For you who don't speak Finnish:
Piggery workers found a naked man who had let a 250 kg boar mount him. After the workers urged him to stop this activity, the man put on his pants, accidentally stepped into manure and ran out to his car to drive away.
An hour later, he was arrested for driving while intoxicated. He is accused for driving under influence, disturbing the public peace and compromising road safety.
My own note: Notice that since bestiality (as long as it isn't animal abuse) is legal in Finland, he was charged with disturbing the public peace instead when fence-hopping.
altoids1989zoo-exclusive 13 points on 2017-01-21 13:24:48
It would be great if more societies could laugh at something like that instead of feeling repulsion/hatred. I don't think that will happen anytime soon though, especially considering the changing political climate worldwide.
AmoreBestiaPro-zoophile, non-zoophile. 1 point on 2017-01-22 03:19:20
This has been posted to /r/nottheonion, here. Figured some of you might be interested in keeping tabs on it.
WarCanineLove knows no boundaries between species or gender 1 point on 2017-01-22 03:37:44
Damn you're fast.
That was uploaded in that subreddit 10 minutes before you posted this comment.
AmoreBestiaPro-zoophile, non-zoophile. 1 point on 2017-01-22 03:39:47
It was luck, if you'd believe it. :p
WarCanineLove knows no boundaries between species or gender 1 point on 2017-01-22 03:41:20
His suspected crimes do not include animal sex, because that is legal in Finland.
What you're telling me is that fencehopping isn't illegal in these cases?
Well, I've changed my mind about wanting bestiality to be legal everywhere.
I guess that's a reason not to dislike these strict laws...
EDIT: A solution for this would be a no fencehopping rule.
It was 3:40 AM, don't blame me for not realizing this lmao.
btwIAMAzoophileDogs are cute. 7 points on 2017-01-22 03:57:05
Well it is technically illegal(hence the disturbing the public peace because not his animal or property), but the act of sex itself is not illegal granted he doesn't harm the animal. Which makes sense given an animal's perspective.
30-30amator equae 0 points on 2017-01-22 16:30:59
See, that´s the entire point here. I honestly believe EVERY politician knows how ineffective laws are when it comes to what you do in your home, with locked doors (and a locked mouth, of course).
But to prevent traumatising unsuspecting outsiders, these laws are just. If this article is for real, it would have been interesting to hear from all the guys and gals who were forced to witness this. That is in my opinion the biggest flaw of all this "legalise zoophilia" crap...in the end, this would be absolute heaven for fencehoppers. But hell for anyone forced to walk in on a "zoophile" accidentally....not to mention the possible harm that can be inflicted by harassing an animal you don´t know shit about, medical condition as well as behaviour. It´s quite easy to harm an animal...when you fencehop a horse, for example, you simply don´t know whether it develops negative habits or will show signs of harm after your "little visit" is over and you´re back home. A stallion who "learned" to breed with humans during nightly visits won´t differentiate between his owner and such a "visitor"...the first attempt to breed and he´s sausage.
It might be heavily despised by "zoophiles", but society also has a right not to be bothered by us "weird animal fuckers", too. Incidents like this in the article above only reassure me in my belief that totally "legal" bestiality is rubbish and not much more than a feverish dream for that kind of clientele that usually doesn´t give a fuck about laws anyway.
In exactly that moment when "zoophilia" becomes a public nuisance and affects society, laws become inevitable. Thus I would never advocate for "legal" zoophilia. I will always advocate regulated zoophilia, with a firm set of rules and stipulations regarding behaviour and circumstances included. Society has the right to be spared from us. And because many of our community obviously think only from their perspective and leave out all the repercussions for society, the situation is as it is today. Being a responsible zoo not only means to take good care of your animal, it also means to be aware of all the social implications our orientation includes. We´re not alone on this planet...
WarCanineLove knows no boundaries between species or gender 4 points on 2017-01-22 17:42:22
See my edit.
There actually is no good reason to not legalize bestiality.
It literally stops no one from having sex with animals.
If innocent people like us ever get confronted with the cops because whatever reason, it only does harm.
not to mention the possible harm that can be inflicted by harassing an animal you don´t know shit about
Because people CAN harm animals doesn't mean it shouldn't be legal.
That's like saying people shouldn't touch animals at all because there's a chance you'll hurt one.
Because in that case human on human also should be illegal since that can also be done incorrectly.
but society also has a right not to be bothered by us "weird animal fuckers", too.
And what does that mean?
I don't want to be bothered by a lot of groups of people.
...So what?
And because many of our community obviously think only from their perspective and leave out all the repercussions for society
So you're saying most zoos should think how society thinks?
As in, we should stand in their shoes?
If so, society should be the one doing that.
If people are afraid of zoophiles then they're misinformed.
They're the ones misjudging us. I'm not gonna suck society's dick, lmao.
They can fuck off with their misjudged insults and stuff.
I don't like a lot of common topics either, yet I can't say ''EWWWW EWWW GET IT OUT OF MY FACE'' or else they'd be looking at me as if I was a mental fucktard.
[deleted] 1 point on 2017-01-22 18:46:34
[deleted]
AmoreBestiaPro-zoophile, non-zoophile. 1 point on 2017-01-22 18:53:57
There actually is no good reason to not legalize bestiality.
I think 30-30 agrees with you here, on the premise that it would be regulated so as to prevent what went down here... though I think it's fair to say that property and privacy laws already supplement his desires somewhat.
And what does that mean?
He's decrying what happened here -- no anthropophile would want to walk in on what was in this article, just as you wouldn't want to walk in on a couple banging in the middle of a room.
So you're saying most zoos should think how society thinks?
As in, we should stand in their shoes?
"Know thy enemy."
If so, society should be the one doing that.
If people are afraid of zoophiles then they're misinformed.
They're the ones misjudging us. I'm not gonna suck society's dick, lmao.
And if nobody tries bridging the gap, then it will only grow larger, and the problems that come with it will grow as well.
30-30amator equae 0 points on 2017-01-22 22:26:27
AmoreBestia summed it up quite good in his reply, but one thing I have to mention. As you know, sex with animals has become illegal in Germany in 2013 and I´ve been studying the new law with its implications for quite a while now. When caught, your actions are seen as a misdemeanor and you can be charged by up to 25 thousand Euros. What many "zoo activists" in their blind furor haven´t realised yet is that every judge has the possibility to acquit you when punishing your behaviour isn´t justified by the circumstances. You literally can get away with "zoophilia" when the judge isn´t convinced you should be punished even when you admit having sex with your animal. I believe it surely depends on the judge, but leaving a small loophole for the judges ...well, it´s something, isn´t it?
Please remember that I view these laws basically from a German perspective, with our new law in my mind. Compared to other parts of the world, I´d say our law comes darn near to what I´d propose....deterrence of sexually adventurous folks by law, but leaving open a loophole for cases where punishment creates more suffering than it prevents. Since there are no cases of "pure zoophilia" without other law violations like porn distribution yet, we can only wait for the first incident and what the outcome of the first trial against a "pure zoophile" will be.
Our best bet is regulation.
the_egoldstein 5 points on 2017-01-23 00:36:22
So you'd rather have it upto the whim of which judge tries the case? If you get a hyper religious one, max penalties and if you get a more free-thinking one nothing? That seems quite abritrary to me. I'd rather have laws based on logic and reason, I'd like to see more of our laws have to pass the scrutiny of something like Mill's "On Liberty" or Bentham's "An introduction to morals and legislation" rather than on the whim of public demand.
30-30amator equae -1 points on 2017-01-23 03:13:09
Germany = no hyper religious retard judges, maximum fine up to 25 000 Euros, but usually around 500 - 1000 Euros for first offense, no matter whether the judge goes to church every sunday or not. And again, you really have to take a dump directly into the fan to be drawn in front of a judge....several "open" zoophiles of ZETA never were officially accused even in the middle of the "anti zoo" craze between 2010 and 2013. The laws actually lowered the tension and only the most fanatic "anti zoos" demand that zoophilia should be immediately upgraded to a class a felony resulting in jail time, no matter what.
Originating from our experiences with the Third Reich and how justice was desecrated, twisted and torn by Roland Freisler and all the other little cogs in the inhumane machine, our judges take things very serious when it comes to unjustified punishment. May I remind you what the BverfG (constitutional court) had to add to the discussion only a few months ago? Or may I remind you that the law against sex with animals is a part of animal protection laws, not part of some law defining "good" and "bad" sexuality?
The Bundesverfassungsgericht (BVerfG) withstood all the fierce demands from the antis to make "zoophilia" a felony that requires jail time and filed it under a simple misdemeanor, comparable with speeding or parking in a no parking zone. Sure, you can lose the right to own animals temporarily or even permanently, but as many other non zoo delinquents with a history of animal neglect or even worse prove, there are ways to render that ineffective.
You´re absolutely free to make your own proposals here. But the usual whiney "*sob sob * fucking animals should be totally legal" won´t work and additionally makes it impossible to ensure animals aren´t severely harmed by "zoophiles". In Germany, it is the duty of our government to protect animals. This is in our constitution, mate.
Especially when you realise how damn hard it is to run into legal trouble as a zoophile who stays away from uploading own porn and hosting or participating in "animal fuck parties", your objections are basically meaningless. Having no laws will have only minor positive effects for real zoos, but surely exonerates every single "amateur animal porn producer", runners and "customers" of animal brothels.
Again: When it is necessary to live with a slightly increased risk for myself, but such asshats as described above can´t get away with their advanced form of animal exploitation easily, then I´ll swallow it. If only one animal is NOT harmed, tortured and broken by bestialists gone insane, I´ll gladly accept the risk and the laws. The animals always come first. Period. A single porn producer, animal rapist or brothel customer who doesn´t get what he deserves is one too much for a true zoophile actually living the zeta rules.
That´s my opinion; unnecessary to remind me of former discussions, my opinion hasn´t changed a bit. Until today, almost 4 (!) years after the law became effective, not a single zoophile was draw in front of a court. Not Mr Kiok, the ex chairman of ZETA, not Mr Burdinski, the guy immediately shoving his face into every camera that is set within a 2 kilometer radius around him, not anybody else from ZETA openly and publicly confessing to "zoophilia". If our German law is so unjust and hateful, why are these ZETA blokes still running free? Stop this overdramatisation.
And if you don´t believe me, well, move to Germany and experience it yourself. No one gives a rat´s ass about your quadruped sex partner if you don´t stick it into their faces. I´m not exactly hiding my orientation and still wasn´t reported to the police once.
the_egoldstein 3 points on 2017-01-23 03:34:05
But the usual whiney "*sob sob * fucking animals should be totally legal" won´t work and additionally makes it impossible to ensure animals aren´t severely harmed by "zoophiles".
So you're saying one cannot have animal abuse laws while not also singling out people who are not abusive? This is so absurd as to be beyond the pale. One can address animal welfare regardless of sexual contact.
If our German law is so unjust and hateful, why are these ZETA blokes still running free?
I said nothing about about Germany, or are you expanding German borders to cover Finland? The relevance of German laws here is about as much as those of Nigeria.
Stop this overdramatisation.
Please kindly point out any overdramatization you believe I have made. Kindly quote my words when you make these claims.
No one gives a rat´s ass about your quadruped sex partner if you don´t stick it into their faces. I´m not exactly hiding my orientation and still wasn´t reported to the police once.
Hooray? That's about how it is here too. Given we've a bit more of the hyper religious folks but so long as people aren't out fucking in the streets (which is illegal no matter who you're banging) its mostly irrelevant. You seem to think that I support some idea that all human and animal liasons should never be punished which is absurd. Actual abuse should be addressed, no matter it's cause, and actions which are not abusive should not be, pretty simple.
30-30amator equae 0 points on 2017-01-23 15:00:10
Let´s set aside any differences and pretend our entire community speaks with one voice. Let´s also pretend our demand has even the slightest chance to be heard in a world that gets increasingly mad and vicious , with global crises, nationalism and despotism on the rise (Erdogan, Putin and Tangerine Nightmare, for example).
To bring change, we need a political party. Which existing party would openly support our claims? None. Would we found our own, monothematic party, with all that´s needed like money (lots of it), a program and foremost, faces people can and will remember the next time they stand in the election booth? Who would commit social suicide? Who would definitely ruin his or her life extensively and will be known as "the animal fucker" advocate ´til the end of his life?
A monothematic party usually doesn´t last very long in parliaments, the Pirate party being one of the examples for that . Strong in Germany and other European countries a few years ago, but only for one election. When we talk about change, we have to respect the DEMOCRATIC process. Like it or not, it is a fact that laws against "zoophilia" are what the people want. I doubt there will ever be a majority that marches the streets around your parliament, waving signs with slogans like " animal sex is human right" or something similar. Most people are GLAD these laws have been introduced. To turn around a majority of people 180 degrees from what they´re thinking is wishful thinking, at best. Especially when the group of people trying to influence public opinion does everything to alienate Average Joe and Jill with irresponsible actions that harm society in whole (fencehopping, animal porn distribution etc...). The "normal" , democratic process to change laws will not succeed when you don´t have the "political climate" to support your claims. The "summer of Love" of the 70´s was a political singularity, a once-in-a-milennium incident, fueled by the Vietnam war and , more importantly, the then independent media coverage of it, showing absurdity, cruelty and suffering instead of a glorious fight of "our "heroes. Compare it to today´s "embedded journalism" and you see what this was and will probably be a singularity for the next 500 years to come.
The people are against us. What other ways do we have? We can hope for science to come up with my "UAHT" , the universal animal-human translator. To convince the majority, this is nothing less than obligatory and the only way accusations of rape will disappear once and for all. Only when an animal can communicate its wishes and desires clearly, saying "I want to have intercourse with my human", only then a majority of people will change their minds and make change possible.
What else is there for us? Let´s see...lobbyism, clandestine lobbyism like what the multinational corporations do. We simply don´t have enough wealth and influence for that.
Some of us might even think about becoming dictators, taking over their country, issuing decrees that wipe away any of these "unjust" laws. But dictatorship is Janus-headed, unhinged power quickly brings out the worst in everyone. It´s not just a coincidence that there hasn´t ever been a "dictatorship of clemency" yet, power corrupts...do you want to live under a dictator who "allows" fucking animals, but shits on basic human rights? Are you willing to pay this price?
What else is left? Challenging the laws via lawyers may look like a promising way to get things done, but this is also nothing but an utopian fever dream. Our worldwide community of beasties and zoos has made the mistake of putting the most unfavorable picture of us out there, establishing the image of zoophilia = animal abuse for centuries. There´s a reason zoophilia is a synonym for fucking animals now. Voices like mine aren´t heard, more porn with clear signs of abuse is uploaded every day, our public image completely shattered. Where are the pictures showing the love instead of the sex? Haven´t seen many, to be honest. To influence the public image, you have to play the game according to THEIR rules. You have to respect the fact that poly crap, mixed "zoophilia" (animals and humans), "fuck parties" and "making it possible for a "zoo friend" to scratch one entry from his/her "bucket list" undeniably send out the message " They call it zoophilia, love for animals, but it´s neither , it´s not about animals, it´s about human selfish desires, and it´s not about loive , it´s about sex and the itching in the groin".
So, is there anything else left? Not to my knowledge. Public opinion changing? Forget it, not with what our community presents itself in the internet. Science? Hell, when the best we have is often cited, but rarely understood Hani Miletski "study", science is kind of a dead end right now. Legal actions? See ZETA and their attempt to challenge the German law. And the BVerfG was VERY kind, even made it clear that the law has a loophole in it that allows judges to acquit "zoophiles" when punishment creates more harm than it prevents.
I appreciate your desire to "legalise" my orientation, but I also see that we´re not living in the times for that right now.
As hard as it is to swallow for you, but we have to learn to live with the laws, have to learn how to minimise the damage they CAN do to some of us. We have to prioritize PRIVACY...common sense is self defense. We have to be patient and wait for another of these moments like the "summer of love"...wait for another of that tremenduously rare moments when everything seems possible. Timing is vital. Our enemies outnumber AND outgun us by 1 to a million, maybe even more...we have to instrumentalise guerrilla tactics, hit and run...and we have to wait for that one moment in time and space...this moment when one good punch thrown at the right spot topples Goliath. Unloading all our ammo into a concrete wall that´s 5 kilometers thick is stupid...
Patience is needed as much as awareness of our real situation , without any of this "zoo is the new gay" sermon, without furor. Snipers, Ninjas and Saboteurs, that´s how we should deal with the current situation.
And while we sit and patiently wait for OUR chance, for the next singularity opening up to place this one, gamechanging shot, you, Egoldstein, should be thankful for your Finnish prime minister and his sturdyness against Op Beast´s blackmail attempts. Be grateful that you´re one of the "lucky" three countries in Europe that hasn´t introduced "anti zoo" laws (yet). You should hope that incidents like the one with the intoxicated "pig lover" from the article stay rare, hope that the lack of "anti zoo" laws won´t turn your country into a safe haven for animal fuckers and pornographers from around the world, undermining the trust your government places in the rationality of Finnish zoophiles (although....I´ve met two Finns during my IRC times...they can easily count as top ten material of the most fucked up people I´ve ever met).
Please do yourself a favor and THINK things THROUGH before making any claims and demands. All those "zoo advocates" screaming "justice for zoos" usually quit thinking after their three word slogan is exclaimed...think ahead, think outside of the box. And maybe you´ll finally come to the conclusion that a) the current situation isn´t as bad as many depict it, at least in some parts of the world and b) my proposals aren´t as retarded as they seem at first sight. Compromises are needed. Trench fights are counterproductive. When it is possible for me to find supporters/ neutral people from such a sub as CringeAnarchy, when it is possible for me to live my life with my mare in front of combined several hundered other horseowner´s eyes for more than two decades uninterrupted, chances are high I might have found a way to do what is seen as impossible, right?
the_egoldstein 3 points on 2017-01-24 03:23:31
When we talk about change, we have to respect the DEMOCRATIC process. Like it or not, it is a fact that laws against "zoophilia" are what the people want.
We do not have to, but that aside......
In the US, the people once wanted Jim Crow laws, once wanted sodomy laws, and continue to aggitate for a large number of laws which would violate the freedoms of other citizens. This is certainly not unique to the Americans, as most nations have a spotty history in regard to a vocal group making demands and infringing upon others, your own history is an example there. Just because public sentiment decries something does not make prohibiting it ethical. Remember way back there one post ago when I mentioned Mill and Bentham? Gee, I wonder what they were going on about? Surely not anything related to this conversation. So are you suggesting that if a group of people can aggitate the masses against women, jews, blacks, homosexuals, catholics, buddhists, muslims, or whatever is the group du jour that it's the right thing to support or even tolerate? Have you ever heard of the tyranny of the masses?
Most people are GLAD these laws have been introduced.
And most people were glad when religious requirements were legislated, they were happy when the Mormons were hanged, they were glad when blacks and women were powerless, they were glad when people were marched off to concentration camps. That's part of the reason a "Democracy" doesn't work, many people don't think logically about groups they don't like and when the majority rules, it often does so with malice.
To turn around a majority of people 180 degrees from what they´re thinking is wishful thinking, at best.
I agree on this part. I don't want to change anyone's opinion of zoophilia. I'm 100% OK with everyone else absolutely repulsed by it. The only thing I want is for laws to be made which do not single out any group for special discrimination merely because the populace find it morally repugnant. It's unacceptable to legislate morallity and that's the entire basis of almost every "anti-zoo" law.
What other ways do we have?
You pretend that this reegistration is the only remaining option, but I maintain it is not and even if it were it is not a viable option. We hashed this over in the other thread so I'm going to be pretty short here and just recap....
A registration of zoophiles......
1 singles out zoophiles for special treatment and examination. When does a reviled group get singled out for special examination and their lot improve?
2 It completely ignores all abuse done by non-zoophiles and fouses extra attention on one of the groups likely offering a greater level of care to their charges than is common. As a result, every minor injury will be touted as an excuse to further criminalize even when that injury is far more commonly caused by non-zoophiles because those non-zoos are not being examined, creating a strong bias.
3 who in their right mind would self-identify to such a system?
I think focusing on sex for any part of animal welfare is misguided attempts at moral legislaton. If a farmer abuses his livestock or another person abuses their dog does it oly matter if they were attempting to have sex with it or is it still abuse, regardless of how it happened? If it's still abuse, why are you trying to single out one small group for special harassment? If you were pushing for yearly veterinary health inspections of every domesticated animal I'd not see that as such a big problem. Even if it were limited to just "pets", I'd find it unwarranted but perhaps acceptable, but to single out one group for special interference by the government is unacceptable. It is the very definition of discrimination. Even more unacceptable when the exact same abuses when done by any other person would be treated differently.
I appreciate your desire to "legalise" my orientation, but I also see that we´re not living in the times for that right now.
You must not recall any of our other discussions where I've pointed out that I don't care about "legalization", I just want to see it decriminalized, to lose it's power of harassment to anyone who isn't violating any other law aside from being morally objectionable to their neighbors.
We have to prioritize PRIVACY...common sense is self defense.
Indeed, but privacy doesn't always save you from unjust laws. I can hide Jews in my attic, but it doesn't excuse laws which make such evasion necessary. You keep suggesting that if bestiality laws didn't exist that people would be out in every front yard banging the livestock. Is that how it used to be before it was so recently criminalized for you? Are you suddenly happy that the laws are now preventing you from thrusting your sexuality into the lives of your neighbor? Of course not, that is absurd whether it is you stating it or I. Even if bestiality were 100% legal, it still doesn't remove the social penalties of offending one's neighbors, family, and friends. All it removes is a special prohibition against a small group of people for doing something which their neighbors object to. Abuse is still abuse, it just has to be shown at that point....just like for everyone else. Public indecency is still the same too.
And while we sit and patiently wait for OUR chance, for the next singularity opening up to place this one, gamechanging shot, you, Egoldstein, should be thankful for your Finnish prime minister and his sturdyness against Op Beast´s blackmail attempts. Be grateful that you´re one of the "lucky" three countries in Europe that hasn´t introduced "anti zoo" laws (yet).
Why should any of that matter to me? I'm not Finnish! I am a citizen of Oceania, and I don't mean the one in the Pacific. The country I reside in has bestiality laws and they're not especially light. The key is that those laws don't largely affect me because I don't provide evidence which can incriminate me and I wouldn't even if it weren't a crime as it's not something one does, not if one's lover is a human or otherwise; private affairs should be private.
Please do yourself a favor and THINK things THROUGH before making any claims and demands. All those "zoo advocates" screaming "justice for zoos" usually quit thinking after their three word slogan is exclaimed...think ahead, think outside of the box.
After all the discussions we've had you honestly propose that's what I think? I have, on several occasions, spoken against such foolishness and addressed that with you before. I think you should stop and take your own advice and .... "THINK things THROUGH before making any claims and demands."
And maybe you´ll finally come to the conclusion that a) the current situation isn´t as bad as many depict it, at least in some parts of the world and b) my proposals aren´t as retarded as they seem at first sight.
a) agreed
b) you're only making me think the opposite.
When it is possible for me to find supporters/ neutral people from such a sub as CringeAnarchy, when it is possible for me to live my life with my mare in front of combined several hundered other horseowner´s eyes for more than two decades uninterrupted, chances are high I might have found a way to do what is seen as impossible, right?
FFS man, you think you're the only one who doesn't have problems with people knowing? Here's an idea, stop making so damn many strawmen and talk to some of the other people and think instead of being so condescending and arrogant. Sure, some people have silly, poorly thought out ideas and at times like this I think you're one of them, but at least I don't think you're always a fool, which seems to be more credit than you give anyone else.
99% of your post is a giant strawman who apparently lives in Finland.
Skgrsgpf 1 point on 2017-01-24 21:10:29
When you say "Oceania - not in Pacific", what do you mean?
An issue that needs to be resolved is the fact that a majority of people wrongfully believe in the untruth that all sex with animals is inherently "animal abuse", in and of itself, while (hypocritically) saying that other things done to animals such as spaying/neutering and AI is "humane". So that attitude needs to be addressed.
Another issue is the fact that people view animals (non-human animals) as being "below" humans; that is a wrong attitude.
the_egoldstein 1 point on 2017-01-24 23:38:08
When you say "Oceania - not in Pacific", what do you mean?
An issue that needs to be resolved is the fact that a majority of people wrongfully believe in the untruth that all sex with animals is inherently "animal abuse", in and of itself, while (hypocritically) saying that other things done to animals such as spaying/neutering and AI is "humane". So that attitude needs to be addressed.
While that would be nice and all, if one is bent on fixing issues in the general populace, I can think of more promising places to start than that.
30-30amator equae 1 point on 2017-01-25 14:43:01
"...a "Democracy" doesn´t work....". alternatives, please?
"...many people who don´t think logically about people they don´t like...". like in "the unjust society" , "these intolerant zoohaters", etc...right?
I´m so used to this slang, this rhetoric....this is sooo old, so worn out...and where did it get us? Go on, continue pursuing your "heads through a 5 meter thick concrete wall" crusade. Or you could use your time to study the vast archive of successful minority groups campaigns and actually learn something from it. Your "either all or nothing" attitude bothers me, your inability to see things from the opposite perspective, your lack of patience, your lack of insight....
Self victimisation and the glorification of it are very common, as it seems...have fun in your lonely abode, losing it , banging your head against the walls....
the_egoldstein 1 point on 2017-01-26 03:02:47
"...a "Democracy" doesn´t work....". alternatives, please? "...many people who don´t think logically about people they don´t like...". like in "the unjust society" , "these intolerant zoohaters", etc...right?
No. I've feel I have been very clear in stating that I do not hold, even reject, that narative. In the post you were replying to I even made the following statement:
I don't want to change anyone's opinion of zoophilia. I'm 100% OK with everyone else absolutely repulsed by it.
If you had bothered to read, or perhaps think about, what I posted you would see that your reply is nothing more than a continuation of your strawman. Instead of trying to misrepresent my statements...again...how about engaging in honest discussion? Have you simply resigned yourself to accepting that your idea isn't defensible so you need to create some strawman to attack in order to distract from it's flaws?
The idea that zoophiles should submit to a registry for heir own benefit is beyond absurd. That you do not even respond to the criticism and instead attempt to mischaracterize your opponent is quite damning.
Or you could use your time to study the vast archive of successful minority groups campaigns and actually learn something from it.
You presume I have not, regardless... of these successful minority groups, which ones voluntarily submitted to a registration and had their lot improve because of it? Now, which ones were victims of such registrations and how did it negatively impact them?
Go on, continue pursuing your "heads through a 5 meter thick concrete wall" crusade.
And what crusade would that be? Even though it's been pointed out to you several times that I am not supporting your strawman argument, you apparently cannot accept that.
Your "either all or nothing" attitude bothers me, your inability to see things from the opposite perspective, your lack of patience, your lack of insight....
Kindly point out these instances, so that I can be dsabused of my ignorance. I have done so for you, I detailed what I saw as flaws, can you not return the favor? It is not that I cannot see another perspective, quite the contrary, I have considered it and reject it as untenable; I even provided detailed commentary in that regard. I can provide more; I assure you, I am nowhere near exhausted.
Self victimisation and the glorification of it are very common, as it seems...have fun in your lonely abode, losing it , banging your head against the walls....
And still you rail against that strawman! When you can't even be bothered to read or reply to my position or statements, it makes having a discussion very difficult. Might as well just bash the keyboard and hit submit next time.
I tire of this, I would rather intelligent debate and I think you're capable of it, but this is just foolishness.
tencendur_Neeeigh 2 points on 2017-01-23 15:46:06
The way such German law is built up implies that you could get the full sentence if the judge felt like that. A small loophole for evading that just means that there is a problem you have to loophole out from.
My experience with loopholed misdemeanors is that The System always assumes that the guilty party was acting for the worst and gets a regular sentence.
Skgrsgpf 1 point on 2017-01-23 02:13:32
What if Finland decides to make an anti-zoo bill because of this recent news story?
SusitarCanidae 3 points on 2017-01-23 14:09:40
Of course it's possible, but on the other hand, Finland tends to move very slowly when it comes to politics and new laws. Which can be seen as both good and bad. It means less chaos and more predictability, but also that progressive steps such as same-sex marriage came quite late to Finland.
/r/zoophilia archive
For you who don't speak Finnish: Piggery workers found a naked man who had let a 250 kg boar mount him. After the workers urged him to stop this activity, the man put on his pants, accidentally stepped into manure and ran out to his car to drive away.
An hour later, he was arrested for driving while intoxicated. He is accused for driving under influence, disturbing the public peace and compromising road safety.
My own note: Notice that since bestiality (as long as it isn't animal abuse) is legal in Finland, he was charged with disturbing the public peace instead when fence-hopping.
It would be great if more societies could laugh at something like that instead of feeling repulsion/hatred. I don't think that will happen anytime soon though, especially considering the changing political climate worldwide.
This has been posted to /r/nottheonion, here. Figured some of you might be interested in keeping tabs on it.
Damn you're fast.
That was uploaded in that subreddit 10 minutes before you posted this comment.
It was luck, if you'd believe it. :p
What you're telling me is that fencehopping isn't illegal in these cases?
Well, I've changed my mind about wanting bestiality to be legal everywhere.
I guess that's a reason not to dislike these strict laws...
EDIT: A solution for this would be a no fencehopping rule.
It was 3:40 AM, don't blame me for not realizing this lmao.
Well it is technically illegal(hence the disturbing the public peace because not his animal or property), but the act of sex itself is not illegal granted he doesn't harm the animal. Which makes sense given an animal's perspective.
See, that´s the entire point here. I honestly believe EVERY politician knows how ineffective laws are when it comes to what you do in your home, with locked doors (and a locked mouth, of course). But to prevent traumatising unsuspecting outsiders, these laws are just. If this article is for real, it would have been interesting to hear from all the guys and gals who were forced to witness this. That is in my opinion the biggest flaw of all this "legalise zoophilia" crap...in the end, this would be absolute heaven for fencehoppers. But hell for anyone forced to walk in on a "zoophile" accidentally....not to mention the possible harm that can be inflicted by harassing an animal you don´t know shit about, medical condition as well as behaviour. It´s quite easy to harm an animal...when you fencehop a horse, for example, you simply don´t know whether it develops negative habits or will show signs of harm after your "little visit" is over and you´re back home. A stallion who "learned" to breed with humans during nightly visits won´t differentiate between his owner and such a "visitor"...the first attempt to breed and he´s sausage.
It might be heavily despised by "zoophiles", but society also has a right not to be bothered by us "weird animal fuckers", too. Incidents like this in the article above only reassure me in my belief that totally "legal" bestiality is rubbish and not much more than a feverish dream for that kind of clientele that usually doesn´t give a fuck about laws anyway.
In exactly that moment when "zoophilia" becomes a public nuisance and affects society, laws become inevitable. Thus I would never advocate for "legal" zoophilia. I will always advocate regulated zoophilia, with a firm set of rules and stipulations regarding behaviour and circumstances included. Society has the right to be spared from us. And because many of our community obviously think only from their perspective and leave out all the repercussions for society, the situation is as it is today. Being a responsible zoo not only means to take good care of your animal, it also means to be aware of all the social implications our orientation includes. We´re not alone on this planet...
See my edit.
There actually is no good reason to not legalize bestiality.
It literally stops no one from having sex with animals.
If innocent people like us ever get confronted with the cops because whatever reason, it only does harm.
Because people CAN harm animals doesn't mean it shouldn't be legal.
That's like saying people shouldn't touch animals at all because there's a chance you'll hurt one.
Because in that case human on human also should be illegal since that can also be done incorrectly.
And what does that mean?
I don't want to be bothered by a lot of groups of people.
...So what?
So you're saying most zoos should think how society thinks?
As in, we should stand in their shoes?
If so, society should be the one doing that.
If people are afraid of zoophiles then they're misinformed.
They're the ones misjudging us. I'm not gonna suck society's dick, lmao.
They can fuck off with their misjudged insults and stuff.
I don't like a lot of common topics either, yet I can't say ''EWWWW EWWW GET IT OUT OF MY FACE'' or else they'd be looking at me as if I was a mental fucktard.
[deleted]
I think 30-30 agrees with you here, on the premise that it would be regulated so as to prevent what went down here... though I think it's fair to say that property and privacy laws already supplement his desires somewhat.
He's decrying what happened here -- no anthropophile would want to walk in on what was in this article, just as you wouldn't want to walk in on a couple banging in the middle of a room.
"Know thy enemy."
And if nobody tries bridging the gap, then it will only grow larger, and the problems that come with it will grow as well.
AmoreBestia summed it up quite good in his reply, but one thing I have to mention. As you know, sex with animals has become illegal in Germany in 2013 and I´ve been studying the new law with its implications for quite a while now. When caught, your actions are seen as a misdemeanor and you can be charged by up to 25 thousand Euros. What many "zoo activists" in their blind furor haven´t realised yet is that every judge has the possibility to acquit you when punishing your behaviour isn´t justified by the circumstances. You literally can get away with "zoophilia" when the judge isn´t convinced you should be punished even when you admit having sex with your animal. I believe it surely depends on the judge, but leaving a small loophole for the judges ...well, it´s something, isn´t it?
Please remember that I view these laws basically from a German perspective, with our new law in my mind. Compared to other parts of the world, I´d say our law comes darn near to what I´d propose....deterrence of sexually adventurous folks by law, but leaving open a loophole for cases where punishment creates more suffering than it prevents. Since there are no cases of "pure zoophilia" without other law violations like porn distribution yet, we can only wait for the first incident and what the outcome of the first trial against a "pure zoophile" will be.
Our best bet is regulation.
So you'd rather have it upto the whim of which judge tries the case? If you get a hyper religious one, max penalties and if you get a more free-thinking one nothing? That seems quite abritrary to me. I'd rather have laws based on logic and reason, I'd like to see more of our laws have to pass the scrutiny of something like Mill's "On Liberty" or Bentham's "An introduction to morals and legislation" rather than on the whim of public demand.
You want that disussion again?
Edit: Here's a link to the last time in case it's been forgotten.
Germany = no hyper religious retard judges, maximum fine up to 25 000 Euros, but usually around 500 - 1000 Euros for first offense, no matter whether the judge goes to church every sunday or not. And again, you really have to take a dump directly into the fan to be drawn in front of a judge....several "open" zoophiles of ZETA never were officially accused even in the middle of the "anti zoo" craze between 2010 and 2013. The laws actually lowered the tension and only the most fanatic "anti zoos" demand that zoophilia should be immediately upgraded to a class a felony resulting in jail time, no matter what. Originating from our experiences with the Third Reich and how justice was desecrated, twisted and torn by Roland Freisler and all the other little cogs in the inhumane machine, our judges take things very serious when it comes to unjustified punishment. May I remind you what the BverfG (constitutional court) had to add to the discussion only a few months ago? Or may I remind you that the law against sex with animals is a part of animal protection laws, not part of some law defining "good" and "bad" sexuality? The Bundesverfassungsgericht (BVerfG) withstood all the fierce demands from the antis to make "zoophilia" a felony that requires jail time and filed it under a simple misdemeanor, comparable with speeding or parking in a no parking zone. Sure, you can lose the right to own animals temporarily or even permanently, but as many other non zoo delinquents with a history of animal neglect or even worse prove, there are ways to render that ineffective.
You´re absolutely free to make your own proposals here. But the usual whiney "*sob sob * fucking animals should be totally legal" won´t work and additionally makes it impossible to ensure animals aren´t severely harmed by "zoophiles". In Germany, it is the duty of our government to protect animals. This is in our constitution, mate.
Especially when you realise how damn hard it is to run into legal trouble as a zoophile who stays away from uploading own porn and hosting or participating in "animal fuck parties", your objections are basically meaningless. Having no laws will have only minor positive effects for real zoos, but surely exonerates every single "amateur animal porn producer", runners and "customers" of animal brothels. Again: When it is necessary to live with a slightly increased risk for myself, but such asshats as described above can´t get away with their advanced form of animal exploitation easily, then I´ll swallow it. If only one animal is NOT harmed, tortured and broken by bestialists gone insane, I´ll gladly accept the risk and the laws. The animals always come first. Period. A single porn producer, animal rapist or brothel customer who doesn´t get what he deserves is one too much for a true zoophile actually living the zeta rules.
That´s my opinion; unnecessary to remind me of former discussions, my opinion hasn´t changed a bit. Until today, almost 4 (!) years after the law became effective, not a single zoophile was draw in front of a court. Not Mr Kiok, the ex chairman of ZETA, not Mr Burdinski, the guy immediately shoving his face into every camera that is set within a 2 kilometer radius around him, not anybody else from ZETA openly and publicly confessing to "zoophilia". If our German law is so unjust and hateful, why are these ZETA blokes still running free? Stop this overdramatisation. And if you don´t believe me, well, move to Germany and experience it yourself. No one gives a rat´s ass about your quadruped sex partner if you don´t stick it into their faces. I´m not exactly hiding my orientation and still wasn´t reported to the police once.
So you're saying one cannot have animal abuse laws while not also singling out people who are not abusive? This is so absurd as to be beyond the pale. One can address animal welfare regardless of sexual contact.
I said nothing about about Germany, or are you expanding German borders to cover Finland? The relevance of German laws here is about as much as those of Nigeria.
Please kindly point out any overdramatization you believe I have made. Kindly quote my words when you make these claims.
Hooray? That's about how it is here too. Given we've a bit more of the hyper religious folks but so long as people aren't out fucking in the streets (which is illegal no matter who you're banging) its mostly irrelevant. You seem to think that I support some idea that all human and animal liasons should never be punished which is absurd. Actual abuse should be addressed, no matter it's cause, and actions which are not abusive should not be, pretty simple.
Let´s set aside any differences and pretend our entire community speaks with one voice. Let´s also pretend our demand has even the slightest chance to be heard in a world that gets increasingly mad and vicious , with global crises, nationalism and despotism on the rise (Erdogan, Putin and Tangerine Nightmare, for example).
To bring change, we need a political party. Which existing party would openly support our claims? None. Would we found our own, monothematic party, with all that´s needed like money (lots of it), a program and foremost, faces people can and will remember the next time they stand in the election booth? Who would commit social suicide? Who would definitely ruin his or her life extensively and will be known as "the animal fucker" advocate ´til the end of his life? A monothematic party usually doesn´t last very long in parliaments, the Pirate party being one of the examples for that . Strong in Germany and other European countries a few years ago, but only for one election. When we talk about change, we have to respect the DEMOCRATIC process. Like it or not, it is a fact that laws against "zoophilia" are what the people want. I doubt there will ever be a majority that marches the streets around your parliament, waving signs with slogans like " animal sex is human right" or something similar. Most people are GLAD these laws have been introduced. To turn around a majority of people 180 degrees from what they´re thinking is wishful thinking, at best. Especially when the group of people trying to influence public opinion does everything to alienate Average Joe and Jill with irresponsible actions that harm society in whole (fencehopping, animal porn distribution etc...). The "normal" , democratic process to change laws will not succeed when you don´t have the "political climate" to support your claims. The "summer of Love" of the 70´s was a political singularity, a once-in-a-milennium incident, fueled by the Vietnam war and , more importantly, the then independent media coverage of it, showing absurdity, cruelty and suffering instead of a glorious fight of "our "heroes. Compare it to today´s "embedded journalism" and you see what this was and will probably be a singularity for the next 500 years to come.
The people are against us. What other ways do we have? We can hope for science to come up with my "UAHT" , the universal animal-human translator. To convince the majority, this is nothing less than obligatory and the only way accusations of rape will disappear once and for all. Only when an animal can communicate its wishes and desires clearly, saying "I want to have intercourse with my human", only then a majority of people will change their minds and make change possible. What else is there for us? Let´s see...lobbyism, clandestine lobbyism like what the multinational corporations do. We simply don´t have enough wealth and influence for that. Some of us might even think about becoming dictators, taking over their country, issuing decrees that wipe away any of these "unjust" laws. But dictatorship is Janus-headed, unhinged power quickly brings out the worst in everyone. It´s not just a coincidence that there hasn´t ever been a "dictatorship of clemency" yet, power corrupts...do you want to live under a dictator who "allows" fucking animals, but shits on basic human rights? Are you willing to pay this price?
What else is left? Challenging the laws via lawyers may look like a promising way to get things done, but this is also nothing but an utopian fever dream. Our worldwide community of beasties and zoos has made the mistake of putting the most unfavorable picture of us out there, establishing the image of zoophilia = animal abuse for centuries. There´s a reason zoophilia is a synonym for fucking animals now. Voices like mine aren´t heard, more porn with clear signs of abuse is uploaded every day, our public image completely shattered. Where are the pictures showing the love instead of the sex? Haven´t seen many, to be honest. To influence the public image, you have to play the game according to THEIR rules. You have to respect the fact that poly crap, mixed "zoophilia" (animals and humans), "fuck parties" and "making it possible for a "zoo friend" to scratch one entry from his/her "bucket list" undeniably send out the message " They call it zoophilia, love for animals, but it´s neither , it´s not about animals, it´s about human selfish desires, and it´s not about loive , it´s about sex and the itching in the groin".
So, is there anything else left? Not to my knowledge. Public opinion changing? Forget it, not with what our community presents itself in the internet. Science? Hell, when the best we have is often cited, but rarely understood Hani Miletski "study", science is kind of a dead end right now. Legal actions? See ZETA and their attempt to challenge the German law. And the BVerfG was VERY kind, even made it clear that the law has a loophole in it that allows judges to acquit "zoophiles" when punishment creates more harm than it prevents.
I appreciate your desire to "legalise" my orientation, but I also see that we´re not living in the times for that right now. As hard as it is to swallow for you, but we have to learn to live with the laws, have to learn how to minimise the damage they CAN do to some of us. We have to prioritize PRIVACY...common sense is self defense. We have to be patient and wait for another of these moments like the "summer of love"...wait for another of that tremenduously rare moments when everything seems possible. Timing is vital. Our enemies outnumber AND outgun us by 1 to a million, maybe even more...we have to instrumentalise guerrilla tactics, hit and run...and we have to wait for that one moment in time and space...this moment when one good punch thrown at the right spot topples Goliath. Unloading all our ammo into a concrete wall that´s 5 kilometers thick is stupid... Patience is needed as much as awareness of our real situation , without any of this "zoo is the new gay" sermon, without furor. Snipers, Ninjas and Saboteurs, that´s how we should deal with the current situation.
And while we sit and patiently wait for OUR chance, for the next singularity opening up to place this one, gamechanging shot, you, Egoldstein, should be thankful for your Finnish prime minister and his sturdyness against Op Beast´s blackmail attempts. Be grateful that you´re one of the "lucky" three countries in Europe that hasn´t introduced "anti zoo" laws (yet). You should hope that incidents like the one with the intoxicated "pig lover" from the article stay rare, hope that the lack of "anti zoo" laws won´t turn your country into a safe haven for animal fuckers and pornographers from around the world, undermining the trust your government places in the rationality of Finnish zoophiles (although....I´ve met two Finns during my IRC times...they can easily count as top ten material of the most fucked up people I´ve ever met).
Please do yourself a favor and THINK things THROUGH before making any claims and demands. All those "zoo advocates" screaming "justice for zoos" usually quit thinking after their three word slogan is exclaimed...think ahead, think outside of the box. And maybe you´ll finally come to the conclusion that a) the current situation isn´t as bad as many depict it, at least in some parts of the world and b) my proposals aren´t as retarded as they seem at first sight. Compromises are needed. Trench fights are counterproductive. When it is possible for me to find supporters/ neutral people from such a sub as CringeAnarchy, when it is possible for me to live my life with my mare in front of combined several hundered other horseowner´s eyes for more than two decades uninterrupted, chances are high I might have found a way to do what is seen as impossible, right?
We do not have to, but that aside......
In the US, the people once wanted Jim Crow laws, once wanted sodomy laws, and continue to aggitate for a large number of laws which would violate the freedoms of other citizens. This is certainly not unique to the Americans, as most nations have a spotty history in regard to a vocal group making demands and infringing upon others, your own history is an example there. Just because public sentiment decries something does not make prohibiting it ethical. Remember way back there one post ago when I mentioned Mill and Bentham? Gee, I wonder what they were going on about? Surely not anything related to this conversation. So are you suggesting that if a group of people can aggitate the masses against women, jews, blacks, homosexuals, catholics, buddhists, muslims, or whatever is the group du jour that it's the right thing to support or even tolerate? Have you ever heard of the tyranny of the masses?
And most people were glad when religious requirements were legislated, they were happy when the Mormons were hanged, they were glad when blacks and women were powerless, they were glad when people were marched off to concentration camps. That's part of the reason a "Democracy" doesn't work, many people don't think logically about groups they don't like and when the majority rules, it often does so with malice.
I agree on this part. I don't want to change anyone's opinion of zoophilia. I'm 100% OK with everyone else absolutely repulsed by it. The only thing I want is for laws to be made which do not single out any group for special discrimination merely because the populace find it morally repugnant. It's unacceptable to legislate morallity and that's the entire basis of almost every "anti-zoo" law.
You pretend that this reegistration is the only remaining option, but I maintain it is not and even if it were it is not a viable option. We hashed this over in the other thread so I'm going to be pretty short here and just recap....
A registration of zoophiles......
1 singles out zoophiles for special treatment and examination. When does a reviled group get singled out for special examination and their lot improve?
2 It completely ignores all abuse done by non-zoophiles and fouses extra attention on one of the groups likely offering a greater level of care to their charges than is common. As a result, every minor injury will be touted as an excuse to further criminalize even when that injury is far more commonly caused by non-zoophiles because those non-zoos are not being examined, creating a strong bias.
3 who in their right mind would self-identify to such a system?
I think focusing on sex for any part of animal welfare is misguided attempts at moral legislaton. If a farmer abuses his livestock or another person abuses their dog does it oly matter if they were attempting to have sex with it or is it still abuse, regardless of how it happened? If it's still abuse, why are you trying to single out one small group for special harassment? If you were pushing for yearly veterinary health inspections of every domesticated animal I'd not see that as such a big problem. Even if it were limited to just "pets", I'd find it unwarranted but perhaps acceptable, but to single out one group for special interference by the government is unacceptable. It is the very definition of discrimination. Even more unacceptable when the exact same abuses when done by any other person would be treated differently.
You must not recall any of our other discussions where I've pointed out that I don't care about "legalization", I just want to see it decriminalized, to lose it's power of harassment to anyone who isn't violating any other law aside from being morally objectionable to their neighbors.
Indeed, but privacy doesn't always save you from unjust laws. I can hide Jews in my attic, but it doesn't excuse laws which make such evasion necessary. You keep suggesting that if bestiality laws didn't exist that people would be out in every front yard banging the livestock. Is that how it used to be before it was so recently criminalized for you? Are you suddenly happy that the laws are now preventing you from thrusting your sexuality into the lives of your neighbor? Of course not, that is absurd whether it is you stating it or I. Even if bestiality were 100% legal, it still doesn't remove the social penalties of offending one's neighbors, family, and friends. All it removes is a special prohibition against a small group of people for doing something which their neighbors object to. Abuse is still abuse, it just has to be shown at that point....just like for everyone else. Public indecency is still the same too.
Why should any of that matter to me? I'm not Finnish! I am a citizen of Oceania, and I don't mean the one in the Pacific. The country I reside in has bestiality laws and they're not especially light. The key is that those laws don't largely affect me because I don't provide evidence which can incriminate me and I wouldn't even if it weren't a crime as it's not something one does, not if one's lover is a human or otherwise; private affairs should be private.
After all the discussions we've had you honestly propose that's what I think? I have, on several occasions, spoken against such foolishness and addressed that with you before. I think you should stop and take your own advice and .... "THINK things THROUGH before making any claims and demands."
a) agreed
b) you're only making me think the opposite.
FFS man, you think you're the only one who doesn't have problems with people knowing? Here's an idea, stop making so damn many strawmen and talk to some of the other people and think instead of being so condescending and arrogant. Sure, some people have silly, poorly thought out ideas and at times like this I think you're one of them, but at least I don't think you're always a fool, which seems to be more credit than you give anyone else.
99% of your post is a giant strawman who apparently lives in Finland.
When you say "Oceania - not in Pacific", what do you mean?
An issue that needs to be resolved is the fact that a majority of people wrongfully believe in the untruth that all sex with animals is inherently "animal abuse", in and of itself, while (hypocritically) saying that other things done to animals such as spaying/neutering and AI is "humane". So that attitude needs to be addressed.
Another issue is the fact that people view animals (non-human animals) as being "below" humans; that is a wrong attitude.
This Oceania
While that would be nice and all, if one is bent on fixing issues in the general populace, I can think of more promising places to start than that.
"...a "Democracy" doesn´t work....". alternatives, please? "...many people who don´t think logically about people they don´t like...". like in "the unjust society" , "these intolerant zoohaters", etc...right?
I´m so used to this slang, this rhetoric....this is sooo old, so worn out...and where did it get us? Go on, continue pursuing your "heads through a 5 meter thick concrete wall" crusade. Or you could use your time to study the vast archive of successful minority groups campaigns and actually learn something from it. Your "either all or nothing" attitude bothers me, your inability to see things from the opposite perspective, your lack of patience, your lack of insight....
Self victimisation and the glorification of it are very common, as it seems...have fun in your lonely abode, losing it , banging your head against the walls....
No. I've feel I have been very clear in stating that I do not hold, even reject, that narative. In the post you were replying to I even made the following statement:
If you had bothered to read, or perhaps think about, what I posted you would see that your reply is nothing more than a continuation of your strawman. Instead of trying to misrepresent my statements...again...how about engaging in honest discussion? Have you simply resigned yourself to accepting that your idea isn't defensible so you need to create some strawman to attack in order to distract from it's flaws?
The idea that zoophiles should submit to a registry for heir own benefit is beyond absurd. That you do not even respond to the criticism and instead attempt to mischaracterize your opponent is quite damning.
You presume I have not, regardless... of these successful minority groups, which ones voluntarily submitted to a registration and had their lot improve because of it? Now, which ones were victims of such registrations and how did it negatively impact them?
And what crusade would that be? Even though it's been pointed out to you several times that I am not supporting your strawman argument, you apparently cannot accept that.
Kindly point out these instances, so that I can be dsabused of my ignorance. I have done so for you, I detailed what I saw as flaws, can you not return the favor? It is not that I cannot see another perspective, quite the contrary, I have considered it and reject it as untenable; I even provided detailed commentary in that regard. I can provide more; I assure you, I am nowhere near exhausted.
And still you rail against that strawman! When you can't even be bothered to read or reply to my position or statements, it makes having a discussion very difficult. Might as well just bash the keyboard and hit submit next time.
I tire of this, I would rather intelligent debate and I think you're capable of it, but this is just foolishness.
The way such German law is built up implies that you could get the full sentence if the judge felt like that. A small loophole for evading that just means that there is a problem you have to loophole out from.
My experience with loopholed misdemeanors is that The System always assumes that the guilty party was acting for the worst and gets a regular sentence.
What if Finland decides to make an anti-zoo bill because of this recent news story?
Of course it's possible, but on the other hand, Finland tends to move very slowly when it comes to politics and new laws. Which can be seen as both good and bad. It means less chaos and more predictability, but also that progressive steps such as same-sex marriage came quite late to Finland.