This is the article:
http://www.wdam.com/story/34559624/lcso-collars-alleged-bestiality-suspect
It is also discussed in these 2 articles:
http://www.thesun.ie/news/617831/woman-43-arrested-for-having-sex-with-a-dog-after-vile-bestiality-video-was-posted-online/ http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/crime/woman-had-sex-her-dog-and-proudly-uploaded-video-online-all-see-it-wasnt-until
The woman is being charged under Mississippi's "sodomy" law which they never got around to repealing. It is a "morality"-based law rather then one dealing with "animal cruelty". So it's possible the woman who was arrested did not commit any actual cruelty.
According to the articles, she was caught because she posted videos of herself online, allegedly on social media.
Also the penalties of the Mississippi law (10 years in prison, felony, and sex offender registration) are far harsher than most other anti-zoo laws.
It's always hard to read these texts as it's very clear that the writers suffer from the sheep mentality...
I don't know what else to say, another person got caught and I can't do anything about it.
But then again, uploading a video of doing illegal things isn't very smart...
^^Also, ^^10 ^^fucking ^^years?
Edit: Look at the comments on the last link.
It's pretty damn sad how anti-zoos always have the same things in common.
Look at how they type...
"What in the world has happened to the human population ? I think for every person that would stoop so low to do such a horrible act , should be placed in prison for the rest of their natural lives , I am sure there , that their desires can be satisified ! these animals don't have a choice & this is an act of beastieality , which I thought was against the law !!! This makes me so mad , that I can't say on Facebook , what I would to do to these poor excuse they call people !"
Pretty damn ironic since the 'tard can't even type correctly or make any sense at all.
Realize this for a second. Most people who hate us are exactly like that.
Sigh...
When you say "sheep mentality", do you mean they don't use critical thinking and conform to the negative stereotypes of zoo? (And also not giving the person caught the benefit of the doubt).
I was bothered by one of the article's use of the word "vile"; that is a clear anti-zoo bias in their writing.
Benefit of the doubt? How´s that possible when the perpetrator FILMS and UPLOADS first hand evidence of himself? What is left to doubt when you see person X fucking dog Y? Critical thinking? Like the "critical thinking" you display here, a one way variation of it? What about remaining critical to our own shit we´re spreading, like, let´s say, deliberately trying to exonerate people publishing proof of their own misdeeds?
Even if animal sex was legal in the state this occurrred, I´m pretty sure she´d be falling under the law prohibiting distribution of animal porn. So, are you willing to take these down too and thus opening up a new moneymaker for all the semi-pro and pro animal porn mafia? How cunning...and quite revealing, too.
With such stupid display of the secret agenda behind all of your whines, I´m sure it is totally fetched out of thin air to accuse us zoos of teaming up with the illegal porn industry...gosh, can´t you just think before you type?
Do you typically post pornography of other people and claim it was themselves that posted it? Probably not, but other people would.
Why would anyone post pornographic material of another person? As you said "FOR PROFIT." However the actual poster evades the law because the person starring in the pornography gets accused and gets nothing from it but prison time, stigmatized for life, fined... and zoophiles cannot fight against the accusations or the fact their identity was stolen because of the same wrong assumptions that you're spouting against them...
"The person in the video is always the person who created the video and always the person who posted it"
...is NOT a fact.
If these videos were made by law enforcement, stolen by law enforcement or persuaded to be made by anybody working for law enforcement, obviously there would be no proof of fraudulent activity because law enforcement owns the proof and can twist it how they please. They might even destroy any proof of entrapment and wrongdoing on their part. All "FOR PROFIT"
Think about that. They persuade all these people to create pornography while sex with animals is legal, before they suddenly change the laws. Now they have thousands maybe even millions of videos and pictures with people's identities that they can use against zoophile's to blackmail, extort, harass, and ultimately destroy people's futures. Shouldn't be that difficult to understand.
Actually, I don't think you really care since you're so enthusiastic about conserving a poisonous environment that will eventually ruin people's lives. Wow, that's almost like reverse-Ecoterrorism.
Yeah, last time I had to attend a police station, I accidentally took the wrong door and stood in their P.D. animal porn studio. Also, any AP flick in BF is shot by some bystander. `Cause no one wants to make animal porn and no money can be made out of it. Where´s my tin foil, I think my tin foil hat needs a tin foil hat, too.... You´re paranoid. End of.
Of course they can make money from the porn but they can make more money by finding reasons to legally and judicially "mug" people, especially the people who have sex with animals. No paranoia here, only the real reality of the legal system. Not sure which perfect cartoon utopia in outer space you hail from.
There's bad people and the there's bad zoophile people. Bad people use the laws as they do with most other senseless laws... To hold power over other people. Bad zoophiles use the laws to do what bad zoophiles do best... Hold power over other zoophiles.
I'll admit the police aren't that bad. It's the bad zoophiles and other bad people who use the laws and police to be even worse.
Sorry to disappoint you but there is no "end of" because it only gets worse as long as you people choose to wear tinfoil hats to ignore it... or abuse the system for yourselves.
No law enforcement agencies have units dedicated to dealing with bestiality. It really isn't as profitable as you think it is for anyone. The fines and jail time aren't that steep most of the time and you'd be dealing with maybe a dozen extra cases in a state, with most of the money from fines going back to the state instead of the precincts.
Zoophiles aren't well liked, but they aren't being hunted.
The states don't need the money if they refuse to "earn" the money. All they're doing is stealing it by brutalizing and mugging people for having sex. The states are pathetic.
Most of the states revenue is from taxes.
Don´t try to argue with "beasty Bannon", it´s useless.
It's not useless, people just aren't very good at it. Especially when they're asking me to provide proof but they can't even provide proof.
At least Im providing methods to my claims. It's called a "plan." I have plans and backup plans. People without a method or "plan" to claim goodness in the law are furthest from the truth because they have no actual plan to provide the proof of the goodness.
The only plan I see on their side is "Lock up those people who have sex with animals!!" I'm supposed to rely on their "good" faith? Hell no.
No, obviously nobody can argue with me because they have no alternative plans to to do it properly.
Problem with your plan: You have people here thinking more about how crazy you are than what you're actually saying, and we've got a pretty high threshold for crazy. The masses that decide the law would laugh you out of the state before taking you seriously, no offense.
Well...I think he´s crazy because what he says/offers is ,objectively seen, batshit crazy. All these totally insane accusations of anyone or anything not fitting into his agenda....would you be surprised if I told you this "viewpoint" ( if you can call an attitude full of rage and self loathing that) is much more common among the beasty/"zoo" community than it appears here, in this very subreddit? Pointing fingers at others, predominantly "the evil society", namecalling, totally unrealistic/imaginary/exaggerated stuff....
But I´m not complaining...hey guys! Dammit, how sane I look like all of a sudden, amirite?!? ;) In this sense, this guy/gal/apache helicopter is the perfect antagonist in here...and, folks, exactly this is what all this "zoo rights" bullshit leads to when you fade out all other concerns and issues. Simplification is stupification.
His viewpoint is a permutation of something I've seen in almost every distinct group... but the way he presents it is even less convincing than the worst of those groups. I think the fundamentals of what led to SheppSoldier's viewpoint are omnipresent and well, not easy to fall into as far as he has, but easy to fall into, nonetheless. He seems disjointed alot of the time, making leaps even in simple analogies. He's certainly an interesting case, at any rate, but calmly saying "you're insane." inevitably leads to a madman screaming "I'm not crazy!"... so it's easier to point out that the way they go about this now makes them much less credible to others, because they might listen to that..
Then they shouldn't have any problem paying for better employees and mandatory tolerance programs for their repressive misguided staffs. They won't even afford sex education that teaches truth without injecting religiously motivated stigmas against people of other sexualities.
What are they spending the money on? Fancy vacations? Are people even paying their taxes? Obviously they're spending it on zoophile rehab, to divert and brutalize zoos and other sexualities into being stigma monsters who treat sex as if it was worse than murder itself.
It's not about this. They aren't equipped to handle rape of nonhumans outside of visible injuries and DNA testing. It's not a big enough crime to include the same amount of tools and legal stipulations as, say, homicide gets.
This description of the national budget has pretty pictures: https://www.nationalpriorities.org/analysis/2016/presidents-2017-budget-in-pictures/
Maybe in the 30s or 40s. The government normally doesn't touch that kind of stuff outside of R&D for military purposes. 99.9% of medical institutions are private entities at any rate.
It's not useless, people just aren't very good at arguing. Especially when they're asking me to provide proof but they can't even provide proof of themselves.
At least Im providing methods to my claims. It's called a "plan." I have plans and backup plans to claim their deceit of the spirit of the law.
People without varying methods or "plans" to claim goodness in the law are furthest from the truth because they have no actual plan to provide the proof in the first place. The reason is WHY? I have more whys.
They don't have enough claims to say we're bad in contrast to their own bad behavior. The laws motivation is obviously to abuse animals as a means to abuse people for revenge or otherwise and that's all there is. I'm supposed to rely on their "good" faith? Hell no.
No, obviously nobody can argue because they have no alternative plans to to do it or claim it properly. I can sit here for the next ten years and find claims against their laws because there are unlimited reasons and more sprouting every day, determining why the law and supporters of it would abuse animals and people's existence, sexualities and actions as their excuse to harm and exploit them. The law is a crime against humanity using the animals as a weapon. It is a fact that animals are used as weapons, have been used as weapons for thousands of years and there is no denying it. Why would it be any different when the law is using animals as a weapon against people, zoophiles?
Meanwhile, their claimed reasons for the laws are "isolated" and "socially retarded" and the laws might as well only apply to supporters of the law and nobody else. Plain and simple.
Theft is theft. Trespassing is trespassing. Rape is rape. That doesn't change. We don't need "special" laws to obscure the lines for any bad human hating zoophile or animal activist to abuse the spirit of animals to make false claims against innocent people against the spirit of the law
That's downright reckless and dangerous to other people. No different than driving a motor vehicle drunken blind.
Sometimes the best way to protect something is with a sword, not a shield. Think about that philosophy for a moment, then consider why the law is in place again.
Maricopa County AZ does. (Arpaio's jurisdiction; though as he's no longer in office, that might change things)
Animal cruelty unit*
Sometimes we wouldn't know about the units (vigilantes) that don't and shouldn't exist in the eyes of the public.
Some people are aparantly open about their anti-animal sex units. Others operate indirectly (Proxy Abuse)
A part of it, yes.
But also just for the fact that they're anti-zoos and how they act.
If you're an anti-zoo, it's most likely that you're a sheep who thinks zoophilia is wrong because "others do it too."
It's like religion. Teached when you were a child and you'll believe the bullshit for the rest of your life.
"This is not the first disturbing case of a human allegedly having sex with a dog."
"...after being charged with having unnatural intercourse with a dog."
So much unnecessary words.
Yeah yeah Mr. Article writer, shut your ass. We know you don't like it.
Anti-zoos and the people who criminalized sex with animals are not sheep... They are wolves. They are dangerous predators.
Except wolves think different.
More like the brain of a sheep, the teeth of a wolf, the body of a naked ape and the eyes of a mole.
and the morals of a snake, the intentions of a spider.
And interspecies sex is not "unnatural" because it happens in nature. For that reason alone, sex between a human and non-human should not be viewed as "disturbing" by those anti-zoos. Yet they have that view for irrational reasons.
So does pedoerasty. It's natural, but should you not be disturbed when that happens?
You should indeed be disturbed when that happens.
But the thing is, a lot of things we do are unnatural.
I find domesticating animals unnatural, just like a lot of other things we do to animals.
But unnatural doesn't always mean bad, just like how change isn't always bad.
So, these people hate unnatural things and support natural things.
And you said that animals having sex with young ones is natural, so these anti-zoos would not be against the idea of that.
Natural and unnatural is a situational thing.
Every action is natural unless the act is being aided by something that does not come with the action of whatever commits the action. Magic, drugs, deception or chains around the ankles or hands can be considered unnatural, because non-human animals do not use them.
Condoms can be considered unnatural because there is no form of natural condom. Lube is natural because there are natural forms of lubricant like saliva and preseminal fluids. Animals do not naturally bind the limbs or drug other animals for sex, so using these during sex is unnatural.
A true natural interspecies relationship is a combination of the natural habits of a human which are "compatible" with the natural habits of the animal, which do not completely interfere with or inhibit the safety of either one.
However, natural and unnatural should not be confused with right and wrong. Some things are just wrong because of the harm it brings for no good reason. In that case, being attracted to the act of harming people or animals is both unnatural and wrong because causing harm for the pleasure of harming is not natural among any other animals besides mentally ill humans, which is a disorder.
I guess some people, the Anti-Zoos for instance, just want everybody to be all hopped up on drugs, fucking their smart-phones and sodomising themselves with USB cables. Personally, having sex with automobiles, television screens and being brain damaged by dependence on alternative chemicals isn't very sexy... In that case, having sex with animals is the most natural and correct action that anybody can perform, while preventing and punishing sex with aninals is the most unnatural and wrong.
I don't support copulation with juveniles because they are not mature or developmentally built for sex according to their age or maturity, but sadly even that is more correct than the Anti-Zoo laws and purposes of pressure to not having sex with animals, or not having sex at all.
You and I both know this to be false.
[deleted]
?
They're against unnatural actions, then that means if something is natural then it's fine.
But if they don't think like this, then 'unnatural' cannot be a reason to be against bestiality.
That would be unfair and that wouldn't make sense.
That follows the same logic as "If it's not murder then it's fine." You're oversimplifying things and only focusing on a single dichotomy when there are hundreds of other relevant criteria that are considered in law, collectively. There are many more reasons why the masses chose this route than just 'nature'.
Then that person shouldn't have used ''unnatural'' as a reason for thinking bestiality is wrong.
But then again, that person clearly can't think straight so that's not surprising.
You also know that this is false. Many rational people are against zooerasty. There are some portions of their reasoning that aren't easily disproven, too; how do you prove that you aren't taking advantage of a nonhuman animal? Or that the relationship isn't forced through isolation and more dynamic sexual preferences aren't allowed to develop? On the issue of consent, it's impossible to get proactive, not retroactive, informed consent. On the issue of compatibility, well, you've seen where that can go(stupidity included).
Point is, you've got over a dozen arguments against zooerasty to deal with. Not just "it's unnatural".
You're taking it way farther than it needs to be.
I was just talking about that you can't be against bestiality because you think it's unnatural.
But no, I don't think you can be rational and be against zoophilia at the same time.
It's irrational to think zoophilia is wrong, so no.
And since you don't know the answers to the questions above, I'm surprised you still support us.
Zoophilia, sure. Zooerasty, no.
I'm an empirical person at heart, but, like you, I intuit things as needed. That isn't proof, though. It's instinct, gut feeling, and the product of working with a fundamentally limited set of information. I don't know such things as ethical zooerasty because I lack the strong empirical framework I'd need to know, I simply believe these things to be true.
Except 'zooerasty' plays an important role in zoophilia.
Find me a zoophile who hasn't had sexual contact with an animal or one who wouldn't even do that.
I never thought you were against it.
Strange. Well, whatever I guess.
No point in trying to change people's minds.
I'm just saying that going against zoophilia is basically like prosecuting for thoughtcrime.
That's just it, those people avoid the whole thing like the plague or have weak enough attractions that they're able to ignore it. You have to remember that there is a stigma, and that stigma is strong enough in some cases that a person will do everything to extinguish tells, if not the thoughts themselves.
I'm not. I literally just said I believe it's fine. There's enough empirical evidence to believe that, but not to know it. That's the issue with calling the anti-zoo crowd irrational. So, personally, I believe you're all good, but empirically, I'm neutral. Whenever I formulate an argument against something pertaining to zooerasty, that's not necessarily what I personally believe. I'm a very utilitarian person by nature, and that means I tend to aim for discussion that will stimulate useful dialog more than echoing what I think over and over.
Technically, yes.
But what I mean is that most zoophiles act on their urges.
I'm not even kidding here, by 'most' I almost mean 'all.'
What do you mean by that?
That zoophiles who don't act on their urges have weaker attractions and try to ignore it?
I don't know what the point is then.
Oh, well I seem to miss out on a lot of things with fancy talk like that.
I didn't know you thought like that. Interesting.
... An 'almost all' that, again, we have little to no proof of. We don't even know how many zoophiles there are, and given the diversity of the phenomena, even polling would give tenebrous results, at best. What we do have access to are anecdote and people in deep enough that they joined communities dedicated to it... which is an extremely biased sample to use.
"those people avoid the whole thing like the plague or have weak enough attractions that they're able to ignore it". People disgusted enough with the act still won't do it, no matter what their body, hormones, or fantasies tell them to. That's before we deal with people nearing the asexuality spectrum.
You're not the first. My verbal eloquence is only matched by the number of people that struggle to parse it, but it's my most native tongue and has a certain beauty to it that I'd be loathe to discard.
As a non-native English speaker, I have to say that I truly appreciate your refined style of writing. Despite the fact that, unlike you, I haven't studied at an elite university, I have spent countless hours working through academic publications in English when I wrote my Master's Thesis a few years ago. Thus, dealing with your "verbal excellence" is more of a challenge than a struggle to me. At least, given your frequent use of technical terms derived from Greek or Latin, your texts are by far easier to understand than the incoherent and confusing style of writing which is typical of u/Sheppsoldier.
"Informed consent" (as constructed by humans) doesn't matter to non-human animals; one animal doesn't ask the other one it they want to have sex (they just do it). And non-human animals don't give "informed consent" for anything humans do to them.
"one animal doesn´t ask the other one if they want to have sex , they just do it" might be the most uninformed, inexperienced and stupid assumption I´ve read in here lately...and may I remind you we have She-pp among us? ;)
Of course they "ask" each other, not by speaking , but with other means such as smell, certain rituals before the actual mating act and all the other little details. Honestly, either you hardly use your brain before you type or you never got nearer to an animal than 1 kilometer. Isn´t it funny that it´s someone that is calling society speciecist who is blatantly assuming that animals are fuckmachines who "just do it" and seems to deny granting them ANY emotional level entirely, completely and categorically? In THEIR, the animals´ mindset, such a thing as "informed consent" IS a thing! Every horseowner who has got into contact with horsebreeding even in the slightest knows that it´s quite common behaviour in mares to refuse mating to certain stallions. As a breeder, you can´t do anything about it, some promising crossings just don´t happen because "the lady is picky" , as one breeder told me once.
In all your stupifying furor about the "unjust,speciecist" society, you failed to see the speciecism in yourself. You´re a textbook "preaching water, drinking wine" cleric, my friend. Your true thinking shines through your dilligently built facade on certain occasions...
Nonhuman animals can and do. Informed consent forms the basis of permission seeking, which is common in heirarchal and socially developed animals. Canids are an excellent example to look at. The idea behind informed consent is to assure the prevention of a certain trauma. Demanding the same guarantee of trauma prevention with nonhuman animals is reasonable. Informed consent for sex is a reasonable place to start, too.
I agree, what I'm saying is that anti-zoos don't see an animal's non-verbal consent as "valid" with regard to sex with animals (yet they don't care whether an animal gives non-verbal consent to variety of other things done to them that are not zoo-related).
Indeed, there are several reasonable arguments against zooerasty which cannot be refuted right away. The fact is, a certain level of dependency is inherent to any human-animal relationship and regardless of our efforts to enforce animal rights, a state of equality is forever going to be out of reach. Both as a mere owner and as a zoophile, you have to make decisions for your animal companion everyday, which, given the complexity of our modern world, he or she is unable to consent to. The limited intellectual capacity of an animal's mind makes it necessary for us to take responsibility in a variety of situations, and by doing so, we limit our partners' freedom of action. While imposing restrictions on the free will of our animals is reasonable in most given situations, stricter ethical standards must apply when it comes to the sexual aspects of a zoophile relationship. For instance, when I go for a walk with my mare, it is obvious that I am the one who leads the way. Considering her motivations to follow me, there are two possible alternatives. On the one hand, it might be that she simply enjoys my company, which is reason enough for her to stay with me wherever I go. On the other hand, having learned that refusing my orders leads to a more unpleasant outcome than obeying, she might realize that the rope that connects me to her narrows down her choice of actions and walk with me because to her, it seems the least uncomfortable option. While in both scenarios, the horse does what it is supposed to, her motivations to do so could not differ more. The truth comes out only when we remove the rope, cutting any physical connection to the handler. How is she going to react? To me, this question stands as a symbol of the ethical dilemma which is inherent to any zoophile relationship. If we decide to have sex with our animal partners, how can we be certain if what we interpret as consent is more than just opportunistic behavior?
That's because they fake being against unnatural actions or they fake the unnatural state of the action. That is called the natural fallacy. Even though they might be all natural, they still pick and choose which natural acts to condemn in others with an unnatural action in its place for their own benefit.
That is similar to vegans telling people they should not eat meat because it isn't natural, because the vegan chooses not to eat meat themselves. The reverse also applies when meat eaters tell a vegan not to be vegan because it is unnatural, because the meat eater chooses not to be vegan. They fake nature and condemn the nature of others in favor of their own nature.
Yeah, I realized that.
It's something very common with anti-zoos.
They try to make excuses to be against bestiality by just using a random excuse.
The excuses don't even have to make sense and others will still believe it because they're sheep.
And the reasons anti-zoos use are reasons they believe are "invincible", such as their "consent" argument. They also expect there to be no opposition to them, and view any opposition to their agenda as "sick" or "depraved".
Of course, anti-zoos are more outspoken than zoos, because it won't hurt them to say anti-zoo stuff, but an outspoken zoo has to worry all the time (worries anti-zoos don't have to deal with).
That's because they'll fake being against unnatural actions or they'll fake the unnatural state of an action. That is called the "Appeal To Nature" (correction) Even though they might be "all natural", they still pick and choose which natural acts of others to condemn, for the purpose of "injecting" an unnatural or similarly natural action in its place.
For instance. A person who sells "A" chemical might accuse "X" chemical of being unnatural and vise versa. However, both X and A chemical are natural but the competition causes the seller to lie about the nature of it.
Another instance. A gay or straight person tells a zoophile that having sex with animals is unnatural, because the gay or straight person wants the zoophile to "buy into" the gay or straight human sexuality.
Similarly, a straight in this situation might condemn the gay sex as being unnatural, or the gay might condemn the straight sex as being "abusive" and "overpopulating", if they are trying to sell the sex of their own sexuality to somebody of the opposite sexuality.
That is similar to vegans telling people they should not eat meat because it isn't natural, because the vegan chooses not to eat meat themselves. The reverse also applies when meat eaters tell a vegan not to be vegan because it is unnatural, because the meat eater chooses not to be vegan. They fake nature and condemn the nature of others in favor of their own nature.
In respect to this, creating laws against sex with animals is like saying
"Buy into gay or straight sex with humans or else!!"
or
"Buy into our marijuana and other "natural remedies" or else!!"
because they claim that sex with animals is unnatural and wrong but whatever they're selling is claimed to be natural and correct.
It's a marketing technique that relies on limiting or destroying the extent of a person's alternative natural choices.
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In response to you're post below...
Correct terminology aside, my actual statements are factual because it is aparant the statements were understood by both you and I. You confirmed it. No further research or understanding is required. Thank you!
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Where's your proof that my statements are not factual? I provided examples, methods, a plan. Please correct my terminology if I am wrong because if you did it once you could do it again. If you cannot then the facts will continue to persist as they are.
Dont make the mistake of contradicting your own corrections.
You've already concluded that "fallacy" does not apply here and I never claimed "appeal to nature" to be a fallacy. Any further discussion of it would be derailment.
RE: you must further "understand the facts" if you already forgot both your and my previous statements.
Xxxxxxxxxx
Thats the point. To show the facts before they happen for the understanding of why they could happen. I'm not omitting anything in favor of the dangerous "magical properties" of the unknown because I have no intentions to abuse people with things they do not know.
The answers to "Why would a person do this" become the facts that can be proven the moment somebody actually does it, because they were theorized before they happened. If nobody knew it could happen, would anybody know it was happening? Would anybody be able to defend themselves against these facts?
Telling people to ignore certain facts or that the facts do not exist is like trying to convince people that (insert here) does not cause cancer, when in fact somebody is benefiting from poisoning people by misleading them by their naivety into a trap.
What is you're excuse for attempting to omit the facts before they have a chance to become inclusive? At this point, you've just derailed the OP.
The whole point is, my facts along with people having sex with animals is not bad for anybody but the bad people who do bad and unnatural (magical, occult, unknown) things to deceive and harm those people and animals who would have sex with one another naturally. Natural meaning Without hidden intentions
Therefore there are two sides to "Bad Occultism." Bad zoophiles and bad non-zoophiles. They both want to keep good zoophiles and good non-zoophiles in the dark, under their control. However, if it is not Occult, then persecuting people and animals who have sex with one another is a criminal intention to harm people and animals who are just trying to live their lives and have sex naturally.
Oppsite of occult...Informed consent is no excuse to claim justification of the law, because if people are guilty by informed consent to the law then enforcement of the law was informed of their own consent to the law and consent to harm people by law. The law is therefore legally intentioned to enforce itself yet criminally intentioned to commit abuses against human beings. However, the animals cannot consent by information to law enforcement activity, therefore making any law enforcement activity criminal in the presence of an animal and in the spirit of animal welfare. The law becomes abusive to its own good intentions, becoming classified as animal abuse by itself. The law against sex with animals cannot justify itself against anybody or anything because it can only be justified by somebody who uses the law to persecute themselves only for themselves. Completely unnatural, because the law contains hidden intentions by all angles which nullifies informed consent for both humans and animals.
In conclusion, no animal or person has any information of the laws intentions which they never consented to in the first place and so the law becomes Null and Void
The law itself is unnatural and self-defeating.
Xxxxxxxxxxxx
That was the point. I'm glad you agree. The appeal to nature is correct, for everybody minus the exclusion of anybody as long as the intentions of the nature are known. Otherwise, it is an unknown practice or unknown intention and therefore does not exist or should not exist so making it unnatural.
Incorrect. I haven't derailed anything because my statements were relevant. I haven't brought up the use of grammer. There's no sense in discrediting anything based on word arrangements or fabricated misunderstandings.
Also incorrect. Many people can read and understand my statements, however it is the outspoken few who do not, pretend not, and speak for those who refuse to claim or deny understanding. Probabilities... Some people probably do and some people probably do not, because there is no such thing as nobody or everybody misunderstanding. "Nobody and everybody" is an unnatural statement when its used improperly.
The laws against sex with animals are obscured by its unnatural state of being - the unknown intentions plus the ill-intentions of the unknown because they apply unnaturally to "everybody" stating "nobody" can have sex with animals, without clear intentions and the added ill-intentions of WHY they would criminalize it.
Occult and abusive or criminally intentioned and abusive. The term "Black Magic" would apply.
My question is... Besides fighting the abusive laws, what else are people doing here and why are they doing it so unnaturally? I can smell the unnatural.
Clearly only the unnatural can provide the contrast to criminalize or discredit the natural, so is the objective of the "Super Natural" which does not actually exist but provides the mode to persecute everything natural by supernatural non-existent means. Nobody can justify the law prohibiting sex with animals because it is and they are "That which should not be."
"NULLO" "NEUTER" "NOTHING" "NOBODY" "NEVER" "ZERO"
is ultimately invalid, while...
"ALWAYS" "EVERYTHING" "EVERYBODY" "ONE"
is also invalid because it relies solely on the prerequisite of "nothing" otherwise.
Natural numbers in Math are different than natural truths in real life. Don't be fooled by the numbers and don't be fooled by the Law. They are not truly natural, truthful, or correct due to the unnatural nobodies who supported them.
Xxxxxxxxxx
Who cares? You can be as specially educated and grammatically correct as you want to be. Doesn't matter even the slightest. I've never seen people try so hard to justify themselves over nothing they don't know. Makes sense right? Maybe you're too smart for your own good. Have you ever tried working for the understanding? Like dude.. you know we're not fighting over the last cheese stick in the fridge right? It's not like struggling to open a bag of potatoes chips. Understanding takes real effort.
FYI I studied Wizardry III at Hogwarts so I think you're out of your league here. Not sure how much you paid for school but If you can't understand what I'm saying then maybe you should ask for a refund? Shouldn't be too difficult with all that experience at your disposal. Surely they'll see things your way once you tell them about your English mastery and investigative prowess. That always works. Let me know because I'm currently studying the Dark Arts and I'll transform them into nonsense for easier pickings if you need me to.
Oh, but I'm not writing for "anybody" to understand. If they're so smart they can do it themselves because they'll get what they pay for. Honestly, for your own good, nobody is the one you should be trying to impress. Trust me. Unless you prefer to suck golf balls through garden hoses for the rest of your life.
Xxxxxxxx
You misunderstand. I'm not complaining about their inability to understand what I say, as much as I'm complaining about how they shouldn't be here in public discussing adult topics since they don't understand what I say. I don't write for anybody because I don't write for children. Do you understand? If not, maybe you should come back in a few years when you can understand.
Naivety is immaturity, and that's why these places restrict juvenile access. They can't understand adult topics because they don't have the instinct for understanding the way animals can.
That's not the natural fallacy, that's appeal to nature. There is no natural fallacy, only the naturalistic fallacy, and the naturalistic fallacy states that even if things are percieved biologically as unpleasent or pleasant, doesn't mean they're good or bad, respectively. Its is a permutation of the is-ought fallacy that isn't in conflict with moral realism.
Please research and understand your terminology before using it.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In response to the response above, a statement that is understood isn't necessarily factual... it's coherent, and you still didn't even think of checking to make sure the terminology you used was correct. Also, appeal to nature isn't a fallacy so much as it is an argumentative tool. It can be correct in the right circumstances, same as any appeal.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
It should also be noted that fallacious reasoning and appeals can be correct; it's simply not necessarily correct. Examples, methods, and plans are not all-inclusive facts. They're ideas first and in most cases they don't include every significant aspect and permutation of a circumstance. In almost all cases, you can't say anything definitively without them failing to be facts at that point, unless the question or system is simple enough for the answer to be definitive, or you have explicit evidence for the definitive.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
You derailed this, though. My point was that appeal to nature can be accurate sometimes. It's not 'by nature' incorrect, nor is it necessarily correct, and possibly it's only partially correct or correct in certain circumstances but not others. My concern is the omission of those nuances, the most important and useful elements of these deliberations being dismissed in favor of a hurry to disprove them without saying "but, it's not entirely false when considering x, y, and z".
Oh, and it helps comprehension when you don't use run-ons that have four verbs in consecuity; it's also important to keep those verbs explicitly paired with nouns, lest the reader mix up or be unable to discern who is doing what. You're dipping back into territory closer to argument by jargon or bafflement than actual discussion at this point -- and unlike most arguments, appeals, and fallacies... that one has a way of breaking conversations.
Nobody can read your shit half the time, and that's half the issue.
I get it, grammar conventions that demand changing the flow of ideas suck.
But they help.
Alot.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"There's no sense in discrediting anything based on word arrangements or fabricated misunderstandings."
I don't have any reason to fabricate misunderstanding, though. I'm still a third party. Your grammar hurts comprehension alot, still. Work on that and you'll find people complaining less. Nobody has issues with comprehension with anyone else here, really; even Aluzky never had that problem. It's just you, and it's not because we're afraid of you or what have you. It just takes more effort than it's worth to figure out where your arguments fit in and sometimes even to parse what you write. I've studied college level English and have difficulty parsing what you write -- my mastery of the language is particularly advanced, yet what you write is practically illegible. When most of the people that see you say the same thing about you, sometimes, that means there's some truth to it. If people thought your writing was legible, then people would say so when others bitched, I'd say so too, but that doesn't happen.
Not trying to discredit anything by pointing it out, by the way. We're not on a battlefield. It's constructive criticism. If i wanted to discredit you, I could just mime the usual "you're crazy, get help" and your grammar would support my claim with the unintelligible sentences interspersed within. Maybe you don't see it, hell, I don't see it most of the time with my own writing, but when writing for comprehension it doesn't matter what I read my own writing as. Writing for comprehension means writing for other people.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"Oh, but I'm not writing for "anybody" to understand. If they're so smart they can do it themselves because they'll get what they pay for."
Then don't complain when people don't understand what you say. It only hurts you in the end, though."writing for others", by the by, simply means writing so your audience can understand you. You don't use technical terms when discussing biology with preschoolers, the same way you don't use spanish in an english speaking community, the same way you don't use crazy grammar structure in a community that follows established grammar conventions; because you get nowhere when you do.
OK, so if I use "appeal to nature" then you should understand what I'm talking about? Thank you for the correction. Let me edit my previous post.
For once, you made a coherent post.
Congrats for that, I guess.
I've already researched it. Making a mistake based on a mix-up of terminology is not enough to discredit the statement, because the term can be corrected. . It has since been corrected and should make more sense now. Please read it again.
You already responded to this before.
And I already made it pretty clear that I reread it in an earlier reply.
Where's your proof that it isn't factual? I provided examples. Please correct me if I am wrong because if you did it once, you could do it again. If you cannot then my facts will continue to persist as they are.
Argument from fallacy -- assuming that the use of appeals or fallacies in an argument automatically invalidate what is being said.
An appeal to nature isn't necessarily incorrect, essentially.
True; even if one argues that something is unnatural, that doesn't necessarily make it wrong. Confining a pet to a house is "unnatural" (as is spaying/neutering), but most people think it's fine.
I think calling bestiality disturbing isn't a bad thing for them to do, as long as it doesn't make them think it's bad or that they would be against it.
I'm disturbed by human sex, and I'm not entirely against it either.
The thing that hurt the most was the grammar, especially that one person who spelt it 'beastieality'.
Come on, you have a keyboard, not a keypad.
Most idiots spell bestiality as 'beastiality' but this one TAKES the cake.
That moment when you can't even make the same mistake as everyone else, but take it to the next level.
Considering the spelling error, the author is probably addicted to drugs or something else.
Isn't it obvious? A hardcore addict would sacrifice their own and others ability to have sex with animals in favor of their chemical or other dependence. If given the chance, a hardcore addict would sell out anything, their own children and even their testicles for the next fix. An addict would kidnap other people's children or kidnap other people's sexualities for somebody else, for themselves to get paid for their next fix.
This leads me to the conclusion that the abusers who force people to have sex with animals for drugs are using the laws against sex with animals to escape responsibility of their own abuses against addicts as a form of "leverage."
However, an addict will support the laws against sex with animals for the abusers if the abusers threaten to cut off the addicts supply. The addiction becomes the leverage for the laws that enable further leverages for abusive purposes.
Also, an addict will support the laws against sex with animals as coercive leverage to obtain their fix from people who have sex with animals, effectively drawing the zoophile into drug smuggling or otherwise by using the zoophile's attraction to animals as blackmail or a bargaining chip.
In conclusion, the laws against sex with animals are abusive in relation to the abuses by addicts and for the abuse of addicts, subsequently abusing the animals by law. Therefore the laws were not created to protect animals, but to be used as a loaded gun by the rapists and other dangerous abusers.
Uhhhh... what the fuck?
I'm trying to teach you something. Do you want to learn something, or do you prefer to think that everything happens for no reason? Like magic?
Sometimes it's best to keep silent.
Don't worry, no one will judge you for it. It's the right thing to do.
We'll OK but somebody will have to pay me a lot of money for that. After all, this is my life were talking about here. I can't just let other people sell it out without defending it or collecting on the damages.
You know...the end doesn't justify the means right? Being silent can be unethical too.
Tough choices when you live in a country that brutalizes the silent and equally brutalizes those people who speak out against the brutality. I'm starting to believe that there's always some excuse for human abuse committed against the innocent.
You refuse to learn , Skgrsgpf...and that makes you not a single bit smarter that these idiots who think "Well, let me upload evidence of my misconduct". This doesn´t , as most other cases, support your illusions of "unjust" laws, this actually only shows that, without this porno bullshit, she´d be still out of trouble.
The law, btw, says punishment for this can be UP TO 10 years, depending on graveness of violation. I doubt she´d be sitting behind bars for the next decade...and even if she does, it´s 99% her own fault. She knew she was doing something illegal and did it anyways, additionally shot footage and made it public...honestly, what do you expect?
How long will you be trying this until you notice this is NOT a zoo issue? If you jump into the sea, don´t complain about getting wet... How long will you continue to defend idiots who literally handed out evidence of themselves? And who´s to blame here , really? Neither zoophilia nor bestiality make it mandatory to shoot animal porn and publish it for the entire world to see. Again, don´t blame it on others when you fuck up your own life.It´s really that simple...if you don´t want to get caught, don´t film your shit....
Maybe some people didn't hand out the evidence themselves? It only appears as if they did from the perspective of the viewer. There is such as thing as hidden cameras you know?
It's so obvious that a "smart" perpetrator of doxxing and defamation would make the material appear as if the zoophile had posted the material themselves. This allows the doxxer to evade criminal persecution of privacy protection laws. If the zoophile has no proof of not posting the material, persecutory people would automatically assume and accuse the zoophile of both having sex with an animal and posting the material themselves.
Of course , there are many zoophiles who created and posted pornographic material when the pornography and the act was legal. It is an abuse of the legal system to persecute these people due to an act that was committed prior to the laws. There are sites such as GayBeast and others, who re-post old material as if it was new. Persecuting anybody based on the fact that somebody else re-posted another persons material is a vile and deceptive abuse of the legal system. If I was a criminal or anti-zoo or serial killing psychopsth trying to "destroy" zoophiles, this is exactly how I would do it.
Really, have you ever once considered that maybe you are the idiot, for not clearly understanding and ignoring the vile act and methods of doxxing, identity theft and invasion of privacy?
Honestly, don't blame it on the zoophiles when someone else is filming, stealing and posting their shit. Contrary to Anti-Zoo popular belief, most zoos in their right mind ARE NOT stupid enough to film themselves or hand it out to the public unless they did so while the act was legal or they were "uninformed" of any changes.
Actually, zoophiles should pursue compensation for damages incurred to their cultures and lifestyles just as a rape victim would for being sexually abused, because the "zoophiles did not consent" to the harm the changes of the law caused.
While the things you say could be true, you're going to need evidence for it.
The easy way is watching the video (if it's out there...?) and see if she knows she's being filmed.
Yeaaah, not gonna watch a woman get fucked, no thanks.
Ignorance is no excuse for legal abuse. Somebody has to watch it.
For law enforcements sake, the legal system out there in Mississippi should have the integrity to do their job correctly and honestly, otherwise the Feds should get involved to set law enforcement straight in accordance with our Constitutional Rights and the RICO act.
I don't really care if law enforcement officials cry because deceiving, luring, trapping, and banning peoples lifestyles makes their job easy. They don't get paid for easy. They don't get paid to support the creation of crime waves.
As for evidence of zoophile abuse... Anybody who was born in or reached puberty while living in a state or country without anti-animal sex laws before any of these laws were passed is proof enough to claim those people could be zoophiles by the culture they were exposed to and in fact probably would not consent to the legislation unless they admitted to doing so. I'll admit that some people do enjoy being brutalized by the law or anyone for that matter, but that's a sad sad story. Expecting and "threatening" people to change their sexuality by force of law is abusive, unconstitutional and downright coercively criminal.
The laws must have been enacted by people who were isolated from the culture they lived amongst, completely foreign to the area and culture to begin with, or just a nasty vile piece of crap zoophile looking to profit by the blood of other zoos. Their laws do not belong. I wouldn't have made laws restricting their culture and if they want to restrict our culture then they do not belong here in the first place.
I recommend we discuss the issue from two separate perspectives: On the one hand, most of us agree with your assertion that the woman's actions might be referred to as the epitome of stupidity and that it is up to her to take responsibility for her misdeed. On the other hand, there are the legal circumstances of the case, which give rise to severe concerns. Allegedly, the woman was "charged with one felony count of unnatural intercourse/bestiality", which is very similar to the wording of Germany's law against sex with animals that was abandoned in 1969. In fact, it is widely acknowledged that in modern jurisdictions, laws should not be based on morality. Accordingly, Mississippi's "sodomy law" might be considered an anachronism, a relic from the last century which should have been replaced with a more appropriate alternative long ago. Another aspect of the case which seems at least questionable to me as an Austrian citizen is the fact that all three articles featured a photo of the perpetrator in addition to revealing her full name. Could anyone from the US please tell me if this is a common practice especially given the controversial nature of the case? With regards to the maximum sentence of 10 years, I assume that there is also a minimum limit, which might still go far beyond what I would consider a reasonable punishment. Thus, this case definitely proves that unjust anti-bestiality laws do exist.
The USA is full of people who don't want to work for their money. They're always looking for the next excuse to sue somebody or put their own neighbors in prison, to shut them out of their property and put their homes into foreclosure to be taken over for cheap. Slave labor and "justified" theft.
It doesn't matter if you have sex with animals, masterbate, drink soda, eat meat, have a penis or a vagina, use sex toys, dress a certain way, or use the wrong toilet. They will adjust the laws accordingly to exploit people's love and happiness, exploit simple actions that anyone can do and anyone can get caught for because that makes it so easy to profit on the destruction of people's lives.
They apply universal terms of illegality like "Sodomy" and "Bestiality" on 20 different things because it's less work and makes it convenient to brutalize anybody whenever they feel like it. They don't want to actually think about anything or put effort into anything good without getting paid for it and even then all their efforts are aimed towards justifying forcibly revoking other people from their hard earned work, well being, and livelihoods.
They have to hide behind the false sense of "morality" and the largest forces in the universe when they mutilate other people, because they themselves are some of the worst people in the universe. Honestly they make animal fence hopping look like the sweetest dessert with a cherry on top, because they themselves frequently fence hop into other people's lives for the sole purpose of permanently altering it, taking it or ending it...Never actually sharing it, without making you pay for it with you life or some other asymmetrical compensation.
You want to have sex with animals you say? They will use it to steal your freedom, your money, property and your time. They will take your children. They will tarnish and torture the name of your friends, your family and generations of your own offspring if they even allow you to have them in the first place.
The people who did this to you will feed their own children with the blood they drew from you. They are social cannibals, a very small advancement from the cannibalism they practiced in the filth-caked holes they slithered from merely centuries ago.
Yes, physical and social murder/canbibalism/torture/slavery is a common practice of most places in the USA.
Yes, it is common for those who are caught in the U.S. to be publicly shamed on news media. It happened frequently with Joe Arpaio's sting operations. There have been a few from the UK and Australia that were "shamed" in the media, but it's pretty bad in the U.S.
Pretty much all new anti-zoo laws are "morality" laws as well (laws which, as you said, should not exist in modern times).
All laws are based on morality in the end. And the mugshots of people in newspapers and on the internet are common in many, if not the most states of the DSA.
There have been controversial discussions on law and morality before the ban on sex with animals in Germany. Several experts in the field have based their argumentation on the question if zoophile relationships are inherently abusive, take, for instance, this interview with J. Renzikowski, a German professor of law Link According to R., the main point is if a law was created to protect the interests of a group of people or if it exists for the sole purpose of enforcing morality, which seems to be the case in terms of Mississippi's ban on sex with animals. Don't get me wrong, I still take a positive stance towards the 2013 amendment to the German Tierschutzgesetz. Nevertheless, I am convinced that the law in Mississippi is inherently unjust given its focus on a questionable concept of morality.
Well, I agree some US states exaggerate the measures of punishment. But I think that this isn´t the result of open adversarianism against zoophilia, I believe that exaggerated punishment can be explained with the privatisation of jails. Locking someone up is "profit" in the US. That´s what unhinged capitalism leads to, folks. Just look at the US incarceration rates and compare them globally... Other violations of the law are also punished more severe in the US than in Europe (Death penalty!), that´s a general and systemic problem over there.
All "sodomy" laws were struck down years ago by the Supreme Court, like in the 90s. How the fuck is one still on the books, let alone being used?
I'd say she has a leg to stand on unless they re-legislated sodomy to just include bestiality or something. I mean it's not every day you can pull a "the Supreme Court said no-no" out of your hat.
Weird.
I've thought about the same thing. Apparently, any intact sodomy law, whether in Mississippi or Oklahoma, or even in another country, which no longer targets gays but does still target zoos can be used to harass or prosecute zoos, because (for those laws in the U.S.) the 2003 sodomy Supreme Court ruling apparently only concerned human-only sex; meaning sodomy laws that still exist can be used as a tool to persecute zoos.
Irrelevant unless they repassed the bill. All the bills concerning gay sex were struck down including the bestiality bits because they were in the same clauses. If they are trying this person under a clause that has even a mention of gay-human sex, the entire clause is invalidated and the case could be thrown out. Bestiality portion of the law included.
Because Lawrence v. Texas invalidated human-only sex (gay sex) but did not explicitly invalidate zoo sex, that's the reason anti-zoo laws, "sodomy"-related or not, continue to be used to wrongfully prosecute zoos. The zoo issue itself has never been brought before the Supreme Court, therefore there is nothing stopping people from prosecuting/persecuting zoos who live in states with these antiquated laws.
What should happen is these sodomy laws should be repealed entirely, but in many states, including Massachusetts, they continue to keep their discriminatory sodomy laws intact. The Massachusetts law, as well as other sodomy laws, have had their anti-gay part repealed so that all that's left is the anti-zoo part, and they keep that part intact in order to persecute zoos.
There was a time when states did repeal the whole sodomy law (30 years ago), but now those states are making new anti-zoo laws (like New Hampshire).
A zoo could use the argument that sodomy laws violate their sexual privacy, but so far no one appears to have made that case.
As long as people wrongly think they can use a person's sexual identity to "predict" future abuses, they won't care about violations of privacy laws against zoophiles. They use a person's attraction to animals to claim those people will commit actual violent crimes.
Theyre too concerned with predicting the future and less concerned about doing the investigative work. They rely solely on probabilities that have been fabricated, artificially enhanced, or have had statistical data omitted.
Their laws are based on negligence of research, investigation, and the scientific method.
I am under the impression that the link between violent crimes and people who have sex with animals is due to a fabrication of data. One reason for this is "provocation" or antagonism committed against zoophiles in order to provoke violent and other dangerous behavior.
False accusations with or without "doctored" evidence is one problem. For instance, seduction by people who make false rape allegations against zoophiles. Stolen identities and forgeries. Set-ups.
Let's say a father or mother steals their underage daughters phone and uses it to communicate sex related text messages with a man they met online... It might appear as if the man was sending nude photos to the daughter when in reality they were sending it to the father or mother who were using their daughters phone. That's a set up, if the man was not misled to believe that he was speaking with anyone underage... However, even underage children can pretend to be adults as a set up against the adult they're speaking to.
Downloading zoo pornography where the actor in the video looks of age but in reality is underage with no indication of the real age in the video might be mistaken as downloaded child pornography. However, if the downloader was unaware of the person's age in the video for these reasons, the videos existence could be considered a set up.
The same can be said about "self-deleting porn installer" malware. This malware is usually embedded in the parent file and when executed it installs child pornography on the hard drive before deleting or uninstalling the parent file or installer. This leaves no evidence of a malware infection and the owner of the hard drive would be wrongly convicted of harboring child pornography.
This is all besides the misuse and omission of other statistical data in favor of sexual zoophiles. There may as well be more of them than violent criminals but due to the deliberate omission zoophiles would look worse.
Keyword: Deception
In conclusion, statistics against zoophiles are abused, misused, and misinterpreted due to investigative laziness and the increasing abuses of the investigative system by technological advances and human degeneration. Privacy is a major problem and because of technology the integrity of the investigative process is at risk. It's easy money for lazy workers without actual skills.
I feel like there is a level of responsibility dodging, even if you disagree with the laws they are still the laws and when you break them then you should be held responsible, you can practice illegal things if you wish, but be ready to go to jail. That all being said, don't film yourself ever, you are creating more evidence of your legal misdeeds.
Where are people supposed to go? More and more places are banning sex with animals every year.
If "the law" told you to jump off a bridge would you do it? Would you tell other people that they were irresponsible for not following "the law" off a bridge? Would you put people in prison for not committing suicide in the name of "the law?"
Responsibility is usually abused to mean... "If you don't do everything I tell you, then you are a bad person" If anything, this abuse of "responsibility attribution" is irresponsible because it can become an assessory to homicide.
Just look at the people who commited mass suicide because they were brainwashed to believe that suicide was their "responsibility."
Some people are just so mentally challenged that they'll do whatever they're told. Morally stipulated yes-man sycophants shouldn't be working for law enforcement or making legislation in the first place. They're essentially dangerous petards... Human tools.
I think you completely missed the point of what I was saying. I'm saying, if you want to do something, do it, but if you get caught then you should own up to it, also, avoid getting caught, and we as a community should not be outraged that someone was punished to the extent of the law. I'm also not saying we can't or shouldn't question the current laws on the book.
I never enjoyed "every man for himself" gameplay. I'll mention that life is not a game but this team is sucking anyways. United States? United against its own people maybe because that's nice and convenient. We get handed right to them. Lazy selfish bastards wouldn't get up to actually do anything and they want to punish us for doing things too.
We shouldn't have to worry about getting caught exercising with animals, but I guess that would be a punishable offense according to the perspective of slobs. If they want a human exercise partner they should go find another human that wants them, instead of forcing us to do it with them by suffocating our attraction to animals.
try to actually think about it from the other side, it's not a us against them sort of thing. try to entertain the thoughts of the other side and gain some real insight into what is actually going on.
They've already told us what's going on. They made the laws to target people regardless if the animal was harmed or not. That's exactly what they're doing... Targeting people for doing no wrongs. Bottom line is that people have stuff for the state and lawyers to extort and steal. People are easy targets for ransom by whoever catches the drift about their sexuality. They're making hostages out of people like an occupying invader or terrorist would. It's sextortion.
If I was a vile criminal (which I am not) on the other side that's exactly what I would do. Low and behold they do as I predicted. That's just how monsters operate I can't explain it any better. They destroy people. They'll destroy people for having sex. They'll destroy people for calling an Italian dish pasta instead of spaghetti.
People don't protect their animals by putting all other people at risk. If they had good intentions for the laws then they would know the laws were not done correctly. The way it is now it's left open to interpretation and unbalanced in favor to the will of monsters.
I think you have an unhealthy view of things. Have you ever heard of Hanlon's razor?
Until a "credible source" can prove otherwise, my views will not change. I can find more reason to say the laws enable and create brutality than there are to disprove it because history does repeat the same mistakes with the difference of an alternative target, and covers up any wrongdoing as "public safety." There are other ways to keep the public safe without putting people in danger but that wouldn't make the fanatical people eaters happy.
The only thing truly unhealthy is the misdirection of law, the absence of clarity in the law and abuse in the spirit of the law.
you sound like an Alex Jones fan or someone who calls themselves libertarian.
According to the principle of plentitude, there's always the chance that people who create these laws are not quite as stupid as you believe them to be and are in fact quite criminal in their intentions in the creation of laws.
Also according to that same principle, a person with my views who sounds like a libertarian might not actually be a libertarian. There are plenty of things that I could be.
According to the principle...the people who pass those laws or use them with criminal intentions in mind could be "defector" libertarians pretending to be something else. They are liberal in nature so they have views of a libertarian, although hidden, which makes it easier for them to defect against libertarianism or any single act that mistakenly falls under "liberal views." Stupid and smart people both make these politically and morally motivated misinterpretations.
Sometimes the answers are not as easy as saying "because they are stupid" or "because they are insane" due to the vast number of reasons and increasing reasons that people can come up with to gain a dangerous advantage over other people. If the laws are dangerous, then the supporters will be dangerous whether they are stupid or not. That notes the Law of Unintended Consequences. If there's nothing to stop the dangerous consequences of the law, the consequences will persist as if they were expected and wanted.
Expecting the consequences and wanting the consequences that hurt people is a criminal intention to bring harm.
I mean you realize we are talking about animal buggery? I doubt they are 100% redpilled to our views, they are just going to do what the normie opinion is, the normie opinion is that we are gross and should be banned. it's not a huge conspiracy to make money and oppresses us as a lower class, like they're siting there knowing animals can consent but pleasuring themselves to the idea that we are harmed by banning it.
It's true that the majority of people find zoosex gross, but whether something is "gross" or distasteful to the majority shouldn't be a reason to ban something. And grossness (disgust) does not make something moral/immoral. To zoos, it is not gross.
should does not imply what is. you've again missed the point. All I was trying to say was that we are banned because there is no one fighting for our opinion, not that law makers are evil people who know zoophilia is okay and moral and ban it anyway to spite you and make money off your misery.
Also, maybe we could continue this talk Via PM, it's getting kinda huge.
What is going on, at least in the United States, is a rapid growth of discriminatory anti-zoo laws in multiple states, for reasons based on irrational prejudice and misinformation.
Of course, it's you and them. I find it intriguing that nonhuman animals are simply never part of the equation when people say that, as if it's all predicated on zoophiles and bestialists and not the nonhumans involved.
Thank you!
If non-human animals became a part of the equation, we would have every animal rights extremist and vegan jumping on board to stigmatize animal ownership, meat eating, all while supplementing the ban on sex with animals. It adds to the problems.
For one... The animal rights movement de-legitimises the struggles of human beings who are still marginalized and denied equal rights. How would they feel if people became invigorated to stop sex with animals on account of "animal rights" but remained ignorant to these human beings need for food and decent shelter due to animal ownership and meat eating being viewed as abusive and wrong?
Honestly, I would be very offended if people were trying to stop something natural like sex with animals but completely ignoring my human needs.
I mean come on...Rights for animals that won't even use their rights and don't care about the rights of human beings?? That's absurd.
Shepp, look at the context of my post. Regardless of my stance on nonhuman animal rights (and the fact that a nonhuman animals' choice to have sex is also an issue of animal rights), what I said wasn't in the context of nonhuman animal rights.
It was the "Who are people looking at" context.
Skgrsgpf alluded to the idea that legislators were only looking toward zoophiles when they created bans on zooerasty, but that simply isn't true. Nonhuman animals are part of that equation for them. It's not just "people shouldn't be doing this" (as aimed at bestialists and zoophiles), it's "we need to protect nonhuman animals from this kind of trauma. And I don't think many zoophiles are willing to say "down with the system!" before considerations for their nonhuman animal partners. This is a closed triangle, not a line.
Well of course they're thinking about the animals...Thinking about abusing them to abuse human beings. Otherwise they are just not thinking about the damage the laws will cause to animals regardless. This is what I mean by better off leaving the animals out of the equation. The moment they use animals as the reason for the laws they will be guilty of abusing them for harmful purposes other than intended.
I'll paste something that I posted to another comment. I've lettered the differences of common terms.
"The laws against sex with animals are abusive in relation to the (b)abuses by (y)abusers and for the (a)abuse of (y)abusers, subsequently abusing the animals by law. Therefore the laws were not created to protect animals, but to be (a)abused as a loaded gun by dangerous (x)abusers"
The laws of unintended consequences applies. However, if the consequences were expected and intended, criminal intent applies.
Either the lawmakers shouldn't have jobs due to negligence, or they should be put in prison due to their intentions to cause harm to both humans and animals.
legislators put in jail for angering a few hundred people collectively. Yeah, no.
They are thinking about the damage done to nonhuman animals, though. There's a trail of dead chickens, bruises, and internal hemorrhaging that leads to these decisions as well. Regardless of perpetrator and the importance of sexual release, that's alot to skirt over to come to this 'correct' decision. When empirical evidence comes to light directly supporting zoosex in some capacity, then they'll be right to lift those laws. Because when that evidence crops up, we'll be getting an influx of relevant research; research that is sorely needed to keep this safe and create an even greater guarantee of safety for both parties. The animal rights element of this progression is non-negotiable though. It's either their right to choose to have sex, or your right to fuck your dog because they happen to be your property.
There should be laws banning animal cruelty (such as the kind described), and not laws which ban all sex with animals (law which ban it regardless of whether it involved cruelty or not).
They should legalize hard drugs and make it so that only the people who get addicted get punished, too. You're ignoring the fact that the mere allowance of the act has a significant margin to cause unintentional harm for both parties. Illegality issues at least some concern for discretion.
Non-human animals are part of the equation, but legislators view them differently compared to the way zoos view them (zoos tend to view them as equals, whereas non-zoos do not).
They still care about that part of the equation, however, condescending concern or no.
I really don't see how you reach this conclusion. Nonhuman animals are already "protected from trauma" by abuse laws, so it is impossible to paint this as an effort to protect nonhuman animals from trauma.
Meanwhile the new laws are written to say, in as many words, "people shouldn't be doing this" and all they do is "protect" animals in cases where no abuse is committed. So given that, what exactly are they protecting them from, in your estimation?
It's seen as protection from rape, coercion, sexual brainwashing/training, idiots, and more that I can't recall off the top of my head. Even though turning a nonhuman animal into a sex slave isn't abuse by nature, few if any people believe that such a thing should be allowed. The legality of zoosex does need stipulations as we move toward the ideals of empirical ethics.
You write good sentences but I can't follow your point or where you are voicing your own opinions vs. those of hypothetical law supporters.
The new laws offer no protection against sexual training or idiots, only against certain, non-abusive actions.
I'm not sure how one defines sex slavery (or how that would differ from a professional breeding establishment), but again the law is clear in having nothing to do with training or keeping, only in what (non-abusive) actions are performed.
What "stipulations" do you feel we need?
The new anti-zoo laws seem to be based entirely on a set of morals that are incompatible with the morals that zoos have. "Morality"-based laws should not be tolerated, and yet they are in the case of anti-zoo laws; it is frustrating that no one opposes these new anti-zoo laws, and that no one is trying to fight them in court.
Fair enough. My opinions are nuanced enough that I'm kind of in-between on this issue in particular. I'll try something new; italics for the more normalized view.
Well, no exclusive protection, no, but sexual training still requires sexual contact, presumably. It's a reasonable place to create blanket protections because of the inherently abusive an traumatic nature of the act. (note italics)
First, I'd like to look at US rape legislature. This is a good framework to begin this, I feel.
From this, we see that use of force is not legal with intercourse. That might seem like a given, but iirc about 9% of those that have engaged in zoosex have used some form of force; maybe not to engage the act, but to control or restrict the nonhuman animal's movement in some capacity during the act. Unless not doing so would cause personal harm or harm of the nonhuman animal, force cannot be used. We have to recall that we aren't legislating for zoos; we're legislating for everyone; bestialists, zoophiles, zoosadists, people that 'just want to try it', and so on.
Avoiding causing bodily harm is a given... outside of minor injury and perforation, so long as the physical trauma is not intentional or significant.
Then there's coercion and threats. Now, this one might not be as in the open to most people, but I grew up in a family where force was a tool used for punishment. Beatings weren't reserved for children; they were just as readily used on pets, though in a lesser capacity; usually a single strike to discourage a behavior. The mere stance taken to 'deliver justice' as it were became enough for them to recoil after a while... And I don't think too many people would consider that abuse on its own. It's discipline, but in this case it's also coercion and a threat. With more intelligent nonhuman animals, threats without force become even more palpable. So, there needs to be a stipulation against that.
Rendering them unconscious, drugging them, or having intercourse with them when they are otherwise inebriated or in a state where their judgement would be clouded and cannot offer consent, or when they are asleep or influenced by any drug that negatively affects judgement cannot be allowed. It can be said that a nonhuman animal being in heat should also be included here, but that would need more accommodating stipulations that what I'd be able to describe best (Perhaps just sexual interest outside of heat being a prerequisite).
When through defect or disability, the nonhuman animal cannot be reasonably expected to rationally offer consent, display discomfort, or engage with a reasonable expectation of there being no harm, that's also an issue. It's a particular issue with neutered and spayed individuals due to developmental changes.
I like how they define consent as well, and feel it's best to just copy+paste it here.
"The term “consent” means a freely given agreement to the conduct at issue by a competent person. An expression of lack of consent through words or conduct means there is no consent. Lack of verbal or physical resistance or submission resulting from the use of force, threat of force, or placing another person in fear does not constitute consent. A current or previous dating or social or sexual relationship by itself or the manner of dress of the person involved with the accused in the conduct at issue shall not constitute consent."
Consent is an issue though because what can be interpreted from one individual may not be so in another of the same species. Individuals communicate the same things in different ways depending on upbringing, and that makes determining consent difficult. Until we have the technology to determine that definitively, a legally relevant form of consent is out of reach.
Beyond that, of course, there's legal age of consent, which is something to consider. Engaging in intercourse with a nonhuman animal necessitates that they be a sexually mature adult. That can vary by species, by breed, by sex, and by individual. Too frequent and too early sexual contact might cause hypersexuality.
Now, this is more part of an ideal, but they shouldn't be sexually isolated. If you don't give them a choice in how, or rather, who they get sexual release from, then that's an issue in my eyes. They may end up acting against pre-existing preferences in favor of their libido, after a point.
Oh right, and no incentivizing. No treats, no positive affirmation like "good boy" that would form "I'm supposed to do this" connotations, none of that. It has to be neutral, not reinforced. It's like if someone in a human couple started giving the other money for sex. It's prostitution at that point, regardless of their relationship
That's just off the top of my head, but it's a decent start, I think. The issue with these stipulations is we can't prove them yet(prove that x DIDN'T use force -- "Sure, there's no injury, but that doesn't mean they weren't held in place"), and some of them are simply incompatible with the world as it is now. Sexual autonomy in a nonhuman animal is recognized, I think, but nobody really wants their pet being sexual.
Thanks, that is much clearer.
Your observation "nobody really wants their pet being sexual" about sums up what I think is at the root of all this, as well as the neutering topic. But what fun would it be to leave it at that! I'm sure most people stopped reading this thread anyway.
In my opinion, human contract/consent law is irrelevant to animal free agency. It seems people get a bit myopic about "consent" while losing sight of why such rules truly exist in human law in the first place, about why they apply specifically to sexual activities, and about the role they feel a male or a female, a human or an animal, etc., are likely to play in these proposed pairings.
Humans have established human law for reasons that suit them and suit how humans function with each other. Animals of course know nothing of this, nor must they, nor necessarily should they. On the other side, essentially all mammals - including humans - understand basic signs of satisfaction or distress; no written description is necessary.
I think the effort to put the square peg of human consent into the round hole of "real-life nature" is what's steering you toward a conspicuously conservative stance on some of the above conclusions. For example, it is not coercion to hug your boyfriend/girlfriend or treat them with special affection after special human-human time. It is not coercion to make it obvious you enjoy doing such things and might want them to happen again. I agree that overt, relentless training to get someone to do something they really don't want to is something we view as inappropriate. (At least in sexual matters... we work with dogs and horses all the time to get them to immediately and unquestioningly do things they may not prefer or even enjoy, simply because we ask - but that's a broader topic of philosophy.)
I'm not clear on the purpose of the neutering/heat/isolation concern. I think where you're going is "don't exploit them" but that doesn't work either because hormones are a natural part of life. I strongly doubt people avoid sex with adult male humans under the age of 25 because their judgment may be clouded by hormones. If there was another dog around someone's dog, or horse around someone's horse, I doubt many animal aficionados would be concerned about an animal having another option.
Anyway, I see what you mean as far as "it doesn't mean they weren't held in place." Even in the unlikely case that an animal exhibited no telling behaviors around the person doing such things, the fact remains that these new laws don't prevent such abuse, either. They just make everything, good and bad, illegal in scorched-earth fashion. In another thread, I used the example (unchallenged, I might add) of it being like illegalizing all sex because some people experience rape or domestic violence.
No such law exists because, sure enough, there's no basis for it, and it's completely impractical anyway due to the number of people who would violate it. But when you're dealing with a misunderstood, taboo minority (therefore one which is unpopular and which can't easily defend itself), such laws become practical.
It's a significant part of it I suspect yeah. We're in a very sexually consservative society and complex ideas like sexual conservativism are hard to communicate to nonhuman animals currently.
Yeah, it's something I bring up in these discussions with other non zoos when the topic comes up. Sex laws are in place because of the prevalence of STIs, the emotional impact of sex, and because of the whole conception thing, for the most part. One stops applying because of prezygotic barriers, STIs that can survive cross-species are rare to the point of obsolescence, and all you're left with is the emotional impact of it... which we're not sure about, but it's safer to say that it has less lasting outcomes in nonhuman animals, in most cases, and I think that applies to the negative experiences too. Interspecies sex, by nature, carries less weight(in terms of potential consequences) than it does between two humans or any same species pairing. Informed consent simply doesn't matter as much, unless there's concern about their risk of getting cancer increasing by 2% or something.
That said, I do think that cognitive enhancement is something we have on the horizon, and there will be people pushing to have those modifications offered to nonhuman animals as well. So, consent might become a moot point when they literally can offer informed consent on their own. But that's far, far away.Still, something to consider.
The idea is that either they should be the ones to make the first move, or they should be approached, when they can be reasonably expected to have interest but still be clear of mind enough that saying no is just as easy when their caretaker isn't their preferred partner. The stipulation is there because it'd make the law easier to pass, mind you, but uh... hormones are scary things, too. They can override preference or reason pretty handily on occasion, and we've got plenty of examples in our own society to speak to that.
they aren't antiZoo laws, I'd be genuinely surprised if they people making said laws even knew the word zoophilia. These people see us on the level of pedophiles praying on the innocent and weak, and can you really blame them? how many people do you think have challenged that point of view? better yet, how often do practices of bestiality confirm their beliefs, I would argue that the majority of people in jail from bestiality laws have earned their spot and we as people who love animals should not be sad about it.
Of course we can blame them.
If you call zoophilia wrong, you should have known about it.
If you don't know anything about a subject, you don't have the right to call it wrong or right.
Just because they've only seen the bad parts of us doesn't mean they can unfairly judge us. It's a very good example of discrimination. Very disgusting.
Not to mention, you can never change these people's minds. In the beginning, they judge zoophilia and don't know anything about it.
When someone tries to educate them as if it's a good thing, they won't listen. If someone tries to 'educate' them as if it's a bad thing, they believe them.
They are stubborn, they are sheep, they discriminate.
I'm not going to sympathize with sheeple. Damn some zoos are some pushovers here...
And about the people in jail, how do you even know?
Innocent zoos have been locked up, and the innocent should NEVER be punished. It's unacceptable.
Agree with you, WarCanine. There ought to be more sympathy for innocent zoos who have been locked up, and not assume that all of them are bad. And you're correct that anti-zoos refuse to listen to pro-zoo arguments.
Correct. Anti "Zoo" laws are laws prohibiting zoos which contain animals.
Anti-zoophile laws are laws that target zoophiles and the sex they have with animals.
This is why we need better terminology, because I don't like being associated with SeaWorld or Circuses. Not that I'm against "Zoos", I just prefer not to support people that won't let me have sex with the Giraffes, Elephants and Hippopotamuses...
Lol
...which gets back to the problem of not being able to speak out for fear of prosecution.
I agree with the first half of your post though. Not sure I have data to support the statement that the "majority of people in jail" have earned their spot.
I was actually thinking about that, I doubt there would be any data on bestiality offenses, but from what I see and the court details, that is my conclusion, not that that is conclusive in anyway.
What about outrage over the law itself? That leads, logically, to being outraged over some (but not all) cases in which someone is caught.
Think about racial segregation laws, how they were wrong, and how people were ordered to follow them or face jail time. Or what about laws that banned inter-racial sex. These laws were wrong, and so are anti-zoo laws.
yeah and they also didn't act surprised when someone was arrested for breaking those segregation laws.
No one here seems surprised that people are arrested for breaking those laws.
I'm not surprised that anybody used any excuse to arrest anyone for animal sex.
Shitty people do shitty things for shitty reasons and since there are plenty of shitty people creating and enforcing shitty laws while shitty people dont do shit about it, shit does happen.
...poop
[deleted]
I wouldn't be surprised if these laws were supported by those people who supported racial segregation and the ban on inter-racial sex. Anti-zoo laws, "animal-rights" and misguided welfare efforts are a slap in the face to ongoing human struggles.
They would rather ban sex with animals than feed "those little brown people" because banning sex with animals is just another method to dehumanize people to a status lower than animals.
"People are not allowed to have sex with animals because animals belong to a higher status or have more rights than humans"
Obvious brotip: don't ever film/photograph one's sexual/intimate involvement with animals and then upload it to the internet for validation.
Last night, two of my old, non-zoo friends visited me. I showed them this thread...want me to tell what they´ve said? ;)
...and we still wonder why we´re not getting anywhere...
Yikes, 100+ comments. I don't think this thread warranted such a magnitude of responses.
[removed]
"The woman is being charged under Mississippi's "sodomy" law which they never got around to repealing. It is a "morality"-based law rather then one dealing with "animal cruelty". So it's possible the woman who was arrested did not commit any actual cruelty."
I would wait as long as possible, ensuring that they stick to that set of charges, and fight it on exactly those grounds.