that his animal is abused as soon as he has fallen asleep, then this entire thread,this entire subreddit has NO point anymore other that being an echo chamber and a hug box for all those "zoophiles" just searching for a community that pampers them.

Stop the "teamthink". Zoophilia will only see a better future if we zoos manage to make compromises. And the first small step towards that is goddamn openly talking to each other, no fucking matter what "team" you´re in, what your goddamn reality tunnel, your imaginary bubble is, zoo or anti.

The pope isn´t called the "pontifex maximus" , the "biggest builder of bridges" for no reason. It´s building bridges that leads to a greater coherence. And I´d rather "team" up with an "evil" opponent to build a bridge than apathetically sit in my well dug trench of sex lib fantasies.

...title intact?

To highlight the wording they used to show how they see us, so people wouldn't get confused when they click on it, and to show that almost everyone hates Aluzky.

See, if I found the most homophobic, slur-filled posts and started spamming /r/lgbt with them, I would get banned. This would be rightful, and its status as degrading and hijacking the sub, while spamming it with slurs, would be obvious.

Well, this is not "zoophobic, slur-filled post" and I'm not spamming it, I only posted it once.

Here, it flies - likely in part because a few socks were in before it was started, tbh.

I hope we don't censor for quoting, only for something truly bigoted.

The title doesn't say "hate sub bitches about fencehopping." Congratulations on accidentally joining #OpBeast.

That title would easily bring more anti then just /u/AlphaOmegaSith and would be more likely to bring #OpBeast.

Meanwhile, while I'm not going to, I could make a random post in another sub calling you all sorts of terrible things and making all sorts of accusations.

What terrible things have I called anyone, and what have I accused anyone of?

Even if the victim has done something wrong (and Al's at "petty tresspass" as the worst allegation, from what I've read, which ain't much) - victim-blaming is completely delusional.

I'm wondering if you've even read the quote

Hate groups are responsible for the actions of hate groups. No matter what.

So trolls coming over here through a post that says "Anti-Zoo Bigots are stupid, HaHa" are they the trolls fault or my fault?

...just because he was targeted, eh? And they'll be so nice to you, you say?

Not targeted just simply quoted

His real crime was being willing to debate. Nothing else.

Trespassing, bestiality, and animal exploitation and that's what he's admitted to.

Meanwhile... do you know how canines hunt? The basic concept is splitting the target from the herd. If you can do this a few times, you can destroy the entire herd.

How about a rabid one that could kill the other dogs, should they stay or be kicked out?

Maybe this is a good time to point out again that people are responsible for their posts, not other peoples' posts?

So trolls coming over here through a post that says "Anti-Zoo Bigots are stupid, HaHa" are they the trolls fault or my fault?

I tell you that if you join an attacking force, you are part of that force, and if you attack on someone else's orders, you are their asset.

Who's giving orders?

This is basically true. But... I will tell you when your enemy is in the base.

You're doing a terrible job at it, didn't warn us about #OpBeast, your only recent posts in this sub were in two comment sections

Sith has successfully got a top-level post upvoted, in your forum, calling all zoophiles rapists. He has parked an army on your board. That army is running around, cutting the pack - put aside your personal hurt from whatever debates and look how a few people treat those who didn't automatically join in. It's mean, it's spiteful, it's very antidemocratic, and generally involves lying about them.

No, I do, because "people are responsible for their posts, not other peoples' posts" so I'm responsible for my repost not Sith.

It's just cutting the herd and running an army in your base to destroy the pack. Nothing more.

No, it's removing a tumor and showing not all zoo's break into people's houses to fuck random dogs.

Meow?

Yes, my daughter is a cat, now, keep away from her you pedo, also I would be perfectly understanding if someone who knew I was a zoo told me to keep away from their cat. I would respect their request, for I would never even touch a cat without the owner's and the cat's consent.

We're having similar reactions. As far as I can tell... you don't like him because you got in a debate with him once. Small, petty, but perfectly fine - these are the bumps in the human experience. Then, you found this thread, sooo... ...I would not suggest that everyone else in this thread is merely innocent and petty. To throw your own words back at you - you really don't understand what is going on, do you?

No?
I don't like him because he's an 'example' of a zoophile. (Hint: He isn't). Damn, you really don't know what is going on huh?

...title intact?

...So what?
It's a repost, mate.

See, if I found the most homophobic, slur-filled posts and started spamming /r/lgbt with them, I would get banned. This would be rightful, and its status as degrading and hijacking the sub, while spamming it with slurs, would be obvious. Here, it flies - likely in part because a few socks were in before it was started, tbh.

Irrelevant, that sub works differently and their whole group isn't blamed on one person.
Here it flies because it's important to see how Aluzky damages us.
Zoophile info = zoophile info. Hard concept to understand, huh?

Nope.
Everyone is responsible for their own actions..

Yet we are ALL blamed when a 'zoophile' rapes animals, blows up the world, does anything wrong.
Really? You haven't noticed by now?
Are you just like them, then?

Hate groups are responsible for the actions of hate groups. No matter what.

Hate groups play a big role, yes.
But what about Aluzky?
What if that whiner never opened his mouth?
Yeah right, this would not have happened.

...just because he was targeted, eh? And they'll be so nice to you, you say? His real crime was being willing to debate. Nothing else.

His real crime is being a bad zoophile, his real 'online' crime was straight up admitting it for everyone to see.
But that's not everything, he has been embarrassing us for years by still being able to talk with all that dog cum in his mouth.

Maybe this is a good time to point out again that people are responsible for their posts, not other peoples' posts?

I wish this was what people thought.
You realize that this is one of the reasons zoophilia is seen as nothing but animal rapery and not as a beautiful, yet unusual sexual orientation?
You realize that if one or a few people do something bad, the whole group gets blamed?
This is also common in real life.
In school I complain to teachers why the fuck I can't go home because I have a dog to care for, yet always the same gets out of their mouth: "This is everyone's responsibility, you are a group."
Yeah no, that's not how this is all supposed to work. I didn't do shit, end of story.

I tell you that if you join an attacking force, you are part of that force, and if you attack on someone else's orders, you are their asset.

With 'we' I meant zoophiles, not that AlphaOmegaButTotallyNotZeta person.

But... I will tell you when your enemy is in the base.

Oh fuck dude, you're the MVP! person in an online shooting game who camps without ammo and claims to be useful.
"Y-Yeah, I-I-I'm useful, I warned you g-guys right?"
But hey, if you are the person who alerts us when we have an 'enemy' in the base, where were you when Aluzky started posting, mmmm?

Sith has successfully got a top-level post upvoted, in your forum, calling all zoophiles rapists. He has parked an army on your board. That army is running around, cutting the pack.

Random nonsensery again.
It's not the point of this thread, really.

put aside your personal hurt from whatever debates and look how a few people treat those who didn't automatically join in. It's mean, it's spiteful, it's very antidemocratic, and generally involves lying about them. It's just cutting the herd and running an army in your base to destroy the pack. Nothing more.

Again, this has nothing to do with 'personal hurt' and to me this just seems like random nonsensery again.

I'm probably not doing as much as I should, I've got a lot to rotate - but I'll tell you honestly what's going on.

Oh boy, it's realizing!
Are you promising to be useful again?
Please stay in your corner mate.
We don't want people who look for "sick" subs, because that's what this isn't.

Congratulations on accidentally joining #OpBeast.

You are even more of a clown than Aluzky is.

But such a nickname exists, and it's yours because you're clumsy.
You take everything seriously?
Yeah, not surprised you downvoted that one bestiality joke at /r/jokes, huh?
You must have been offended. Oh, the poor thing.

I'm actually pretty darn happy....

is too busy lying on the floor laughing like a maniac be back in five minutes

Ok back. And no you're not actually happy. Hence why you're trying to start a war.

Gee thanks.
I've been argueing with him for days now.
He seriously thinks it's easy to make zoophilia acceptable and remove the anti-zoophile laws.
Even worse, he thinks you can do it with drug money.
Lmao.

shrugs