submitted 2017-03-16 23:02:59 by YearningmiceZoophile
YearningmiceZoophile 1 point on 2017-03-16 23:06:40
The world is a very strange place. It was a bed, a naked lady, and some voice over than the raccoon didn't hear let alone understand and yet.... wtf.. I'm sure the raccoon's reputation is intact...
AmoreBestiaPro-zoophile, non-zoophile. 1 point on 2017-03-16 23:25:45
Apparently the raccoon also developed a fear of camcorders. Either the camera crew bludgeoned the raccoon, or that's bullshit.
YearningmiceZoophile 2 points on 2017-03-17 00:23:50
Yeah, but sometimes any news is good news to the ad department. So maybe they are playing it up. I can't imagine a zoo in Russia is in an easy place.
30-30amator equae 0 points on 2017-03-16 23:43:42
Mirror.co.uk...´nuff said. Even Breitbart is more accurate...
But once again my thesis is sustained, animal porn poisons society. What else than animal porn is it this fuss is all about? The zoo is pissed off because one of his animals was used in an "erotic" shooting and doesn´t want to be connected in any way to illegal pornography. 25 years ago, no one batted an eye about such shootings, I remember the "Bauernkalender" (farmer´s almanach) featured nude girls with animals, 12 high gloss pictures of natural beauty...and some nude monkeys showing off their tits, vaginas and asses, too. ;)
Huge free and easy to access archives of "animal erotica" has made it this way...and you better get used to it ´cause that won´t change anytime soon. Thank you, animal porn mafia, thank you, "amateurs"...
YearningmiceZoophile 1 point on 2017-03-17 00:22:23
And yet you used such an unreliable source to back up your claims. Interesting.
You do realize there are calendars with 2017 on them that feature nude women and gorgeous animals available at the local mall just a few month ago, right? I haven't heard anyone really batting an eye about it and there were even children in the calendar store. I know of at least one art book last year too.
Oh well, outrage is the thing nowadays, it gets clicks and makes people feel better about themselves.
30-30amator equae 0 points on 2017-03-17 02:17:04
...and yet you use such an unreliable source yourself to create a thread that has very little to do with zoophilia. Loneliness and lack of social interaction? ;)
I guess we all know what clickbait is...and I am pretty well aware that these farmer almanachs/calendars are still in print and have a small, but very steady group of customers. Theiy still have that certain "beasty" touch to them and the only reason the antis haven´t started their screeching is because they don´t know these calendars are out there.
YearningmiceZoophile 1 point on 2017-03-17 02:50:08
Giggle snort... you're cute when I touch a nerve.
You get all insulty and indignant and then repeat what your first incorrect idea was in a slightly veiled way usually contradicting yourself in the process. So noone makes a fuss but this is "proof" you are right about people making a fuss, m'kay.
I thought it was amusing in a wtf way, btw, despite the source. Or did you not notice the mods trying to get more social interaction and less ... well... nothing.
AmoreBestiaPro-zoophile, non-zoophile. 3 points on 2017-03-17 13:06:18
I thought it was amusing in a wtf way, btw, despite the source. Or did you not notice the mods trying to get more social interaction and less ... well... nothing.
If he didn't, then I'll say it up front... Full disclosure, this community is/was really super toxic. It's noxious for me even, and I'm about as emotional as your front porch. It's been improving as of late (and I've been getting way less complaints since Shepp backed out which both sucks and is relieving), but we've still got a long way to go before it's where we need to be. There's a fine line between inviting gritty realism into our discussions and creating an oppressive environment. Some people come here for that kind of serious discussion, but just as many others come here for support or to chill... and we can cater to all three of those groups even if we're not right now. I'm honestly someone that fits in more to the former group, that kind of discussion is just in my blood, but it gets pervasive in all the wrong ways sometimes... oftentimes... okay, all the time on here.
As for it being relevant to zoophilia... speaking from my perspective, it doesn't really matter, to be honest. We're a community moreso than anything, we don't have rigid rules like /r/science does, because at the end of the day, the people that come on here don't necessarily want or need strictly topical content 24/7. That's not to say it isn't important, as we do want to be informative about our namesake, but having a broad scope and the occasional lul (tangential as they may be sometimes) is ultimately a boon to us as a community.
30-30amator equae 1 point on 2017-03-18 00:27:58
Well, we all condemn the yellow press for pubishing sensationalistic clickbait, but we should turn a blind eye when one member of our community helps gathering click by publishing the link to these "articles"...oh, I forgot, only others clickbait, "we" do to "get more social interaction"....uh huh...
"this community is super toxic"...if that´s the case, why are you still here? Could it be it truly is the other way around? There are lots of "zoo forums" that support this "playground" mindset, try BF, zoophilesforum and practically all the others as well...so, why do we need to turn this sub into a mere copy of already existing "zoo forums", with bogus articles, retarded rants about "unjust" society et al. ?
If this is where we´re heading at , I´m gone. I have a good life and don´t need that crap happening...again...and again...and again...this isn´t Groundhog Day. Maybe you all need to make up your minds what it is you really want...a playground for manchilds, fantasisers and plain retards or a platform to discuss vital and essential aspects of zoophilia. Until you made up your mind, I´ll take a pause. Bye.
AmoreBestiaPro-zoophile, non-zoophile. 1 point on 2017-03-18 01:03:47
Well, we all condemn the yellow press for pubishing sensationalistic clickbait, but we should turn a blind eye when one member of our community helps gathering click by publishing the link to these "articles"...oh, I forgot, only others clickbait, "we" do to "get more social interaction"....uh huh...
Yes, because an extra 20 or so clicks from adblock enabled browsers is going to help them.
if that´s the case, why are you still here? Could it be it truly is the other way around?
Because I've made an active investment in this community and I intend to continue that investment. It's also because I care. I ran to be a moderator to improve the conditions here so that it doesn't implode, and if you didn't notice... it has been imploding. The toxicity stems from people being dicks to eachother, just so we're clear. You don't see it, but we get complaints about it, from reasonable users with similar beliefs and ideals to yours.
There are lots of "zoo forums" that support this "playground" mindset, try BF, zoophilesforum and practically all the others as well...so, why do we need to turn this sub into a mere copy of already existing "zoo forums", with bogus articles, retarded rants about "unjust" society et al. ?
Back to my reference of /r/Science, do you think that's a playground? People don't get in fights there because the moderators strike with impunity when they do. They're strict, and they're restrictive. We, on the other hand, are not. We abide a metric ton of salt, yours and warcanine's especially. We don't strike down your more dubious posts for that same reason.
Maybe you all need to make up your minds what it is you really want...a playground for manchilds, fantasisers and plain retards or a platform to discuss vital and essential aspects of zoophilia.
That's a false dilemma if I ever saw it, and you know it too. The nuances of the issue are many and varied, and we both know it. At any rate, what do you think our enforcement on Shepp was? Were we creating a playground for manchilds, fantasizers, and retards by issuing warnings and removals on his posts? If anything, we created a playground for you, because we enforced against a voice that actively disagreed with you, regardless of how inane he sounded sometimes. Vital discussion will continue, but we need to strike a healthy balance, and it's not healthy right now. The discussion doesn't matter if there are only 8 or so people left that are willing to sift through the shit to see the important points.
30-30amator equae 1 point on 2017-03-18 01:23:01
Deleting insults has been done so I can have a playground? Well, congratulations,AB, you just did what no one else could,to drive me off this place.
Enjoy your life, folks..I´ll surely do the same. Bye.
AmoreBestiaPro-zoophile, non-zoophile. 1 point on 2017-03-18 01:38:25
Deleting insults has been done so I can have a playground?
To be clear, it wasn't the intent. It just turned out to be that way.
btwIAMAzoophileDogs are cute. 1 point on 2017-03-18 23:16:38
I thought he said he was going to leave last time anyways lol
MDCCCLXIIII 3 points on 2017-03-18 06:16:01
I'm sorry to hear that you are leaving, no matter if your absence is only temporary just like last time or permanent. You are one of the most active users on this forum and I've always been appreciating your exceptional commitment. Thus, I feel that losing you would certainly harm our community and deprive it from one of its key members. Nevertheless, I have to remind you that contrary to your interpretation of his statement, u/AmoreBestia has made a perfectly valid point in criticizing the destructive style of discussion that prevails among this forum. You in turn, decided to consciously misinterpret his comment and counter with a plain ad-hominem attack. Perhaps, you should try to acknowledge the time and effort that u/AmoreBestia has been investing during the last weeks for the sake of our community and see that you are not the only one around here who "has a good life" offline and is not dependent on this subreddit. Indeed, he presented r/science as a role model, which, at least to me, is evidence enough to prove that the last thing he wants is to turn this place into "a playground for manchilds, fantasisers and plain retards". In order to have a truly sophisticated and reasonable discussion on "the vital and essential aspects of zoophilia", it is crucial that we adhere to certain quality standards and if you've ever taken part in a debate in an academic context, you know what I am talking about. In fact the core message of my comment can be reduced to four words: NO AD HOMINEM ATTACKS. Before you ask, this statement of mine is NOT based on the assumption that an aggressive or insulting style of discussion might be perceived as offensive by some special snowflakes out there. Rather, using ad-rem arguments enriches and advances the discussion, while mere ad-hominem attacks only disqualify the attacker. This is exactly what u/AmoreBestia has proposed in the best interest of this forum and of its community and I feel sorry for you if you fail to see the benefits that we could take from shifting our discussions to a more "scientific level". Thus, as somebody who has been supportive of you from the day he joined this subreddit, I'd like to ask you to reassess your motivations to leave this subreddit, so that our last impression of you is not going to be one of a rogue who is unable to handle criticism in a reasonable and mature way.
Best regards
MDCCCLXIIII 1 point on 2017-03-17 23:13:46
Yeah, the infamous Bauernkalender featuring the world's most beautiful women photographed by true masters of their trade... To be honest, I don't know how these calendars might have looked like 25 years ago, but judging by what is available on the German and Austrian market today, I see nothing but mediocre images of mediocre models in unnatural poses. With regards to the "beasty touch" you mentioned, I don´t think that the creators of these calendars have ever consciously alluded to bestiality.
IAmAZoophile 6 points on 2017-03-17 00:14:24
"Now everyone who watched this video or saw the photo will associate raccoons with eroticism"
Stupid sexy raccoon.
YearningmiceZoophile 3 points on 2017-03-17 00:24:45
Like Rocket "adjusting" himself didn't do that already. Hehe.
electricfoxx 2 points on 2017-03-17 07:43:03
I agree that I don't think anything bad happened to the raccoon, but why does a zoo need a sexualized advertisement?
Edog91 1 point on 2017-03-18 07:23:12
Lol so u don't need to do a crime anymore just something that's like it.
Zeta_WolfWolf trapped in a human body 1 point on 2017-03-18 14:53:24
Nothing "erotic" about this. The racoon was simply playing with the blanket for the vast majority of the time while a stupid monkey guffawed incessantly while trying to keep the camera still. If the zoo was upset about "moral damage" to their racoon, then they shouldn't really be in the business of being a zoo since they obviously don't know their animals.
I mean the racoon was simply innocently playing. So what if there is a scantily clad and {ostensibly ;)} sexy woman who is present, but basically ignored? That makes it "like bestiality"? LOL
/r/zoophilia archive
The world is a very strange place. It was a bed, a naked lady, and some voice over than the raccoon didn't hear let alone understand and yet.... wtf.. I'm sure the raccoon's reputation is intact...
Apparently the raccoon also developed a fear of camcorders. Either the camera crew bludgeoned the raccoon, or that's bullshit.
Yeah, but sometimes any news is good news to the ad department. So maybe they are playing it up. I can't imagine a zoo in Russia is in an easy place.
Mirror.co.uk...´nuff said. Even Breitbart is more accurate...
But once again my thesis is sustained, animal porn poisons society. What else than animal porn is it this fuss is all about? The zoo is pissed off because one of his animals was used in an "erotic" shooting and doesn´t want to be connected in any way to illegal pornography. 25 years ago, no one batted an eye about such shootings, I remember the "Bauernkalender" (farmer´s almanach) featured nude girls with animals, 12 high gloss pictures of natural beauty...and some nude monkeys showing off their tits, vaginas and asses, too. ;)
Huge free and easy to access archives of "animal erotica" has made it this way...and you better get used to it ´cause that won´t change anytime soon. Thank you, animal porn mafia, thank you, "amateurs"...
And yet you used such an unreliable source to back up your claims. Interesting.
You do realize there are calendars with 2017 on them that feature nude women and gorgeous animals available at the local mall just a few month ago, right? I haven't heard anyone really batting an eye about it and there were even children in the calendar store. I know of at least one art book last year too.
Oh well, outrage is the thing nowadays, it gets clicks and makes people feel better about themselves.
...and yet you use such an unreliable source yourself to create a thread that has very little to do with zoophilia. Loneliness and lack of social interaction? ;) I guess we all know what clickbait is...and I am pretty well aware that these farmer almanachs/calendars are still in print and have a small, but very steady group of customers. Theiy still have that certain "beasty" touch to them and the only reason the antis haven´t started their screeching is because they don´t know these calendars are out there.
Giggle snort... you're cute when I touch a nerve.
You get all insulty and indignant and then repeat what your first incorrect idea was in a slightly veiled way usually contradicting yourself in the process. So noone makes a fuss but this is "proof" you are right about people making a fuss, m'kay.
I thought it was amusing in a wtf way, btw, despite the source. Or did you not notice the mods trying to get more social interaction and less ... well... nothing.
If he didn't, then I'll say it up front... Full disclosure, this community is/was really super toxic. It's noxious for me even, and I'm about as emotional as your front porch. It's been improving as of late (and I've been getting way less complaints since Shepp backed out which both sucks and is relieving), but we've still got a long way to go before it's where we need to be. There's a fine line between inviting gritty realism into our discussions and creating an oppressive environment. Some people come here for that kind of serious discussion, but just as many others come here for support or to chill... and we can cater to all three of those groups even if we're not right now. I'm honestly someone that fits in more to the former group, that kind of discussion is just in my blood, but it gets pervasive in all the wrong ways sometimes... oftentimes... okay, all the time on here.
As for it being relevant to zoophilia... speaking from my perspective, it doesn't really matter, to be honest. We're a community moreso than anything, we don't have rigid rules like /r/science does, because at the end of the day, the people that come on here don't necessarily want or need strictly topical content 24/7. That's not to say it isn't important, as we do want to be informative about our namesake, but having a broad scope and the occasional lul (tangential as they may be sometimes) is ultimately a boon to us as a community.
Well, we all condemn the yellow press for pubishing sensationalistic clickbait, but we should turn a blind eye when one member of our community helps gathering click by publishing the link to these "articles"...oh, I forgot, only others clickbait, "we" do to "get more social interaction"....uh huh...
"this community is super toxic"...if that´s the case, why are you still here? Could it be it truly is the other way around? There are lots of "zoo forums" that support this "playground" mindset, try BF, zoophilesforum and practically all the others as well...so, why do we need to turn this sub into a mere copy of already existing "zoo forums", with bogus articles, retarded rants about "unjust" society et al. ?
If this is where we´re heading at , I´m gone. I have a good life and don´t need that crap happening...again...and again...and again...this isn´t Groundhog Day. Maybe you all need to make up your minds what it is you really want...a playground for manchilds, fantasisers and plain retards or a platform to discuss vital and essential aspects of zoophilia. Until you made up your mind, I´ll take a pause. Bye.
Yes, because an extra 20 or so clicks from adblock enabled browsers is going to help them.
Because I've made an active investment in this community and I intend to continue that investment. It's also because I care. I ran to be a moderator to improve the conditions here so that it doesn't implode, and if you didn't notice... it has been imploding. The toxicity stems from people being dicks to eachother, just so we're clear. You don't see it, but we get complaints about it, from reasonable users with similar beliefs and ideals to yours.
Back to my reference of /r/Science, do you think that's a playground? People don't get in fights there because the moderators strike with impunity when they do. They're strict, and they're restrictive. We, on the other hand, are not. We abide a metric ton of salt, yours and warcanine's especially. We don't strike down your more dubious posts for that same reason.
That's a false dilemma if I ever saw it, and you know it too. The nuances of the issue are many and varied, and we both know it. At any rate, what do you think our enforcement on Shepp was? Were we creating a playground for manchilds, fantasizers, and retards by issuing warnings and removals on his posts? If anything, we created a playground for you, because we enforced against a voice that actively disagreed with you, regardless of how inane he sounded sometimes. Vital discussion will continue, but we need to strike a healthy balance, and it's not healthy right now. The discussion doesn't matter if there are only 8 or so people left that are willing to sift through the shit to see the important points.
Deleting insults has been done so I can have a playground? Well, congratulations,AB, you just did what no one else could,to drive me off this place.
Enjoy your life, folks..I´ll surely do the same. Bye.
To be clear, it wasn't the intent. It just turned out to be that way.
I thought he said he was going to leave last time anyways lol
I'm sorry to hear that you are leaving, no matter if your absence is only temporary just like last time or permanent. You are one of the most active users on this forum and I've always been appreciating your exceptional commitment. Thus, I feel that losing you would certainly harm our community and deprive it from one of its key members. Nevertheless, I have to remind you that contrary to your interpretation of his statement, u/AmoreBestia has made a perfectly valid point in criticizing the destructive style of discussion that prevails among this forum. You in turn, decided to consciously misinterpret his comment and counter with a plain ad-hominem attack. Perhaps, you should try to acknowledge the time and effort that u/AmoreBestia has been investing during the last weeks for the sake of our community and see that you are not the only one around here who "has a good life" offline and is not dependent on this subreddit. Indeed, he presented r/science as a role model, which, at least to me, is evidence enough to prove that the last thing he wants is to turn this place into "a playground for manchilds, fantasisers and plain retards". In order to have a truly sophisticated and reasonable discussion on "the vital and essential aspects of zoophilia", it is crucial that we adhere to certain quality standards and if you've ever taken part in a debate in an academic context, you know what I am talking about. In fact the core message of my comment can be reduced to four words: NO AD HOMINEM ATTACKS. Before you ask, this statement of mine is NOT based on the assumption that an aggressive or insulting style of discussion might be perceived as offensive by some special snowflakes out there. Rather, using ad-rem arguments enriches and advances the discussion, while mere ad-hominem attacks only disqualify the attacker. This is exactly what u/AmoreBestia has proposed in the best interest of this forum and of its community and I feel sorry for you if you fail to see the benefits that we could take from shifting our discussions to a more "scientific level". Thus, as somebody who has been supportive of you from the day he joined this subreddit, I'd like to ask you to reassess your motivations to leave this subreddit, so that our last impression of you is not going to be one of a rogue who is unable to handle criticism in a reasonable and mature way. Best regards
Yeah, the infamous Bauernkalender featuring the world's most beautiful women photographed by true masters of their trade... To be honest, I don't know how these calendars might have looked like 25 years ago, but judging by what is available on the German and Austrian market today, I see nothing but mediocre images of mediocre models in unnatural poses. With regards to the "beasty touch" you mentioned, I don´t think that the creators of these calendars have ever consciously alluded to bestiality.
Stupid sexy raccoon.
Like Rocket "adjusting" himself didn't do that already. Hehe.
I agree that I don't think anything bad happened to the raccoon, but why does a zoo need a sexualized advertisement?
Lol so u don't need to do a crime anymore just something that's like it.
Nothing "erotic" about this. The racoon was simply playing with the blanket for the vast majority of the time while a stupid monkey guffawed incessantly while trying to keep the camera still. If the zoo was upset about "moral damage" to their racoon, then they shouldn't really be in the business of being a zoo since they obviously don't know their animals.
I mean the racoon was simply innocently playing. So what if there is a scantily clad and {ostensibly ;)} sexy woman who is present, but basically ignored? That makes it "like bestiality"? LOL