There is no law against it in Kentucky, but there is currently a bill in Kentucky (House Bill 480) which would criminalize sex with animals in that state.
There are also currently bills in Texas, West Virginia, Vermont and Nevada which would ban sex with animals in each of those states.
sx102205 2 points on 2017-03-29 01:49:11
That Bill failed to pass I believe :)
Skgrsgpf 1 point on 2017-03-29 02:28:09
You appear to be correct -- the bill is listed as Adjourned sine die. It means the bill didn't succeed, but only because the legislative session ended before they could get to it. (So they ran out of time. If there had been more time, there probably would've been a mindless unanimous vote in favor of it, as has been done in multiple states).
A concern of mine is that they may make a new anti-zoo bill at the beginning of 2018. Kentucky's legislative sessions are longer in even-numbered years. And as one of the last "legal" states, there will be pressure from the anti-zoos to ban it there.
sx102205 2 points on 2017-03-29 02:55:46
As far as legality, none of it matters much. If you keep your sex life private, as most do, it wont be an issue. Filming it and putting it online just tags you forever :) I keep my private life private. Granted a few of my friends know my preference, but they don't get to sit in on the action lol
Sheppsoldier -1 points on 2017-03-29 15:17:15
The bills were created by criminals for the benefit of criminals.
The laws allow for organization leaders to blackmail citizens into their criminal/terrorist organizations. This is why zoophiles are typically caught being involved in other illegal trades such as pedophilia, drug trafficking, prostitution, murder, etc.
The zoophile didn't choose to be a criminal.
The zoophile is not a criminal until the law against sex with animals create the "gateway" into criminal behavior which would have never existed if it wasn't for the persecutory laws in the first place.
That is why marijuana was claimed to be a gateway drug. The drug didn't force or people into doing other drugs, the law against marijuana gave criminals the ability to blackmail people into smuggling or using other drugs.
AmoreBestiaPro-zoophile, non-zoophile. 1 point on 2017-03-29 20:39:47
He asked what the laws that existed were, not what our thoughts on it were.
Sheppsoldier 1 point on 2017-03-29 20:50:43
That's cool. Apparently there's a bill popping up here and there, and im going to take every opportunity to complain about it.
WarCanineLove knows no boundaries between species or gender-Mᴬᴰᴬᴿᴬᴼ 1 point on 2017-03-30 07:45:44
Breaking the no reply rule just to cheer for you!
GO SHEPP! COMPLAINING WILL MOVE US FORWARD FOR SURE!
[deleted] 1 point on 2017-03-30 12:28:57
[removed]
WarCanineLove knows no boundaries between species or gender-Mᴬᴰᴬᴿᴬᴼ 1 point on 2017-03-30 15:24:13
What. The. Fuck.
This is the dumbest thing I have ever seen.
Even the ''Do dogs have vaginas?'' question made more sense.
I don't know if I should warn other zoos about how dumb you are, or that I should hide you from the public so we aren't embarassed any more.
I'd tag our non-zoo friend in this post, but I'm afraid that even he wouldn't be able to handle such nonsense.
You made me remember why I didn't reply to you any more.
Isn't it obvious?
People who don't complain about the laws against sex with animals must enjoy being raped.
Therefore, anyone who responds to me complaining about the law's rape of zoophiles with aggression must enjoy my complaining, because they are rapists. Rapists are attracted to the complaining...
sigh
I hope that some day you'll learn...
[deleted] 1 point on 2017-03-30 17:07:53
[removed]
WarCanineLove knows no boundaries between species or gender-Mᴬᴰᴬᴿᴬᴼ 1 point on 2017-03-30 17:13:00
/u/AmoreBestia
I don't think this is healthy any more. I just want you to see this right here, that's all.
I'll leave it up to you if you want to keep him here.
[deleted] 1 point on 2017-03-30 17:20:39
[removed]
AmoreBestiaPro-zoophile, non-zoophile. 1 point on 2017-03-30 18:08:05
Alright, here's a new condition. No more negative tangents, least of all ones directed at other users. You've shown that you can't handle moderating yourself yet, so I need to do this. You can't go around calling people rapists, or corrupt, or anti-zoo, or rape enablers, or what have you with sparse evidence like this.
AmoreBestiaPro-zoophile, non-zoophile. 1 point on 2017-03-30 18:04:04
I've been a bit out of it lately. I'm supposed to make removals on all the posts that breaks rule 7 for him regardless of reports but the volume gets a bit ridiculous.
WarCanineLove knows no boundaries between species or gender-Mᴬᴰᴬᴿᴬᴼ 1 point on 2017-03-30 18:09:50
I just wanted you to see how he's acting.
I mean, it doesn't hurt to check on him from time to time, right?
But still, I have deciced myself to not reply to most of his comments and tone it down a bit.
I changed and well, got a little smarter and realized that talking to him won't change anything, it probably makes him only suffer more from whatever he's suffering from. So it's better for everyone.
AmoreBestiaPro-zoophile, non-zoophile. 1 point on 2017-03-30 18:12:10
I try to skim his profile when I can, yeah. He's basically the only person I've had shit to deal with from daily.
AmoreBestiaPro-zoophile, non-zoophile. 1 point on 2017-03-30 18:22:42
oh and I'll be carrying out a bunch of removals on him in a moment.
AmoreBestiaPro-zoophile, non-zoophile. 1 point on 2017-03-30 18:09:32
Also, no more identifying people as pathological fetishists.
Sheppsoldier 1 point on 2017-03-31 12:27:32
Why not? Count it as a blessing, considering healthy people get prosecuted and punished for something as harmless as having sex with animals.
It's like we're living in a "sick culture" where being sick or incompetent is the new cool. It's like, Be sick or go to prison
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
If my claims were derogatory and cannot be reasonably evidenced then why are you claiming to have observed it and making claims of evidence against it? Contradicting yourself now?
Honestly, with your admission as evidence, you haven't seen anything yet, concluding my claims to be very reasonably evidenced.
AmoreBestiaPro-zoophile, non-zoophile. 1 point on 2017-03-31 12:30:25
Because it's derogatory and can't be reasonably evidenced and therefore can't be justified as an observation.
Sheppsoldier 1 point on 2017-03-31 16:34:00
If my claims were derogatory and cannot be reasonably evidenced then why are you claiming to have observed it and making claims of evidence against it? Contradicting yourself now?
Honestly, with your admission as evidence, you haven't seen anything yet.
AmoreBestiaPro-zoophile, non-zoophile. 1 point on 2017-03-31 16:49:04
If my claims were derogatory and cannot be reasonably evidenced then why are you claiming to have observed it and making claims of evidence against it?
Because there is insufficient evidence to support your claims.
Contradicting yourself now?
Only to you, I suspect.
Honestly, with your admission as evidence, you haven't seen anything yet.
When you have a peer reviewed source that supports it, then you're free to say it. Then and only then.
AmoreBestiaPro-zoophile, non-zoophile. 2 points on 2017-03-30 18:57:45
Accusing another user of being a rapist without explicit evidence is grounds for removal.
Sheppsoldier 1 point on 2017-03-31 12:05:47
Really? Maybe I have 5 different medical conditions including friends in power places (swapping blow-jobs) and 100 more accounts than everyone else, that says "I can do it" but "nobody else can?"
If I can't do it then nobody is allowed to do it and I'm going to justify that the same way I justified the previous statement. With blowjobs, creating false dilemmas, and gaslighting anyone who catches me with my pants down.
No secrets in the zoophile-beast world no-more.
AmoreBestiaPro-zoophile, non-zoophile. 1 point on 2017-03-31 12:11:18
Responses like these will count as strikes against our agreement. This is your first strike, out of a maximum of three. When it is voided, you'll begin receiving bans as per the rules set out for most people. Remember that I issued that agreement as a courtesy on the grounds that you'd try to improve your standing in the community.
Sheppsoldier 1 point on 2017-03-31 12:17:24
I never agreed to anything, unless you obtained my consent through deception. That would put you in the same category of fraud, an identity thief, or somebody who drugs his victims before making a move.
Not ruling out the chance you would mistake rejection for consent, or sickness for a terminal illness. Some people don't have the capacity to tell the difference. That's how you get away with it, right? Incompetence?
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In response to your post below...
Please google the definition of "Indefinite."
"I" opt-in indefinitely, which means it's my choice to decide whenever and however I opt-out. In other words, you did not know it ended the moment you and WarCanine started taking advantage of the rules proposed against me.
No contract = no definite obligation and the agreement can be broken off at any time. Like employment. I agreed to it for X amount of time and unfortunately X amount of time has ended.
If you're going to make rules then you should know better. Aparantly this problem is widespread, since lawmakers have the compulsive tendencies to create laws without knowing what they're talking about, doing or getting into.
As such and as the latter, the leaders and enforcers of your community are untrustworthy.
AmoreBestiaPro-zoophile, non-zoophile. 1 point on 2017-03-31 12:28:33
You should know better, I opt-in indefinitely. Theres no sense in providing warnings or threats.
This is an excerpt of a message sent by you to me, on march 21st after I asked "do you opt in or not?".
And if you'll recall the terms I laid out...
waiving the usual right to avoid having a post deleted for disrespect unless it gets reported, in exchange for protection against bans. That means that moderators would be able to freely make justifiable removals of your posts and not just when a post gets removed in a thread due to reports. Using this system, we can work together to prevent future conflicts between you and other users while also helping your voice be heard more effectively. However, the ban protection will only stay in effect as long as you show a commitment to being respectful by the community's standard, and not necessarily your own; part of that commitment, too, is taking me seriously when I offer advice. I expect serious and sincere responses to serious and sincere advice(which all of my advice will be). Should we deem it that you've become a consistently good poster, the agreement will end then, as well, as it will no longer be needed.
Relevant conditions highlighted for emphasis. The terms I laid out would have been voided the instant you talked back, but I decided against that.
Sheppsoldier 1 point on 2017-03-31 15:58:49
Please google the definition of "indefinite."
AmoreBestiaPro-zoophile, non-zoophile. 1 point on 2017-03-31 16:03:44
lasting for an unknown or unstated length of time.
Straight from google. It means you did agree to it for an unstated length of time, but the length of time was always unstated and predicated on the agreement being voided at your expense.
"I" opt-in indefinitely, which means it's my choice to decide whenever and however I opt-out. In other words, you did not know it ended the moment you and WarCanine started taking advantage of the rules proposed against me.
No contract = no definite obligation and the agreement can be broken off at any time. Like employment. I agreed to it for X amount of time and unfortunately X amount of time has ended.
Sorry, but there was no opt-out clause for a reason. It's voided at my discretion.
Also, Warcanine and I aren't conspiring against you. I'd been meaning to respond to your problem posts for a while, but hadn't had the time to do so until then.
If you're going to make rules then you should know better. Aparantly this problem is widespread, since lawmakers have the compulsive tendencies to create laws without knowing what they're talking about, doing or getting into. As such and as the latter, the leaders and enforcers of your community are untrustworthy.
You've done a good enough job of painting yourself as an enemy of rules that you happen to get punished for breaking, so how can we trust your own criticism on the matter?
/r/zoophilia archive
There is no law against it in Kentucky, but there is currently a bill in Kentucky (House Bill 480) which would criminalize sex with animals in that state.
There are also currently bills in Texas, West Virginia, Vermont and Nevada which would ban sex with animals in each of those states.
That Bill failed to pass I believe :)
You appear to be correct -- the bill is listed as Adjourned sine die. It means the bill didn't succeed, but only because the legislative session ended before they could get to it. (So they ran out of time. If there had been more time, there probably would've been a mindless unanimous vote in favor of it, as has been done in multiple states).
A concern of mine is that they may make a new anti-zoo bill at the beginning of 2018. Kentucky's legislative sessions are longer in even-numbered years. And as one of the last "legal" states, there will be pressure from the anti-zoos to ban it there.
As far as legality, none of it matters much. If you keep your sex life private, as most do, it wont be an issue. Filming it and putting it online just tags you forever :) I keep my private life private. Granted a few of my friends know my preference, but they don't get to sit in on the action lol
The bills were created by criminals for the benefit of criminals.
The laws allow for organization leaders to blackmail citizens into their criminal/terrorist organizations. This is why zoophiles are typically caught being involved in other illegal trades such as pedophilia, drug trafficking, prostitution, murder, etc.
The zoophile didn't choose to be a criminal. The zoophile is not a criminal until the law against sex with animals create the "gateway" into criminal behavior which would have never existed if it wasn't for the persecutory laws in the first place.
That is why marijuana was claimed to be a gateway drug. The drug didn't force or people into doing other drugs, the law against marijuana gave criminals the ability to blackmail people into smuggling or using other drugs.
He asked what the laws that existed were, not what our thoughts on it were.
That's cool. Apparently there's a bill popping up here and there, and im going to take every opportunity to complain about it.
Breaking the no reply rule just to cheer for you!
GO SHEPP! COMPLAINING WILL MOVE US FORWARD FOR SURE!
[removed]
What. The. Fuck.
This is the dumbest thing I have ever seen.
Even the ''Do dogs have vaginas?'' question made more sense.
I don't know if I should warn other zoos about how dumb you are, or that I should hide you from the public so we aren't embarassed any more.
I'd tag our non-zoo friend in this post, but I'm afraid that even he wouldn't be able to handle such nonsense.
You made me remember why I didn't reply to you any more.
sigh
I hope that some day you'll learn...
[removed]
/u/AmoreBestia
I don't think this is healthy any more. I just want you to see this right here, that's all.
I'll leave it up to you if you want to keep him here.
[removed]
Alright, here's a new condition. No more negative tangents, least of all ones directed at other users. You've shown that you can't handle moderating yourself yet, so I need to do this. You can't go around calling people rapists, or corrupt, or anti-zoo, or rape enablers, or what have you with sparse evidence like this.
I've been a bit out of it lately. I'm supposed to make removals on all the posts that breaks rule 7 for him regardless of reports but the volume gets a bit ridiculous.
I just wanted you to see how he's acting.
I mean, it doesn't hurt to check on him from time to time, right?
But still, I have deciced myself to not reply to most of his comments and tone it down a bit.
I changed and well, got a little smarter and realized that talking to him won't change anything, it probably makes him only suffer more from whatever he's suffering from. So it's better for everyone.
I try to skim his profile when I can, yeah. He's basically the only person I've had shit to deal with from daily.
oh and I'll be carrying out a bunch of removals on him in a moment.
Also, no more identifying people as pathological fetishists.
Why not? Count it as a blessing, considering healthy people get prosecuted and punished for something as harmless as having sex with animals.
It's like we're living in a "sick culture" where being sick or incompetent is the new cool. It's like, Be sick or go to prison
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
If my claims were derogatory and cannot be reasonably evidenced then why are you claiming to have observed it and making claims of evidence against it? Contradicting yourself now?
Honestly, with your admission as evidence, you haven't seen anything yet, concluding my claims to be very reasonably evidenced.
Because it's derogatory and can't be reasonably evidenced and therefore can't be justified as an observation.
If my claims were derogatory and cannot be reasonably evidenced then why are you claiming to have observed it and making claims of evidence against it? Contradicting yourself now?
Honestly, with your admission as evidence, you haven't seen anything yet.
Because there is insufficient evidence to support your claims.
Only to you, I suspect.
When you have a peer reviewed source that supports it, then you're free to say it. Then and only then.
Accusing another user of being a rapist without explicit evidence is grounds for removal.
Really? Maybe I have 5 different medical conditions including friends in power places (swapping blow-jobs) and 100 more accounts than everyone else, that says "I can do it" but "nobody else can?"
If I can't do it then nobody is allowed to do it and I'm going to justify that the same way I justified the previous statement. With blowjobs, creating false dilemmas, and gaslighting anyone who catches me with my pants down.
No secrets in the zoophile-beast world no-more.
Responses like these will count as strikes against our agreement. This is your first strike, out of a maximum of three. When it is voided, you'll begin receiving bans as per the rules set out for most people. Remember that I issued that agreement as a courtesy on the grounds that you'd try to improve your standing in the community.
I never agreed to anything, unless you obtained my consent through deception. That would put you in the same category of fraud, an identity thief, or somebody who drugs his victims before making a move.
Not ruling out the chance you would mistake rejection for consent, or sickness for a terminal illness. Some people don't have the capacity to tell the difference. That's how you get away with it, right? Incompetence?
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In response to your post below...
Please google the definition of "Indefinite."
"I" opt-in indefinitely, which means it's my choice to decide whenever and however I opt-out. In other words, you did not know it ended the moment you and WarCanine started taking advantage of the rules proposed against me.
No contract = no definite obligation and the agreement can be broken off at any time. Like employment. I agreed to it for X amount of time and unfortunately X amount of time has ended.
If you're going to make rules then you should know better. Aparantly this problem is widespread, since lawmakers have the compulsive tendencies to create laws without knowing what they're talking about, doing or getting into. As such and as the latter, the leaders and enforcers of your community are untrustworthy.
This is an excerpt of a message sent by you to me, on march 21st after I asked "do you opt in or not?".
And if you'll recall the terms I laid out...
Relevant conditions highlighted for emphasis. The terms I laid out would have been voided the instant you talked back, but I decided against that.
Please google the definition of "indefinite."
Straight from google. It means you did agree to it for an unstated length of time, but the length of time was always unstated and predicated on the agreement being voided at your expense.
Sorry, but there was no opt-out clause for a reason. It's voided at my discretion.
Also, Warcanine and I aren't conspiring against you. I'd been meaning to respond to your problem posts for a while, but hadn't had the time to do so until then.
You've done a good enough job of painting yourself as an enemy of rules that you happen to get punished for breaking, so how can we trust your own criticism on the matter?