A man in his 70s is sentenced to a fine for sexually assaulting a horse. He was caught in the act by the horse's owner, but claims himself that he was just playing with the horse.
The judgment is based on Växjö District Court considers that the horse owner's testimony is clear, detailed and without contradictions. She has told her one evening last summer came to the paddock to get a mare, when she saw the man in the paddock. He stood behind a horse and bumped rhythmically with his genitals against the horse.
With shaky hands the woman took out his mobile and photographed. Then the man ran away, but he was later found in his car. It turned out that he had a large hole in the crotch of his pants, which he declared that his trousers torn during the mushroom walk he'd been out on before he came to the paddock.
Man sentenced to 70 day fines for violations of the Animal Welfare Act.
My comment:
I think this is the first case of a person getting fined for having sex with an animal after Sweden made bestiality illegal 2014. The ban on bestiality is a new part of the Swedish Animal Welfare Act.
szunltapcrocodiles are beautiful 1 point on 2017-02-22 20:30:40
Good to know that bestiality ban works how it should.
Sheppsoldier 1 point on 2017-02-23 02:43:01
Do you believe the laws should be more severe?
szunltapcrocodiles are beautiful 2 points on 2017-02-23 15:30:17
No. I'm just happy that they have affected only fencehoppers.
Sheppsoldier 1 point on 2017-02-23 20:48:20
That is not true. The laws have also affected people who are not fence hoppers.
szunltapcrocodiles are beautiful 1 point on 2017-02-23 23:12:48
Sorry for too inaccurate utterance.
I was talking about this:
My comment: I think this is the first case of a person getting fined for having sex with an animal after Sweden made bestiality illegal 2014.
I know this is not for sure and I know in other countries people were even put to death sometimes, but it shows how effective new laws are. We cannot do much about our situation. There are more and more bills, so it's good that they mostly affect real abusers.
Sheppsoldier 1 point on 2017-02-25 23:17:43
They're just trading one abuser for the other. The laws were not defined in such a way to prevent abuse of the law itself.
The original animal abusers have given up abuse of animals to abuse zoophiles with the laws that were made to protect the animals.
The laws were not done correctly and anybody who supports these laws are those abusers who have switched their targets of abuse. People are so blinded by the scare of fencehoppers and "icky animal sex" that they reacted like complete idiots and put us in harm's way. Real animal abusers are not attracted to abusing animals as much as they are attracted to the actual opportunity for abusing anything, so they would easily give up animals and abuse the laws to abuse zoophiles. That is called Legal Abuse.
Those people who "change" with the laws and appeal to the convenience to abuse are the real abusers.
szunltapcrocodiles are beautiful 1 point on 2017-02-26 09:18:38
The laws were not done correctly and anybody who supports these laws are those abusers who have switched their targets of abuse.
If that's true then everyone who participated in creating these laws is one of the animal abuser. Because you are so sure about that I have no doubt that you can show me proof that at least three of them are. Go ahead, you can start for example from Kayla Kessinger.
Sheppsoldier 1 point on 2017-02-26 17:25:31
My mistake. A "portion" of the people who supported these laws are abusers and the rest are just dumb enough to enable them. Now I've added some sensible variables.
It's like... these animal loving people don't know how to point a gun (metaphorically) at the real abusers so they create laws that hand the guns to the abusers who are now expected to stop the abuse?
Uh, things are not going to work out well that way. This is why people shouldn't be doing drugs during legislation.
Skgrsgpf 1 point on 2017-02-22 21:30:13
So is this man facing prison? Because if it had occurred in the United States, he probably would.
30-30amator equae 1 point on 2017-02-23 07:07:31
Haven´t you checked out the Swedish law yet? No, he´s not going to prison. Just like in some states of the US, where having sex with an animal is a misdemeanor, not a criminal offense....
Sheppsoldier 1 point on 2017-02-23 11:55:29
Do you believe the laws should be more severe?
30-30amator equae 1 point on 2017-02-23 12:44:44
What "laws"? You know that "the laws" differ from state to state and country to country? The laws in Germany are okay as they are ATM.
Sheppsoldier 2 points on 2017-02-23 21:03:44
If you are in Germany and you only care about Germany then maybe you should go somewhere with the same "Germany only" mentality. Like Germany or something.
This post was about Sweden, not selfish Goo Germany.
As far as the laws go, in the order of least to most retarded...
Sweden, Germany, USA.
USA is the most retarded with law creation. I pray for Sweden that the USA red states (danger zone) don't negatively influence them to ban sex with animals.
I apologize for my retarded country (USA) and its retarded people beforehand, because it only gets worse.
Skgrsgpf 1 point on 2017-02-23 20:26:32
Many U.S. states classify sex with animals as a "Class A misdemeanor", which means 1 year of prison. So I guess things are different in Sweden.
SusitarCanidae 1 point on 2017-02-23 14:53:01
No, while it is possible to be sentenced to prison for sex with animals in Sweden, I don't think it has ever happened. This man was fined. Had it been a more severe crime, for instance, hurting the horse or repeated offence, maybe the sentence would have been harsher.
The law says that those who have sex with animals can get maximum 2 years of prison. This is the same sentence as animal abuse (they are both covered in the Animal Welfare act). To compare, some other crimes in Sweden that have a maximum sentence of 2 years are identity theft, hate speech of the normal degree and assault of the normal degree.
WarCanineLove knows no boundaries between species or gender 7 points on 2017-02-22 18:24:25
Upside: Another disgusting fencehopper get's what he deserves!
That's what ya fuckin' get!
Downside: It's a bad thing for our image.
Meh, I guess it can't get any worse than it is now.
Sheppsoldier 1 point on 2017-02-23 02:30:42
I'm under the impression that you want it to be worse.
Because the public will not judge zoophilia negatively based on your incompetence...They will judge zoophilia negatively based on the competence of the fencehopper.
I'm sure I'm not the only one who noticed the split between the mental illnesses of zoophilia and the "healthy to stand trial" of bestiality.
I'm starting to believe that these laws are targeting people who do not have diagnosed mental illnesses or impaired judgements entitled by status or drug use.
Sheppsoldier 0 points on 2017-02-23 01:52:20
Apparently the "deviancy amplification spiral" is also working how it should.
It grabs the attention of and acts as ammunition for vindicative fake zoos, crazy animal welfare/rights activists and anyone else who wants to abuse the legal system in beneficiary to their wallets and belief systems.
The whole point of the spirals function is to enable abuse by the legal system as the means to commit acts of abuse against humanity as if it were normal. It is meant to make zoos, fencehoppers especially, look worse than they really are for the purpose of degrading zoophilia as a whole. Eventually, everyone will be a fencehopper in their own homes because some zoophiles could not understand how the spiral works and got caught up in it. They help it to spiral more quickly by appealing to the negativistic views and giving them more spiraling power.
No real zoo in their right mind would speak for the law. Fencehopping will never go away because it is a reality. It has become the excuse to degrade the entire act of sex with animals. The more presumed zoophiles there are who speak outrage against fencehopping zoos, the worse the situation becomes for all zoos. This leads me to believe the following and I am lead to believe this by the following...
Just as terroristic animal activists took over the grassroots animal welfare organizations, I expect the same type of individuals have infiltrated the zoo community and perverted it. Not perverted as in the dreaded demonized "bestiality" but perverted as in set up zoophilia for destruction by the lack of bias and support to zoophilia as a whole.
The mentally ill will obviously support laws that hurt themselves, because they are not true to themselves or they are similar to people who would slit their own wrists to feel good about themselves. Ironically, they will evade the laws that they supported by sympathy from the public but as a consequence they are diagnosed as being ill.
The honest healthy people however cannot escape with the mental illness label. They are labeled and charged as criminals and rapists instead... but the morality of zoophilia can only be judged according to the members who are in their right mind to be judged. In other words, zoophilia is judged according to the criminals, because the people who are not criminals were "saved" as mentally ill.
What I'm trying to say is - zoophilia is tarnished by those people who identify as zoophiles without being wholly immersed and devoted as such. It is NOT tarnished by the fencehoppers. Therefore, zoophilia and the act of sex with animals becomes criminal because the incompetent were mistakenly given the responsibilities as role models and judges of the perfectly healthy zoophiles who are wrongly labeled criminals by the impaired judgements of the mentally ill.
In conclusion, real zoos become entrapped by the "entitled innocence" of the mentally ill and the deceptive tactics of people who do not truly have devotion to animals as much as their devotion to a mission against targeted aspects of humanity. Human sexuality.
30-30amator equae 1 point on 2017-02-23 07:11:46
Get professional help. Now.
Sheppsoldier 1 point on 2017-02-23 11:15:55
Professional or expert? There's a difference.
One gets paid to do a job while the other knows what they're talking about regardless of the price.
Nevertheless, assume your statement reads more like an advertisement. Do you receive comission for referrals?
30-30amator equae 1 point on 2017-02-23 12:42:33
No, I just give valid advice to someone who is making a "Vollhorst" (google that) out of himself each time he posts in here...recommending an obvious nutjob to get the treatment he obviously needs is the right thing to do.
Sheppsoldier 2 points on 2017-02-23 17:54:40
It sounds more like you are advertising medical or pharmaceutical treatment.
Actually, that's the same technique they use to sell chemical castration drugs to "sex offenders." It's no wonder people are propagandizing so hard to include zoophiles and the act of sex with animals as a sex offense. Must be trying to make up for the declining opiate sales. What would you suggest Doctor? Medical marijuana? Pills? Therapy? Increase my church service attendance?
I'd rather be a Vollhorst than a Gargamel... Gargamel is always looking for ways to turn those pesky smurfs(zoophiles) into gold, but if he can't profit from them he's going to eat them (AKA murder)
Don't be a bad joo joo.
substallionלשלוט בי, הסוס שלי 2 points on 2017-02-24 03:16:46
Hey, 30-30 is a massive piece of shit, but you're running a pretty close second. Just sayian.
Sheppsoldier 1 point on 2017-02-24 03:25:02
That's OK! I'm a little bit German too so I know shit, first place or second, is still better than the pompous gold-digging rat people in the USA who enact, enforce and support laws that ban sex with animals.
Trust me, these people are like plague bearing sewer rats and they will gouge holes in your walls to invade your privacy. They worship "Gargamel" the King filth rats who control each state and decide which "little blue people" they're going to harvest next.
Don't let those parasites corrupt Sweden too.
AmoreBestiaPro-zoophile, non-zoophile. 1 point on 2017-02-24 19:02:51
Rule 8: "No hate speech"
I'll be treating this as a disrespect offense since it's rather brief, but you've been shittier than usual through this entire thread and have the reports to back it up so I should really just give you two offenses at this point. But I won't, because I believe in second chances.
I'm from the US, by the way. It isn't perfect, but it's much more tolerant than what you just said lets on. I do hope this "plague bearing sewer rat" doesn't oppress your catharsis too much.
This is your second warning. You only have one more warning left before we start issuing removals and bans.
If you have any questions regarding the rule or would like us to review a post before you make it, you're free to ask us via modmail if it's okay ahead of time.
Sheppsoldier 1 point on 2017-02-24 23:47:52
Ban? LolK GL HF It's already been tried before.
Btw that wasn't hate speech. You must not really know what hate speech is and you don't want to see my hate speech, obviously. I'm courteous enough to spare you pain and suffering because tears gross me out. It's like peeing from the eyes.
This is a response to your post below because somebody took the weak'n' easy way out to block my posts. Fortunately, you might never get to see it because I'll assume you're not intelligent enough to notice the edit.
That's not true. I must have provoked you if you're here threatening me with worse than death itself.
You're only human and no matter how many emotional indifferences you might appear to have there are always still a few bottled up and ready to bust out in defense of itself. Otherwise, you wouldn't be deeming anything I say as hate speech based on your own personal opinions.
It's not like "I" created additional accounts. What if somebody else created them and handed them over willingly for purposes other than ban evasion? There was no actual intent to commit because it's an anomaly.
Really though. If people like bans and rules so much it's no wonder why they would support the ban on sex with animals. I realize some people just get so hot and horny from having power over people and the power to ban people and things from anything, even life. It's an addiction. That's usually how serial killers start out. Begins with one or a couple, then next thing you know they're having sexual fantasies about concentration camps or worse, actually going out and creating them.
Btw this isn't hate speech, it's an observation. An important part of the scientific method that people typically choose to ignore because they don't have the guts to see it.
AmoreBestiaPro-zoophile, non-zoophile. 1 point on 2017-02-25 00:08:56
Ban? LolK GL HF It's already been tried before.
Btw that wasn't hate speech. You must not really know what hate speech is and you don't want to see my hate speech, obviously. I'm courteous enough to spare you pain and suffering because tears gross me out. It's like peeing from the eyes.
To remind you of our expanded definition of the rule...
"It's fine to have opinions. It's fine to not like some people. It's fine to speak your opinions. It's also fine to say that you don't like somebody. It is not fine to say that they should die in a fire or to use severe derogation against a population, zoo or non-zoo. Hate speech can be handled as a disrespect offense or as a moderator deems necessary."
I'd also like to remind you of Reddit's prohibited behavior section in their content policy. Note that among that prohibited conduct is creating additional accounts for ban evasion. This can result in suspension of your account, or worse.
... and that this violation was also issued in part due to rule 7.
Please remember, too, that you're speaking with someone that can't be provoked by the likes of you.
oh and i saw your edit
Sheppsoldier 1 point on 2017-02-25 02:08:02
I must have provoked you if you're here threatening me with "worse" than death. Don't be so quick to lie about your emotions.
The only thing I can think of that could possibly be worse than death is having anyone agree with me because that would make things very convenient. I hate convenience.
[deleted] 1 point on 2017-02-25 02:55:14
[deleted]
Sheppsoldier 1 point on 2017-02-25 02:19:14
That's not true. I must have provoked you if you're here threatening me with worse than death itself.
You're only human and no matter how many emotional indifferences you might appear to have there are always still a few bottled up and ready to bust out in defense of itself. Otherwise, you wouldn't be deeming anything as hate speech based on your own personal opinions.
It's not like "I" created additional accounts. What if somebody else created them and handed them over willingly for purposes other than ban evasion?
Really though. If you like bans so much I wouldn't be surprised if you're supporting the ban on sex with animals. I realize some people just get so hot and horny from having the power to ban people and things. It's an addiction and once you start there is no stopping.
AmoreBestiaPro-zoophile, non-zoophile. 2 points on 2017-02-25 03:18:29
That's not true. I must have provoked you if you're here threatening me with worse than death itself.
The "or worse" constitutes termination of your reddit account, unless Reddit decides to take legal action on you for some reason.
You're only human and no matter how many emotional indifferences you might appear to have there are always still a few bottled up and ready to bust out in defense of itself.
I literally have hypoemotionality.
Otherwise, you wouldn't be deeming anything as hate speech based on your own personal opinions.
I don't need to be emotionally invested to evaluate something as being hate speech. There is a point where hate speech is more fact than opinion, though, and you crossed that line. I reviewed it with another moderator as well, so it wasn't just my decision. The same happened with ursusem.
Really though. If you like bans so much I wouldn't be surprised if you're supporting the ban on sex with animals. I realize some people just get so hot and horny from having the power to ban people and things.
If I liked bans, then I'd issue permanent bans instead of tempbans for disrespect offenses, and I wouldn't have pushed for a stipulation that makes me powerless until someone reports a post in a thread.
In the one instance where I superceded the wishes of the community, I actually made a rule more lenient than they wanted. 99% of the offenses for our established users are put in the disrespect database instead of following the protocols for different rules, which are markedly harsher but take less time on our part. I like the system, though. Warnings are really all you need in most cases because the people that don't want to start shit tend to pay more attention from then on out anyway.
It's an addiction and once you start there is no stopping.
Ask any moderator whether they like banning people. Most likely, you'll hear something along the lines of "bans are a net loss to the community, and that sucks". Removing a voice is never fun, but sometimes it's a necessary evil.
WarCanineLove knows no boundaries between species or gender 1 point on 2017-02-24 17:32:44
No, 30-30 is just a bit aggressive with his posts.
Or at least it seems like he is acting aggressive.
I wouldn't be surprised with such a retarded community.
I'd say check out Shepp's post history and try to figure out what he's saying.
At least 30-30 is right about some things.
He isn't blinded by his 'aggressiveness,' while Shepp obviously is.
Sheppsoldier 1 point on 2017-02-24 18:22:08
I'm not being that aggressive... you're all just a bunch of sensitive fairies.
Really should have stretched before taking a knot you couldn't handle because walking around with stitches in your ass looks sort of funny.
:)
WarCanineLove knows no boundaries between species or gender 2 points on 2017-02-24 18:36:41
Except I'm not sensitive, it's just obvious that you're blinded by your hatred.
While I would probably leave all antis to die in a fire, you're accusing them of stuff that doesn't really make any sense.
Seriously, look at all the replies to your posts.
Nobody knows what goes around in your mind.
And hey, I've never fucked with a dog so these stitches are probably one of your illusions.
The only fairies here are the ones in your imagination.
Tell me, ever seen a guy around here insult people, keeps talking about fairies and keeps bothering people?
Because that would be childish behavior, and you know what that means: That you really love children, right?
Sheppsoldier 1 point on 2017-02-24 19:11:55
Childish behavior is just a matter of your opinion.
If you haven't had sex with a dog yet then you should probably start because I'm out-experiencing you on a topic you're only pretending to understand. You'd get your hymie split open like a banana.
See, if I know but nobody else knows then that must mean everyone else is a poser. Childish behavior only applies to the inexperienced children. This is why experience is important.
If you don't know and they don't know, then you don't know. Not my problem.
WarCanineLove knows no boundaries between species or gender 1 point on 2017-02-24 19:21:42
Childish behavior is just a matter of your opinion.
So that also counts for you, then.
Thanks for realizing all antis aren't undercover child molesters!
If you haven't had sex with a dog yet then you should probably start
Sex? Yes. Penetrative sex? No.
I'm not going to have sex for someone else, so wave your invitation goodbye.
Wtf? You really hit your head a little too hard today.
My bitch doesn't want sex and I don't want to either.
I'm out-experiencing you on a topic you're only pretending to understand.
Yeah sure, only according to you.
It's just another opinion of yours.
See, if I know but nobody else knows then that must mean everyone else is a poser. Childish behavior only applies to the inexperienced children. This is why experience is important.
Another piece of text nobody can understand.
Can you unretardize it for me, or do I have to guess what bullshit you've made up now?
You actually don't know much according to your post history.
Shastadog9025/F/Bisexual Dog Lover 1 point on 2017-02-25 14:45:52
Can you repeat that in English? My grandma can speak better English than you can type it.
Shastadog9025/F/Bisexual Dog Lover 1 point on 2017-02-25 14:42:41
Sheppsoldier has first place, actually its a tie between him and Aluzky right now. 30-30 doesn't seem like a piece of shit to me.
Sheppsoldier 1 point on 2017-02-25 18:01:43
Didn't anybody ever teach you not to use the Lord's name in vain? He must be a pretty good guy if people are spouting jealousies for him everywhere. It is also said, that when you wrong somebody you start to see them everywhere. A telltale heart is a guilty heart.
My observation is... People must really like shit, since they're not bothering the people who don't seem like shit but they're all hounding shit from those who appear to be it.
Ironic.
If you create laws that kill people by targeting their weakened hearts with fear and paranoia, you might just drop dead by the guilts in your own heart.
These laws do nothing but change animals abusers targets to abuse human beings instead. Abusers do not care who or what they abuse as long as it's easy and abusing the laws to abuse zoophiles was made easy.
Congratulations.
Shastadog9025/F/Bisexual Dog Lover 1 point on 2017-03-20 01:11:40
Didn't anybody ever teach you not to use the Lord's name in vain?
I'm an atheist so I don't give a shit.
He must be a pretty good guy if people are spouting jealousies for him everywhere.
Jealous of a man-child who fucks anything with four legs and lies to the owners about it? Jealous of the man who proclaims to be a good Zoophile but makes videos of other people's pets? You mistake jealousy for disgust. Disgust that one of the more visible Zoophiles out there is basically a walking stereotype of what Zoos are.
And for fuck's sake could you at least TRY to reply to someone in English?
Valiant1204Now with added gay! 1 point on 2017-02-23 08:16:52
Uhhhhhh....
doghumper 3 points on 2017-02-23 05:14:08
I am pretty sure the Nordic countries understand it's a pretty harmless "crime" in those cases where you're not hurting the animals, the law is mostly on the books just to get rid of the animal rights activists who refused to shut up about it as long as it was legal.
30-30amator equae 1 point on 2017-02-23 09:47:02
While the incident itself isn´t funny, this guy´s "explanation" is just genius...if "genius" means "retarded" now.
"Oh, I ripped my pants while searching for mushrooms, let´s walk over to this mare and press my genitals against hers so my dick doesn´t catch a cold"...yeah, totally, absolutely, motherf**in´ plausible, man!
Usually , pants don´t rip in your crotch, they rip at the perineum area or your arse area. And why someone with a ripped pair of pants isn´t immediately driving home to change pants...hmm....
And there´s absolutely no way that our "hero" has cut open his crotch area ( we Germans call that a "Schnellfickerhose"/ fast fuck pants, btw) to support fast and unsuspicious fencehopping, no way he did literally prepare for fencehopping, no, no, no. /s
Does anyone actually buy this bullshit?
Fun fact: without the new Swedish laws, this guy couldn´t be punished for what he did. Just another piece of evidence a law directly targeting "zoophilia" isn´t so superfluous as many "zoos" claim. I feel terribly sorry for the Swedish woman who has been forced to witness a horny old fuck getting his rocks off with one of her horses, I feel sorry for the horse, too. The only guy I don´t feel sorry for at all...well, can you guess who it is? ;)
As long as fencehopping is a part of "zoophilia", our public image gets torn and lacerated. How should we ever gain enough trust so society leaves us alone with our animals when it´s very clear that "we" , the "zoos" can´t even be trusted with animals not our own?
The poerpetrator himself knew exactly what he was doing and that such actions are not at all justifiable. Or why do you think he pulled out such a blatant and utterly stupid lie that nobody buys, not even he himself? No winners in this , only losers...except the new Swedish laws. You all can like it or not, but cases like this only serve to reassure lawmakers and population of the righteousness to put such laws into force, even if it´s only a very tiny minority of people who are affected by them.
Every single case like this is a granite stone in the fundament of "anti zoo"/anti bestiality laws...and the fundament already is damn hard and sturdy, almost impenetrable or destrucatable. Fencehoppers...MOOES..."make our opponents even stronger"...
Sheppsoldier 1 point on 2017-02-23 11:35:12
Not exactly. Giving our opponents what they want makes them even stronger. This is obvious, because the Animal Welfare laws were not enough to make them happy considering their pursuit of further action. The reality is, no law works. The laws become worse for the zoophiles and so better for the "torture monkeys" who support the laws for their own sadistic pleasures of harming human beings... Please read about the "deviancy amplification spiral"
The difference is made by "This did happen and it's a problem" vs. "Nothing of importance happened"
By egging on the deviancy of fencehopping, zoophiles are making things worse for themselves by saying "This did happen and it's a problem."
The laws do not discriminate and the more harsh the laws become the less they will discriminate friend vs foe. Innocence then comes down to who has more money for lawyers or who accepts to be labeled as mentally ill and take drugs to escape the dreadfully long reach of the law and the mankillers who scapegoat on it.
30-30amator equae 1 point on 2017-02-23 12:39:31
Yeah, sure, fucking random animals of others and /or supporting that will set us all free in an instant. Say, do you really believe what you´re vomiting into your keyboard? If that´s so, then get professional help.
Sheppsoldier 2 points on 2017-02-23 18:31:22
Im sorry! I thought you said you were a professional?
Probably look better I'd you weren't. Professionals are paid and if you're a professional then you're only as honest as the wages and the person who hired you. You'd get paid to be here and lie about everything. Paid bloggers.
Honestly, do you actually know what your talking about or do you just pretend to... like the way you pretend to be a zoo to criticise the real competent zoos who have the sex associated with it?
Who ever said the animal was random? Maybe he chose the animal because he was attracted to her? Admit it, you don't know.
Something seems unusually off about you. You speak about how people must love the animal in order to have a sexual relationship with them, yet you still objectify them by claiming the person "must only" have sex with the animals they possess like property for it to be morally correct. That's like the stereotypical forced marriage or sex slavery. Mixed signals man and you're sending the wrong signals to people who despise forced marriages and sex slavery. Do you train or treat your animals with the same mixed signals?
I've told you before, it's not always fencehoppers making zoos look bad. I'd say it looks better in western culture when a person has sex with an animal that is not their own because the animals weren't raised or "trained" by that person for sexual exploitation.
Anywho, Im not the guy walking around /Zoophilia telling or forcing people to live by my religious beliefs "OR ELSE" they will be punished by the law.
Actually, the word you were looking for was "expert."
30-30amator equae 1 point on 2017-02-23 18:49:05
"I´d say it looks better when a person has sex with an animal that is not their own"
Like a formula one eejit...from zero to full blown nutjob in two seconds...
Sheppsoldier 1 point on 2017-02-23 20:14:35
Eejit? Is that some kind of Sharia or Hebrew jibberish?
Yeah, sane people typically go out, meet and mess around with other people's adult children. Unless you just assume that everybody raises their own children to exploit for themselves... but I wouldn't have judged you if you hadn't judged first.
You can't expect everybody to automatically assume or live by that degenerate "inbred" slave ownership belief system.
It's not OK to put people in prison who assume that animal loving people have good hearts, to give their animals at least some freedom of choice and variety.
Pretty sure the woman wouldn't satisfy the horse like the man could anyways.
Shastadog9025/F/Bisexual Dog Lover 1 point on 2017-02-25 14:41:33
Great. Just what we need, another self proclaimed Zoophile who supports fence hoping.
Sheppsoldier 1 point on 2017-02-25 18:17:23
I was given the impression that I should support fencehopping...because I was told that supporting the people who do not fence hop was wrong.
I'm sorry that "your people" can't collect their thoughts, get their priorities or support for the correct laws straight. I'll have to apologize for them because they probably wouldn't be able to do that on their own either.
Really now don't be silly. Everyone is a self proclaimed zoophile unless they are "diagnosed" as one. If they are diagnosed then they are just mentally ill due to a rainbow of other underlying issues and shouldn't be taken seriously on matters they cannot actually comprehend.
There's a big difference between "real zoophiles" and "real psychopaths" in that respect.
Honestly, I do not agree with the term "Zoophilia" being applied loosely to the wrong demographics. It's no wonder people associate zoophiles with everything psycho under the sun because psychos are wrongly diagnosed as zoophiles.
Self proclaimed correctly - or - incompetently fabricated
Shastadog9025/F/Bisexual Dog Lover 1 point on 2017-03-20 01:06:19
It's clear that you support fence jumping. Zoophiles have a hard enough gaining the trust of others without people like you White Knighting for every dumb son of a bitch who gets caught blowing the neighbor's gelding or raping the family Lab. That's why people hate us so much.
MDCCCLXIIII 2 points on 2017-02-24 20:48:14
I suggest we all take a step back and realize that perpetuating this discussion based on ad hominem attacks or plain insults is not going to lead us anywhere. We should try to take it down a notch and develop an understanding of each others point of view rather than escalating the situation further. Keep in mind that while there might be insurmountable ideological differences between us, it is up to us to settle these conflicts in a most civilized way. Thus, let's adhere to humanist values and be tolerant. Thanks.
Battlecropscat kisser extraordinaire 2 points on 2017-02-25 06:03:08
I keep hoping that the pointless insults and personal attacks will settle down, but they never do. It's really grating. Nothing really stays on topic anymore. Or even if it is on topic you have to wade through a bunch of shit to get to the relevant points. I'm so sick of this.
/r/zoophilia archive
Translation:
A man in his 70s is sentenced to a fine for sexually assaulting a horse. He was caught in the act by the horse's owner, but claims himself that he was just playing with the horse.
The judgment is based on Växjö District Court considers that the horse owner's testimony is clear, detailed and without contradictions. She has told her one evening last summer came to the paddock to get a mare, when she saw the man in the paddock. He stood behind a horse and bumped rhythmically with his genitals against the horse.
With shaky hands the woman took out his mobile and photographed. Then the man ran away, but he was later found in his car. It turned out that he had a large hole in the crotch of his pants, which he declared that his trousers torn during the mushroom walk he'd been out on before he came to the paddock.
Man sentenced to 70 day fines for violations of the Animal Welfare Act.
My comment: I think this is the first case of a person getting fined for having sex with an animal after Sweden made bestiality illegal 2014. The ban on bestiality is a new part of the Swedish Animal Welfare Act.
Good to know that bestiality ban works how it should.
Do you believe the laws should be more severe?
No. I'm just happy that they have affected only fencehoppers.
That is not true. The laws have also affected people who are not fence hoppers.
Sorry for too inaccurate utterance. I was talking about this:
I know this is not for sure and I know in other countries people were even put to death sometimes, but it shows how effective new laws are. We cannot do much about our situation. There are more and more bills, so it's good that they mostly affect real abusers.
They're just trading one abuser for the other. The laws were not defined in such a way to prevent abuse of the law itself.
The original animal abusers have given up abuse of animals to abuse zoophiles with the laws that were made to protect the animals.
The laws were not done correctly and anybody who supports these laws are those abusers who have switched their targets of abuse. People are so blinded by the scare of fencehoppers and "icky animal sex" that they reacted like complete idiots and put us in harm's way. Real animal abusers are not attracted to abusing animals as much as they are attracted to the actual opportunity for abusing anything, so they would easily give up animals and abuse the laws to abuse zoophiles. That is called Legal Abuse.
Those people who "change" with the laws and appeal to the convenience to abuse are the real abusers.
If that's true then everyone who participated in creating these laws is one of the animal abuser. Because you are so sure about that I have no doubt that you can show me proof that at least three of them are. Go ahead, you can start for example from Kayla Kessinger.
My mistake. A "portion" of the people who supported these laws are abusers and the rest are just dumb enough to enable them. Now I've added some sensible variables.
It's like... these animal loving people don't know how to point a gun (metaphorically) at the real abusers so they create laws that hand the guns to the abusers who are now expected to stop the abuse?
Uh, things are not going to work out well that way. This is why people shouldn't be doing drugs during legislation.
So is this man facing prison? Because if it had occurred in the United States, he probably would.
Haven´t you checked out the Swedish law yet? No, he´s not going to prison. Just like in some states of the US, where having sex with an animal is a misdemeanor, not a criminal offense....
Do you believe the laws should be more severe?
What "laws"? You know that "the laws" differ from state to state and country to country? The laws in Germany are okay as they are ATM.
If you are in Germany and you only care about Germany then maybe you should go somewhere with the same "Germany only" mentality. Like Germany or something. This post was about Sweden, not selfish Goo Germany.
As far as the laws go, in the order of least to most retarded... Sweden, Germany, USA.
USA is the most retarded with law creation. I pray for Sweden that the USA red states (danger zone) don't negatively influence them to ban sex with animals.
I apologize for my retarded country (USA) and its retarded people beforehand, because it only gets worse.
Many U.S. states classify sex with animals as a "Class A misdemeanor", which means 1 year of prison. So I guess things are different in Sweden.
No, while it is possible to be sentenced to prison for sex with animals in Sweden, I don't think it has ever happened. This man was fined. Had it been a more severe crime, for instance, hurting the horse or repeated offence, maybe the sentence would have been harsher.
The law says that those who have sex with animals can get maximum 2 years of prison. This is the same sentence as animal abuse (they are both covered in the Animal Welfare act). To compare, some other crimes in Sweden that have a maximum sentence of 2 years are identity theft, hate speech of the normal degree and assault of the normal degree.
Upside: Another disgusting fencehopper get's what he deserves!
That's what ya fuckin' get!
Downside: It's a bad thing for our image.
Meh, I guess it can't get any worse than it is now.
I'm under the impression that you want it to be worse.
Because the public will not judge zoophilia negatively based on your incompetence...They will judge zoophilia negatively based on the competence of the fencehopper.
I'm sure I'm not the only one who noticed the split between the mental illnesses of zoophilia and the "healthy to stand trial" of bestiality.
I'm starting to believe that these laws are targeting people who do not have diagnosed mental illnesses or impaired judgements entitled by status or drug use.
Apparently the "deviancy amplification spiral" is also working how it should.
It grabs the attention of and acts as ammunition for vindicative fake zoos, crazy animal welfare/rights activists and anyone else who wants to abuse the legal system in beneficiary to their wallets and belief systems.
The whole point of the spirals function is to enable abuse by the legal system as the means to commit acts of abuse against humanity as if it were normal. It is meant to make zoos, fencehoppers especially, look worse than they really are for the purpose of degrading zoophilia as a whole. Eventually, everyone will be a fencehopper in their own homes because some zoophiles could not understand how the spiral works and got caught up in it. They help it to spiral more quickly by appealing to the negativistic views and giving them more spiraling power.
No real zoo in their right mind would speak for the law. Fencehopping will never go away because it is a reality. It has become the excuse to degrade the entire act of sex with animals. The more presumed zoophiles there are who speak outrage against fencehopping zoos, the worse the situation becomes for all zoos. This leads me to believe the following and I am lead to believe this by the following...
Just as terroristic animal activists took over the grassroots animal welfare organizations, I expect the same type of individuals have infiltrated the zoo community and perverted it. Not perverted as in the dreaded demonized "bestiality" but perverted as in set up zoophilia for destruction by the lack of bias and support to zoophilia as a whole.
The mentally ill will obviously support laws that hurt themselves, because they are not true to themselves or they are similar to people who would slit their own wrists to feel good about themselves. Ironically, they will evade the laws that they supported by sympathy from the public but as a consequence they are diagnosed as being ill.
The honest healthy people however cannot escape with the mental illness label. They are labeled and charged as criminals and rapists instead... but the morality of zoophilia can only be judged according to the members who are in their right mind to be judged. In other words, zoophilia is judged according to the criminals, because the people who are not criminals were "saved" as mentally ill. What I'm trying to say is - zoophilia is tarnished by those people who identify as zoophiles without being wholly immersed and devoted as such. It is NOT tarnished by the fencehoppers. Therefore, zoophilia and the act of sex with animals becomes criminal because the incompetent were mistakenly given the responsibilities as role models and judges of the perfectly healthy zoophiles who are wrongly labeled criminals by the impaired judgements of the mentally ill.
In conclusion, real zoos become entrapped by the "entitled innocence" of the mentally ill and the deceptive tactics of people who do not truly have devotion to animals as much as their devotion to a mission against targeted aspects of humanity. Human sexuality.
Get professional help. Now.
Professional or expert? There's a difference.
One gets paid to do a job while the other knows what they're talking about regardless of the price.
Nevertheless, assume your statement reads more like an advertisement. Do you receive comission for referrals?
No, I just give valid advice to someone who is making a "Vollhorst" (google that) out of himself each time he posts in here...recommending an obvious nutjob to get the treatment he obviously needs is the right thing to do.
It sounds more like you are advertising medical or pharmaceutical treatment.
Actually, that's the same technique they use to sell chemical castration drugs to "sex offenders." It's no wonder people are propagandizing so hard to include zoophiles and the act of sex with animals as a sex offense. Must be trying to make up for the declining opiate sales. What would you suggest Doctor? Medical marijuana? Pills? Therapy? Increase my church service attendance?
I'd rather be a Vollhorst than a Gargamel... Gargamel is always looking for ways to turn those pesky smurfs(zoophiles) into gold, but if he can't profit from them he's going to eat them (AKA murder)
Don't be a bad joo joo.
Hey, 30-30 is a massive piece of shit, but you're running a pretty close second. Just sayian.
That's OK! I'm a little bit German too so I know shit, first place or second, is still better than the pompous gold-digging rat people in the USA who enact, enforce and support laws that ban sex with animals.
Trust me, these people are like plague bearing sewer rats and they will gouge holes in your walls to invade your privacy. They worship "Gargamel" the King filth rats who control each state and decide which "little blue people" they're going to harvest next.
Don't let those parasites corrupt Sweden too.
Rule 8: "No hate speech"
I'll be treating this as a disrespect offense since it's rather brief, but you've been shittier than usual through this entire thread and have the reports to back it up so I should really just give you two offenses at this point. But I won't, because I believe in second chances.
I'm from the US, by the way. It isn't perfect, but it's much more tolerant than what you just said lets on. I do hope this "plague bearing sewer rat" doesn't oppress your catharsis too much.
This is your second warning. You only have one more warning left before we start issuing removals and bans.
If you have any questions regarding the rule or would like us to review a post before you make it, you're free to ask us via modmail if it's okay ahead of time.
Ban? LolK GL HF It's already been tried before.
Btw that wasn't hate speech. You must not really know what hate speech is and you don't want to see my hate speech, obviously. I'm courteous enough to spare you pain and suffering because tears gross me out. It's like peeing from the eyes.
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
This is a response to your post below because somebody took the weak'n' easy way out to block my posts. Fortunately, you might never get to see it because I'll assume you're not intelligent enough to notice the edit.
That's not true. I must have provoked you if you're here threatening me with worse than death itself. You're only human and no matter how many emotional indifferences you might appear to have there are always still a few bottled up and ready to bust out in defense of itself. Otherwise, you wouldn't be deeming anything I say as hate speech based on your own personal opinions.
It's not like "I" created additional accounts. What if somebody else created them and handed them over willingly for purposes other than ban evasion? There was no actual intent to commit because it's an anomaly.
Really though. If people like bans and rules so much it's no wonder why they would support the ban on sex with animals. I realize some people just get so hot and horny from having power over people and the power to ban people and things from anything, even life. It's an addiction. That's usually how serial killers start out. Begins with one or a couple, then next thing you know they're having sexual fantasies about concentration camps or worse, actually going out and creating them.
Btw this isn't hate speech, it's an observation. An important part of the scientific method that people typically choose to ignore because they don't have the guts to see it.
To remind you of our expanded definition of the rule...
"It's fine to have opinions. It's fine to not like some people. It's fine to speak your opinions. It's also fine to say that you don't like somebody. It is not fine to say that they should die in a fire or to use severe derogation against a population, zoo or non-zoo. Hate speech can be handled as a disrespect offense or as a moderator deems necessary."
I'd also like to remind you of Reddit's prohibited behavior section in their content policy. Note that among that prohibited conduct is creating additional accounts for ban evasion. This can result in suspension of your account, or worse.
... and that this violation was also issued in part due to rule 7.
Please remember, too, that you're speaking with someone that can't be provoked by the likes of you.
oh and i saw your edit
I must have provoked you if you're here threatening me with "worse" than death. Don't be so quick to lie about your emotions.
The only thing I can think of that could possibly be worse than death is having anyone agree with me because that would make things very convenient. I hate convenience.
[deleted]
That's not true. I must have provoked you if you're here threatening me with worse than death itself. You're only human and no matter how many emotional indifferences you might appear to have there are always still a few bottled up and ready to bust out in defense of itself. Otherwise, you wouldn't be deeming anything as hate speech based on your own personal opinions.
It's not like "I" created additional accounts. What if somebody else created them and handed them over willingly for purposes other than ban evasion?
Really though. If you like bans so much I wouldn't be surprised if you're supporting the ban on sex with animals. I realize some people just get so hot and horny from having the power to ban people and things. It's an addiction and once you start there is no stopping.
The "or worse" constitutes termination of your reddit account, unless Reddit decides to take legal action on you for some reason.
I literally have hypoemotionality.
I don't need to be emotionally invested to evaluate something as being hate speech. There is a point where hate speech is more fact than opinion, though, and you crossed that line. I reviewed it with another moderator as well, so it wasn't just my decision. The same happened with ursusem.
If I liked bans, then I'd issue permanent bans instead of tempbans for disrespect offenses, and I wouldn't have pushed for a stipulation that makes me powerless until someone reports a post in a thread.
In the one instance where I superceded the wishes of the community, I actually made a rule more lenient than they wanted. 99% of the offenses for our established users are put in the disrespect database instead of following the protocols for different rules, which are markedly harsher but take less time on our part. I like the system, though. Warnings are really all you need in most cases because the people that don't want to start shit tend to pay more attention from then on out anyway.
Ask any moderator whether they like banning people. Most likely, you'll hear something along the lines of "bans are a net loss to the community, and that sucks". Removing a voice is never fun, but sometimes it's a necessary evil.
No, 30-30 is just a bit aggressive with his posts.
Or at least it seems like he is acting aggressive.
I wouldn't be surprised with such a retarded community.
I'd say check out Shepp's post history and try to figure out what he's saying.
At least 30-30 is right about some things.
He isn't blinded by his 'aggressiveness,' while Shepp obviously is.
I'm not being that aggressive... you're all just a bunch of sensitive fairies. Really should have stretched before taking a knot you couldn't handle because walking around with stitches in your ass looks sort of funny.
:)
Except I'm not sensitive, it's just obvious that you're blinded by your hatred.
While I would probably leave all antis to die in a fire, you're accusing them of stuff that doesn't really make any sense.
Seriously, look at all the replies to your posts.
Nobody knows what goes around in your mind.
And hey, I've never fucked with a dog so these stitches are probably one of your illusions.
The only fairies here are the ones in your imagination.
Tell me, ever seen a guy around here insult people, keeps talking about fairies and keeps bothering people?
Because that would be childish behavior, and you know what that means: That you really love children, right?
Childish behavior is just a matter of your opinion.
If you haven't had sex with a dog yet then you should probably start because I'm out-experiencing you on a topic you're only pretending to understand. You'd get your hymie split open like a banana.
See, if I know but nobody else knows then that must mean everyone else is a poser. Childish behavior only applies to the inexperienced children. This is why experience is important.
If you don't know and they don't know, then you don't know. Not my problem.
So that also counts for you, then.
Thanks for realizing all antis aren't undercover child molesters!
Sex? Yes. Penetrative sex? No.
I'm not going to have sex for someone else, so wave your invitation goodbye.
Wtf? You really hit your head a little too hard today.
My bitch doesn't want sex and I don't want to either.
Yeah sure, only according to you.
It's just another opinion of yours.
Another piece of text nobody can understand.
Can you unretardize it for me, or do I have to guess what bullshit you've made up now?
You actually don't know much according to your post history.
Can you repeat that in English? My grandma can speak better English than you can type it.
Sheppsoldier has first place, actually its a tie between him and Aluzky right now. 30-30 doesn't seem like a piece of shit to me.
Didn't anybody ever teach you not to use the Lord's name in vain? He must be a pretty good guy if people are spouting jealousies for him everywhere. It is also said, that when you wrong somebody you start to see them everywhere. A telltale heart is a guilty heart.
My observation is... People must really like shit, since they're not bothering the people who don't seem like shit but they're all hounding shit from those who appear to be it.
Ironic.
If you create laws that kill people by targeting their weakened hearts with fear and paranoia, you might just drop dead by the guilts in your own heart.
These laws do nothing but change animals abusers targets to abuse human beings instead. Abusers do not care who or what they abuse as long as it's easy and abusing the laws to abuse zoophiles was made easy.
Congratulations.
I'm an atheist so I don't give a shit.
Jealous of a man-child who fucks anything with four legs and lies to the owners about it? Jealous of the man who proclaims to be a good Zoophile but makes videos of other people's pets? You mistake jealousy for disgust. Disgust that one of the more visible Zoophiles out there is basically a walking stereotype of what Zoos are.
And for fuck's sake could you at least TRY to reply to someone in English?
Uhhhhhh....
I am pretty sure the Nordic countries understand it's a pretty harmless "crime" in those cases where you're not hurting the animals, the law is mostly on the books just to get rid of the animal rights activists who refused to shut up about it as long as it was legal.
While the incident itself isn´t funny, this guy´s "explanation" is just genius...if "genius" means "retarded" now. "Oh, I ripped my pants while searching for mushrooms, let´s walk over to this mare and press my genitals against hers so my dick doesn´t catch a cold"...yeah, totally, absolutely, motherf**in´ plausible, man! Usually , pants don´t rip in your crotch, they rip at the perineum area or your arse area. And why someone with a ripped pair of pants isn´t immediately driving home to change pants...hmm....
And there´s absolutely no way that our "hero" has cut open his crotch area ( we Germans call that a "Schnellfickerhose"/ fast fuck pants, btw) to support fast and unsuspicious fencehopping, no way he did literally prepare for fencehopping, no, no, no. /s
Does anyone actually buy this bullshit?
Fun fact: without the new Swedish laws, this guy couldn´t be punished for what he did. Just another piece of evidence a law directly targeting "zoophilia" isn´t so superfluous as many "zoos" claim. I feel terribly sorry for the Swedish woman who has been forced to witness a horny old fuck getting his rocks off with one of her horses, I feel sorry for the horse, too. The only guy I don´t feel sorry for at all...well, can you guess who it is? ;)
As long as fencehopping is a part of "zoophilia", our public image gets torn and lacerated. How should we ever gain enough trust so society leaves us alone with our animals when it´s very clear that "we" , the "zoos" can´t even be trusted with animals not our own?
The poerpetrator himself knew exactly what he was doing and that such actions are not at all justifiable. Or why do you think he pulled out such a blatant and utterly stupid lie that nobody buys, not even he himself? No winners in this , only losers...except the new Swedish laws. You all can like it or not, but cases like this only serve to reassure lawmakers and population of the righteousness to put such laws into force, even if it´s only a very tiny minority of people who are affected by them. Every single case like this is a granite stone in the fundament of "anti zoo"/anti bestiality laws...and the fundament already is damn hard and sturdy, almost impenetrable or destrucatable. Fencehoppers...MOOES..."make our opponents even stronger"...
Not exactly. Giving our opponents what they want makes them even stronger. This is obvious, because the Animal Welfare laws were not enough to make them happy considering their pursuit of further action. The reality is, no law works. The laws become worse for the zoophiles and so better for the "torture monkeys" who support the laws for their own sadistic pleasures of harming human beings... Please read about the "deviancy amplification spiral"
The difference is made by "This did happen and it's a problem" vs. "Nothing of importance happened"
By egging on the deviancy of fencehopping, zoophiles are making things worse for themselves by saying "This did happen and it's a problem."
The laws do not discriminate and the more harsh the laws become the less they will discriminate friend vs foe. Innocence then comes down to who has more money for lawyers or who accepts to be labeled as mentally ill and take drugs to escape the dreadfully long reach of the law and the mankillers who scapegoat on it.
Yeah, sure, fucking random animals of others and /or supporting that will set us all free in an instant. Say, do you really believe what you´re vomiting into your keyboard? If that´s so, then get professional help.
Im sorry! I thought you said you were a professional? Probably look better I'd you weren't. Professionals are paid and if you're a professional then you're only as honest as the wages and the person who hired you. You'd get paid to be here and lie about everything. Paid bloggers. Honestly, do you actually know what your talking about or do you just pretend to... like the way you pretend to be a zoo to criticise the real competent zoos who have the sex associated with it?
Who ever said the animal was random? Maybe he chose the animal because he was attracted to her? Admit it, you don't know.
Something seems unusually off about you. You speak about how people must love the animal in order to have a sexual relationship with them, yet you still objectify them by claiming the person "must only" have sex with the animals they possess like property for it to be morally correct. That's like the stereotypical forced marriage or sex slavery. Mixed signals man and you're sending the wrong signals to people who despise forced marriages and sex slavery. Do you train or treat your animals with the same mixed signals?
I've told you before, it's not always fencehoppers making zoos look bad. I'd say it looks better in western culture when a person has sex with an animal that is not their own because the animals weren't raised or "trained" by that person for sexual exploitation. Anywho, Im not the guy walking around /Zoophilia telling or forcing people to live by my religious beliefs "OR ELSE" they will be punished by the law.
Actually, the word you were looking for was "expert."
"I´d say it looks better when a person has sex with an animal that is not their own"
Like a formula one eejit...from zero to full blown nutjob in two seconds...
Eejit? Is that some kind of Sharia or Hebrew jibberish?
Yeah, sane people typically go out, meet and mess around with other people's adult children. Unless you just assume that everybody raises their own children to exploit for themselves... but I wouldn't have judged you if you hadn't judged first.
You can't expect everybody to automatically assume or live by that degenerate "inbred" slave ownership belief system. It's not OK to put people in prison who assume that animal loving people have good hearts, to give their animals at least some freedom of choice and variety.
Pretty sure the woman wouldn't satisfy the horse like the man could anyways.
Great. Just what we need, another self proclaimed Zoophile who supports fence hoping.
I was given the impression that I should support fencehopping...because I was told that supporting the people who do not fence hop was wrong. I'm sorry that "your people" can't collect their thoughts, get their priorities or support for the correct laws straight. I'll have to apologize for them because they probably wouldn't be able to do that on their own either.
Really now don't be silly. Everyone is a self proclaimed zoophile unless they are "diagnosed" as one. If they are diagnosed then they are just mentally ill due to a rainbow of other underlying issues and shouldn't be taken seriously on matters they cannot actually comprehend. There's a big difference between "real zoophiles" and "real psychopaths" in that respect.
Honestly, I do not agree with the term "Zoophilia" being applied loosely to the wrong demographics. It's no wonder people associate zoophiles with everything psycho under the sun because psychos are wrongly diagnosed as zoophiles.
Self proclaimed correctly - or - incompetently fabricated
It's clear that you support fence jumping. Zoophiles have a hard enough gaining the trust of others without people like you White Knighting for every dumb son of a bitch who gets caught blowing the neighbor's gelding or raping the family Lab. That's why people hate us so much.
I suggest we all take a step back and realize that perpetuating this discussion based on ad hominem attacks or plain insults is not going to lead us anywhere. We should try to take it down a notch and develop an understanding of each others point of view rather than escalating the situation further. Keep in mind that while there might be insurmountable ideological differences between us, it is up to us to settle these conflicts in a most civilized way. Thus, let's adhere to humanist values and be tolerant. Thanks.
I keep hoping that the pointless insults and personal attacks will settle down, but they never do. It's really grating. Nothing really stays on topic anymore. Or even if it is on topic you have to wade through a bunch of shit to get to the relevant points. I'm so sick of this.