So I just discovered my state quietly passed some of the strictest anti-zoo laws in the US 2 weeks ago. (self.zoophilia)
submitted 2017-01-15 07:22:17 by The-Forested-Garden
I just found out that even owning cartoon depictions of zoosexual acts is a fucking felony! Oregon passed the bill on the 1st of January. Holy shit! I was the a happier person since moving here, but now I don't see how I can even live in Oregon anymore, it's too damn risky. I mean, other states may be strict about the actual acts themselves, but cartoons and art are a damn felony here! That law is was called the anti-zoosexual bill. They literally used the word zoosexual.
I am very sure that it will be slapped down under 1A. Shota and Loli are still legal and those depict children.
it's already in place, they already passed the law. I couldn't find anything about laws about lolicon in Oregon, whether it's legal or illegal...but do you really trust the law not to be arbitrary and twisted enough to ban cartoon zoo stuff and not loli stuff? I sure don't trust our judicial system at all, the court can twist your actions enough to put you in jail if they really want to, people getting locked up for bestiality is states where there are no specific laws about bestiality is proof of that. Sodomy, animal cruelty or crimes against nature is what they will slap on you.
On January 1, 2016, Oregon's anti-zoosexual law (which previously had been made a misdemeanor in 2001) was changed to a felony; photography of sex with animals was banned, and Oregon became the first state to ban simple possession of zoosexual photographic material. It is also now the state with the highest possible fine ($125,000).[99] The law bans encouraging sex with animals. The text of the new law reads as follows: Be It Enacted by the People of the State of Oregon: SECTION 1. Section 2 of this 2015 Act is added to and made a part of ORS 167.310 to 167.351. SECTION 2. (1) A person commits the crime of encouraging sexual assault of an animal if the person: (a) Knowingly possesses or controls, for the purpose of arousing or satisfying the sexual desires of the person or another person, a visual recording of a person engaged in sexual conduct with an animal; and (b) Knows or is aware of and consciously disregards the fact that the creation of the visual recording involved the sexual assault of an animal as described in ORS 167.333. (2) Encouraging sexual assault of an animal is a Class A misdemeanor. (3) As used in this section: (a) “Sexual conduct” means touching or contacting the mouth, anus or sex organs of an animal or animal carcass, or causing an animal or animal carcass to touch or contact the mouth, anus or sex organs of a person, for the purpose of arousing or gratifying the sexual desire of a person. (b) “Visual recording” includes, but is not limited to, photographs, films, videotapes and computer and other digital pictures, regardless of the manner in which the recording is stored. SECTION 3. ORS 167.333 is amended to read: 167.333. (1) A person commits the crime of sexual assault of an animal if the person: (a) Touches or contacts, or causes an object or another person to touch or contact, the mouth, anus or sex organs of an animal or animal carcass for the purpose of arousing or gratifying the sexual desire of a person; or (b) Causes an animal or animal carcass to touch or contact the mouth, anus or sex organs of a person for the purpose of arousing or gratifying the sexual desire of a person. (2) Subsection (1) of this section does not apply to the use of products derived from animals. (3) Sexual assault of an animal is a Class C felony.[99]
Well, at least they are becoming better that defining precisely what they mean to circumnavigate all the problems introduced with other such bills.
Of course, it's still completely wrong to pair up any and all and everything under the same law. If a dog wants to hump me, how can any of that be wrong?
They even go to through the hassle to include animal carcasses but exclude products derived from animals. Meaning if you rub your pussy on a dead cow it's illegal, but if buy a steak at the supermarket to rub your pussy against it, then it is not. That's a bit funny but the laugh quickly dies when you have to live under such a law :(
Exactly.
At this rate of anti-zoo lawmaking around the world, in 30 years we will all be meeting in the deep deep jungle in Brazil.
Sure looks that way. Imagine if they decided to repeal free speech laws so that we can't even meet online. I could see that happening as a "preventative measure".
A video of some anti "activists" from Brazil was posted in here a while ago, so don´t put all your money on Brazil...estimated time until having sex with animals is outlawed there too: approx. 5 years
I'm imagining the law of Brazil doesn't apply much in the "deep deep Jungle" hence the phrasing. ;)
Sex with animals was criminalized in Brazil in 2015.
Not to be a critic, but do you have a source for this?
The article I found is in Portuguese. The Portuguese title is:
"Comissão aprova pena de detenção para quem pratica zoofilia"
This is the article:
http://www2.camara.leg.br/camaranoticias/noticias/DIREITO-E-JUSTICA/489354-COMISSAO-APROVA-PENA-DE-DETENCAO-PARA-QUEM-PRATICA-ZOOFILIA.html
Good enough for me, thanks.
Not to praise Oregon or anything, but that text doesn't sound like cartoon depictions to me...
Computer/digital images count, which means anything that is a 3D rendered picture, artwork, cartoons, etc. Any picture depicting the act that is digital. I mean, if I had painted a picture and hung it in my living room, that would be legal under that law, but if I were to take a picture of said painting, it becomes digital and therefore punishable....which logically makes no damn sense.
This is common language in these bills (Washington's is identical). It's to cover digitally stored "real world" images of actual criminal (in this case, not saying I agree with it) acts. It does not mean "artwork that is digitally stored" unless there is something I am missing.
I wonder if it's a typo that is says January 1 2016.
These laws must be created and supported by people who were raped or abused as children. They cannot differentiate between their own situation and the animals situation, so they've basically combined it all into one big mess.
Figure, these people have developed a sort of Stockholm Syndrome with their actual abusers, so they make up for what they will not do by scapegoating on zoophiles. Zoophiles did not consent to being their scapegoat, but human consent does not matter to these people because they were taught otherwise, and so animal consent is more important to them.
They subconsciously view the animals as if the animals were their childhood selves, and that's what causes the dysfunction in idea of sex with an animal being sexual abuse.
I find that incredibly unlikely. Unless you seriously believe the vast majority of the globe was abused as children...
Fact: Most people don't like sex with animals. The politicians are simply capitalizing on that fact.
You must at least entertain the the idea of child abuse as a variable.
If people do not like something, they would typically ignore it. It is a fact that if people do not like soda, they will not drink soda. They typically will not stop other people from drinking soda unless they had an extremely negative experience with soda as the result of abuse from soda.
What I'm trying to say is, the "Vigor" for persecuting zoophiles and criminalizing the sex for everybody must come from somewhere. My hypothesis is that this Vigor is the result of traumas, as well as unwarranted fears and paranoia as the product of unrelated but asthetically similar traumas. There is the potential that these people who persecute zoophiles were sexually assaulted by somebody, a child rapists or any rapist, who also coincidentally has sex with animals to the knowledge of the victim. Somebody could have used an animal to assault them. Although other people who have sex with animals had nothing to do with the assault, just the idea of a person having sex with animals acts as a "trigger" for the traumatic stress. Traumatic stress causes paranoia and persecution of those people who have sex with animals.
The fact that politicians and lawmakers are capitalizing on the facts is no different than scapegoating on people who suffered child abuse. Basically, lawmakers are using the abuse to their advantage, abusing people who suffered abuse, so they can justify abusing a greater number of people.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_NAl4AkmjU
bot info
Sorry, I really don't.
Then you just helped me prove how the denial of it might be of the most significance. An unknown variable usually wants to remain unknown, especially if it has the most power to change the equation against the will of the majority who harbor that missing link.
Child abuse is the argument used against zoophiles, but what if it was being used against zoophiles to hide it's true nature? Abuse teaches a child how to abuse others. It doesn't make much sense that a child who was abused by a human would abuse animals, because logically they were taught to abuse and control other people. The inverse in all its glory, is a lie.
What the laws teach us is that people with a severe dislike and taste for violence against other human beings are legalizing another justification for serial killer and kidnappers to lock human beings in their basement (the prison system), poison them (them drugs), and psychologically/physically torture them with therapy. Clearly, normal societies behavior is no different than an actual dangerous psychopathic animal abuser. In conclusion, child abuse does lead to abuse and torture of animals, the human being.
I'd like to see some facts before we can use the argument that denial of it is some grand conspiracy.
As it stands, there aren't enough pedos on earth to molest the amount of children you are claiming need molesting.
People create their own facts and deny the existence of all others. That is the way society works today. Hiding behind a fact checker that disregards and throws away information that does not support its position.
The fact checking machine must be broken or engineered incorrectly, because apparently it's only accepting pennies and dimes, while nickles and quarters go uncounted.
Correction! Again your fact checker isn't working properly. I never said children should be molested, because if you check the facts of my previous statements... I said children and women who do get molested and raped are the cause of totalitarianism, fascism, and these laws which were created in opposition to sex with animals.
Uh, you do know what facts are and peer review is right?
If you are seriously arguing everyone makes their own facts, have fun in crazy town.
Peer review? You mean the opinions of more than one person with likenesses? Typically the opinions of these people who were molested and don't know any better because they're repressing the facts as a symptom of their own trauma. There is very much bias in the scientific community, especially when their license to practice is on the line. I wouldn't count on their truth about moral related circumstances.
"Peer" means people with likenesses. If they're expecting the truth from people like themselves, all they will get is the answer they want to hear, not the answers that provide the truth. Peers will make you feel good until they change their mind and spit lies and denial to avoid bias discrimination.
It is what it is. Child abuse creates more child abusers. Rape creates more rape. Human beings covert physical abuse to psychological abuse, and it creates more physical abuse.. an infinite loop of abuse of human beings. It's a clear transfer of negative energy, which might be difficult to accept for even the strongest people.
Denial doesn't help anybody, but helping people doesn't really matter to those people who were taught to abuse others, does it?
Coincidentally, it's no wonder not even zoophiles would oppose the laws. They too were victims of child abuse and rape. They hate humans so much and care so much about the animals that they will help the lawmakers, because they enjoy watching other human beings suffer. How ironic. How low can people go?
The Expert title is an opinion in the field. Experts are peers of each other as they are believed to be Experts, and that makes expert to be a peer condition. How could you miss that?
Experts here can fail since they have little control over their topic, which is human behavior. Anything can change without them being aware of it and they wouldn't know any better than the next Expert. Awareness can only reach so far if they're all the same, think the same, and use the same methods. They miss crucial points because they cannot fathom changes in their own science. The science is their baby, like a mother with toxic attachment to her children, who refused to accept the fact their science is growing up.
My Response To The Next Post::
I can't say there's a conspiracy or hidden agenda, because they're obviously not hiding anything very well at all. It's "obvious" and I'm not the only one who knows it, if I should speak as the "generalized other."
Judging from your comment I suspect you might be a vindictive stalker, the conspiracy theorist you've made me out to be. That's called "transference", where you would transfer your own thoughts of conspiracy. Am I that same member from zoophilesforum, or is that the delusion you prefer to believe for the advantageous mental benefits that the cult-like authority provides?
However, yes I've spoken to people from zoophilesforum, beast forum, and some of them had a rather sick interest in torturing human beings, in relation to their loathing of them. Some of them claimed an abusive background. Others were so delusionally in denial of their ability to make a change that they would lash out against anybody who made an effort. They were also highly supportive of the anti-animalsex anti-zoo laws. The fact is, they don't want the laws to change because that would mean coming to terms with themselves and their hate for humanity. They appear to be very comfortable sacrificing their own members safety for the opportunity to lock people away and torture them. In some particular cases, the phrase "Self-Hating Zoo" comes to mind. Very similar to racial, ethnic, and cultural guilt. This is truly disappointing.
It seems very twisted that these people claiming to be zoophiles would value blood lust and human suffering as a priority, ranking above their love for animals. If they would sacrifice other animal lovers for themselves, don't tell me that they are true zoophiles. They are fraud. Zoophilia is their symptom...its their excuse for committing abuses to humanity, not their real sexuality or lifestyle. That's IF, big IF they are even the slightest bit attracted to animals at all because they could be fabricating the entire thing for the benefits the excuse provides. There are true zoophiles in the world, but it is not them. Very disappointing.
I hide nothing. If I had anything to hide, I would be denying my own post just like those members at the forums would do. Just like the serial human abusers in "normal" society would do. Deny deny deny... deny our mobility and harmless actions by enforcing the "excuses" to repress an apparent trauma in numbers.
I am not like them.
I can't say that because you're obviously not hiding anything very well at all. Judging from your comment I suspect you are a vindictive stalker with an oppositional defiant disorder.
Yes I've spoken to people from zoophilesforum, beast forum, and some of them had a rather sick interest in torturing human beings, in relation to their loathing of them. Most of them claimed an abusive background. Others were so delusionally in denial of their ability to make a change. They were also highly supportive of the anti-animalsex anti-zoo laws. The fact is, they don't want the laws to change because that would mean coming to terms with themselves. They appear to be very comfortable sacrificing their own members safety. Truly disappointing.
It seems very twisted that these people claiming to be zoophiles would value blood lust and human suffering as a priority, ranking above their love for animals. If they would sacrifice other animal lovers for themselves, don't tell me that they are true zoophiles. They are fraud. Zoophilia is their symptom... not their sexuality or lifestyle. There are true zoophiles but it is not them. I am very disappointed.
I hide nothing. If I had anything to hide, I would be denying my own post just like those members at the forums would do. I am not like them.
http://www.troll.me/images/sadasdas/wtf-did-I-just-read.jpg
Peer doesn't mean that.
You really are beyond help here, so I'm going to stop. I suggest you study what the words you are using mean.
I'm pretty sure now you are the same crazy guy who was banned on zoophilesforum repeatedly. You may be allowed to speak here, but don't expect people to be so blind as to just be guilted into believing what you have to say because you jump up and scream "Denial! Conspiracy! What are YOU hiding?"
Judging from your comment, I'm supposing you are a vindictive stalker with an oppositional defiant disorder.
Yes, I've spoken to people at zoophilesforum, and a few of them had a rather upsetting interest in torturing human beings. Came from abusive backgrounds. Had the same disregard for the rights of human beings which I described.
How would anybody have suspected that the same people who call themselves zoophiles are at the front of creating anti-zoo laws? I guess their thirst for human blood and torture is more important than the freedom to live without intervention from the law. I'm very disappointed.
Actually, I'm not friends of zoophilesforum, the admins there banned me you know for other stupid reasons. And here I've somewhat infamously known as "gullible Rannoch" because I tend to believe the best in people.
That said, I do monitor their activities with a fake account because I have friends there, so yeah I've seen you.
And now you are claiming zoophiles are creating anti-zoo laws?
...
I'm not really sure what to say with that except, unless you have evidence to substantiate such a claim, you really are a special kind of crazy.
Seek help. If I can see it, damn near everybody on earth can.
stop stalking him bro ??
If you seriously think I am stalking him, please PM me. I'm not. He's made quite the waves elsewhere and I just happened to recognize the pattern.
Lol I definitely don't and was just teasing. Some people need to tighten their lids a little bit it seems hehe
I can't say that because you're obviously not hiding anything very well at all. Judging from your comment I suspect you are a vindictive stalker with an oppositional defiant disorder.
Yes I've spoken to people from zoophilesforum and some of them had a rather sick interest in torturing human beings, in relation to their loathing of them. Most of them claimed an abusive background. They were also highly supportive of the anti-animalsex anti-zoo laws.
It seems very twisted that these people claiming to be zoophiles would value blood lust and human suffering as a priority, ranking above their love for animals. If they would sacrifice other animal lovers for themselves, don't tell me that they are true zoophiles. They are fraud, because zoophilia is their symptom... not their sexuality or lifestyle. There are true zoophiles but it is not them. I am very disappointed.
You know, I'm famous here for being gullible towards people, always believing the best, but if you want to believe I'm a stalker with " oppositional defiant disorder" more power to you. If you really want to believe that because you talked to someone over at zoophilesforum supportive of antizoo laws (if you even did) that all zoophiles are, you can. These are all your rights.
But no one with a brain in their mind is going to follow you off the cliff these kind of unfounded ideas will lead you off. You have presented absolutely no evidence to support these claims. Not even fake news. Nada, zilch.
Good luck. I honestly mean that, and hope you seek help.
The Expert title is only an opinion in the pseudoscience field. Experts here can fail since they have little control over their topic. Anything can change without them being aware of it, and they wouldn't know any better than the next Expert.
In a scientific study, peer review is 1. Analysis of procedure, sample size, result fidelity, and the ostensibility of a proposed correlation. 2. designed to be as impartial as possible and 3. is carried out by experts in the field; not 'peers' as you understood it.
Peer review is critical for the credibility of a scientific study. Without it, simply saying "it's not peer reviewed" can discredit it for the people that oppose it. It's essentially a seal of approval by the scientific community at large, often following a number of assenting studies.
Ah, the actor-observer bias. It would seem that you didn't take the time to thoroughly look at the resources available to anti zoos and in the absence of that information made assumptions based on information, known or assumed, about their personalities, instead of determining that there may have been resources in their environment that assented with their view.
Yes, that is trauma. Not necessarily child abuse related but it is still trauma. I wouldn't have to be there and know their precise situation to know when the psychological trauma system is operating. One traumatized person traumatizes another with their own experiences. Public notoriety contributes to the spread of trauma. If these people never experienced the act of sex with animals, or sex at all, the shock factor is enough to introduce a trauma. Teaching people zoophilia is wrong, disgusting, and evil is a form of trauma.
Don't get me wrong there need not be a sudden shock, because a constant stream of negativity can contribute to compassion fatigue. Animal welfare and shelter workers experience this, and the less grounded the person is the more fatigue they experience.
I'm saying that their views more likely had a base in resources, not trauma. The actor-observer bias is the tendency to wrongly inflate the effects of things as trauma in others, while underestimating it in themselves. The fact of the matter is, it's just villified. It's not trauma that's causing it for most people. For most, it's the fact that mom, dad, and the media said it was bad... and they're inclined to believe it because of it.
I edited my post above to describe what you're talking about. Basically, misleading information from mom and dad induces a trauma, especially if the information targets an entire ethnic, racial, cultural, gender, religious or any other group. That can be associated with child abuse, or "grooming" the child to attack or otherwise spead hate against these groups.
All that has to be done now is determine whether they are faking their abuse or not. Some people fake child abuse and other abuses as their excuse for committing crimes against humanity. Although this topic is zoo related, this is actually a human on human issue. By people dragging animals into the mix there must be an obvious dysfunction in conjunction with a complete lie in the making.
It's not trauma or abuse though. For all intents and purposes no harm is caused to a child like that and most children take up the beliefs and habits of their parents and peers in some capacity. That is due to social imprinting, and it's a natural, passive process that enhances their development into a culturally 'acceptable' member.
You're explaining the same parallel concept. I'm explaining overexposure, or trauma, while you are explaining underexposure, which is a component that leads to trauma. These both belong to parallel universes which affect one another simultaneously.
Social imprinting can be a negative consequence or a positive goal. Since children have a natural underexposure to the environment, by exposing them to positive or negative concepts will ultimately determine whether they form a borderline personality disorder or not. "Splitting" or the idea that having sex with animals is "all bad" is a symptom of a personality disorder, because they split from the good half of the concept. They are running at half capacity because their functionality was damaged.
Logically... Like a two wheel vehicle (let's say a chariot, or segway) where the second wheel in parallel does not function, the vehicle cannot drive because it will obviously spin in circles. That is a dysfunction, it contradicts itself and does not work as intended. A worse case scenario is that they're running everything backwards and will eventually crash themselves. Life and human behavior is not a unicycle, and it cannot run backwards. It just doesn't work on a single direcion without hurting itself. It doesn't work backwards without hurting itself. People who hurt themselves this way for attention have a major personality problem. The question is WHY? That brings us back to my original statement that it must be trauma, or negative social imprinting. How were they traumatized to cause this split, dysfunction? How was the trauma antagonized, instead of receiving the proper therapy to turn the negativity into healing positivity?
People having sex with animals in not the problem. Not treating people properly who are negatively traumatized by it is the problem. Social bias on the false "wrongness" of zoophilia prevents proper treatment, and essentially recruits the dysfunctional behavior. That's how serial killers and kidnappers are created. These people were imprinted with the idea that people who have sex with animals should be killed, tortured or locked in a cell, so they grow up to kidnap and lock zoophile (among other cultural, ethnic, racial, religious) people in their basement. Similarly, people who grew up doing drugs in school were imprinted by drugs, and might become a doctor who believes that doing drugs is a "cure all" for every medical or psychological condition.
These laws are a good example of legal "splitting" as the result of a disorder. They only cover one side, which is the "all bad" factor of having sex with animals, which leads to a situation where people with personality disorders can hurt normally functioning people because of its imbalance. The laws says having sex with animals is all bad. It's dysfunctional. The result of dysfunctional people creating and supporting the dysfunctional laws.
Taking one side on things and ignoring the rest is a natural phenomena. A lion will interpret hyenas as all bad, and won't care about the good. As do humans to mice in many cases. This is normal functioning; a sort of apathy that allows them to defend and attack without any mental consequence. This clever invention of yours is wrongly attributing disorder and trauma. Overexposure can only lead to trauma if said exposure causes harm at that point. It is pernicious for you, but not the anti-zoos. In fact, in much of society today, that disdain allows them a social safeguard, in that they'll have no or less motivation to carry out the act themselves -- a taboo in most places.
But that can still be ignored on the pretense of logic. Every major source of information is against zoophilia, for the most part. The same sources that would say hurling yourself into a meat grinder is bad. They are trusted sources that are largely credible. It makes sense to trust them, and if they say unanymously that something is bad and causes harm or death it's logical, if not accurate, to believe them.
Human to human is a whole different story than lions to hyenas and humans to mice. Humans are the same species and they should be able to socialize with one another. They're supposed to be intelligent creatures right? If there's any splitting between them then it's obviously related to socialization trauma.
I hypothesize that some anti-zoos could be showing dysfunctional empathy traits regarding people who were forced to have sex with animals. Yes that does happen. There's a phenomenon where empathetic people will feel so bad for actual rape victims that the empathic people will become abusive towards people (zoophiles) who had nothing to do with the rape. It's a form of psychological projection. They cannot actually go after the real rapist, so they project the label onto easier targets (zoophiles) It's not convenient enough for society to go after their own bread winners, child makers... So they scapegoat on the empathy targets who are viewed as being less valuable to society. Scapegoating is a form of coping with trauma, by denial.
They simply cannot face their own demons, humans who rape and abuse humans, because those demons are too powerful. Therefore, they make up ghosts and send the angry mob after people who have sex with animals, to make up for their shortcomings.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Edited to reply below (comments not showing)
No, I said splitting is the result of trauma. Trauma comes first, and it causes splitting.
You are describing a learned behavior. Yes it is a natural mechanism to classify people in error, but the errors (splitting) are the result of trauma. People don't naturally see tattoos and an orange jumpsuit and think "bad" without having learned that such a setup was bad in the first place. If people were told that violent prisoners wore pink bunny suits while Santa clause wore an orange jumpsuit and had tattoos, the classification of who is violent and who is good would be completely altered. People are "scared" (possibly emotionally "scarred", damaged traumatized) into believing that humans on animals is bad the same way people are taught that orange jumpsuits and tattoos are bad. Learned behavior. People can be misled to think Santa is bad the same way people are misled to believe zoophiles are bad. This is called "Parataxic Distortion"
I could say the same for other traumas...Those people who stigmatize the gays were probably abused and traumatized by a group of people claiming to be gay, mistaken for being gay, or the lone act of somebody who was actually gay... so the stigmatization of gays was the result of mistaken identity or splitting as the result of the traumatic incident. I can conclude the same situation is happening with zoophiles who are unfortunately the scapegoat for an actual group of rapists and child abusers. Zoophilia is the mask, whereby rapists and other bad people will attach themselves to the zoophile mask as their hostage, or "meat shield." Sacrificial lamb.
Again, learned behavior and stigmatization between human beings is NOT the same as a predator/prey relationship between animals of a different species. That's like comparing apples to apples as being the same as apples to oranges. It just isn't logical. Coincidentally that is the same mistake the anti-zoos make when comparing human/human sexual relationships to human/animal sexual relationships. They are both different, but just because they are different that doesn't make it wrong. The rules change. Informed consent is a concept built by and built for humans who can be informed by human method, so using a purely human/human concept to enforce animal/human interaction is not justifiable. There should be a mix between the two, to evenly match the mix of species.
These should be very easy concepts to understand for those people who have not been split one-sided.
Animals(Including humans, and excluding some of the simpler organisms) are imprinted on those that they are raised around regardless of species. There are basic tenets of communication between most mammals that are consistent, as are the faculties to understand what it means to and how to strike an accord. Many of the finer points of communication are learned within a species, and if two different forms of communication are learned between them, you'll encounter difficulties à la different languages.
Splitting, as you put it, is still not trauma. What you're seeing is a natural mechanism based in generalized classification. It's a classification error, at worst and is why gays weren't trusted with boys, lesbians weren't trusted with girls, zoophiles aren't trusted with animals, etc. It's the same mechanism that makes you cautious of someone wearing an orange jumpsuit with tattoo sleeves on their arms. It makes sense to avoid them and assume some things about that individual, and most animals built up an evolutionary proclivity for it.
Splitting, as I put it, is the "result" of trauma.
Gays were probably stigmatized because of the same splitting, as the result of trauma, when a person or group of gays, people claiming to be gay, or mistaken as gay had abused somebody. That somebody who was abused spread false facts about the gay community based on their own negative experiences, the trauma, which caused the splitting and infected society with lies and a black vs white point of view.
Things don't happen ""just because"" because there is a reasonable explanation for why people would think the way they do about members of other cultures. There's a big difference between the learned stigmatization between humans and the evolved predator/prey relationship between different species. You're comparing apples to apples as being the same to apples to oranges, and that's the same mistake the anti-zoos make. They expect human/animal sexual relationships to follow the same rules as human/human sexual relationships, and that isn't logical. They're different, but just because they're different it doesn't make them wrong. The rules change.
I'm done with this discussion as it's not going anywhere, but I'd like to highlight this. I'm studying to become a genetic engineer, and have had a special focus on nonhumans in my studies for years now. I understand nonhuman psychology("behavior") and physiology enough to understand this basic principle; I have also studied human psychology and so far have taken an introductory course in neurobiology. I have also studied evolutionary biology, accordingly. While my qualifications should not be interpreted as a source for my arguments, it's important for you to know that I'm not one that dives headfirst into topics I know nothing about.
Human behavior is not inherently logical, and this so-called trauma need not have happened. Propaganda and manipulation are not traumas, but can just as effectively influence opinion in the absence of trustworthy conflicting information.
No, I said splitting is the result of trauma. Trauma comes first, and it causes splitting.
You are describing a learned behavior. Yes it is a natural mechanism to classify people in error, but the errors (splitting) are the result of trauma. People don't naturally see tattoos and orange jumpsuit and think "bad" without having learned that such a setup was bad in the first place. If people were told that violent prisoners wore pink bunny suits while Santa clause wore an orange jumpsuit and had tattoos, the classification of who is violent and who is good would be completely altered. People are "scared" (possibly emotionally "scarred", damaged traumatized) into believing that humans on animals is bad the same way people are taught that orange jumpsuits and tattoos are bad. Learned behavior. People can be misled to think Santa is bad the same way people are misled to believe zoophiles are bad.
Another theory... Those people who stigmatize the gays were probably abused and traumatized by a group of people claiming to be gay, mistaken for being gay, or the lone act of somebody who was actually gay... so the stigmatization of gays was the result of mistaken identity or splitting as the result of the traumatic incident. I can conclude the same situation is happening with zoophiles who are unfortunately the scapegoat for an actual group of rapists and child abusers. Zoophilia is the mask, whereby rapists and other bad people will attach themselves to the zoophile mask as their hostage, or "meat shield."
Again, learned behavior and stigmatization between human beings is not the same as a predator/prey relationship between animals of a different species. That's like comparing apples to apples as being the same as apples to oranges. It just isn't logical. Coincidentally that is the same mistake the anti-zoos make when comparing human/human sexual relationships to human/animal sexual relationships. They are both different, but just because they are different that doesn't make it wrong. The rules change. Informed consent is a concept built by and built for humans who can be informed, so using a purely human/human concept to enforce animal/human interaction is not justifiable. There should be a mix between the two, to evenly match the mix of species.
These should be very easy concepts to understand for those people who have not been split one-sided.
It's not just emotional right now, however. there are people that approach this impartially and with that information still deem it bad. My parents believe that it's bad not to eat at the table. Are they afraid of the consequences of not doing it? No, and they recognize it as more of a moral tradition than a logical one.
Two words: "wasted seed". In biblical times, reproduction was massively valuable. If you weren't having kids, you weren't doing your part. That was ultimately a boon to humans and created explosive population growth over time, growth that may have gone too far at this point, but still growth that was at the time beneficial(and still is, if you consider our stranglehold on the planet). Mating with the same sex meant you weren't making kids to harvest, fight, and build for king and country. Same for mating with nonhuman animals. There's also the issue of scapegoating. Creating a scapegoat can attract others to your cause. Arguing for something that needs to be fixed that the system isn't fixing right now is a great way to attract followers. That's how Martin Luther and John Calvin's denominations came to power; they created a scapegoat within the catholic church, and through the scapegoating, got people into believing everything else they wanted to say as well as "We should do this differently". You don't need something to be bad, or to have even witnessed something bad for you to say it is bad.
No, I said splitting is the result of trauma. Trauma comes first, and it causes splitting.
You are describing a learned behavior. Yes it is a natural mechanism to classify people in error, but the errors (splitting) are the result of trauma. People don't naturally see tattoos and an orange jumpsuit and think "bad" without having learned that such a setup was bad in the first place. If people were told that violent prisoners wore pink bunny suits while Santa clause wore an orange jumpsuit and had tattoos, the classification of who is violent and who is good would be completely altered. People are "scared" (possibly emotionally "scarred", damaged traumatized) into believing that humans on animals is bad the same way people are taught that orange jumpsuits and tattoos are bad. Learned behavior. People can be misled to think Santa is bad the same way people are misled to believe zoophiles are bad.
I can't say the same for other traumas...Those people who stigmatize the gays were probably abused and traumatized by a group of people claiming to be gay, mistaken for being gay, or the lone act of somebody who was actually gay... so the stigmatization of gays was the result of mistaken identity or splitting as the result of the traumatic incident. I can conclude the same situation is happening with zoophiles who are unfortunately the scapegoat for an actual group of rapists and child abusers. Zoophilia is the mask, whereby rapists and other bad people will attach themselves to the zoophile mask as their hostage, or "meat shield."
Again, learned behavior and stigmatization between human beings is not the same as a predator/prey relationship between animals of a different species. That's like comparing apples to apples as being the same as apples to oranges. It just isn't logical. Coincidentally that is the same mistake the anti-zoos make when comparing human/human sexual relationships to human/animal sexual relationships. They are both different, but just because they are different that doesn't make it wrong. The rules change. Informed consent is a concept built by and built for humans who can be informed, so using a purely human/human concept to enforce animal/human interaction is not justifiable. There should be a mix between the two, to evenly match the mix of species.
These should be very easy concepts to understand for those people who have not been split one-sided.
But not people that don't find enough merit in your theory to believe it, apparently.
I commented above because comments were not working here.
Rather than reiterating what I've recently posted in the prior thread from a couple weeks ago, I'll just say that I'm sorry to hear that has happened.
Damn :(
As of right now, Oregon is the only state which specifically criminalizes the possession of zoo imagery. Oregon and a few other states (such as New Hampshire and Washington state) ban the making/distributing of it, but not possession. The Oregon law is new, and the New Hampshire law is also new (the NH law took effect on January 1st 2017). The laws in the U.S. states continue to get worse every year.
The new Oregon law also changed the penalty for zoosexual sex from a misdemeanor to a felony. Oregon also now has the highest possible fine of any state for sex with an animal ($125,000). The prison term for zoosex is up to 5 years in prison (under the new law). So I'd say Oregon is one of the worst in the U.S. on this issue.
Are you sure it is January 1st of this year? Wikipedia, and the sources cited in it, say it was January 1st 2016 (1 year ago) that the law passed. If there was additional new law, do you know what the bill number of it was?
No, it was last year, but because me and time aren't ever in sync, I somehow thought it was 2016 still when I wrote it. I always do something like that at least once in the beginning of every new year lol. I have to get used to the change.
[removed]
No, I said splitting is the result of trauma. Trauma comes first, and it causes splitting.
You are describing a learned behavior. Yes it is a natural mechanism to classify people in error, but the errors (splitting) are the result of trauma. People don't naturally see tattoos and an orange jumpsuit and think "bad" without having learned that such a setup was bad in the first place. If people were told that violent prisoners wore pink bunny suits while Santa clause wore an orange jumpsuit and had tattoos, the classification of who is violent and who is good would be completely altered. People are "scared" (possibly emotionally "scarred", damaged traumatized) into believing that humans on animals is bad the same way people are taught that orange jumpsuits and tattoos are bad. Learned behavior. People can be misled to think Santa is bad the same way people are misled to believe zoophiles are bad.
I can't say the same for other traumas...Those people who stigmatize the gays were probably abused and traumatized by a group of people claiming to be gay, mistaken for being gay, or the lone act of somebody who was actually gay... so the stigmatization of gays was the result of mistaken identity or splitting as the result of the traumatic incident. I can conclude the same situation is happening with zoophiles who are unfortunately the scapegoat for an actual group of rapists and child abusers. Zoophilia is the mask, whereby rapists and other bad people will attach themselves to the zoophile mask as their hostage, or "meat shield."
Again, learned behavior and stigmatization between human beings is not the same as a predator/prey relationship between animals of a different species. That's like comparing apples to apples as being the same as apples to oranges. It just isn't logical. Coincidentally that is the same mistake the anti-zoos make when comparing human/human sexual relationships to human/animal sexual relationships. They are both different, but just because they are different that doesn't make it wrong. The rules change. Informed consent is a concept built by and built for humans who can be informed by human method, so using a purely human/human concept to enforce animal/human interaction is not justifiable. There should be a mix between the two, to evenly match the mix of species.
These should be very easy concepts to understand for those people who have not been split one-sided.