I recently came across an interesting concept in security and criminology. I am under the impression that the laws criminalizing the act of sex with animals is a profiteering act of terrorism in the name of social and property security for business profit.
If the laws are passed in all 50 states, there will be no real safe haven in the USA for known zoophiles. This means these people must pay for "special security" by hiring protection or being sent somewhere they will be protected, for a price. Similarly, the owners of animals are terrorized into believing that they require security and investigative services, such as cameras and human guards on their property. These are known as "scare tactics." This states the risk that the organizations who sell the security service will fabricate security risks such as: entrapment, or deceiving people to have sex with another person's animal. Enabling trespass and other property crimes.
"They may use scare tactics. For example, they may talk about a rash of supposed burglaries in your neighborhood"
Source: https://www.consumer.ftc.gov/articles/0195-some-home-security-systems-may-be-scams
Please read the following... Source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_security
--- The term NGO (Non Government Organisation) cannot be simply defined due to complexities surrounding its structure, environment and complex relations it shares with its internal factions; being its organisational mission, membership and sources of funding, and external factors such as the relationship it shares with actors; detailing the economic, political and societal constructs they may be bound by. A generic understanding of the term may refer to the actions taken in the interests of independent, voluntary contributors which exist independently from governments and corporations, designed to represent and provide a collective voice to individuals regarding issues. These issues cover contributions to the fields and industries of human development, health and nutrition, human rights and education, and environmental concerns; all of which influence and affect human security. The traditional roles of NGOs may be classified into three components, in accordance with Lewis:
Implementer: refers to the mobilisation of resources in order to aid the provision of goods and services, such as the act of service delivery.
Catalyst: refers to the emotional and psychological aspect of the NGOs ability to inspire, facilitate or contribute to spur action or thinking.
Partner: refers to the NGOs relationships shared with external actors such as governments, donors or the private sector players through joint activities, or projects with communities, with the purpose to strengthen the relationship between the NGOs and these partners in a mutually beneficial fashion.
The expansion of these roles have culminated in assisting the creation of a society where NGOs serve as important players in the global arena in regards to maintaining human security. Due to this increasing influence and the emergence of growing natural and man-made disasters, NGOs now are contracted by governments in order to adequately respond to crises, as well as assist individual or collectivized groups of citizens in lobbying their interests; thus culminating in the ability to enact, influence and change government agendas. However, NGOs are still largely dependent on certain levels of government funding, hence critics may argue that NGOs pose the ability to potentially damage issues of human security due to this financial dependence. Despite these critiques, the focus, expertise and infrastructure developed by NGOs through their activities linked with human development and human rights allow them to make unique contributions to human security provision. ---
Some NGO's, especially the ones who are lobbying for the criminalization of the act of sex with animals are the definition of what terrorism is. This is state sponsored terrorism in the name of fraudulent animal welfare goals.
Terrorism: "The unlawful use of violence and intimidation, "Especially against civilians", in the pursuit of political, religious or financial gains." However, lawful or not, the laws against the act of sex with animals are still being used for terrorist purposes.
Politically speaking, I think that prosecution and persecution of zoos increases in correlation with that of other (mostly) harmless activities like recreational use of marijuana, stating uncouth political and social opinions like support of race realism or communism, and belonging to close knit minority demographics like gypsies or Jews. This is the effect when ideology becomes more important than real world consequences: fanatics come to power, point their fingers at undesirables as the cause of all problems, and then attempt to demonize and destroy their enemies to look more effective than they actually are.
This is why trials for bestiality and witchcraft were correlated in Europe during the Middle Ages and Renaissance, and why intellectuals and deviants were the first targets of 20th century totalitarian states. The fact is, due to instinctive revulsion or at least inability to understand the desire for another species, we make a convenient boogeyman for charlatans of every age, including modern progressives and alt-righters who seek to "purify" their countries in their respective ways, leaving no room for us in their perfect world.
Yes, exactly like the witchcraft trials because this is the witchcraft trials.
Linked from above: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/indiahome/indianews/article-2516150/Inside-new-legal-terrorism-How-laws-abused-settle-personal-scores.html
Is there any way for zoos to become more tolerated by society? Because right now, in the U.S. at least (with the growing number of anti-zoo laws), tolerance is very low. (To the point that people assuming sex with animals should be a "crime").
In my opinion, change on this matter will have to come from the bottom up. There's a lot to be learned from how gays became more accepted, though of course that isn't identical. Basically, we as individuals will have to stand up for ourselves and for others, gradually exposing our neighbors to the more benign and loving side of zoosexuality. There will be personal risk, but considering our numbers, a brute force activist approach is unlikely to work.
How is this supposed to occur when sex with animals (and even discussing sex with animals) is criminalized in so many jurisdictions? The growing criminalization is likely to push zoos further into the closet.
Not illegal to talk, and in the US I'd actually hope to see the anti-free speech provisions in anti-zoo laws struck down in court, if any of them actually ban activity that aids, abets, promotes, encourages, etc. sex with animals. This is a risk we'll have to take, though obviously not haphazardly.
Oregon, Washington, Tennessee, Illinois, Florida, Alaska and Ohio all have laws that prohibit free speech (about sex with animals).
Do you think a lawsuit could challenge both the free speech prohibitions AND the sex with animals prohibitions?
Communist (Red) states. I don't think lawsuits can change them. No offense to real communists. They're very well situated in taking freedoms from people. That's like trying to remove a cancerous tumor that's infected the spinal cord. Cancer takes people's freedom away too...
No... the free speech part is easy constitutional law, similar (to normal people) to allowing loli art and NAMBLA to exist. There is no such obvious constitutional argument for allowing sex with animals: maybe the right to privacy extended in Lawrence v. Texas can be extended to include us by similar reasoning, but that's unlikely to happen anytime. If these laws were challenged on the basis of their provisions against speech, then I think those parts of the law specifically would be struck down, and not the whole thing.
It's the right to ownership over our own bodies, as well as who and what we share it with. Anything else is like rape, where we would be told what we can have sex with. We're not allowed to complain about it or choose to remove ourselves from it's decisions.
Anyone who tells us that we cannot have sex with animals, or eachother, is probably following a "different" form of communist doctrine, or worse. I'd like to call it "Capitalist Communism" (No offense to real communists) however there's probably a better term for it.
Basically, these states are treating us as if we were animals in one of those torture brothels, tied down with limited mobility to make decisions for ourselves without being euthanized or punished for those decisions. Their purpose is to hold us down to be raped by the state, their law, and anyone who supports and enforces it.
I completely agree, but in the US that is not yet a legal right. If it were, all drugs would be legal, as would prostitution, and that has enough public opposition to make that a difficult right to establish.
I'm sure if prostitution were legal, having real sex would be illegal or "stigmatized" in a different way than it is now. That's because people wouldnt let anyone have sex for free. The hooker and pimp union mobsters would get after anybody who isn't paying them for their sex services.
I'm sure they can legalize the sex without actually legalizing prostitution, or at least regulate and prevent prostitution from becoming the "only choice." Actually, that's probably one of the reasons why they're making sex with animals illegal in the first place... Too many greedy jerkoffs trying to sell their animals and themselves for sex. When people have sex with their own animals or have any sex for free, its a threat to the prostitution trades wallet. The laws basically allow them blackmail anyone that isn't buying sex from them.
I am fully supportive of people having the freedom to do what they want with their own bodies and animals, but there has to be a limit where it should be a felony or something to monopolize other people's freedom to choose whether or not to take a paid service or "share" an experience free from profiteering ventures.
Regulation, not criminalization. Yes sex with animals is hard to regulate, but it's easier to regulate if people were allowed to speak up against blackmail tactics and abuses of their freedom, rather than being punished for it.
With regard to all that...Guess who is punishing people for having sex with animals? Not the good guys, obviously.
This is a very odd tangent against prostitution, but whatever. The point is that laws against sex with animals in case without demonstrable harm are not consistent with liberal, individualist values. Calling those who want to ban it and everything associated with it communists, of a sort, isn't terribly far off, but ignores more conservative opponents. "Collectivists" would be the word I would use, in that they feel the need to enforce their cultural norms on others without regard for their consent or the real consequences of those norms.
One could make the argument that because people who do artificial insemination are allowed to deal with animal genitalia (legally), then it should be legal to have sex with animals (the latter of which is less invasive). And "consent" does not occur when a person does artificial insemination, yet that is the common argument against sex with animals.
Other arguments: violation of due process, violation of equality before the law, etc. (concerning anti-zoo laws).
Also: would it be "political suicide" for a politician to oppose an anti-zoo bill?
Laws don't have to be consistent with any principle other than prior and higher laws, the Constitution being the highest in the US. There are plenty of cases where exceptions are made for economic interests (see Kelo vs New London for a blatant case of this involving eminent domain). The fact is that there are large industries which profit from animal husbandry, including artificial insemination, and those industries have the resources to lobby for change in their interest.
I would prefer it if laws were made on the basis of cost benefit analysis, both economically and socially/morally, but that's simply not how things are done. This is a good point to address the hypocrisy of demanding consent only when it suits people, but it's not a legal argument.
These are not obvious a priori with anti-zoo laws. If my state legislature decided to ban the sale of small cigars because they can be used to roll a blunt, I'd consider it a retarded waste of time and money, and I could argue that such a law disproportionately impacts poor people and, to that extent, blacks and Hispanics. But I don't see a due process argument or a clear violation of the 14th Amendment.
Yes, unless a state or country is exceptionally libertarian. Anyone who tried would be an easy target in the next election, with advertising saying they want to help puppy rapists stay free to rape puppies. No amount of good policy and good character would be a match for that sound bite.
The only exception to this would be an election in which both candidates are hated, and people think of that as the lesser of two evils. For instance, in a normal election Trump would have lost the second his locker room talk tapes were leaked, except that his opponent allegedly had even bigger skeletons in her closet which were more concerning to voters. You'd need something special to survive allegations that you support horse fuckers.
There is due process violation because zoo's voices are not being heard, and the fact that anti-zoo laws could be viewed as harming a person (such as taking their pets from them), as well as an arbitrary deprivation of rights. "Equality before the law" is violated because zoos are being treated unequally relative to the rest of the population (social profiling) and for insufficient reasons. Example of an inequality: as with the artificial insemination example, animal breeders are legally allowed to deal with animal genitalia, but sex with animals is prohibited, thus creating an inequality (unfairness). The law is thus applied unequally. It disproportionately impacts zoos, as a class of people.
Anti-zoo laws could be viewed as a form of oppression and state-sponsored discrimination, which could be viewed as a 14th Amendment violation.
Sorry to play normie's advocate here, but it needs to happen. People are free to speak up about any laws passed, both in public hearings and on their own, through media or the internet. That people who want to have sex with animals and do so are jailed for it is of no more concern to most people than the "right" to smoke weed in a public park.
As for equality under the law, the law makes exceptions for breeders because they're producing a product to sell and generating tax revenue. Who benefits from legalizing sex with animals? By their standards, just perverts and psychos ready to go after your dog as a stepping stone to your daughter. That's bullshit, yes, but it's politically expedient bullshit, and no right exists to not have laws about sex so far as I know.
What needs to happen?
However, zoos are not really "free" to speak up about bills/laws banning sex with animals, because doing so would make them a target of anti-zoos, and they might be persecuted/prosecuted because of voicing their concerns. It would also "de-anonymize" them. Maybe that's why there was no opposition to the anti-zoo bill in Nevada during the hearing for it (several days ago). I know there's opposition to these bills, but that opposition never makes it to the legislative discussions -- because people are too afraid to come out of the closet. It is not a fair setup.
It is bullshit, but what bothers me is no one ever points it out as bullshit in the media -- they just blindly accept it as fact.
And zoos should not be viewed as "perverts" or "monsters" and should instead be viewed as good people who have a sexual orientation towards animals (and people should be tolerant of that fact). But obviously, this is not the case, and anti-zoo hatred is everywhere.
Zoos, as a class of people, are harmed by these new laws. They'll be less likely to see veterinarians, and they'll be further stigmatized.
It could be argued that sex with animals is more ethical than exploiting animals for profit, because sex with animals is genuine while breeding activities are cold exploitation. Morally, the activities of breeders could be viewed as worse than sex with with animals, because artificial insemination doesn't involve any compassion, while sex with animals does.
Ultimately, what can be done to stop all these new laws? Fight them (for example, in a lawsuit) or move to somewhere in which it's not banned?
As per usual, I really have no idea what you're going on here.
Nobody is selling animal-sex-security services. This is not a thing. It doesn't even make sense.
There is no grand conspiracy here. And I have no idea what NGOs have to do with it; the quote from the Wikipedia article that composes most of your post is talking about something completely unrelated.
[removed]
I do not see how that relates to any of the claims in your post.
Can you explain?
Think less like a computer program, think more like a human being.
Silence is sometimes as good as conceding defeat.
He's making a valid request and you chose to sidestep it without providing even the illusion of an answer. That's how this comes across.
Sometimes silence and defeat are two different concepts. Likewise, the saying goes... "watch out for the silent ones." However, admitting defeat is always as good as conceding defeat.
My first post is the answer to the second. The second post is the answer to the first. - Chandler Edwards is an anti-zoo NGO, and an anti-zoo NGO's is Chandler Edwards. Both posts are very relevant to one another. I've made more posts in this topic which are also relevant.
I was only trying to spare you more thinking. In refusing to think or research, this post might not make sense and might not seem relevant. I can't do "all" the thinking for you.
I'm not duskwuff.
Look, you lose credibility when you can't or don't write and explain in consideration for your audience. If they consistently 'don't understand' you, then it's time to change things up, because otherwise the effect of what you write becomes null.
I answered to the both of you.
What will you people understand? Yourselves, and other people with your point of view? The way you view it from limited understanding of criminal, sociological, and legal aspects? Do you understand giving up and just being normal because everything is how it should be?
I do not understand how you cannot understand when I'm providing examples, links to cases, culprits, everything.
Look, if people consistently "don't understand" me, then they don't want to understand because they're obviously not trying to understand even after I gave them the resources and material... They're not trying. They don't care and they shouldn't be here commenting in the first place.
Sorry to sound like a prick but it's not like I would get any leniency when the Anti-Zoos decide to gun people down, lock them up, etc etc for having sex with animals. Expect me to be the biggest dickhead to people when they can't control themselves and blame me for something "they" refused to understand.
Thing is, I disagree with lots of people on here on a fundamental level and understand them fine.
I literally studied sociology for two years, and while I didn't recieve formal education on criminology, I performed independent study on the topic.
A link to a daily mail article from india about a dowry ban isn't a link to a case.
I can ad-lib understand with "follow the rules" and by that logic you shouldn't be here. That aside, you're missing one point. Your logic is fundamentally different from the people here in many ways. It's like you're arguing that 2 quarks added to 2 other quarks would equal 82,745,019,874 quarks to the people here, and if you choose not to explain nor explain differently in the face of persistent lapses of communication, that's on you. He asked for clarification, you reciprocated with an insult.
That would be a strong catalyst to garner tolerance despite the morbidity of it.
It's often argued that you're the one that can't control yourself since you allegedly have sex with nonhuman animals in other peoples' custody, despite the personal risk.
Most people in the world allegedly have sex with other people who aren't in their custody. I would say that's a very "straight" behavior that minimizes the chances of domestic abuse and sex slavery.
Nonetheless, by deliberately increasing the risks of inter-breeding (the laws) while stigmatizing against anything that isn't "inbreeding" sounds a bit awkward don't you think? Perhaps mistaking my normal non-abusive inter-breeding behavior as a lack of control over myself is the mistake? I wasn't raised to have sex with my own relatives and I wasn't raised to trap people in domestically abusive relationships.
Yes, you might disagree with many people here but you wouldn't disagree about your shared misunderstandings of my statements. Let me guess... Have you temporarily joined forces with your disagreements in order to "outnumber" a person who provides cornerstone examples in a community that doesn't seem to have spirit or integrity to defend itself?
The link was not a "case" it was a link to an example. The example being that "people will make false accusations of rape and other crimes against people for money and stuff."
Difference is, those people either had the permission of their legal guardians, or lived in houses of their own.
Breeding doesn't happen cross species. You need close relatives within the same lineage for inbreeding to occur.
A nonhuman animal that you have guardianship over isn't a relative.
No, in fact, I think I've said that you improved a bit regarding legibility. It's still just that your reasoning is both tenebrous and as seen now you're ill inclined to clarify when asked. If I was 'teaming up' against you, I'd have already compiled a dossier on you detailing why you should get a permban.
In India. Unfortunately, their justice system is a mess. The US justice system isn't perfect, but it's worlds better.
I'd actually argue that the US justice system is not good. It is one based on penalization -- that's why the U.S. has the world's highest incarceration rate.
Consider also the constant anti-zoo arrests being made in the U.S., as well as the growing number of anti-zoo laws in the U.S.
I never said it was good. I said that India's justice system is a mess compared to the US justice system, that's it.
Oh, yeah, of course.
I bet the incarcerations for bestiality are already in the double digits!
Oh, and FTFY.
Wait,wait,wait, wait,wait....your last sentence implies that he IS Aluzky, right? Was I right the entire time? Not that it surprises me much, but ...told you so...;)
Nah, he mentioned it sometime before. Something about him doing it with nonhuman animals that he's petsitting.
What a coincidence that he AND Aluzky both use petsitting to abuse animals behind their owners´backs...what a coincidence...;)
I mean, even though I disagree with them on a fundamental level, it's not so inane that I'd expect only a small few to do it. It's a way to avoid being charged for tresspassing, at least.
I can't do anything except agree with the above. I didn't understand any of this or how it relates and I honestly tried for the first time in a long long time. All I got was a headache.
This situation feels... familiar.
http://www.treybailey.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/brain.jpg
Chandler Edwards is not an NGO. She is an individual, not an organization. She is not tax-exempt, she does not take donations, and she is not receive volunteers. She does perform some (very minor) advocacy, but that does not make her an NGO.
And that still doesn't explain the connection you're trying to draw to private security firms.
Is her name Chandler Edwards or is it Jenny Edwards? Can you please explain why Chandler Edwards has a website that claims itself as being an NGO and why Jenny Edwards claims to operate the organization? I think you might be mixing something up.
I already gave you my answer about security contractors. Did you read? I never said anything about "security firms." Are you looking for something so specific?
Now you're just avoiding the question. The only reason I used that name is because you used the same name in the post I was replying to -- I have no specific familiarity with that individual.
(Maybe it's her husband's name? That would seem the simplest explanation.)
[removed]
"Chandler Edwards" is an anti-zoo organization run by Jenny Edwards. They go around the country spreading their anti-zoo agenda.
Ok, I'm going to be nice for once and ask you a question to check your integrity...
What specifically can you not see relating to which claims in my post?
Animal rights groups are lobbying politicians, possibly even writing the bills they want them to push. That's it. If you want me to speculate, the most 'conspiracist' I can go with this is that they're doing it to maintain relevance as advertising becomes less and less effective. Getting into the news regularly means those organizations stay relevant. Nobody really publicly objects to the idea of sex with animals being bad outside of a vocal minority, so it passes pretty handily. That's it. And, of course, they care about nonhuman animals and see this as a form of exploitation, or worse.
If you want to blame anything about the bureaucracy or whatever you're arguing against, blame how nonhuman animals are portrayed. Look through facebook for pet pictures, look through reddit. How about those ASPCA commercials, closing up on their heads and large eyes and showing kittens and puppies? How often do those images come across as showing a mature, intelligent individual? This isn't a new idea, but there's a popular perception that nonhuman animals are like children... and it makes sense, honestly.They can't consent, kids can't consent. They're considered irrational or at least significantly less rational, children are the same. This is one thing you may want to approach, moreso than... this. Zoophiles aren't relevant to corporate interests right now
Oh? No interest?
http://www.mjennyedwards.com
Is the "Chandler Edwards" website by Jenny Edwards, the anti-zoo activist who was present in Texas for legislation recently... plus "Chandler" and Associates Private Investigations (no link) by Terry Chandler.
Jenny Edwards is the "Implementer", who implements those popular perceptions and portrayals you speak of which are "The Catalyst", and the addition of the "Partner" Terry Chandler, creates the Anti-Zoo partnership organization (Chandler-Edwards)
NGO's are the people who advertise those false portrayals so why are you acting as if I'm not blaming the correct people? Are you lying to me or do you not have any real sense of direction here?
Comparing animals to children and claiming that it makes sense is not honest. It is an Illusory Correlation between animals and children. It does not make sense and it does not exist until you make it exist.
*"Illusory Correlation is the phenomenon of perceiving a relationship between variables (typically people, events, or behaviors) even when no such relationship exists. A common example of this phenomenon is the formation of a false association between membership in a statistical minority group (African-Americans) and a rare, typically negative, behavior (drug abuse). This false association is formed because rare or novel occurrences are more salient and therefore tend to capture one's attention.This is one way stereotypes form and last. Hamilton and Rose (1980) found that stereotypes can lead people to expect certain groups and traits to fit together, and then to "overestimate" the frequency with which these correlations actually occur.
Another example of Illusory correlation: Just because an organization might use animals to sway public opinion (animals with sad looking faces on TV) and enact laws... that doesn't mean they're doing it for the welfare of animals. .
"Zoophiles aren't relevant to corporate interests right now." Jenny isn't a corporation, and is a bit of a nobody.
Because they wouldn't have any traction if the public didn't agree.
No, motivations are just more basal than you think. It's like reading a novella and extracting ten pages of meaning when the author only included three
Actually, it does exist. It's a biological phenomena between most mammals wherein parental instincts are stimulated by other animals with large heads and large eyes ("cute things"). There is evidence to suggest that this phenomena occurs in avians as well. This is largely why cross-species guardianship occurs, as well. The correlation is innate and has an evidently biological basis.
Jenny's organization is not a corporation, you are correct. However it is an "organization" based on lies, stereotypes, stigma and terror.
I wasn't disagreeing with the biological phenomena you stated, I was agreeing with it by referencing the psychological term for what you're describing, called "Illusory correlation." There might be a better term for it but so far that's what I have. However, it is not a fact that animals are the same as children because that is the illusion. Biological or not, it's still not a valid measure to claim equality. They are both different, but difference is no reason to make separate.
People should be able to learn the differences between difference and separation, children and animals, etc and etc, unless they are mentally handicapped. Laws should not be created, people should not be put in prison, fined, added to sex offender registries, or denied animal ownership due to the persecutory handicaps of others.
Furthering such a handicap to be the national standard of persecution against people who have sex with animals is nothing more than a deranged tolerance for terrorism, violent or otherwise.
It means that it isn't invented and doesn't need to be propagated, though. Note that you said "It does not make sense and it does not exist until you make it exist", which simply isn't true in this case due to the biological basis. It exists independent of any amount of time or effort; mammals, avians, and perhaps a couple other classes are affected by this from birth to death.
Their perspective isn't as handicapped as you think. Lots of people just don't feel ethically comfortable with the risk of allowing that kind of contact until more definitive research comes around. We generally think that it's safe here, but no matter how much anecdotal evidence we have, nobody will know until we have empirical evidence.
You misunderstood. I meant the actual relation between animals and children does not exist. It's an illusion. The television commercials (created by people) are the ones that made the relation between animals and children exist by portraying animals as if they were children.
I never said Illusory Correlation does not exist. The "relation" was invented, not the actual psychological misunderstanding. Your post is a good example. You protested my post as if I was claiming Illusory Correlation does not exist, when in fact I never did.
I never said you said that.
"Note that you said "It does not make sense and it does not exist until you make it exist." Which simply isn't true in this case due to the biological basis. It exists
Etc etc... and you said and you claimed, because you misunderstood what I meant by "it" because "it" succeeded the subject. You think like a computer program, where "it" is defined by whatever "it" was given ownership to before the command. Instead of referring to the actual begining subject statement "Animals related to children" you executed the last known instance of "it" which was "Illusory Correlation."
Unusual, no?
"Note that you said "It does not make sense and it does not exist until you make it exist", which simply isn't true in this case due to the biological basis. It exists independent of any amount of time or effort; mammals, avians, and perhaps a couple other classes are affected by this from birth to death."
Seems you trimmed a bit off the bottom there. For context, this was said with these two statements in mind:
Implying that they are putting money into propagating an idea when the idea is in fact innate.
Implying that these organizations made that perception exist.
That's what I took issue with initially, those things.
The bottom of your statement was somewhat irrelevant to the initial point. What is relevant was the fact that you misunderstood what I was referring to when I said "it." However, the bottom portion of your statement brings something else to mind... The perception of creatures to view members of other species as their "children" is one of those psychological cases including a "play on words." Just because a person views an animal as their "child" does not justify the status bonding of animals to human children. Just because they share a name, does not make them the same. That's like saying "Her aunt is sweet like sugar" and making the association that "Her aunt must be sugar." Or "Her aunt's name is Sugar" and making the association that "Her aunt must be sugar."
Hmm...That's the problem. The people who create those extremely saddening, heartbreaking animal welfare commercials are putting money into it. That's how commercials get aired. Have you heard of the term "investment?" That's when a person or organization will put money into something, like a commercial, product, law, political agenda, etc with the hopes that the returns will be far greater than what they first put in. Typically, there are quite a few animal welfare/rights organizations who invest in these emotional scams. The creation of persecutory laws are investments for the dishonest. Their job is to make people believe that there is a problem by dumping money into creating, falsifying research and evidence, with hopes that they will be able to persuade the public into buying their investigative, protective, deterrent, and prosecution services.
Therefore, these organizations not only created the perception in some people, but they "amplified" the perception in some other people who already held these disconnected perceptions in order to take advantage of them.
Any relation between animals and children that could be used as claim to say "sex with animals is wrong" does not exist. Valid relations between the two do not exist and the current relations are fabricated or a deviation. It is fraud and it is a manipulation of emotion that obscures the lines between human children and animals, animals and human children.
It doesn't make human animals or nonhuman animals think it's their child. People may say it in jest, but people that legitimately believe that are a distinct minority.
It's the 'cute effect', if we want to put a name to a face. You don't think "Oh man, I must have given birth to this kitten" because of it. You probably get that warm fuzzy feeling and want to cuddle with them. In some cases, though, you want to care for them, ergo the pet industry, but you and nonhuman animals both understand what's really happening when you take on those guardianship roles. Not much reason to believe there's much divergence in nonhuman animals.
The it is not the cute, though. They're selling a sad narrative. I can agree with the assertion that the narrative is an investment, but they're still not propagating the cute effect. Appeal to pathos, yes, but they don't need anything to keep the cuteness of nonhuman animals up. It's still biological.
You probably thought this was a clever insult, because the odds of a rational person thinking a college graduate isn't familiar enough with economics to understand a term taught in elementary school is practically nul for the average person. Otherwise, I'd have to assume that you were including superfluous statements to pad shaky arguments.
Anyway, if you're saying they're investing in cute... you don't get a return on cute. It's still appeal to pathos that was the intent.
There it is again, emotional. Appeal to pathos, not appeal to cute.
Animal rights groups don't have R&D departments, and they don't target zoos. It's strategic to approach bestiality for them because, again, it keeps them relevant and lets them show up in national news. After that, though, they don't say a word about it, just stow it away in their list of accomplishments. They have nothing to sell, and these 'services' you speak of would still only see the sparsest of use, if any. This is a rare phenomena, and its even rarer that it would happen.
Their ads created sympathy, but it's because they showed their subjects in dire circumstances. Imagine if the ads showed kittens playing and puppies running around. They wouldn't get any of the donations they needed that way.
That, and it's still innate.
And frequently inundating viewers with it will actually desensitize them to the cuteness, so it... decreases the effectiveness of cuteness
Assuming this is true, the opposite is also true.
Speaking as a biologist, this isn't true. There are analogous traits between many nonhuman animals and nonhuman teenagers and children, as compared to adult humans. Whether or not those traits are irrevocable is not yet known, but the juvenile traits that are observed seem to be consistent within nonhuman animals with human caretakers.
The negative effects of those "accomplishments" (anti-zoo laws) are lingering oppression and persecution that don't go away.
The fact that there are similarities does not make them equals. As I said, if they were equal, then humans would be put in kennels, spayed/neutered, slaughtered, etc -- and that is not the case. The two are not the same, and similarities alone is not a good enough justification for making a new anti-zoo law.
Not really. It means the activism in the area dies out. There's less outrage to be had when it's officially disallowed.
What's a crib if not a kennel in its own right? The child gets to leave the crib for a bed when they're mature enough not to go crazy at night And well, spaying and neutering is something that came into practice... a century ago? It's kinda like circumcision and female genital mutilation. They both had the same motivations in mind: to curb down on sexuality. And of course, humans have created their fair share of Eunuchs in the past. While humans haven't been slaughtered for food, for the most part, neither have dogs. Or cats. Or horses. Or snakes. That's a huge number of zoos covered, right there. There really is evidence to support their stance, valid or invalid as their conclusions may be.
Animals are not equal to a specific group of individuals of only one kind of animal (humans).
You simply reiterated a statement that I just challenged.
Isn´t it remarkable that the one person who´s NOT a "zoo" gets it right first? Yes, the "unjust" laws actually soothed our "opposition" well enough to make once firm and sturdy alliances crumble. After the new law was introduced in Germany in July 2013, all the "anti zoo" groups slowly started to dissolve and even the most fanatic ranter , Carsten Thierfelder, refocused his efforts on other right wing topics. After the new laws, he almost completely dismissed "zoophilia" and the few articles dealing with "those filthy animal fuckers" are literally no match to what large quantities of malevolent articles he produced prior to the law change. That´s what all these infantile "zoo activists" are blind for....sometimes, losing is the real win. Just imagine what would have happened if the new laws were rejected...the anti fraction would´ve gathered more and more folks around them, feeding them with the most unfavorable and vile examples of "zoophilia"....thanks to the laws, that btw do a fair amount of deterrence for all those who "just want to test out "zoophilia" " and additionally make acts as fencehopping punishable beyond a small fine you´ll have to pay , our opposition crumbles and "anti zoo" activism slowly dies out.
Funny that YOU get it ,AB...but all those "superduper", "1000% bona fide" "zoos" don´t...maybe society IS right and "zoophilia" really goes hand in hand with a low IQ...
Your comments were mysteriously hidden, otherwise I would respond. Don't mistake my silence as quitting.
The biological phenomena is real, but the logic associated with it (when using it as an argument for/against something) is fallacious.
Not entirely.
Yes, not entirely... "Actually".
I explained this to skg in another reply.
Ok
Yes you are correct. Bio-logical is the logic used in accordance with the rules of cells and organisms. It is not a man-made occurrance.
However, the logic these people are using to make association between two different organisms is "machine logic." Machine logic cannot properly differentiate between the existence of two living organisms without being implemented with the additions or understanding, allowing the machine to assign different "roles" or existences to animals and children, animals and adults, or otherwise without completely separating them.
For example: A primitive coin counting machine... Cannot tell the difference between a nickel and a piece of metal the same size as a nickel. Therefore it counts the metal as being a nickel when in reality it is not actually a nickel. If the coin counting machine could not tell the difference between money and garbage, people would throw just about anything into the machine regardless of the difference. The machine would not function properly because it would be clogged with garbage. However, if the machine did not have slots for different coins, all the coins would be together and the machine would be useless in its purpose. Furthermore, if the machine can't add coins properly for a total while discarding the junk, the machine would be something similar to the current laws.
Likewise, If somebody who thinks like a machine with faulty irrelevant logic views the roles of children and animals as being the same, those people would undoubtedly assign aspects of human children and adult animals to the same value. They would be the coin machine that adds garbage to money for an "unreal" value.
Furthermore, by the above, the arguement that children and animals are the same or "are similar to" each other, by anything more than the biologically assigned role of "mammal", is a completely fallacious arguement. After the biological role of being mammal, the two become different and more defined to their actual biological existance according to species, age, ability to learn, etc. These concepts differ per species, such as the fact that a three year old dog is an adult as opposed to a three year old human being who is a child. The dogs "ability to learn" is species dependant and therefore cannot be associated with the "learning disability" of a disabled human being.
Although it is biological for people to make these illusory associations, it is not a strong base to argue the creation of laws because that would mean the Law is in danger of becoming dangerously dysfunctional and universally broken in its ability to differentiate properly. Functional human logic would allow for judgement on the basis of functionality of the machine, or the action, rather than combining the dysfunctional aspects.
In conclusion, there is nothing wrong with inter-breeding or the attempt to do so between the members of two species, because it works... unless that inter-breeding is associated with the association of animals to children and vise versa. That would entail that the initiation of the act was misguided by the fact that the person was attracted to the animal as a child or something with the illusory status of a child, as opposed to the animal as an animal itself as a different species.
You're correct about Jenny Edwards -- she is an anti-zoo bigot who is pretty much on a crusade to ban sex with animals in all 50 states, along with HSUS.
I'm not surprised she was in Texas -- she is an anti-zoo activist who travels around the country trying to wrongfully ban sex with animals. And the Texas legislators probably blindly bought her propaganda.
HSUS is more powerful than the Chandler Edwards group, so they're the anti-zoo NGO with more influence. (For example, a HSUS lobbyist is responsible for the anti-zoo bill in Nevada).
The problem with these groups is that they view sex with animals as a "crime" and zoos as "criminals" no matter what.
Logic, not human instincts and emotions, should be what the law is based upon; and this is not the case with current anti-zoo laws (laws which are wrong and should be repealed).
This is a fallacy; for example, humans are not put in kennels, nor are they slaughtered or spayed/neutered. It is a mix-up of species and age-based differences, two separate things.
FTFY again, and there is still reason in the decision. It's a controversial issue with alot of "I think"s but not alot of "I know"s. It took empirical evidence to legalize some of the most controversial things we know of, and in some ways it is a safer route, even if it isn't always as effective as law enforcement and legislators would like.
No, there's reason behind it too. There are a number of psychological analogues between juvenile humans and nonhuman animals. It's a symptom of having a less 'advanced' frontal lobe, and perhaps even decreased cultural receptiveness.While it varies between nonhuman animals somewhat, these traits are fairly consistent. Especially... emotional maturity, risk assessment, and self control. Those traits in nonhuman animals are generally much more like a human child or young teenager than human adult, and you know, those are pretty significant elements of psychological adulthood. This could be due to the lack of independence rather than an innate condition -- there's no outstanding pressure to reach psychological maturity, no concern about the next hunt, or any outstanding need to avoid predation or fulfill complex social roles. And we've observed that this can happen in chimpanzees fairly organically when they have a mother that won't refuse to continue offering care. Jane Goodall observed one such instance, wherein Flint, the son of Old Flo, became dependent on his mother and even continued suckling at the age of eight. As you may have expected, he didn't develop like his siblings did. He continued to perform acts expected of a juvenile, and did not develop emotionally or intellectually as his siblings did either. There is, however, little reason to believe that he suffered from any pre-existing handicaps. So, pets may really be retaining a great deal of juvenile traits. It's possible, if not likely.
While Shep's writing style is very bombastic, there is some correlation here and he is not outright wrong.
It is similar to what I wrote about the animal defence league who got intervener status in a non-animal rights bestiality case before the Supreme Court of Canada. When you look at their careers they really haven't done a whole lot for animals or been all that successful. Yet they PR and advertising from the news articles makes them a fair bit of cash by way of donations.
There are people making a living attacking zoos, and Shep points to one of them. Again, using NGOs and other big words to make it sound like a huge things is a little over the time to my mind.
The other part of Shepp's post I really don't understand is the whole implication that private security firms are somehow behind this effort as well (first two paragraphs). And, of course, that same old claim about "entrapment, or deceiving people to have sex with another person's animal", which doesn't make any more sense than when it was first brought up.
I think he's extracting from a single provable incident to a broader theme. It's not a conspiracy in the definition of that word, it's more like a systemic fault in human thinking. More in line with what /u/AmoreBestia said maybe? It is, as we have seen over and over, how the world works, but I don't think it is particularly targeted at zoos. We just happen to be the minority "Du Jour".
Yes exactly. Minorities are an easy target for amatures who don't have the skills to target real criminals. They prefer to "kill the little animals" (zoophiles.)
Nobody believes the minority when the minority claims wrong-doing against these amateures who inevitably belong to the majority of people who frown upon sex with animals.
For example: I am the minority and I know what I'm talking about. However, the majority does not believe me because they don't understand the concepts or the material because they are also amateurs, like the amateures who they will believe in. Amateurs tend to "stick to their own kind" even if it's just the amature claims made by expert con-artists.
This is the aversion towards "straying from the pack," even if the pack is very wrong and harboring false/dangerous claims against the act of sex with animals.
NGO's are contractors. They work for whoever hires them, and nobody would hire them if there was no "problem" with people having sex with animals. Therefore they create or amplify the problem. It's no different than a home security agency hiring somebody to rob people's homes (or doing it themselves), moments later the robbers offer the victim security services or private investigation into the robbery.
They're not only making a living attacking zoos...They're making a living by putting animal owners and local law enforcement in a position where they fear zoophiles in order to profit from selling "animal sex recognition" training to law enforcement, as well as investigation and security cameras for people's barns. It's terrorism.
They wouldn't be able to profit from a "security culture" if people didn't feel terrorized and insecure about leaving animals with "potential animal rapists" or "potential serial killers" or "potential child molesters."
Duskwuff,
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/indiahome/indianews/article-2516150/Inside-new-legal-terrorism-How-laws-abused-settle-personal-scores.html
The term is "Crying Wolf"
There are people who will lure others into sexual relationships for the purpose of making false claims against those people. It is no different for zoophiles. There are people who will lure zoophiles into sexual relations with animals for the purpose of making false claims against the zoophile, as opposed to false claims made against a zoophile who has sex with an animal without being lured. The claims are both made of falsehood, but I was specifically referring to the entrapment, enablement, and falsified evidence scenarios.
Private security contractors and investigators benefit from people "crying wolf", but they wouldn't be able to stay in business with an absence of a threat, therefore they fabricate the threats, plant evidence, and "create" the criminal.
The article you are linking to is about abuses of certain very specific laws in India. It has nothing to do with anything we're discussing.
It's an example of how the abuses of very specific laws, such as the laws governing sex with animals, can be abused by following a similar outline to how the law in India was abused.
It has everything to do with what were discussing, you're just discrediting it because it's not specifically relevant to my OP, however it was more than relevant to your question. You're basically "backing away" from your own question to the OP to avoid relevance... running in circles away from the answers.
If you think there's a connection, you need to actually explain it. In detail. Just pointing at a random article about abuse of some very old and weird laws in India (regarding caste and dowries, of all things!) and saying it's related doesn't actually make it related… it just makes it look like you picked a random news article that happened to have a title that sounded appropriate.
It was already explained in detail at first. If I tried to explain it again... don't you think you would just run in circles around the answers instead of soaking it up, as you did before?
I could copy and paste everything I said to you, but I don't think that would help much if you're outright refusing to read any post previous to your own. You are "living in the moment" and ignoring all past and future occurance of the examples.
In all honesty, not even animals live in the moment like that because they have the ability to learn new and recall old information. This wasn't meant to be an insult, it was just an observation of your inability to recall the correct information. However, if you recalled the past posted link then you must have recollection skills... You're just actively ignoring the past examples. Ignorance is no excuse.
Copying and pasting the same thing over and over doesn't make it easier to understand. If you explain how to carry out equations of planes the same way ten times, if someone doesn't understand, reiterating it in the same form doesn't work. Sometimes that means going in with a more in depth description. I learn math equations best after being provided a description of every part of the equation; not just what is, but what it does. If my professors had said the same thing ten times, which has happened, about a third of the class wouldn't understand it, and in those cases we'd have to study and figure out the equation 100% on our own just to pass.
But this isn't a math equation. In fact, it should be easier to explain than a math equation. You're not a professor, and this isn't a classroom, though. You're a user, in a forum, with no elevated position to speak of. Nobody here has to spend hours figuring out how your arguments work, so unless you create a cogent explanation, and diversify your explanations, then this turn of events shouldn't surprise you. Sometimes I find myself needing to explain things differently as well, it's just how things turn out sometimes.
At any rate, in the time you spent bickering with duskwuff, you could have already explained your argument in detail, in no less than 3 different ways.
Ok. I will explain it like I'm speaking to cavemen.
Security man sells security systems and services. Security man don't have customers because potential customers feel safe. Security man have idea, security man hire people to rob somebody's home. Homeowners now feel afraid and unsafe that their home is next. Security man gets many many customers!
Ok and...
Animal sex investigators sell investigation and training to locate animal sex people. Animal sex investigators don't have customers, because potential customers aren't afraid of animal sex. Animal sex investigators have idea, animal sex investigators hire people to rape somebody's animals. Animal owners now feel afraid and unsafe that their animals are next. Animal sex investigators get many many customers!
What happens when we combine animal sex investigators with security specialists?
Security specialists sell security cameras and security guards to fearful customers. Investigators deceive and lure people into trespassing on customers property by pretending it is their own. Trespasser is caught on camera. Animal sex investigators are paid to investigate the same people they lured into the situation. Trespasser is caught. Security cameras and private investigations become hot sellers because the "fears of fence-hopping" was confirmed by manipulative tactics.
As a result...
People think animal sex people are bad. The creation of laws against the act of sex with animals becomes the "hot topic." The need for investigation and security increases. Law enforcement, security, and investigators make lots and lots of money by falsely accusing, hurting innocent people and taking their animals, forcing them to post bail and pay fines, and hire lawyers.
If you haven't figured it out by now, I don't know what to tell you.
"Uugh hungry! Uggh kill animal! Uugh eat animal! Uugh kill more animal! Uggh have many foods!"
They basically started out by scamming people and fabricating a crime wave. Now people are using the terrorism to terrorize and legally steal from people over the minor fact that the person has sex with animals. Sex with animals was manipulated into an excuse to ruin people's lives for profit.
To sum this up, these people aren't much different than dangerous cannibals looking for excuses to justify taking the lives and animals of other people to feed themselves.
Do I have to explain what cannibalism is?
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
You told me it should be easier to understand, and the only way I can make it easier is by dumbing it down. I wasn't given a choice.
Honestly, it's going to be complex no matter how I try to explain it so it so my best chance is to associate primitivity to primitivity. I can't change the fact that the concept will always be complex to somebody who lives by primitivity, because they refuse to understand my examples which unfortunately condescend their primitive ways.
A cannibal would rather not understand why cannibalism is wrong and look for excuses to continue cannibalizing other people. You're all so lucky that I'm nice enough to give you this information in the first place, otherwise you'd probably be jamming wooden spears in people and skinning them for it.
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
This isn't calculus.
Obliging a request needn't come with condescension. It reflects poorly on you. That said, I appreciate that you attempted to explain your ideas more thoroughly this time, even though you did so in the most dickish way possible.
You told me it should be easier to understand, and the only way I can make it easier is by dumbing it down. I wasn't given a choice.
Honestly, it's going to be complex no matter how I try to explain it so it so my best chance is to associate primitivity to primitivity. I can't change the fact that the concept will always be complex to somebody who lives by primitivity, because they refuse to understand my examples which unfortunately condescend their primitive ways.
A cannibal would rather not understand why cannibalism is wrong and look for excuses to continue cannibalizing other people because its convenient.
In calculus, nobody ever learned how to perform the equations using small words. They learned through pinpoint clarification and sometimes detailed descriptions of how the variables and operations interact. Sometimes you have to give more and not just explain differently., I guesss is what I'm saying.
xxxx
The calculus example reflects an overarching idea in communication, ya goof.
You are correct...It isn't big, but it's easy for the NGO's (private security and investigation contractors) to make a name for themselves by weaseling into big places, such as the state courts.
That is correct. Things are getting pretty severe for zoos in the U.S., especially considering the fact that there are now 5 anti-zoo bills. The effort to ban sex with animals in all 50 states is being pushed by HSUS (and their anti-zoo agenda). Their goal is to oppress zoos by criminalizing their way of life and jailing them.
I am under the impression that their goal is to oppress zoos (as you stated), nonetheless by knowingly taking advantage of people with learning disabilities.
There is no way that anybody would believe the disconnected claims in opposition to the act of sex with animals without actually being disconnected from reality themselves.
This could be considered a crime against humanity by the fact that people are using a false idol of animals as a tool to abuse human beings. Animal rights terrorism and environmental terrorism are two concepts that come to mind.
You're basically claiming the average rational human has never been fooled... especially not en-masse.
You realize how wrong that is, right?
I was being sarcastic.
If that's true, then accept my apologies on that.
HSUS is a major and powerful organization when it comes to animal rights, helping to end large scale hunting, raising awareness of animal fighting (In fact, they are who your supposed to report animal fighting to), and have billions of dollars at their disposal.
They do a ton of good. And the bad of their anti zoo campaign is pretty much wiped out by that. I rather have the rights of many animals be protected than just my rights