I just came inside my dog and feel disgusting (self.zoophilia)
submitted 2017-06-22 05:15:04 by Throwaway163465
I've never had sex with my dog before, but Just came inside her, also. Shes a pregnant bitch, is there anything for me to worry about?
/r/zoophilia archive
[deleted]
[removed]
[removed]
Obviously zoonoses, but is there anything bad on the dogs behalf?
[removed]
Im asking a serious question
[removed]
Of course fine gentleman
After careful review of your post history...
I think you should "fuck off" instead.
ban? i think its pretty easy to tell hes definitely not a regular here
If you break a rule with your first post, barring minor offenses like forgetting an nsfw or accidentally posting the wrong content to this sub, that's an instant ban, yeah. Given the colorful language he used in his modmail correspondence, the ban is probably permanent too.
This is a great sign that you shouldn't be engaging in sex with animals until you can be more level-headed about the whole situation. That might be never, which is fine.
This is just completely new to me
same for all of us at some point, though many seem to forget that theyve probably went though almost the exact same thing as you did. A good vocal portion of this group is angry and bitter and many other things and tend to take it out on the newbies who are just trying to find their way. Dont let them get to you, dont sink into the depression and suppression. I cant tell you exactly what to do, but a good start is learning from what other zoos do, not what they say.
[deleted]
Zoonoses aren't really a concern. As for the dog, it depends on their size, but the uterus and amniotic sac should be strong enough to protect her offspring, and the cervical plug developed during pregnancy should prevent any infection. If you're contemplating any future sexual contact, i can't recommend studying the finer points of their communication and cycles enough. It should go without saying, but if, say, your parents own the dog rather than you it would be prudent to avoid doing it again.
Why arent zoonoses a concern, and it's a Labrador retriever
Unless it's a stray they normally don't have any diseases transmissible to humans. Zoonoses are in and of themselves quite rare, especially so in homed animals.
I can't speak to her compatibility with you specifically given my lack of exposure on the issue, but if you didn't observe any discomfort, she was probably fine. That's not a good metric to go by of course, but by the time an object reaches the cervix there's a certain level of discomfort that comes with it. A very high level of discomfort at that, and a very noticeable one. If you didn't feel any obstructions, and she isn't showing any signs of discomfort, that shouldn't be a concern.
Also, it may be prudent to address your dog as a she rather than an it in this subreddit.
Sure thing
[removed]
Sometimes you need to know how and when to fuck off dude. You can criticize him when he doesnt already feel like shit and needs actual help.
[removed]
lol k
I'll take shit for it, but I've gotta agree with u/30-30 on this one. The thing to have done would have been to post here before the act, asking if it's safe with a pregnant bitch, wether she is likely to want it while preggo, wether diseases can be passed etc.
To the OP, if you feel disgusted with yourself, you should. You're a bestialist now, nothing more. You've a long way to go before you can call yourself a zoo. You may never get there. I unlike u/30-30, don't give a damn about the antis and what they might think, but I do pray with all my might that you don't harm an animal on your way.
Jesus christ dude, you don't teach people or correct their life's course with posts like this.
What he did was wrong yes, but two wrongs don't make a right. No one is telling him it was great (no one who matters anyways), we are trying to correct his actions rather than push him away. What are you acomplishing, save for a lot of noise and a big impressive display?
[deleted]
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
That moment when a post showing concerns for a PREGNANT bitch being fucked gets more downvotes than Sheppsoldier´s plan to go on a killing spree, muirdering everyone who´s not agreeing to fucking animals....you showed your true colours here, my friends!
Sorry if I have to correct you, but the exceptionally high number of down votes you received might not be attributed to the "concerns for a pregnant bitch" you have voiced. Rather, this negative reaction was triggered by the degree of unnecessary aggression you displayed and by how you extrapolate your criticism of the OP's behavior to the condition of the community as a whole. Indeed, I'm also disappointed at how this discussion has been evolving during the last few hours, for obviously, throughout an impressive number of 74 comments, nobody has managed to get to the core of the problem. So far, the OP has failed to form more than 2 coherent sentences to clarify the situation and provide us with the information necessary to make judgments or give advice. Thus, given the fact that we know little to nothing about him, his situation, his dog or about the circumstances that might have lead to what has actually happened, we should better remain silent rather than making vague assumptions. Consequently, it is up to u/Throwaway163465 to enlighten us on what was really going on, if he is still interested in a discussion. Everything else is just a waste of precious time.
Agreed. There are a number of times where users assumed the worst and not only did they make the user leave, but their assumptions were completely and utterly wrong.
Well, I cannot remain silent when someone say he had sex with a pregnant animal. When an animal is pregnant, there´s no way to justify any sexual act with it.You just leave pregnant animals alone. No exceptions, no excuses.
Besides the fact that sleeping with a pregnant female animal very likely isn´t consential at all due to hormonal changes in the female deriving the female of ANY sex drive, it´s the blatant apologetic approach towards this despicable behaviour that angers me so much. You know, when rational discussions have proven to be absolutely ineffective, satire, irony and cynicism become the last weapons of the powerless. And since I cannot visit OP , lay my hands around his throat, smashing his head against the next wall for a couple of times, making clear that he has done what no one should do, especially not zoos, I have to stick to "aggressive" replies that also address the apparent lack of knowledge in here, the obvious apathy. Do you think I want to be known as this sub´s asshole number one? Do you think I want to be hated by everyone? Quite the opposite, but almost everything in here practically forces me to do so with my comments. This robotic, "rational" attitude you all favour is basically not enough to prevent acts like the OP´s, it´s not enogh to form a distinct picture of zoophiles in society. Insofar, you´re absolutely right, this is a waste of time and energy. But I do not mean it the same way as you do, the blame has to be put on us as a community, a community of self proclaimed animal lovers who remain just a little bit too much apathetic and "rational" in cases like this one. By the way, whenever someone rants about the "unjust society" , "haters" and "anti zoos", this rational approach is dismissed immediately , as it seems. Say, could it be this community is placing their emotions wrong? Apathetic to blatantly obvious violations of our ideals (and yes, fucking around with a pregnant animal IS against our ideals of respect and care), but quickly accusatory and heated up when society´s views are involved...is it just me who does not get this community´s true agenda? Anyway, I don´t care about up- and downvotes. I´m not here to make "friends", I´m here because there are some things that need to be said.
Hey I've removed both of your comments as a violation of rule 7, and this is considered one strike against your account. I actually agree with a lot of the points you've made but this isn't the right way to go about it, and sarcasm doesn't excuse being this disrespectful to OP and everyone else here. We should tell people and correct them when they make mistakes, but being this aggressive about it is just going to drive people away instead of actually educating them on what not to do.
While I understand your motives to do so, I am not quite convinced that deleting 30-30’s comments was actually a good idea. By removing them, you have deprived the following comments which referred to the original two of their context, making the whole thread unreadable in the process. Don’t you think that there might have been a more diplomatic solution with a more satisfying outcome for both parties, him and the community? By the way, given how strictly you have enforced the rules in this case, I recommend you also have a closer look at SCP_2047’s contributions to this discussion. At least in my opinion, the way he announced that he´d like to „test a crowbar“ on Aluzky, urging him to shoot himself in the head just a few sentences later, indeed crosses a red line and I strongly suggest that such an outrageous outbreak of verbal violence should not remain unsanctioned.
Thank you for telling me about SCP's comments, honestly I've been a bit busy these past couple of days and haven't looked at all the comments here yet. I removed the comments containing violent threats. I agree that removal kinda screws up the whole thread but I'm not sure what else could be done, since removal is the policy. I'll talk with the other mods and see if there's another solution that would allow the comments to stay up.
It seems i lost a reply here, but, the issue stems from the comment and the ensuing discussion ultimately just being an exchange of venom with a veneer of moral discussion. It may break continuity, but we simply can't abide that kind of content in the same capacity that we have been.
thats kinda how it works. You do it, you feel pretty horrible about because its such taboo in society, and then you get over it. And every time that feeling of being a sick fuck gets less and less.
About the dog, im surprised she let you do it with her, But as long as she's letting you, and isnt in pain, (pay attention to body language), and both of you are enjoying it, Wheres the problem?
just remember to spam this sub with the puppy pictures when they come.
Sure thing :)
Realize that there's nothing to feel bad about if she allowed and liked it. If you payed attention to her behavior then you should know.
The feeling would probably go away if you spend time studying this subject and realize that it isn't wrong if done correctly.
What you did wrong was coming here AFTER this happened. Think first, act later.
Anyways, you seriously should have enjoyed this moment. This is a thing I have dreamt of for years (and still do) and will never be able to do in my life.
I'd do anything to be in your situation. I'd seriously kill for it. You're seriously fucking lucky and ungrateful, so you'd better cheer up, I tell you.
I'm not a psychologist, but I will try to help like one.
Why you think that you felt disgusted? Did she denied consent and you forced her? Social guilty because people say is wrong? Guilt that you may harm the pups?
yes there is: 1-Consent issues. 2-Zoonotic infections issues. 3-Don't get caught issues. 4-Moral and ethical issues. 5-Animal abuse issues. 6-Risk of harming the pups issues.
If you mean about her being prego, I don't think you can hurt the pups as there is a "wall" between you and them. Just be careful to not hump her too hard and not hit the cervix (if you hit something and can't go any deeper, just don't stick it in so deep any more)
FYI: Unlike some other members of this forum, I don't care if you did that just to get off. As long as you keep her safety in mind and you don't harm or rape her, have fun fucking her. I would advice you to do some research or ask people on how to do that in a safe way for you and her. There are plenty online guides with information on how to have safe sex with dogs, read as many as you can find.
[deleted]
Thanks for what? For not being a judgemental asshole?
[deleted]
[deleted]
To /u/Throwaway163465,
Please watch out for this person. He will mislead you.
If you don't believe me, ask the other people here if you want this to be confirmed.
Also, to give a little evidence by myself. Does this look suspicious to you? ''Unlike some other members of this forum, I don't care if you did that just to get off.''
He has no problem with exploiting animals as long as it doesn't harm them. As you can see, he puts the humans sexual gratification over the animal's. How funny that I'm the one to point that out since I'd cut off a limb, or almost anything actually, so me and my girl would lose our virginity to eachother.
He also has been known to lie a lot. Example: ''I'm a zoo exclusive! - I let my gay friend fuck me!'' ''My IQ is 130~, I'm always smarter than you!''
And of course, his own post history. Don't stray too far away from reality, my friend.
And while we're at it, I'll summon our little friends here, even if they probably won't like it, but I think it's important we're aware that he's ready to fuck things up again!
Let's go,
/u/peacheslala97
/u/Sheppsoldier, hey this is your friend, right?
/u/30-30
/u/AmoreBestia, I might be breaking the rules myself now by targeting our friend here.
But I'm just saying: Please watch him. We know both what he's like.
MAN, am I tempted to post the PMs that Aluzky sent me.
Hey Aluzky, why don't you please tell the others what you said in our PMs? But be honest buddy, even though that's very hard for you. Y'know, about hating 30-30 and how he gets more hatemail than you, having a fangirl, trading sex with dogs, fucking with humans even though ''I'm still a zoo exclusive >:(((('', etc.
By the way, I am indeed WarCanine. Got that, Aluzky AKA Mr.IReallyWantSexALot?
Oh wait, that's a nickname both for us! Right?! Hahahahah-no.
EDIT: Snips of his PMs. Ooh, embarrassing!
^^^^^.
Friend? That guy is despicable. He gets more hatemail then I do. lol
^^^^^.
Not everyone. You can't please everyone (not that I care to please everyone) FYI: I just got a PM from an actual fangirl.
^^^^^.
To say it in simple words: I let my friend fuck me because he enjoys it. He is nice to me and I'm nice to him. Does that mean I enjoy it sexually? NOPE. <---- Ahem, FLAWLESS logic, by the way!
Me being fucked by him is no different from getting a prostate exam at the doctor.
Also, I get to fuck his female bitch and get fucked by his male dog. So, in a sense, it is also a trade of me being nice to him and him being nice to me.
^^^^^.
Who said that I don't do that? I also pinch his nipples. Too much info?
^^^^^.
Really? Not even if some one said: Let me butt fuck you and you will get unlimited access to a harem of bitches. Don't know about you, but many zooexclusive would take that trade. Specially if they are a virgin and desiring to have bitch sex. That was my case. I was a virgin when it came to vaginal sex. I lost that virginity thanks to him. I cummed in her 3 times. After we where done, we spend the night watching a movie and then I went back home.
^^^^^.
Nope. I'm neither pleased nor disgusted by it. Though, before you say i lied, I have said on youtube a couple of times that sex with humans is gross, but only in response to people who said "zoosex is gross" I did lie there but it was in a sarcastically way.
I confirm that Aluzky doesn't have a good reputation here, but /u/AmoreBestia is fine. The only thing: he isn't zoo and some people doesn't feel well with this, but you can trust him generally.
[removed]
Sorry then, it was a little bit ambigious.
I second the ambiguity, but thanks for vouching for me guys, lol.
Sure, your cometns are not harrasing me nor a thread of violence agaisnt me. /sarcasm.
Yet, I'm the dangerous person? Say what?
[removed]
Let go of the Aluzky thing dude. I don't like him, but your obsession with him is nearly as distubring as the individual himself. Plus, threats of violence are against reddit TOS.
Okay, maybe you accept the fact that he's exploiting animals and misleading other users, but I certainly won't stand for it.
This isn't just a grudge I hold against him, I have some really good reasons for this. As I just said, he encourages others so exploit animals and also gives a lot of false information. Not to mention he stirred up a lot of shit, even more than me.
He does things that this community is against. He's the worst example of a zoophile ever to exist and it is sad that he's so known.
Somebody HAS to stand up sometime.
Oh, and I wouldn't attack him. I said I'd like to, but wouldn't.
I mean, I would never hurt an innocent human, right?
Anyone who owns a pet is also exploiting animals for their own gains, be sex, emotional company, guarding dog, so on. There is nothing wrong with exploiting animals if you are not murdering, harming them, abusing them. And you are not even a vegan, you exploiting animals in a negative way on a daily basis by supporting their murder just so you can eat them. Hypocrite much?
Where I have done that? Proof?
If they don't harm or murder the animal or do criminal activity, I see no problem with it.
Where i have done that? proof?
Me? You where the one going around spreading bullshit about me on almost every thread. Look at you, you are doing the same thing in here again... And if you mean of the time that Anonymous targeted me or that other forum targeted me (which I managed to get that reddit banned for being a hateful group) how is that my fault? I'm suppose to take zoosexual discrimination from them and not defend me and other zoosexuals from bigotry?
This community is formed by thousand of members, many of them do or did the same things that I do. I can please everybody and is not my job to please everybody. Also, is not like I'm doing something criminal, so why do you care so much?
Worse than the ones that fence hope? Worse than the ones that rape and murder animals? Really?
All I see from you is jealousness and hate.
Nope.
We're giving them a chance to live. Otherwise they'd end up with other people or will be euthanized in a shelter.
Animals need homes and if we don't give them any they die.
I agree that domestication isn't a good thing, but we don't have a choice, really.
Also, sex isn't just for our own gains. There's a reason we participate in sex that does not benefit us in any way, like fingering or wanking.
Because of my health issues, I can not go vegan. I have tried being vegetarian two times in my life and could not handle it.
Again, I don't pay for these. Except for my girl, who deserves and craves for meat.
I can understand your concern about me not being vegan, but my girl deserves that any day. I share my meat most of the time with her, if not always.
It's what a dog needs. BS all you want, but she needs it and it's healthy for her.
My mom buys my food and she said that I'm not even allowed to stop eating meat because of my eating problems.
I see pigs, cows and chickens equal to humans. So if the humans were being eaten by them it would make no difference for me.
Unlike some other members of this forum, I don't care if you did that just to get off. As long as you keep her safety in mind and you don't harm or rape her, have fun fucking her.
You're misleading this user thinking that it's right to use animals just for your own sexual urges.
Right, and that's the problem.
It IS wrong as it's unfair. Let's look at the fact that letting animals give you oral is exploitation as an example.
Animals don't know what a penis is, nor do they have sex to please the other but because they respond to their instinct and enjoy it themselves. When you are letting them lick your penis they only do so because they are either trained and just because of the taste.
You are tricking an animal into having sexual contact with you, yet they don't know what they're really doing.
What's wrong about this is exactly that. You're the one enjoying it more than them because they don't know what they're doing.
Why not play it fair and don't let such a thing happen? If you really love animals you wouldn't do such a thing.
Almost all of your comments.
Let me give an example, then: ''I have never fence hopped''
Even though it's a community made term, you refuse the fact that you did it even though you admitted doing it.
Sure, your definition may be different but that's not what matters.
You attracted a lot of people in different places.
We have that Tumblr page, we have CringeAnarchy, Youtube, etc.
At first we'd both think that's not your fault, but in some way it is since you admit to doing certain things.
People who were on the edge about zoophilia being right were against you. AlphaOmega for example.
Yeah no they don't.
Or at least the ones who speak up here don't.
Technically you are doing something criminal.
Wasn't bestiality banned already at your place? Then you are indeed a criminal.
So am I, so are they, so are all of us.
Why is something bad when something is criminal? Could you explain that please? Because I have no problem with this: A lot of laws are straight up bullshit and I hate them so much.
But why I care is that we even as zoophiles, have a ''normal.'' You go a little too far.
Aluzky, please explain what the problem is with fencehopping?
Let's ignore the fact that you have to break in someone's property, because that isn't always the case.
It's a community made term and by our definition you are fencehopping yourself.
And you know, I just happened to change my mind about the subject a little itself.
Oh but they're not examples of zoophiles.
Well... in a way, but that's not what I meant.
It's that you're one of the popular, ahem, ''''''zoophiles.''''''
I've seen people talking about you man, but no one else really except 30-30 or IamAZoophile, even though he's done nothing wrong. It's quite sad actually, because they laughed at a death of someone's animal.
You on the other hand support pedophilia, support the exploitation of animals, are obsessed with sexual urges. (Holy shit mate, I thought I was bad.)
Jealousness? Can I have some evidence which implies that I am jealous?
Also, you cannot detect my emotions so whatever I say about this is true. I am in no way jealous of you.
In fact, I'd feel sorry for myself if I was in your situation.
Hate? Yes, but that isn't surprising at all.
Do you know how much things I hate? I'm going to make a list of it some day, and I bet my ass I'll never finish because I'd be overwhelmed myself.
Don't worry waste your time. He's just a fence jumper with an ego. One who uses dogs under the noses of his trusting friends and unsuspecting strangers.
Do you have proof that all of them are bestialists? If not, then your refutal is irrelevant.
Is not strange, one can not please everybody, people who hate others will always exist. And what you mean by "like you" ?
All of them? Evidence to support your claim?
Have I claimed that no humans hate me? NOPE. Like I said, you claimed that everybody hates me, the fact that people exist who doesn't hate me (some of them are zoophiles) shows that your claim is fallacious.
If supporting other sexual minorities (including the pedosexuals) hurt us, so be it. I won't be a bigot just to not hurt our cause. I won't be like the homosexuals who doesn't support zoosexuals just to not hurt their cause. And again, you only looked at the hate mail. There are comments in my channel that are as old as 8 years. There are thousands of comments in there, you only looked a few and gloss over the good ones focused on the haters. Again, just one person being on my side is enough proof that your claim is a hasty generalization fallacy,
Invalid excuse. The norm if to take a comment literally unless the person makes IT clear that he doesn't mean it in a literal way, you have failed to add marks to point out that your comment is not to be taken seriously.
What invalid excuse? Evidence? What delusional behabior? Evidence?
Yet, they don't prove that all zoophiles or that everybody hates me? So, try again. Remember, your claim was: NOBODY LOVES YOU.
Argument from ignorance fallacy.
And?
And?
Red herring fallacy.
False attribution fallacy. I know well that I have hatters.
What? I think you missed some words in your sentence. Care to make that sentence again with better grammar? And what invalid excuses are you talking about? Where is the evidence that proves that those excuses where invalid?
And that proves what? Because that doesn't support your claim that everybody hates me. It only proves that some people hate me.
Sorry, and that makes my excuse invalid how?
You are using circular logic, you are failing to point out why it is invalid. All you doing is saying that my excuse is invalid because you say that it is invalid.
First, burden of proof is on YOU, not me, you are the one making the accusation that nobody supports me. Second, I don't even need to prove that I have supporters because again, burden is on you, not me. Look at the tread, my claim that I have supporter was in response to your claim that i don't have them, so who has the burner of proof? YOU have it. You made the claim about my supporter first.
Like I said, I won't post her name in the open, I don't even know if she is a open zoo in reddit. And again, you accused me of not having fans. To which i corrected you by replying that I do. In the end the burden of proof is on you as you where the FIRST on to claim anything about my fans.
PS: I don't remember claiming that I have more fans than haters. Can you stupor that accusation with evidence?
You have yet to prove that my logic is illogical.
Translation: I don't care about having a rational mature debate with you.
You replied to the wrong comment. Take some pills and get back to your senses if you ever had them.
Tell me what the fuck they are doing on that site.
What is the purpose of them being there?
You're ignoring the fact that others hate you where ethics and such are discussed, yet are ''liked'' (I can barely call it being liked.) at places where it's known that others don't care about animals much and are only there for the sex.
Read the comments yourself. You've told me to do the same, so I did and found others who clearly don't care about animals.
Nobody takes the word ''nobody'' that seriously. In fact, I just used it now.
Don't be a dumbass, I've never seen someone take the word so literally. It's pretty sad and cringy.
That's not how it works.
If you don't support something it doesn't mean you are against them OR hurt them.
This is some sad logic. Are you one of those retards that claim ''You're either with us, or you're against us.''?
Uh no, I looked at the most recent ones like usual. You're claiming something that again you have no evidence of.
You're just accusing me of something because you cannot accept the fact that you are disliked.
No, nobody I have ever met (And because you're a special snowflake who doesn't understand basic shit very well, I'll just say that the first ''nobody'' in that sentence is to be taken literally.) has taken the word ''nobody'' ever so literally. You have failed to use common sense and basic knowledge, so you are the one that failed.
You just did by saying I have to point out everything that's not to be taken too literally, yet you know damn well what I meant.
Also, mind explaining me what ''behabior'' means? You keep using the fake word yet I've never anyone else use it before nor have I found it in a dictionary.
I guess it's not new you're making shit up.
And you know exactly what ''nobody'' was meant as. Don't be a 5 year old and pretend you don't know.
Nope, the majority of comments on these sites are always against you.
It's the explanation. Stop pretending to be a dumbass. I can't believe a person older than 14 does not know any of this.
Really, really sad.
Read that again, there's no red herring going on. You really are talking about shit you don't know.
Maybe if you didn't abuse and scream the word fallacy maybe something reasonable might come out of you once.
Don't know, it's a very wild guess. Knowing it's you, I'm probably wrong on that.
Indeed, and now you realize the majority is against you. Good job Ally.
No, you're the one who doesn't understand shit.
Do I really have to explain like you're a 2 year old? Maybe it's because you don't want to understand.
Some = most.
That's how logic works.
If you can't come up with evidence because you use an excuse that does not make sense, it's an invalid excuse.
Goddamn you don't even learn shit like this in school: It's that obvious.
And you're using none.
I don't. You don't have evidence and use excuses that don't make sense.
Most humans, you mean.
I already gave evidence for that, and that's every site you're on. Read the comments yourself.
You claimed that you had supporters or humans who liked you. Show it then.
And like I said, you can blur out the name. Are you that dumb?
See, this is one of your invalid excuses. You're refusing to show evidence.
I didn't say that either.
Translation: I put words in others mouths because I can't defeat their real arguments.
You really are childish with that shit.
[deleted]
If that happened, I do apologize. Who said that I'm not in my senses?
Asking questions is not going to prove that your claim is true. I will ask again, do you have evidence that all of them are bestialists?
Not ignoring it. I already said that haters exist everywhere.
I don't understand your point. Can't you be more clear? From what I get, you are making yet another hasty generalization fallacy.
Sorry, your rebuttals does not support your claim that all of them are bestialists. Try again.
Your point?
I do. So, your claim is again, not factual.
Not my problem that you don't know how to debate. You made your point very clear, if you d't mean to say that word, then go back and edited your comment.
Subjective opinion.
If you don't support a group just so bigots don't see you in a bad way, then yes, you are being a bigot. Is the same that some homosexuals do, they don't support zoosexuals because homophobes will use their stupor as a weapon to discriminate homosexuals even more. I won't do that. I don't care what bigots things, i won't become a bigot just to appease them.
Ad hominem attack. Or red herring fallacy.
Red herring fallacy.
You are showing to be bias. The goal of you looking there was to find comments that shows that not everybody hate me, buy only looking at the resent ones (and they happening to be hateful ones) you saw what you wanted to see and you came back here happy to find what you wanted to find.
Again. I acknowledge that SOME people hates me. I have never denied that fact. And there is plenty evidence to suport my claims, i'm not making false accusation like you do all the time.
Sorry, but we are debating, if you say NOBODY, then you say NOBODY. Like I said, if you mean to say some other word, then go back and edit your comment and mention that you made an error.
And FYI: You are doing an appeal from ignorance. Just because you have not meet anyone who does that, ti doesn't mean they don't exist. Clearly they exist, I'm an example of that.
I can't read minds, if you say nobody then it means nobody. There is nothing delusional about that. I will ask again: What invalid excuse? Evidence? What delusional behabior? Evidence?
Behavior definition: the way in which one acts or conducts oneself, especially toward others.
I tend to write words phonetically, b and v sounds the same so I use either one of them as a mistake. I try to avoid doing that but is not that easy. I'm writing fast so I'm making spelling/grammar mistakes.
Invalid excuse, I don't read minds. So, you have two options, accept that your claim is bullshit, acknowledge and correct your misuse of a word.
Argumentum ad populum. And that doesn't prove that everybody hates me. So, you are supporting your claim.
I don't see what it is explaining.
There is, that senescence is i relevant to the topic.
Red herring fallacy.
Red herring fallacy.
Majority? Do you have actual statistics to support that claim? Or you are going to complain 10 comments later that I know well what you mean by "majority" ? lol
All I ask is for you to write with basic grammar.
Mhahahah. In what parallel universe that is true?
And that makes my excuse invalid how?
And where I have made any invalid excuses?
Red herring.
Ad homienm or red herring. Sigh.
You are the one calling my excuse invalid, you must have some evidence to support that claim. So, where is the evidence?
I mean nobody, those where your words.
You didn't. Or your evidence was deemed fallacious. Fallacious evidences is not valid evidence. So, where is the evidence that nobody loves me?
I said that in reply to you saying the opposite, since you say that first, onus is on you to prove it. I don't have to prove nothing, learn to debate. :)
And what do I gain by doing that? You will just say that I made that up? Also, i don't have her permission to copy paste here her comment and Also, I don't want to drag her here and also, burden of proof is on you, you accused me of not having any fans.
Is a valid excuse, the burden of proof is not on me. If you have evidence that the excuse is invalid then show it to us, show us how everybody has the burner of proof backwards. lol
You said that in your comment, 3 comments ago. Go read it.
Yea, I put words in your mouth, words that you show with your actions. Is clear that you don't want to debate me seriously. It has always been like that with you.
And FYI: I have rebated all your arguments with evidence or logic. Seriously, I feel bad making you look this bad. Fort give me, but I think I won't reply more to this thread line as it is clear you won't condescendence that your claims are BS. My rebuttals and your "valid" rebuttals are enough evidence for other to see who is being irrational, a lier, a child, unintelligent and so on. My job in this thread line is done. Bye bye.
That's right. Apologize for me. You've got a whole lot to apologize for.
You really are delusional. The answers to these questions are the answers to the questions you just asked me.
Why else would they be on the site? They're just there for the sex, they don't give a shit about animals.
Ignoring the fact that the majority hates you.
If you can't understand English, it's no use talking to you. And look at you assuming things even though you don't understand what I'm saying.
Thanks for proving that you are just bullshitting around. Take that shit.
Yeah they do.
Read them for yourself, mate.
I see that humans on gaybeast don't give a shit about animals.
You just took the word 100% seriously again. I swear, you really are acting like a dumbass on purpose.
No, nobody is the right word. Especially because nobody takes it 100% seriously.
Do. You. Not. Realize. That. It's. Not. 100%. Literal. Holy. Shit.
Nope. A fact.
It's easily said eh Aluzky? Just call facts ''subjective opinions'' and it'll get you everywhere, right?
You are misusing the word bigot. A bigot is someone who disrespects others and their opinions.
I am not disrespecting someone and their opinions if I don't support them. I knew you held that ''You're either with us, or an enemy.'' mentality. I'd say it's a part of being extremely dumb, but that's just my opinion, right?
False.
I looked at your page and saw these comments. If you expect me to read trough ALL comments, then you are a moron.
But yes I just did, I have seen humans who do support you, yet the majority still is against you. Case closed, then.
I mean... Read it for yourself.
You just did in the same sentence.
It's not SOME, it's MOST.
Yeah, and not everything is taken 100% literally. I talk how I want.
And FYI: It does mean you can't blame me either, because I haven't met a dumbass who takes it so literally.
PLEASE go see a doctor. PLEASE go outside and talk to humans once.
You'll understand common sense some day.
But it does prove majority of the humans do.
Your problem that you can't understand shit.
I've repeated it many times. Read it again.
You are misusing this so much, that I'm just going to let it slide. Anyone who reads this will cringe from embarassment because you don't even know what it means because it's all false.
I do, you're the one who can't speak correctly.
None, I just corrected you, son.
Wait a second... OR?
See, you don't even know what you're talking about. You're really just bullshitting the most random shit you can come up with.
Look at all the sites where you roam. Also, we're using the non-serious term of ''nobody'' here.
I already did, and you also claimed that it was only a few who hated you, yet you don't have any evidence. Learn to logic. :)
Nope, because that's something you'd do.
But that way you are not exposing her, which is apparently the reason you won't show it. But you won't at all, so that's a big lie.
See, no evidence, so it's all excuses. You don't need permission anyways. I'll teach you something Ally: Don't claim things if you have to keep it secret. End of story.
Strawman, I said nobody as in ''almost no one'' and that is common sense.
Nope.
Where's the evidence for that?
Also, you are just assuming again. Epic fail.
Go ahead and feel bad all you want, but I feel bad for the other zoos who have to suffer from your weak arguments and the animals that are exploited by you in the future. I will surely help others catch you if I could.
I'd be considered a hero in this community if so.
I know what behavior means, just not the shit word you use that doesn't exist. Really shows how much of a fool you are.
Also, b and v don't sound similar. You've also got some hearing problems, then.
And what we have here is the act of running away.
I remember when Aluzky himself blamed me for being a pussy after getting sick of arguing, yet he's doing it now.
Classic Aluzky and his double standards! Hey, good luck with your IQ if it ever reaches double ir triple digits! That's all for this string of comments, folks.
Ok who dug this dumb fuck up again?
"There´s nothing wrong with exploiting animals..." Famous quote of a real and true zoophile, right? You know that "o philos" is Greek and means "friend", huh? True friends don´t exploit. You exploit, therefor you´re not a true friend of animals ("zoophile")...case closed.
You are doing the following fallacy: Straw man fallacy.
You are taking my words out of context and attacking a claim that I have never said.
The full comment is something like: There is nothing wrong with exploiting animals as long as they are not being abused or murdered"
You have to use straw mans to attack me because you have no RATIONAL ARGUMENTS AGAINST ME.
That is your subjective opinion, not a fact.
Anyone who owns pets or have sex with pets is exploiting pets. By your logic, a majority of zoosexuals are not "true friends" of animals. Also, you are using a no true Scotchman fallacy.
Again, you can only attack me with fallacies. You are not making me look bad, you are making yourself look bad.
You don't sound abusive to me.
Of course a pedo says it. This person thinks children can give consent to sex. Check that PH.
I'm not surprised you agree with him, both equally dumb as shit and support exploitation of something, also thinking wrong = right.
Join Aluzky and please hold hands when dumping yourself in that meat grinder. We don't need no pedos here, especially the ones that rape children or will.
Add hominem attack.
According to scientific evidence, yes, they can some times give consent to sex and other non-sexual activities (like consent to receive a hug) You can google that fact, in some cases, children are know to participate in the sex with the abuser on their own will.
Do you have a problem with me acknowledging scientific facts? I'm always on the side of facts, I don't care if you don't like facts. Facts remain as facts where you like them or not.
And no, before my comment can be taken out of context by you or some one else, acknowledging that fact is not the same as supporting sex with children. I'm against sex with children.
Bigot much? Hypocrite much? You are acting in the same way that zoophobes acts against zoosexuals. Using the same fallacious arguments.
The guy sexual orientation has nothing to do with his reply. And last time I check, this is an open forum, everyone is welcome as long as they are polite, including the pedos.
Nope, never seen a pedophile defend someone here, nor have I seen them around when you weren't.
Also, that pedophile supports child rape, which really renders his opinion useless because he calls you non abusive.
Before you call that unfair, let me think of an example.
Two humans are having a discussion about if it was right or not to kill that one other human. A murderer who supports murder walks up to them and says it's fine, there's no reason to believe the murderer as the murderer supports murder either way, rendering their opinion useless.
what the fuck
what
the fuck
what
the
fuck
Holy shit, I need to splash my face with water for a sec, my brain can't handle shit logic.
...
Yes, they can give consent to non-sexual activities, and can't give consent to sexual activities.
Also, you do realize that even if the child chose to have sex, it doesn't mean they understand it?
See, this proves how delusional you are. The fuck's wrong with you?
And like usual, you pretend that everything is based around facts and you're a smartass.
So you're unfairly against pedophiles who support child sex just like the human who said you don't sound abusive? Awh hey, that's just unnacceptable!
Retarded much?
No I don't, that's a pedophile who'd rape children if they were in his hands.
Check. That. Post. History.
Also, we indeed don't need pedos here. They only destroy our image even more.
I'm going to be honest though, you destroy our image even more than them, though!
It sure does.
He holds this opinion because he's a pedo who supports child rape.
Is clearly and ad hominem attack. You are deluding yourself.
There are plenty pedos in here, they just don't come out in public and state that they are also pedos as they want to avoid discrimination from people like you.
Add hominem fallacy. Or red herring fallacy. Either way, one doesn't disprove the other.
More add hominems, calling my logic shitty doesn't prove that it was illogical.
Your last claim is not supported by any scientific evidence. You are only giving your ignorant personal subjective opinion and not stating a fact.
And proceeds to attack straw man. Yet I'm the delusional? LOL. Nothing wrong with me, plenty wrong with your critical thinking abilities (as in lacking them)
Before I make claims, I fact them them. So, 99.9% of my claims are about facts. And I'm not a smartass. I just happen to know way more than you, so I look like one in your eyes.
There is plenty scientific evidence that sex with children is physically or mentally harmful to them. This is the main reason I'm against sex with children. I'm not being unfair, if some child fucker can present valid evidence that sex with children is harmless and likely to be harmless (along with other things) and they make a good case for why it would be OK for them and children to have sex, then I will support them. FYI: in 10 years I have seen a single pedo who has managed to do that. And I have seen plenty.
Like I said, I'm on the side of facts. Be ugly facts or pretty facts, I don't care as long as they are facts.
My IQ is higher than yours. I'm a retard and you are below me in intelligent, then what are you? lol.
Red herring fallacy and or ad hommienm fallacy. The topic here was not about child fucking, nor what he would do if he gets his hands on children.
Subjective BIGOTED opinion, not fact.
Subjective opinion, not fact.
PROVE IT.
Nope it is not. I just explained why, stop denying evidence right in front of you.
Besides, you can't read my mind. Stop thinking you're a psychic, because you're the opposite: One who can't even read NOR control his own mind.
Evidence please.
Still haven't proven that I'm wrong.
Strawman, I didn't say that.
You didn't either.
I can't believe how funny this is. Reread your own comment and see the irony.
Again, you can not read my mind. I don't think big of you, only low.
In fact, you're the lowest human being I've ever met.
Also, where's you evidence your claims are 99.99% about facts? Do you seriously believe yourself?
You're contradicting yourself greatly.
You realize it's harmful to them because they cannot give consent to sex?
You also just said that a pedo told you it's right and that you'd believe them. You just said that it isn't right...
Lmao, I think I might have broken you more than you already were. Even I get confused from your poor brain.
This is sadly what you think, but I'm afraid that even the voices in your head are suffering that you said this.
Nope, I have taken tests and I have an IQ of 169. There is nothing you can do to disprove this fact as I have as much evidence as you have.
If you do not believe me then it would be unfair as you think others should believe your lies about your IQ.
You also have to realize that IQ is a man made concept, it does not have anything to do with being retarded nor does it have anything to do about being right or wrong.
Nope, as I said his opinion should be rendered useless since he supports sex with children.
I've already made an example why this is and you chose to ignore it, proving that I am right.
It is a fact, because pedophiles are also disliked.
Enough evidence is that there's humans who exist that support zoophilia but don't support pedophilia.
So yes, it does destroy our image even talking to them.
https://www.reddit.com/user/throwawayKIND23
Calling him a pedo to refute his opinion is literally an ad hominem fallacy. If you don't acknowledge it, I can't help it.
Red herring.
Zoosexuality can overlap with other orientations, this is why we have zoosexuals whoa re also homosexual with humans. Same way, pedosexuals who are also zoosexuals exists. Statistically, there must be a couple of them in this subreddit.
The fact that your argument is a fallacious is proof that your argument is WRONG. Try making the argument against without using a fallacy if you want your argument to be right.
Hahahaha. You clearly called my logic shitty. So, are you going to provide factual evidence that my logic is shitty? Or you are going to deny that you called my logic shitty?
I told you, you can google, is not hard to find evidence that children often participate in sex with adult out of their own will. Do you need me to spoon fed you evidence?
Here, open your mouth: . "A child can willingly participate in sexual behaviors with older kids or adults" ▬ http://www.stopitnow.org/ohc-content/clearing-up-common-misunderstandings
Sigh. I only see delusions, unintelligence and hate.
You are the one who called me a smartass.
Subjective opinion, not fact.
I do and if you don't want to believe me, so be it. But hey, feel free to fact check my claims, you will see that they are factual.
You think that because you don't have the intelligence to understand logic. (your constant use of fallacies and irrational comments is proof of that) I ensure you that I'm not contradicting myself.
FALSE: As I already proved, they can give consent to sex in some cases. Sex is harmful to them for several other reasons that have nothing to do with consent (obviously, if rape is involved, consent is one reason for why a rape victim is harmed)
Care to repeat that with good grammar? I don't get your point.
According to facts, sex with children is not right.
Sure sure. /sarcasm.
What voices in my head? I only have one voice.
There are no official tests that can measure an IQ above 160. So you can't have an IQ of 169 from a test. lol. At least learn to lie.
How about the fact that there are not tests to measure an IQ that is above 160? LMAO.
This is, I'm not telling lies like you. Nor I'm using fallacies after fallacies in my arguments like you do. I can easily take an IQ infront of anyone and get a high score, you won't get past 100, lol.
Retardation is a person with an IQ below 80. From 80 to 70 is called bordeline retardation and below 70 is retardation.
"Mental deficiency used to be divided into the following sub-classifications, but these labels began to be abused by the public and are now largely obsolete: Borderline Deficiency (IQ 70-80), Moron (IQ 50-69), Imbecile (IQ 20-49) and Idiot (below 20). Mental deficiency is now generally called mental retardation." ▬ http://www.assessmentpsychology.com/iqclassifications.htm
And you are rendering his opinion useless with an AD HOMINEMFALLACY. Not a valid way to render his opinion invalid. Try again.
Citation needed, Where and when I have ignored it? And citation neede3d, where does ignoring something proves that you must be right? Lol.
I don't dislike them for being pedos. I only dislike the ones who rape/molest children.
Agree. Same way there are humans who support zoophilia but doesn't support homosexuality. Or any other combination that you can think, it exist.
So be it. Like I said, I won't be a bigot just to make zoosexuals look good.
His link doesn't prove your claims. Care to learn to copy paste his posts that specifically supports your claims?
I already explained why.
He supports sex with children, so he supports child rape and doesn't think it's abusive.
So, it is not surprising that he thinks you are not abusive either.
Nope, you claimed shit that you can't even know unless I tell you.
Funny enough, you calling that a red herring IS a red herring on it's own because it's absolutely irrelevant to call it a red herring.
That is true, but this does not mean they are here. I've never met a pedozoo.
Still no evidence that they are here.
Evidence on this please. You don't make sense.
This is what I said: ''Holy shit, I need to splash my face with water for a sec, my brain can't handle shit logic.''
I wasn't talking about yours. Nothing implied that it was your logic. You have failed the test.
Sorry, I don't rely on Google for information like that. I'd like reliable information.
And yes, children can choose to have sex with others but we're talking about statutory rape here. Their consent isn't really consent as they don't fully understand the situation.
I was talking about your own comment, so yes that's true.
Thanks for pointing out the obvious.
Yes you are.
And funny that I'm the one here who doesn't understand what we're talking about. You've been saying you don't understand certain sentences.
In fact, you did it...
...just now.
Sorry that you can't understand basic English. Back to school kiddo.
And here, you did it again by acting extremely dumb by not knowing what I mean.
Nope, the many tests I took gave me that result. You are now making up an invalid excuse because you don't have evidence.
Again, I have just as much evidence as you.
No, what I meant is that someone is not ''more'' retarded even if they have a lower IQ. You assumed I had a lower IQ than you.
No, I explained enough times why. If you keep refusing, then there's no point for me to repeat myself and win the same argument every time.
So if I ignore you arguments, that means I'm not wrong? Oh okay, let me ignore all your arguments from now on.
That's not the point, we're talking about the opinions of most humans. Hello, wake the fuck up.
You're not a bigot if you don't support them. Try again, again and again.
You told me all this time to Google my own answers, to look at the answers on your disgusting ass videos and look at your own Youtube channel.
And you ask me to link specific comments? My fucking ass mate. It's very clear that pedo supports child sex. If you refuse to take a look and make me win automatically, then that's your choice.
Calling him a pedo to refute his opinion is literally an ad hominem fallacy. If you don't acknowledge it, I can't help it.
Your explanation is invalid.
You have yet to prove that and even if that where true, it doesn't invalidate his opinion about me.
You have not proved that. And even if you prove that, it doesn't invalidate his opinion (at least you have give evidence on how his opinion wold be invalid)
Subjective opinion, not fact. You need FACTS to support your claim, not opinions.
Red herring. You keep going off topic.
And my point got acknowledged, moving on.
Appeal from ignorance fallacy.
Is irrelevant if they are here or not. Point is, they exist and they can be here. And if they are, is very unlikely for them to come out and say "I'm also a pedo" sapecially with people like you around.
Sigh.... every time I have named a fallacy is because you have used that fallacy to defend your argument or to rebut my argument. The evidence is there in your comment, in the fact that your comment contains that fallacy. If you don't know what a fallacy is or what each individual fallacy means, google the definition of them and google the specific definiens of the fallacy and you will see that your argument is invalid.
You where talking to me and only me. And given the context, no other rational reason cen be deduced from that comment. Common, is way easier if you just acknowledge the fallacy than try to do mental gymnastics to avoid it.
Translation: I will ignore evidence you give that makes me looks like an uneducated person.
And you just acknowledged that they can consent to sex. Statutory rape includes consensual sex with minors. There, you acknoledged that they can some times consent to sex. Congratufuckinglations. Was that too hard to do?
Mental gymnastics, consent is consent. Not understanding the situation doesn't remove the fact that they can some times consent to sex. Also, seem that you are confusing consent with legal informed consent (I believe we have been over this in the past) consent and LIC are not the same things.
I was talking about your comment, thanks for proving my point.
You are welcome.
Then go ahead and prove, where I have contradicted myself?
I can understand basic english. Not to insult, but you some times use english that is below that. I know I also do that some times, but if some one ask for a clarification i do it, unlike you. (so, here you are, giving more evidence that you are not interested in having and actual mature debate, you are just trotting to make me look bad and insult me, but you fail every time)
I can't read minds, i don't know what you mean?
Again, no such tests exist. Your lie is clear as day (or nigh, depending of your time zone)
I don't assume, it is a fact based on your constant use of fallacies and your faulty logic.
And I keep telling you that you have not provided evidence for why his opinion would be invalid. All you did was give FALLACIES after FALLACIES.
Nope.
Please do so, we all be more happy if you where to ignore all my comments and stop harassing me on almost every thread.
Then what is the point? And what opinion are you talking about?
Not a fact. Because you want me to not support them just to not make others look bad, that is by definition bigoted. That is not a valid reason to not suport other sexual minorities.
A link to his profile is not a google search. You are asking me to search in all his comments for something that may prove your case. I don't have the time for that, if youa already said that he is a child rapists, then show me the comment of his that supports that claim. Stop fooling around unless you can't back up wiyou claim because youa re telling lies (all over again)
Whole that is not a google search, you asked for proof of that and that is the only place where you can find that evidence. And is very easy as majority of comments are from supporters not from haters. I took a look at the usder link you send me and could not find anything suporting your claims, so I'm asking you to be more specific about your alleged evidence. And you find my videos to be disgusting? OK...
Feel free to not look, like I said, is much easier on gaybeast.
Yes, if you are citing comments from reddit, you can do that.
Prove it.
I took a look and found no evidence. So, I'm asking you, point the exact comment that supports your claim. And let me say this again, you are wasting your time, even if he supports child rape, that doesn't invalidate his opinion about a different topic.
Keep repeating something that doesn't make sense. Good job, only makes you look more like a moron.
Subjective opinion.
I already did.
If he thinks child sex isn't abusive, of course he doesn't think you aren't abusive. Even if he were on my side, I would not take him seriously.
The logic here is that even with evidence, he refuses to learn the fact that children get harmed from sex. Why would he understand anything about zoosex, then?
That's right. Please keep that in mind so that you realize you're wrong. Finally.
Nope, it's all relevant. Just because you don't have common sense and don't understand doesn't mean it's irrelevant.
Have others ever encouraged you to learn? Keep climbing to the top, even if you haven't even started climbing. Maybe you'll be right about a thing some day and even I may be proud of you some day.
Nice pretending that I agreed with the whole message. Epic fail, sorry buddy.
We're talking about this subreddit, you realize that? I'm on this subreddit daily, you aren't. Only recently your internet was back up again. (Or you escaped from jail?)
Do you know a pedozoo account, then?
Nope, you don't have any evidence of that.
I can also claim ghosts exist but are afraid to show up. Same sad logic. (Although I do admit that may be true, I think you're scaring them away.)
I know what that is and I know you don't know what it means yourself because you abuse and misuse it every time.
No, it's not real consent. They don't understand the situation so it can not be taken seriously.
No, I've never used Google as reliable evidence so it doesn't have to do anything with your evidence that you don't have. Just ''Googling'' won't make you educated, so your insult makes zero sense.
If you educate yourself with Google that REALLY explains a lot. Hey, were you also raised by Bing? Because nobody seems to use Bing either.
Also, you have this whole ''Translation'' BS going on again. Extremely childish and does not make any sense: You cannot read my mind. (Or read English clearly at all, it seems.)
You realize it's harmful to them because they cannot give consent to sex?
You also just said that a pedo told you it's right and that you'd believe them. You just said that it isn't right.
This is the worst grammar I've ever seen, especially that last sentence. Man, this can't get any more sad than it already is.
This is a coincidence, but I can't understand what you're typing because of your poor grammar.
Seems like you can't read at all either.
Yes they do. In my country especially.
Yeah you did assume, as you don't know any of that.
I did multiple times. They aren't fallacies. It's called the truth, mate.
First off, do you have ANY evidence that ''we all'' would be more happy if I did ignore you? Where's the evidence? Give it now.
You are lying again, it seems.
Also, I'm not harassing you on almost every thread. You do the exact same by replying to my comments, so eat it.
Holy shit do you get lost fast. The opinions about the pedos from other humans. Just read back at the comments.
That is not true at all.
I don't want you to support them because they ruin our image. There's nothing bigoted about that.
THAT'S RIGHT! Indeed, Google would be less reliable.
Red herring. Extremely irrelevant.
Red herring alert humans. Extreme red herring alert. This makes no sense. Close the windows, turn on the alarms. I REPEAT RED HERRING!
Oh right. I have to look for evidence in gaybeast videos and your channel, yet you don't have to look for evidence in his comments.
Great logic.
Why do you sound surprised? You're more ugly than the average human, goddamn.
Subjective opinion, I know Aluzky, I know.
Maaaan, and I thought I saw an ugly human! Well look at you buddy, I couldn't even get off to your videos!
It's so funny picturing a human like you just tapping up comments all day, having sex with multiple animals and humans, angrily choking on his own saliva. With that hair of yours, you really can dress up like a clown.
Also... didn't you roll in shit once?
Oh I certainly did. It's nice to know some careless animal exploiters like you. Looks like you and your friends really are alike, huh?
Again, why should I do that while you don't do the same for your other claims? Don't answer that buddy, just gotta shake you awake from your dream world.
I did multiple times. Keep ignoring it like the narrow minded and stubborn mule you are.
https://www.reddit.com/r/unpopularopinion/comments/6ipuez/theres_nothing_wrong_with_pedophilia/
Trough this whole thread you see him defend CHILD SEX not just the ''sexual orientation.''
/u/throwawayKIND23's age of attraction is 2 to 10 btw.
Stop tagging me.
How about no?
So /u/Aluzky is butt buddies with /u/throwawayKIND23? Color me not surprised.
Butt buddies? I'm not a homosexual male and I'm not attracted to adult men.
You sure about that?
Butt buddies?
I'm surprised you're unfamiliar with this saying, given your activities.
I don't know what it means. Even if i where to do what eve that means, I won't know because one has to know the definition of the word to know if one is doing that word.
More lying
Good to hear. :)
I think more people would say the same thing, but they want to avoid being dragged into the drama.
Honestly if you're not hurting the dogs then I don't see what the problem is. You can't exactly go door to door asking if you can play with the cute Lab or Bulldog because you could get hurt by people. I didn't tell my family that I was letting our dog lick me or that I would rub her(again not abusive as I didn't force her and if she didn't want me to touch her I wouldn't).
I think similarly. As long as the animals are not being abused nor a crime is being made, I don't see a problem.
Correct. It would be better if I could do that, but it would be suicide. Also, is not only me getting off, people often think is all about me, but many times I'm doing it for the dog pleasure.
According to studies, a lot of people does stuff like that. And doing that is not even a crime. Morality police overreacting.
I don't accept it, but I feel the best way to deal with such things is to state your case and move on. Obsessing over it only yields them undue attention.
I also hate to tell you this, but he's far from the worst to bear our name.
I agree to your statement of others being worse than our A-luzky-hole, but that doesn´t make him less bad in any way.
I don´t agree to your statement of "just moving on"; exactly that is what can be interpreted as lack of consciousness for resposibility. Do I have to remind you it is exactly this attitude that got us the attention of authorities? Plus a vast amount of scepticism from society accusing us of being selfish animal fucking bastards who do not care for animals a single bit? Because we, our community, always "just moved on" after stating "our" case and refused to defend our ideals? "Just moving on" is like having a black girlfriend and not defending her from attacks of racists. What this community totally lacks is courage to live up to our ideals (no, not the "fuck anything you want" ones). As "animal friends", we´re ought to fight for them, especially against the abusers in our own lines. We refused to do so in the past, mainly due to this "tolerance" crap, and failed to deal with the dubious individuals among us, so authorities had no choice but to take this into their own hands. That is how I see it.
You don't need to remind me of your way of seeing things, no. That was kind of the point.
We were on the authorities radar from the day they realized the "loophole" is how I see it. It was out of your hands from day 1.
Yeah that's how you feel, but you know who I am and what I'm like.
I've scared him off once and I'll do it again. I also have to stop others from believing in his bullshit.
This might seem irrelevant at first, but this is why religion exists. People took advantage of the gullible and made them believe in their bullshit. So all these lies, myths and bullshit have been spreading all around the world.
Since we're all humans here, I can expect the same thing to happen here.
Especially OP here who relies on us, so they'd easily believe whatever gets said. All these lies, myths and bullshit will spread too some day if people agree with Aluzky.
I can already see it, it's the slogan of zoophilia if people fall for his lies.
''Zoophilia: Support the exploitation of animals! Note: Pedophiles welcome!''
I may have stopped caring about what people think of us and the ''victory'' of zoophilia because I've got my own problems inside my ''relationship,'' but Aluzky goes too far.
I also may have condoned fencehopping a little too (or at least am not sure about it), but he supports things like: Fencehopping, pedophilia, exploitation of animals, etc.
He also claims to be a zoo exclusive, yet has sex with humans. And as a bonus it's so he can fuck the human's dogs.
Don't you see how bad of an example he is?
This is exactly what we fight against. Do you not realize that he is exactly the worst zoo stereotype?
Still wants to have sex with humans, even if he claims he has no attraction towards them? Check.
Obsessed with having sex and especially his own sexual urges? Check.
Thinks exploiting animals is right? Check.
Goes around having sex with other's animals? Check.
Supports other unethical shit, for example pedophilia? Check.
There. it. is.
This is the zoo stereotype and it's the worst a zoophile could get. Well, I mean some zoophiles may rape animals, but his behavior really hints towards that.
Look at LadySaber and AlphaOmega. These people aren't zoo supporters, but why are they here then?
They are either on the edge or are sure bestiality is rape, yet Aluzky is so bad that they even sympathize with humans like us.
A lot of people know who he is. I've seen countless of arguments about zoophilia or bestiality, and how many times has Aluzky been mentioned?
Antis
abuse him as an example of a real zoophile.If anyone here won't stop Aluzky, then they should never complain about how zoophiles are treated. Because then you're doing absolute shit if you don't. If anyone wants a zoophile ''victory'' ever, then you better start here.
Also, you realize that not fighting back may give you a bad reputation too? ''Oh so they even like him too? We knew all zoophiles were like that!''
I regret having a dislike for 30-30 right now.
Sometimes you only realize later how much you appreciate what they have done or have tried doing, even if you hated them for mostly personal reasons.
I wish everyone here did the same for Aluzky, except the opposite. Maybe if people looked at his history and what the fuck he has done and said, they'll finally realize and act like it.
Except for these disgusting pedophiles that seem to like him so much, that'll sadly never change.
And what is your point exactly...? This doesn't change anything at all.
I agree with the fact that he isn't the worst, but FAR from worst my ass.
And therein lies the issue. You don't even KNOW he rapes animals, you just assume it and go on a crusade over it.
He may be morally questionable on many ways, but there are actual rapists out there to hate who are way way worse than him. You do realize there are darknet sites dedicated essentially to zoosadism and animal rape? WTF are you going off on someone like him for?
Pick your battles. Confirm your targets. We've had enough friendly fire in this war.
Fuck it, I'm done. I hate that the community is pigeonholed like this.
Ehm, I don't?
It's possible, that's all I meant.
You see, we all should be concerned. Even though I hate the cops myself, we should be like them in a way.
When we see suspicious behavior, we shouldn't ignore it. We should check it out and note it down.
Even though we as zoophiles ''suffer'' from this norms thing that we should act like a normal human being, we zoophiles also have norms and values. There should be things in our community that should be unnacceptable, too.
And you know what's funny?
I was judged for crying myself to sleep, being depressed, not enjoying life any more, etc. because I could not have sex with my girl and that I'd do anything for it to happen, being a crybaby because ''sex isn't that important'' and ''you're so ungrateful.'' (Both of which are extremely ironic, by the way.) yet here we have a dude who'd probably do worse than that by either killling himself the first second or would probably use a knife himself to make a bigger hole.
Seriously, look at how much he cares about sex. I thought I was extreme but this guy has fencehopped multiple times, pimps out his own dogs, says that it's right to use animals just to get off, says that anyone who doesn't have sex with their animals is being cruel, against monogamous relationships because it's restrictive, fucks with other humans so he can fuck more dogs even though he is NOT attracted to humans (If it's true, that is. Big doubts here, no real zoo exclusive would do that.)
And I am the one being judged here for such things? Seriously, look at all the things I just mentioned. That may not be direct evidence, but these are the biggest red flags I have ever seen it's abnormal.
I hate people who play the victim and gain the sympathy of others. He is not the damn victim here, we are.
And the worst of all? Animals are, too.
Yeah, and I haven't met any of such rapists, and that only brings me to my next point: Aluzky is here now, these so called rapists are not.
What, you want me to argue with air? Who do I need to talk to, exactly?
I don't visit any other zoo place other than this. Although I do visit BF (extremely rarely, almost never), I only visit my own threads to ask for advice to get ''A into B.'' So I really haven't found any, or not that I know of.
The encouragement of exploiting animals is one good reason. You know, that reason alone is to get him the fuck out.
See, we zoos are against this whole ''bestiality fetish'' thing because of a reason, and that reason is seeing animals as sex objects and using them as an slave. He pimps out his own dogs and even ''trades'' sex with other humans so he can fuck more dogs.
These are things we as zoophiles are exactly against, so why is this hate so misplaced?
Do I REALLY need to remind you again that he's the worst zoo stereotype to exist, minus the fact that he is probably not a rapist?
Tell me, what exactly is your purpose here? What is your goal by posting comments here?
Are you trying to improve the zoo community? He is doing the exact opposite of that, hindering your progress.
I'm not sure what you're doing, but he's likely hindering you, but that's just a wild gamble.
Friendly fire? Dear non-existant god...
You're right, this IS friendly fire. You know what teammate I've been shooting? Aluzky, the teammate that keeps throwing pipebombs into the saferoom and letting the zombies in, harming us all in the process with the bombs and the zombies.
This is pretty funny, do you know what exactly he is causing at all?
Imagine if people started listening to him... Oh wait, I already said a thing like that just in my previous reply.
You know what? The old slogan is boring. Let's change it so it covers even more parts of Aluzky.
''Zoophilia: Wanna have a quick fuck? Don't worry, you don't need money, all you need is a dick you can shove up my ass! By the way: Exclusive zoophiles secretly want to have sex with humans so they can have sex with even more dogs in return! Run by: Aluzky, the man with the many IQs and smarts and because of that: I'm always right. 100% gauranteed! PS: forgot two mentin WarCanin and 03-300 is liar! No scientific evidence of mee being a dumass!! i-i-i-im not mad at al!!!! brb my boyfriend (DOG, not human lol not interested in them at all even tho i have sex with them totally dont enjoy it haha no lying here) is calling me, do you hear my dog whimperiing? thats the sound of consend lmao gotta fuck him!!!!!!11!''
Childish, but that fits him alright.
Oh my, you hate things too?
Yeah well don't start blaming me. Sorry for opening my mouth about people such as Aluzky.
Even though I for some reason have something against zoophiles myself, I still want to protect them in some way because they're like you kind of said, teammates, and I'm quite loyal to some humans. Especially because this subject is also about animals too.
Let me just apologize again for trying to protect ourselves and the animals of such people. People have become as delusional as him and I could not stop it, and that's where zoophilia will end some day when it turns nothing but into Fuckneyland Paris, run by our one and only: Aclumsky.
Don't worry, don't worry. Again, you don't need money to please him. The only currency is having dicks in your ass. Oh my, have you heard? Pedophiles get free access at the kiddy pools! :O
Have you been to the bathroom already there? No, of course not since they're not needed. You see, Aluzky and his so called friends will open their mouths anyways, resulting in nothing but bullshit flowing out of their mouths.
What's your favorite ride by the way? I heard they liked riding horses, why are they all tied up all day and anxious, then? Ey, what are all those stains on the ground? Wait a second... Yellow... White...? Red...?! Doesn't seem like riding to me, you know. I bet they're painting the ground or something!
Yeah well if you don't mind I'm leaving ''the consent ranch,'' and I think I'll leave this whole park too, just after I finish watching the movies they run here.
Let's see... What's it called again? ''Untitled — dog fucks man Aluzky 2 Beastiality gay?'' Oh right, that's such a classic! Pfff, how could I have forgotten where he locks the dogs up in a bathroom? Man, I am rusty today!
Well, see you next time bro, and might you return with the truth!
Although I said I won´t reply to you anymore, I´ll make an exception here because it´s way too important to mention a few points.
First one: Yes, we don´t actually know what and what not A-hole does....but he left quite a lot of evidence out there for everyone tto see. All of this evidence, his porn, his replies in here, under youtube vids etc. absolutely suffices to form a decent and accurate picture of our "hero". So when Rannoch is saying "we don´t know for sure", he´s guilty of understating, at least. We may not have total insight into Aluzky´s conduct, but if you introduce some common sense and accept the simple fact that guys like A-hole are holding back the more vile things from us, concerns about him are absolutely legitimate.
Second: the "zoosadism" and "animal rapists" argument. I really wonder how focusing on that kind of argument will get us anywhere. Emphasizing on this argument like Rannoch does is basically the same as arguing in favour of forced prostitution because "At least we don´t kill the hookers". Or telling the police officer "Well, yes, I drove over a red light, but there are people killing others on the street with their cars, so you gotta let me go unpunished, offisa!" One bad won´t be excused by the existence of another, even worse bad. Rannoch still is living in his "we´re all a united bunch of animal fuckers" fantasy and , as it seems, no one can get him out of that anymore. Quasi-religious gullibility, denial of reality and clinging to the "zoosexual" dogma as if it were the last straw.
Third: Yes, you´re right, why is "hate" so "misplaced" when it is directed towards those who clearly violate our ideals? No sarcasm included here, that´s in fact a thing I wanna get answers to also. So, Rannoch, why is it so harmful when we take our ideals seriously and try to defend them, even within our own community? Isn´t the clandestine approval of "non zooish" behaviour one major weakness constantly and legitimately addressed by society? The "Yeah, you´re all just babbling about how chivalrous and morally superior zoophiles are, but when you´re confronted with obvious cases, you all remain silent?" IS a legitimate question. Isn´t that the textbook definition on bigotry and hypocrisy, claiming to have ideals, but when these ideals are challenged or cause any inconvenience, they´re quickly dismissed? Preaching water, but drinking wine? The recent "zoo community" indeed IS bigoted and hypocritical; and mentioning it shouldn´t be seen as treason, but a heroic act of upholding the very fundament we´re all standing on.
Fourth: The "friendly fire" crap. What Rannoch doesn´t seem to realise is that it´s not us, the true zoos, who started stabbing our comrades´ backs, it´s the Aluzkys who did it first. With their conduct, they turn our ideals into lies, they render our ideals irrelevant. Even more, by using the z-word (as A-hole does constantly), they undermine everything a real zoo stands for. I really don´t get why Rannoch cannot see the clearly visible links here, the fact that people like A-hole are not only undermining our ideals, but also seize our words and appropriate them. With his constant spewing of the z-word, it really is no surprise that zoophilia became just a synonym for bestiality...the so called "friendly fire" never was friendly in our case. The conduct A-hole and his many beasty friends displayed never was friendly towards zoophiles in any way. I even say these folks never were on our side and thus, identifying defense against those villainous individuals freely roaming in our lines as friendly fire is another huge mistake Rannoch will never apologise for ´cause it totally goes against his dogma. Unless Rannoch has some sort of epiphany that gets him out of his cloud castle, he will never be able to see what we see; he´ll never identify Aluzky as a threat to our ideals because he obviously does not truly belive in our ideals, for Rannoch, they´re basically a moral shield that is used when under attack from the outside, but is dismissed when pants are unzipped.Just a smoke bomb to blind the enemies.
I really laughed at your last few lines, this is definitely something I can see Aluzky typing to advertise his porn flics in BF. This may be the best and most accurate and complete resumee of Aluzky´s basic nature and his misunderstanding of zoophilia. Well done, mate. ;)
Sad that once we agree with eachother again, we're downvoted.
The things I hated you for are nothing compared to what zoos are doing now. Even if you do something I am greatly against myself.
They are defending someone who has admitted to exploiting animals and saying it's right. He's done a lot of things only a bad zoophile could do.
People are playing the victim here that the community is torn to shreds, yet it's humans like us who understand the gravity of the situation.
Why are zoos still surprised we look so pissed? Aluzky also keeps playing the victim himself, and gives us a bad reputation on purpose. So WE are the one who caused it and these apes seem to believe it too.
I tell you, all these downvotes to us and the upvotes to him are extremely suspicious. I refuse to think that actual zoophiles upvoted a comment that contains evidence of his wrongdoings.
A pedophile even said that ''he doesn't sound abusive to me.'' A pedophile who just happened to show up when Aluzky appears and dares to speak again.
A bit irrelevant, but only you seem to understand that exclusive zoophiles wouldn't have sex with a human under any circumstance. I guess that's more evidence everything is gone to shit here.
I may poison this community myself by arguing a lot and being a pessimistic fuckhead in overall, but in my opinion it's better than staying silent. Man, even some anti-zoophiles sympathize with us. How sad have we become?
To shreds you say?
[deleted]
Thanks for reaffirming my former decision to leave here. This place is fucking toxic.
Agreed. Aluzky will never leave, that's why I did my best.
Sorry that I didn't get rid of him in time. I really know how you feel.
Also having to remove this one for the violent comments. Again I don't want Aluzky here either but telling people to shoot themselves/others (even if not 100% serious) isn't acceptable to say here.
Considering that dogs tend to bite you a lot out of the blue? Since they cannot use crowbars they use their teeth.
Not out of the blue. Plenty dogs don't like to be groomed or like people they just meet. I also train dogs, some times I have to solve dogs behavioral problems like aggressiveness. I also like to pet dogs, not all dogs are friendly to strangers and I have been bitten a couple of times for petting dogs. Every time I have been bitten has not been out of the blue. They all had a reason to bite, be a rational one or an irrational one.
Captain obvius.
So how do we know all these dogs you've been with weren't trained by you? You could easily lie and claim that the dogs you're with weren't trained.
You don't know. Same way we don't know if you rape dogs or if you like to eat sand. Even if you say you don't do that, you could be lying.
Thing, is, you won't see me making false accusations to you or anyone. I have better stuff to do.
Yes, I could easily lie, so can you and everybody. Everything could be lies. If you want to believe that everything I say is a lie, be my guess. But if you are going to go around falsely accusing me of telling lies just to give me bad reputation and harass me, then don't complain if you get banned for doing such disruptive behavior. FYI: You where to do that in real life, you would get sued for libel.
You assume what I say is false.
I don't have to give you a bad reputation. You did that on your own.
How am I harassing you exactly? If you think I'm harassing you then block me.
How am I being disruptive exactly?
I'd like to see you try.
So how do we know you don't train dogs for sex? You claim all your videos are in the moment with no training? How do we know you're not lying?
You don't know. Same way we don't know if you are a serial killer. Are you a serial killer?
Correct. All the dogs in my videos did those sexual acts on their own accord without prior training. No dog was trained to lick, no dog was trained to mount, no dog was trained to kiss. Like I have said 100s of times, I don't like training dogs to do sexual acts (I don't even know what sex acts I could train a dog to do) I like that dogs have sex with me because they want, not because is a trained order.
AGAIN, you can't know. Same way we don't know if you are lying about not being a serial killer. Are you going to go around in life thinking that everything that people say is just a lie?
Sure.
Yet you said you support training animals for sex.
Is that a truthful sure or a sarcastic sure?
And? I support weed, I don't use weed. I support abortion, I don't do abortions. Etc. Is that too hard to understand? I see no rational problem with training animals for sex. From my point of view, it is something that I won't do as I don't enjoy that. But I don't have a problem if some one else does enjoy that.
If no animal abuse is involved, then I don't care what some one does with the animal.
I'm being sarcastic
Do you have a rational reason to be sarcastic?
Yes as a matter of fact I do
And that rational reason is?
Not into it.
Well, depending of the reason you have to not be into it, it can be rational or irrational.
Strawman
Strawman? Where? Explain yourself.
Hey I'm having to remove your comment because of the crowbar remark; I don't like Aluzky either but violent comments directed towards others aren't allowed here, and are also against Reddit's general ToS. This counts as the first strike against your account in the database.
The only people who think that are a few Aluzky haters. And the majority of their hate is not defensible as they blame me for things that I have never done.
Really? I remember that you commited that a dog bited you while you were fencehopping her.
[deleted]
Is that the only thing you could think of?
If so, you have a lot of things to learn about our very mentally unstable friend Aclownsky.
Just watch him claim: ''But what's wrong with that? It was an accident!''
I just don't want to throw everything I have at once. Argument after argument. Let him defend himself. Weaker and weaker. Edit: And you have already said a lot.
Well he'll find excuses to ''debunk'' them anyways.
We all know he's wrong with almost (if not) everything he says.
Let him defend himself? You'll hurt yourself with an endless argument either way by already opening your mouth. (Or start typing, in this case.)
But hey, you do your thing if that's what you want. My first reply to him already shows how his logic isn't even logic, as it's nothing but excuses and lies.
Well, you are right, but I have some time today and nothing to do really.
He is right about what?
About:
But I agree wit all three sentences.
I partially agree. I don't see how you will hurt yourself by replying.
Excuses is not a bad word. Excuses can be valid or invalid. You have yet to prove that my excuses are invalid. And you have yet to prove that I have lied about the things that you claim that I have lied about. You have proved nothing.
Read my comment again, then.
Not going to repeat things.
I didn't asked you to repeat anything. And why would I read your comment again?
Need I remind you that you lied about being a US citizen and then lied about NOT being a US citizen?
Citation needed. When and where I have claimed to be a US citizen? When and where I have denied to be a US citizen? If you can't support those accusations, you are just spreading harmful rumors.
Personal note to myself: Adding being accused of being or not being a US citizen to the list of false accusations being made against me. Sigh.
So you never told LadySaberCat that you were or weren't a US citizen? Yes or no.
If some one ask if I'm a US citizen I will say NO, as I'm not one. I can't remember if I ever told him/her that I'm not a US citizen.
Never mind she cleared that up.
And I'm an open book. If you think that I have done something just ask and I will answer truthfully if I have done it or not.
PS: You are very wrong if you think that I get weaker and weaker. I can defend myself from bullshit accusations all year long. (assuming that I have internet to do so)
Until someone calls you out then you runaway like the little bitch that you are for months on end.
Care to provide objective evidence that I have ever "run away" like a little bitch?
You avoided any and everyone who didn't kiss your ass after WarCanine outed you. Now you're back and still just as stupid.
Citation needed. How did I avoided everyone and everyone? Evidence that I did that?
I got outed about what? All he has done is spread several lies. That is not called outing, that is calling spreading rumors. Anbd the only things he had said about me that where true, HAVE NEVER BEEN A SECRET. You can't out some one about something that he has been open about it all the time (like be being active with dogs that I don't own)
Subjective opinion, unless you can provide objective evidence that I'm stupid.
You avoided this sub for months.
Lets see, I didn't have internet for 2 or 3 months, didn't got it back till 10 days ago? Is that me avoiding the forum? If it is, It was not done on purpose.
And before that, I believe there where period where I come and go, I believe that I was busy playing a videogames, could have been minecraft, or darkest dungeon, or rimworl, or don't starve, or several other dozens of games that I play. Is me being busy playing video games the same as avoiding the forum?
There are different definitions of avoid: Some of them use avoid something that you don't like. Or active avoidance. I'm not affectively avoiding the forum, nor avoiding it because I dislike it.
You were more active on the Project Zomboid sub once you got your internet back.
I'm currently not playing that game much. I'm waiting for car update. And recumbently, my time is being used on replying to like 40 or more comments from you. So, if you stop replying to me, I will gladly invest my time in some other place.
I doubt you'll actually stop replying to my comments. You said you would last time and here we are again.
Unlikely, If I said I would stop, that was related to a different thread. Saying that I won't reply to a specific thread is not the same as saying "I won't reply to any comment from you in other threads"
If I feel like not replying to you, I will do it.
Well more fun for me(and subsequently several other people including a neighbor friends and family).
Why didn't you have internet for such a long time? Seems a little suspicious.
Has the police finally started investigating?
And goddamn, how much time do you spend playing games if you can't even log in to Reddit once for such a long time?
You're fucking crazy man. And that's coming from someone with 6600+ hours in games on Steam, not to mention the fact that there's other non-Steam games I had played for long times.
And hey, do you have fun pirating games? You really must be poor, oh the sad little thing can afford a computer, a place to live and a dog but can't buy damn videogames.
But you know what? Let's play Minecraft together sometime so I can rape your wolves. Sounds aight to you?
Moved to another home, had other priorities (other bills to pay first)
Not illegal nor criminal what I did. And now that it is I legal (but still not a crime), I'm no longer making videos of it, so I can't be punished for it. Laws are not retroactive, I can't be punished with a new law for something that I did in the past. Also, over here, is not the police who takes care of animal abuse cases (and the bestiality I do does not qualify as animal abuse)
A lot of time is spend in videogaming. When I do something I binge, if I start a new game I play it till I'm done.
By that definition, a lot of gamers are crazy. If so, ism proud to be a crazy gamer.
Pot calling kettle black.
I'm middle class. just because I have some money, it doesn't mean I want to spend it in non-pirated games. It is called, being cheap. By being cheap with videogames, I have more money for other stuff that is more important.
My computer cost about 1200 to 1300 dollars. It is not a super computer, is like a middle class computer. I don't need HD graphics in my games, I'm from the times of Atari, I value game play over graphics.
No thanks. I have no interest in playing anything with you.
But you still participate in bestiality.
Not only addicted to sex, but also to videogames.
Yeah Aluzky. You are indeed a crazy human. Indeed you are, bro.
''Beetle''
Lmao okay.
Anyways, no. At least I spend time doing other things.
If you didn't know, even with my hours spent on videogames I'm not as bad as you.
So you're still doing something illegal.
If that was true you'd have a cheaper one.
And indeed, graphics don't mean much shit. Still enjoying NES and SNES from time to time.
Not even if I present you with a harem of bitches?
You'd fuck a human for that but won't play with me for that?
Same way gays still have gay sex in countries where it is illegal.
Sorry, but you are not a doctor to be diagnosing me with a video game or sex addiction, nor you have evidence that I suffer from any of those.
Proud to be.
Auto-correct fail. I meant to say Kettle.
And I also spend time doing other things. I hang with my dogs, work, drink, go out, debate, do gardening, house shores, fuck dogs, etc. Where you get the idea that I don' do other stuff?
If you didn't know, there is nothing bad with spending a lot of hours playing video games as long as it doesn't cross the line into addiction.
And if you din't know, some one playing 1 hour a day can be addicted to videogaming where some one playing 16 hours a day may not be diagnosed with videogame addiction. Time spend doing an activity is not necessarily related to the person having an addiction.
The pirating or the dog sex? And I have no problems with people doing illegal stuff as long as it is not criminal. Illegal is not the same as being criminal. Example: Consensual Gay sex between adults is illegal in many countries, but not criminal.
I had a cheaper one, but it burned during a lightning storm. had to buy a new one. This one will probably last me 10 years more.
Agree.
No comment.
Then you are in fact still participating in illegal actions and the police may still arrest you.
Right, they can't punish you for the videos because they were uploaded when it was still legal, but right now you are still participating in the act so they can still arrest you for that. And since your videos are very revealing they'll know some day.
Sorry, but with straight up good logic you are addicted to games. You claim that you start a new game right after you finished one.
This says enough and if you don't agree then there's only one option for us and that's agree to disagree.
Strange how auto-correct doesn't correct when you type ''behabior'' instead of ''behavior'' or all the other words you sometimes spell wrong.
Duh, that was my point.
But from what you said it was pretty obvious you aren't doing this in a healthy way.
Both.
By the way, we both are in fact criminals and bestiality is indeed a crime where we live.
Crime
An action or omission which constitutes an offence and is punishable by law.
Criminal
A person who has committed a crime.
Why ignore the question?
You'd fuck a human for that but won't play with me for that. You're really strange.
What if I let you fuck me, then?
Yes, I'm doing an illegal act. Yes, I could get punished over it, if they caught me in the act. Which is VERY unlikely to happen as I'm doing it behind closed doors/windows.
And if I where to get caught doing it and charged with this "crime" I would fight it up till the constitutional court and the law would be repealed and i would be let go free of charged. (I have talked with lawyers about it) It would just be a hindrance to do that fight and it would cost me a lot of money, more than what I have. I don't want to be in debt over a stupid law.
Not uploaded. But FILMED.
Only if they catch me red handed, which is very unlikely to happen, I won't have sex with a dog in-front of a cop.
Very revealing? My face can't be seen in them. The dogs that appear in the videos looks the same as thousands of other dogs in the country. Tracking me is literally finding a needle in a hay stack, a big hay stack.
You are not using "good logic" you are not even using an actual medical evaluation.
Citation needed. I'm 100% sure I have not claimed that. Even if I where to do that, that is not enough to diagnose some one with addiction.
Sorry, but I won't agree to disagree over facts. You don't have evidence that i fit the di gnosis criteria for gaming addiction. Period.
I added "behabior" to the dictionary by mistake, I already removed that entry from the dictionary. You won't see me making that mistake again.
Those are typos or more auto-correct mistakes. The only word I know that I make the mistake offend is the word "where" and "were" and I do that mistake because I have a hard time understanding the correct usage of those words.
Not your point, you have not provided any objective evidence that my gaming habits are unhealthy.
Bestiality is not a crime anywhere, crimes involves a victim and bestiality by itself doesn't involve a victim. A criminal is some one who has done a crime. Since bestiality is never a crime, you can't call me a criminal for it.
Sorry, but you have to use a LEGAL DICTIONARY as we are talking about laws in here.
Crime: a violation of a law in which there is injury to the public or a member of the public and a term in jail or prison, and/or a fine as possible penalties. There is some sentiment for excluding from the "crime" category crimes without victims, such as consensual acts, or violations in which only the perpetrator is hurt or involved such as personal use of illegal drugs. ▬ http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=399
Illegal action that don't involve victims are called victimless crimes, victimless crimes are not considered crimes as they don't involve a victim. Victimless crimes are illegal but not criminal. Criminal acts involves a victim, be a human, property or animals.
Consensual gaysex or consensual zoosex are victimless crimes. This is a fact.
Not ignoring it, I already said that I won't play games with you.
Look, it is pointless to debate about hypotheticals. You don't have a harm of bitches, nor you live near me for me to have accent to them. Also, you are not a nice person, so, even if you had such harem, I have no interests in interacting with you in real life or through videogames.
That's not how it works.
You can repeal a damn law. You are just an every day citizen. You think you have the right to?
LMAO.
It's still uploaded online. How did it get uploaded if you filmed it?
Anyways, that's not even the point. The fact is that it's online.
No, the evidence is online.
Your videos are still up and if they identify you they can arrest you. It doesn't matter that you uploaded them before the date the bestiality law was added.
You just admitted to having sex with animals AFTER the law, so they can arrest you for that. They can still use the videos as evidence or track you.
Your real name is out there and it's not just your face they need. They know just about what you look like except the face.
u r not using da gud logik am dumm
I guess it meant ''You play 'till you're done.''
Yeah, and you're stop when you're done. The fuck do you do with sandbox games and games that require hours to be completed?
Except you don't have any facts. Again, you are displaying this childish behavior.
Also ''period'' has no value. I guess I can say that after everything I say. Period.
Right, but I'll be seeing you making other mistakes.
''IQ of 130+''
HAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHHAHAHAAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHHAHAHAAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHHAHAHAAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHHAHAHAAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHHAHAHAAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHA
You don't get to decide that. I do.
''Yeah, and you're stop when you're done. The fuck do you do with sandbox games and games that require hours to be completed?''
According to the law, animals are harmed in bestiality.
It doesn't matter if the animal is harmed or not, because according to the law they always are.
According to the law, the animal is the victim.
Also ''This is a fact.'' holds no value nor does it help you in any way. I can also say ''This is a fact.'' every time for no good reason.
And I asked again in return for something, so yes you DID avoid my 2nd similar question.
I do have a harem of bitches. Do you have any evidence I don't?
But hey, I do have a virgin bitch here who's hungry for sex. Don't you want to get rid of her virginity? Why don't you? Poor girl... D:
If only there was a way...
Do you have any evidence for that?
That's a smart choice, because you don't know what I wouldn't do to you.
Of course, I wouldn't harm you at all! I'd give you a really big hug. I wouldn't even think about choking you or bashing you to shit, that'd be so wrong!
Man, aren't we the best friends?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas
A person got charged with the crime of doing sodomy (gay sex) they fought the charges till the supreme court, the law was deemed unconstitutional and got repealed. The person charges where drooped and the law used to charge him was a bullshit religious/moral law. Since then gay sex is legal in all US.
Like I said, the law they past is unconstitutional,if I where charged with it, I'm well educated to fight it and have it repealed as it is unconstitutional. This is how it works in countries that are some what rational with their legal system.
Uploading is not a crime not illegal. Filming is not illegal either, but the film would show evidence that illegal activity cheapened. I no longer film any sex acts since the law past, so, they will never have any video evidence of me doing such acts.
And is irrelevant, because those online videos where made when the law didn't exist, those online videos depicts me doing LEGAL activities.
(rolls eyes) look. Laws are not retroactive, those videos where made when it was legal to fuck animals. They can't use videos of me fucking animals legally as evidence that I still fuck animals illegally in the present. Those videos are only evidence that I did it in the past, not evidence that I do it in the present. Understood?
NOPE. Because those videos where filmed when it was legal. Again, LAWS ARE NOT RETROACTIVE.
It does matter a lot. LAWS ARE NOT RETROACTIVE in here.
Seriously? Really? A internet confession is not a valid legal confession. I can claim in here that I have murder 100 babies and ate them and i can't be arrested over it. And if some cops is stupid enough to ares me over such comments, they would be in for a disciplinary actions (and a law suit of my part) for not knowing the law.
You can't go arresting people over youtube comments or reddit comments. At least not in my country.
And do what? Camp in-front of my home waiting that I have sex with a dog in the front yard? lol. Cops have bigger fish to fry.
A name shared by millions of other citizens.
Not enough to prove that the person is me. Sorry. And again all that is irrelevant, all that I did in those videos was done when it was legal.
I don't speak that language, try again.
Play a few hour every day if I have the time.
I'm not the one making claims, I don't need facts to ask for facts.
Subjective opinion, not fact.
Subjective opinion, not fact.
Most likely yes.
Accuses me of childish behavior, proceeds to do this. Sigh.
That was not his point. Facts decide. So, you don't get to decide.
I repeat, where is the evidence that my gaming habits are unhealthy?
Reality, bestiality is not always harmful to the animal.
FYI: I have yet to see any legal law stating that bestiality is always harmful. So, where are you getting the evidence that supports your claim? Or you are pulling facts out of your ass?
Again, I have yet to see any legal law stating that bestiality is always harmful. So, where are you getting the evidence that supports your claim? Or you are pulling facts out of your ass?
Animals are only victims when animal abuse is involved in the sex. And bestiality is not a synonym of animal abuse. In case some one does abusive bestiality, the crime is the abuse part, not the bestiality part. Same way if some one does rape gaysex, the rape part if the crime, not the gay sex.
I already gave an explanation and link that explain why consensual sex acts are not criminal acts. Along with the definition of criminal VS victimless crime. I have supported my claim WITH EVIDENCE, that is the big difference between a statement made that has no value and one that does have value.
Because your second question is the same as the first one, one that I already answer.
Your own claims that you only have one dog. And is irrelevant, like I said, I have no interest in playing video games with you.
Do it yourself.
All the insults, all the false accusations, all the harassment, yes, I have plenty evidence to back up that claim.
No comment.
Lawrence v. Texas
Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003) is a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court. The Court struck down the sodomy law in Texas in a 6-3 decision and, by extension, invalidated sodomy laws in 13 other states, making same-sex sexual activity legal in every U.S. state and territory. The Court, with a five-justice majority, overturned its previous ruling on the same issue in the 1986 case Bowers v.
^[ PM ^| Exclude me ^| Exclude from subreddit ^| FAQ ^/ Information ^| Source ^] Downvote to remove ^| v0.24
This does not prove anything. You think you have the knowledge to, but you can't.
And if you do, why don't you do it now if you're so certain? Wouldn't you want to make all zoophiles and animals happier?
But hey, if you think you can, good job. I'll just let this one slide. Enjoy it bro.
But the videos are still up. The evidence is out there, they can't arrest you for the videos but they can track you from it.
Right now you have admitted to participating in bestiality. They will make connections: The ''Aluzky'' on Reddit admitted to participating in bestiality after the law was added, the ''Aluzky'' in the videos is the same person, so the police will try to track you down.
Some of these things can be taken very seriously.
And as I said earlier in this post, they will tie the connections. Some were immediately tracked down after they made threats.
If this doesn't apply to where you live, good for you.
Bestiality is seen as a serious offense in many places.
If this doesn't apply to where you live, good for you.
It'll make their job easier, that's certain.
With your name, body, behavior and some other information they might really find you some day.
Finally, you can talk normally.
Well that sums it up then, a few hours is far from an addiction.
Mwhahaha yeah buddy, you never needed any facts. I knew that already.
Well if you're somehow accusing me of being childish...
Subjective opinion, not a fact.
No, I decide what my point is.
Just... no.
Why would bestiality be banned, then?
There's no other reason it should be according to them. The animal is a victim according to them too.
It's not true in reality, but we're talking about laws here.
The question was different when I asked if you'd fuck me in the ass. Would you, Aluzky-san?
I have yet to see where I claimed to have only one dog.
Even then, it's probably a mistake. I have 42 and you can't prove me wrong.
Unfortunately I do not hold the knowledge on how to widen a bitch. So it's not my fault she'll be suffering from all that lack of sex and stress.
I won't finger her either because she needs to learn that I can't really fulfill her needs anyway. And I can't find any guides online, so I guess she's stuck and will stay a virgin forever.
But that'd be a subjective opinion if you think I'm not nice.
Based on the reactions, numerous people didn't know what you really were.
And I'm what? I got outed about what? Because like I said, I don't keep my zoolife in secret on the internet. That is the good thing of the internet, I can be in here what I really am, without having to hide it. unlike in real life where I need to keep it a secret to avoid bigotry.
Because not wanting your vet tech, groomer, dog walker, dog trainer or babysitter to use your dog for sex is bigotry.
Those are your words, not mine.
You're the one who calls everyone a bigot
False attribution fallacy. I don't call everyone a bigot, I only call "bigot" people who are actual bigots.
You call people who don't approve of you going after every dog you see bigots. You pulled the same shit months ago.
No, you can't because you lie all the time and I had many examples before this discussion started. You should start answering instead of saying "I have done nothing wrong." over and over. Do not answer on this reply, focus those with arguments.
Can you be specific on what I have lied about? And can you provide objective evidence that supports your accusation that I have lied about that? If not, then you are just spreading harmful rumors about me.
Burden of proof is on the person making the accusation, not on the person being accused. Since you and other are accusing me of doing stuff, is your and their job to support their accusation against me with OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE. If you people don't do that, you are only spreading harmful rumors.
Too late. And I tend to answer to all replies.
OH MY HE'S TRIGGERED LOOK AT THE CAPS AND BOLD LETTERS SHIT HE'S GONNA KILL US ALL WATCH OUT FOR EDGEBOY 2000 HE WILL LAWNMOWER YOUR LAWN WITH A MACHETE AND A DOG DILDO OMGGGGG
I have never fence hopped, so, how can I be bitten while doing something that I have never done?
Let me guess, you hear that I fence hoped from some of the haters who where spreading lies about me like 3 months ago?
And I think you mean to say commented instead of commited?
This coming from a guy who can't remember where he's from?
Huh? I know well from where I'm from. So, what are you talking about?
You told me and the other anti that you were from the US then you said you weren't.
You know I can just find the comment threat right?
I will send you 1,000,000 reddit gold if you can prove that with a link to the text where I have said that. Good luck with the snipe hunt.
Because I'm not a US citizen. Duh‼
Be my guess, find it. I have never claimed to be from US, I'm 100% sure.
The thread was on /u/CringeAnarchy.
Prove it. Copy paste the text where I claim being from US. Copy the link to it. Where is the evidence?
You are spreading rumors.
I've sent you the link before so if you want to sit there and accuse me of spreading rumors then go right ahead.
Hey! Yes, you, cabron! You admitted that you did it with dogs you were just dogsitting! Earth to Beastyluzky: THIS IS FENCEHOPPING! You don´t need to hop a literal fence to be a fencehopper! Hopping the metaphorical fence by betraying the unaware owner´s trust in you absolutely suffices to make you a fencehopper. Will you ever get this into your delusional, perverted and self absorbed empty space you call your head? Or has your a-hole become so stretched from all the assfucking your brain fell out through it?
It absolutely soesn´t matter whether you rape another one´s animal in his backyard by jumping over a fence or if you are doing it while "dogsitting", in the owner´s house, but without the owner´s knowledge. And you even told us frankly that you "always pay attention the owner won´t ever notice". So stop your bullshit and admit to us, to yourself and the world that you INDEED are a fencehopper. There´s nothing that speaks for you, so shut the fuck up with your spin doctorism. Stop trying to sell us shit and call it pizza!
I have never denied that. Are you amusing me of denying that fact? If so, where is the evidence that I have denied it?
Whoa re you talking to? I don't see anyone with that name in here.
Fencehopping is defined as trespassing private property to have sex with some one else animals. The word comes from people who jump/hop fences to enter private property to fuck cows/horses/dogs and so on. Such act is a criminal and illegal act.
When I pet sited those dogs, I had permission to be in that property and permission to be with the dogs and take care of them as I would see fit. I did no crime nor anything illegal. So, only in YOUR IMAGINATION and the imagination of other deluded people, would my actions count as fencehopping.
Correct, just the act of TRESPASSING private property to fuck animals counts as fencehopping. That is what the word means. You can go through a door, through a fence, through a cement wall, dig under the fence through a hole, through a window, and it would still be fencehopping if you don't have permission to enter the property and you go and fuck animals.
FALSE. Fencehopping has never been defined as: "betraying the unaware owner´s trust" if we where to use that definition, then a person who enters his friend house to steal, is not a thief but a fencehopper.
At which point, the word fencehopper loses the meaning as you would assume he went there to fuck animals but he only when there to get money for his drugs. Sorry, but you can't just go around changing a word definition to fit your ALUZKY-hating agenda.
Sorry, but it is not elucidation to follow the definition of a word by how it is defined. Delusional is to change the definition to fit your agenda. And FYI: Are you using the word perverted as an insult? Because, by definition, any active zoosexual is a pervert. You included. And PS: What empty space? I have a brain inside my head. And what you mean by self absorbed?
Not a rational question. I don't understand your question.
It does matter, as one does classify as fencehopping and the other doesn't.
And if only the act of doing it with a dog that is not owned by you and you didn't got permission of the owner, then, a majority of zoosexuals are fencehopper (according to the redefined definition invented by you) because a lot of zoosexual first sexual experiences where with the family dog, without the owner intermission (according to scientific studies done on zoosexuals) so, go a head and call almost everyone a fencehopper. Having fun making the word lose his meaning.
Correct. I don't want to potentially harm the owner feelings as some of them may be hurt by my actions.
Sorry, but I can't admit to something that I'm not. Because I go by the actual word definition (that actually defines the action) and not by a definition made up by you (that does not define the action)
The word fencehopping already has a definition, you can't just change it (and making the word un-descriptive) to fit your agenda.
I can't understand anything of what you just said.
30, can you give a link to some dictionary where fencehopping is defined like we use it? because if not, then we have a problem: https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=fence%20hopping
Don't misunderstand me, I don't think his actions gets any less unethical.
Here's the Urban Dictionary definition of fence hopping :
The locals were disgusted when they discovered that Bob had been fence hopping.
about ^| flag for glitch ^| **Summon**: urbanbot, what is something?
Although I wouldn´t recommend taking anything that´s written on the internet for granted, I´d like to understand where you see a problem with the definition here. It says "...hopping over a fence OR otherwise entering ..." and thus, all acts that are done for the main purpose of getting access to animals to have sex with them without the owner´s knowledge can be and are rightfully considered fencehopping. If you do some dogsitting for the main purpose to whip your dick out the moment the owner leaves the house, then this is also perfectly fitting the definition you linked.Fencehopping doesn´t need a fence and jaywalking doesn´t require you to be called Jay.
You really need to shift your perspective here, it´s not the fence, the real, tangible one that defines the word, it´s the metaphorical fence of the owner´s trust in you to NOT fuck him lifestock whenever he turns his back for a few minutes. And as you hop a literal fence, you also "hop over" the owner´s trust if you play the "reliable dogsitter" only to get access to animals. The fact you do it behind the owner´s back is whats most significant here. Whether you do it at night in secrecy by hopping over an actual fence or show more cunning by playing the harmless dogsitter, you are betraying the owner...and mind you, the fences usually aren´t built to keep horny random "zoophiles" out, but to keep the animals in. It really isn´t a matter of fences, just like stealing isn´t a matter of cowardly robbing an empty house ; thieves who trick you instead in broad daylight are also thieves. I hope you get my point: it doesn´t matter whether you climb a wall/ hop a fence or trick someone into trusting you like our A-hole usually does. Fact is, the intention stays the same, getting access to other people´s animals without their knowledge, without their consent. So, if you actually find someone who lets you have sex with his/her animals, that´s still not zoophilia and grossly focused on sex, but it doesn´t qualify for fencehopping. It also doesn´t when you are having sex with wild animals..when they´re not kept in a fenced area. If the animal has an owner and the owner isn´t informed about your intentions and/or does not allow you "to do it "with his/her animals, we zoos have agreed on calling this kind of conduct "fencehopping".
PS: If you still don´t see it that way, I propose another term for this despicable behaviour of having sex with an animal behind its owner´s back, regardless whether there´s a fence involved or not...how about fuckstealing? ;)
Ok, so that fits. But what if someone brings his dog to you to take care of it and you fuck it in your house? Or when you enter someone's property for purpose of taking real care, but while inside you change your mind? That's definition. Definitions should be interpreted as they have been written, without metaphors.
Definitions should be interpreted as they have been written, without metaphors? You mean, like the definition of zoophilia as monogamous and exclusive ? ;)
Listen, you can do the entire bending and flexing routine here, you can make up countless scenarios , but the only question that needs to be answered in all of this scenarios is "Are you doing it against the owner´s will and without his knowledge?" If yes, then it´s fencehopping. Easy, isn´t it? And exactly that is how fencehopping is defined. First, it actually was about people literally climbing over fences, but our community very quickly agreed on the similarities in these folks´minds, whether they had hopped over a fence to get what they want or tricking themselves into an owner´s house, whether an owner brings his animal into your house or you change your mind during "taking real care". See what you did here? You already identified doing it behind the owner´s back as no REAL care. Please don´t play dumb, you already know I´m right on this. It doesn´t matter if you "intitially didn´t want to fuck another one´s animal, what matters is your actions. Do it with an animal without the owner´s knowledge and consent? Then you´re a fencehopper, regardless whether you hop a real fence, break a door, trick the owner into letting you in or even bringing his animal into your house. It doesn´t matter.
So this dictionary should be corrected. Your definition is "Act of sexual intercourse with an (nonhuman) animal without owner's consent and mostly knowledge". It clearly doesn't match "The work of hopping a fence or perhaps entering a residential property for the intended purpose of having sexual intercourse with animals and/or livestock.". Words like this are created by majority of users, so they can evolve over time.
EDIT: Sorry, it was my definition, your doesn't have "mostly".
No, this "dictionary" doesn´t need correction, you just have to gain some competence in identifying sources you can trust in. And a random "urban dictionary" surely isn´t that...and wikipedia isn´t a scientific source either.
Doin´ a little thinking every once in a while could also help. Don´t expect the internet to tell you the truth. And you also could consider what happens when a bunch of morons invades a community, takes this community´s vocabulary hostage, deforming and twisting everything they can get their hands on. They did it with the z-word, they did it with everything else...and no, the definitions are not subject to a "majority vote", like in today´s stupidocracy. If everyone, from total moron to expert, has the same say, it´s expectable the morons, which are always the majority, will prevail over the smart ones. We pioneers of the nineties have set all the definitions with a maximum of clarity, then these fools came in and tried to change and "evolve" definitions according to their own personal situation. Egotism made it this way as it is today. This wasn´t an evolution, it was a devolution. There are some things that cannot be defined by majority votes.
I said majority of users and meant that the more often it is used this way, the more appropriate this way is. And I agree, some words like kilogram cannot be defined by majority.
Why urbandictionary doesn't need correction? Dictionaries exist to help people who don't know what some words mean. They should have a base definition (first used) and most used, which is in most cases the same. Sometimes they can have more than 2 from obvious reasons. Every sign on earth and heaven say it should be corrected.
.
What sources? This is the only one I found.
btw, why would they change this word? I understand why z-word was deformed, they just don't understand someone can feel love towards something else than human. XD On religion lessons a priest once said "When I hear in confessional that someone really love his dog " laughs " I say... Would a dog despair with you after loss of someone important to you? Imagine you celebrating (Polish National Day)... 'We came, my dog reflected about...'" much more laughs. So yeah, they completely don't understand.
Actually, that definition is poorly worded. Example, if I invite you or some one else to fuck my mare in my property and you enter my property and fuck my mare, you would fit that definition as you: The act of entering a property for the purpose of having sexual intercourse with pets and/or livestock.
Even if you enter your own property to fuck your own animals, you would be doing "fencehopping" according to that poorly written definition. Because you enter property to fuck animals.
This is the problem with clearly bad worded definition that don't define reality sand that are too vague. Definitions are superposed to be OBJECTIVE and not vague.
This is why the definition you use of fencehopping against me is invalid, because is vague. Using your definition, majority of zoosexuals are fencehopper. Because a majority of zoosexuals first experiences where almost always done without the owner of the animal permission and without trespassing property.
If you are going to have a non-vague definition of fence hopping, then you need to use the one that I'm using. The act of trespassing private property to fuck animals.
If you want to use a different definition, then I'm afraid you will have to invent a new word and give that definition to that word. Because fencehopping definition is already taken.
I agree. Make a new word to fit that definition. I gave several options like 3 months ago, I wonder if you saw them. Useful info: what I do is similar to cheating on a boyfriend, is similar to adultery.
Maybe call it zoocheating? Zooadultery? It has to have the word zoo somewhere, I think.
u/mttcisc
As you haven´t already show us all you´re not capable of comprehension and even frist grader´s reading skills, I´ll repeat it you you, our full blown dumbass. It´s the DOING IT BEHIND THE OWNER`S BACK AND WITHOUT HIS KNOWLEDGE part, you eejit!
I propose that you, A-hole-luzky, do not continue to try participating in here as no one will take anything you say or write serious anymore. You´ve blown your cover in here.
"It has to have the word zoo somewhere"....yeah, sure...but it is a fact that YOU ARE NOT, I REPEAT , NOT A ZOO. THERE
S NO "ZOOSEXUALITY", YOU´RE JUST ASTUPID BESTIALIST TRYING TO COME ACROSS AS SOMETHING YOU ARENT!Any reply you probably going to lauch at me will not be read, maybe try to contact my personal correspondent for stupid affairs instead. He´s of arabian origin and goes by the name of Suq Maddiq.
He might think that's a legitimate offer and accept 😑
Subjective opinion, not fact.
Subjective opinion, not fact.
I understand that you have a problem with that. But that is not called fencehopping. That is the reality. So calling me a fencehopper is not factual.
May name is Aluzky. You misspell it.
The fact that you don't take my comments seriously, doesn't mean other people will do the same.
You´ve blown your cover in here.
What cover?
If it is a fact, can you present objective evidence that I'm not a zoosexual/zoophile?
Do you have objective evidence that zoosexuality doesn't exist?
My IQ is around 134, that is the opposite of stupid. And you have not presented objective evidence that I'm not a zoosexual nor presented evidence that I'm a bestialist. Nor presented evidence that I'm trying to be something that I'm not. So, you are only giving subjective opinions, not stating facts
He told me he was bitten by a male dog. I see he's still lying as per usual.
I have been bitten several times in my life. Yes, I have been bitten many times by male dogs. Can you be more specific about which male dog are you talking about?
Citation needed. Where Is the evidence that I have lied about this? If you can't defend your accusation, you are spreading hateful lies about me.
You told that guy that a bitch bit you. You told me that a male Doberman bit you.
I work with dogs and spend a lot of time around dogs, I have been bitten by both sexes.
I have been biten by: Snaucher male. (badly) Doberman male (very badly) Labrador male (badly) Muth bitch (bad) Snaucher female (very badly) Mutt (not so bad) Cocker spaniel (bad) Poodle (bad) Poodle (not so bad)
And so on, I have been bitten many times.
How is me telling you about one specific dog and telling him about another dog, evidence that I have lied? It is not, only a deluded person would thing that or a person with a personal vendetta against me. Pick your poison.
I wonder why?
Your fault for using a strange dog.
I wonder why?
Wonder why.
Gee can't imagine why.
Still but you
The same one you liked using?
I wonder why?
I wonder why?
You really want to know the reasons?
First one, it is an aggressive dog, the kind that will snap and bite you. Poor socialization and also very aggressive of his territory. I had been petting him since he was a puppy, he wasn't aggressive back then, but as he grow up older he became more and more aggressive, eventually, he bite me very badly, he chew on my hand and I just stood there watching him do that for like 20 seconds. I was like, really? It is me you moron, why the hell are you chewing on me. I literally stood 20 seconds waiting to see if he would stop. Eventually I removed the hand as he was not stopping, I had the hand swollen to almost double the size for like a week and ended up with many tiny holes all over the hand. Over here, most houses have jail fences (to prevent burglary) so, you can pet most dogs through them. Him being in the front also lead to him becoming more territorial and aggressive, as he barks people who walks by, sonly making him more territorial as he sees that as a win (he got the people away from his territory) now that dog is restricted to the backyard, he is no longer allowed in the front yard because he tries to bite people who walks by and also is a constant non-stop barking. The other dog is still allowed in the front, she is a lovable bitch.
The second one was a doberman I was having sex with. It was the first time for me letting him mount me, as he turn after knotting he start walking and dragging me, since I wanted to avoid that, as it is painful, I try to hold him from his back legs, he hated that, turned around and bite me in the hand leaving 2 huge fang holes in my hand, one of them touched a couple of my nerves (finger movability) now I'm fine, my hand healed back to normal in like 1 or 2 months. O yea, he also pulled his huge knot by force when he turned to bite me. That leave me sore for like a week. After that time, I didn't let him turn to avoid such thing and would just get lower and and let him rest over me, with his front paws between my head. Never had any problems with him any more. He just don't like to be pushed or or hold. I know he doesn't like to be pushed, didn't know he would not like to be hold. And yes, I know it was my fault. I have never blamed the dog for biting me.
All the other bites where in work circumstance or just petting dogs that where questionable (like the first example)
The labrador bite was from a dog walking client, that dog was very aggressive at other males, I was training him to not do that. Or at least to be more controllable. In the first days, he jumped into another dog that was barking through a fence(again, there are jail type fence, enough space for a medium dog to get their head pt, enough space for a dog to bite another dog. That dog was very strong, he was a 30 to 35 kilogram labrador, I only weight 50 kilograms at the time. I was pulling him away from the fence to stop him from bitting the dog, I did that with the leash, but was not enough, I put my hand around his neck and pulled him back, he bite my hand there, probably thinking that i was the dog. Leave a huge fang hole in the palm of my hand. Eventually I desensitize him enough that he would walk next to that same dog and he would ignore his barks and walk like nothing. The training worked, i walked that dog for... 2 years, he die from organs failure like 3 years ago? Most lieklly erlichiosis infection (not the kind that shows up in the blood test).
The mutt bitch is the resent one, it was like a pekinese Maltese mix, same, I try to be friendly with her, got my hand near her so she could smell it (through the fence) but she didn't reacted in a friendly way, she bite me and then moved back and keep barking at me. Never pet her again, she barks non-stop when people past by.
Other bites have been from separating dogs that where fighting. Other from "guard" dogs who have bite me (they also bit pretty much everybody who is new around the block)
This is the kind of stuff that happens if you work with dogs and you don't care much if you get bitten or not. I don't care much if I get bitten. Other people are way more careful to not get bitten and they get bitten less.
The cocker was another training dog and pet sitting dog, he had aggressive problems, he would for example go into a room and jump into the bed and attack anyone who would enter the room, same behavior when around toys or food. I got biten most times through welding gloves (couple of times though the jeans and you don't get much protection there) The training with that dog was not a total fix. But I can say he is now more easy to deal with than how he was in the past. And yes, that is the same cocker you see in my videos. Outside of those aggressive behaviors, he is a lovable dog from day one. He mount me good on day one, with me just using bitch language and he is neutered. He is close to the perfect partner for a zoosexual.
The snaucher bitch that bite me was a first time grooming client. The dog was on the floor and I bend over to grab her from her back and lift her, she did a 360 and launch at me and bite me pretty badly, she did that the moment she felt that I was grabbing her, I had to get 3 or 4 stitches from that one. I guess I spook her plus her not liking being in the groomer. I groomer her many times after that, didn't have any more issues. Problem with working for a vet, is that you need to work fast, I can't waste time to see if the dog is friendly or not scared, I need to grab the dog as fast as possible take him/her to the grooming table and be done as fast as possible or I get scolded. Working for a vet means the dog gets less personalized treatment. You have do do more stuff by force to save time where you could doing slow to not use force if you worked for yourself (I'm my own boss now)
The poodle ones, some dogs just don't like their nail trimmed. Or like to have the anal grands drained. Or to have gloves being made on the paws and their ears cleaned or their ears hairs unplugged. Some dogs will react aggressively to those and bite. Most of the time they bite softly, but some do bite hard and you need to muzzle them. Owners don't always tell you that they are aggressive, or they don't know if the dog is aggressive. And I don't muzzle all dogs from the get go, I only muzzle if I know that the muzzle is necessary. That leads to me getting bites from time to time.
Maybe that's why he hates you and bit you. You're probably using his bitch. I don't blame him, alphas don't like lesser males using what belongs to them.
That we know of. Also for a guy who takes the position of bitch when he's with dogs the majority of the time, you clearly forgot your place in this instance.
Yeah we know what kind of training you prefer.
Not sure if this is a tragedy or a mercy for the dog. I'm going with both.
I'm sure that's what really did the poor pooch in.
Bitch-1 Aluzky-0.
My condolences to the owners and the dog.
Only because you trained him because you wanted to use the dog.
Bitches-2 Aluzky-0. Why do I have the feeling there's more to this story than you're telling?
Note to self: Inform family and friends to not bring their pets to Costa Rica. Send emails of Aluzky comments to show them why.
Aluzky+Dog+Dog's+Getting Bitten=I doubt you were draining anything except your dick.
Not really. He is just aggressive and territorial.
She is spayed and can't be used.
Again with the alphas... and you own a wolf hybrid... ffs... seriously, how irresponsible of you.
Ceriusly, read this and get educated: https://www.whole-dog-journal.com/issues/14_12/features/Alpha-Dogs_20416-1.html
I have never blamed a dog, it would be irrational to blame the dog. You can only blame BEING THAT HAVE MENS REA.
I don't understand, what you mean by "I forgot my place in this instance" ? What instance are you talking about? What would be my place?
What is that supposed to mean? Because I'm talking about normal dog training.
Tragedy, his death could have been prevented. I would have done a blood test on him and that would have show infection or anemia. I know that erchlikia test are not 100% accurate. Same that they don't know as much as me about veterinary stuff.
I'm not familiar with that phrase, can you rephrase that?
Correct.
They are not dead.
Not really, I trained him because I wanted the money. Sex with the dog is an occasional bonus, not the main goal.
I told what I can tell in the most accurate way as possible. But I won't tell you private information that can be used to out me.
Because zoosexuals and bestialists don't exist in other countries? Because nobody in your family is a zoo or a beast?
Your doubt is not supported by facts.
Well Kleng doesn't try to challenge me for food, nor does he try to prohibit me from moving his stuff when it's laundry day. And dogs do in fact have a certain hierarchy. Yet I'm the irresponsible one, with a happy Wolfdog who wants for nothing and is safe in a loving home where he's treated with respect and love.
You're calling me deluded? That's cute.
I didn't called you deluded, but if the shoe fits...
You said I had a vendetta against you more than once. Which is funny.
And you don't? If you don't, why you keep making false accusations about me? Why you keep insulting me? Why you keep attacking me over silly stuff?
You're the one who keeps replying back to my comments and every mere mention of yourself. So if you don't like my comments then ignore them or block me.
That is what normal people do when they get a comment. They reply back.
And I don't block people on reddit. And ignoring them, I only do that if I deem it necessary.
Well like I said I'm only doing this for fun now.
Ricin.
''Few'' Aluzky haters.Do you know much people hate you?Yeah me neither, it's endless. Face it bud, anti-zoos AND zoos hate you.Please get some people here that respect you. I'd really like to see it as I'm willing to give them some information about you and your unethical adventures.
A lot of zoos don't hate me. You are doing a hasty generalization fallacy, a couple of zoos who hate me is not equal to 100% of zoos hating me.
I'm not going to drag people here if they don't want.
What unethical adventures?
Sure mate. If you believe that yourself then go ahead.
But I and other people know that it's a fact.
Nice excuse.
Your whole life.
I'm able to read PMs and comments from people who know me (and they know that I have sex with other people dogs) and they don't hate me, they love me. Not counting the people in RL who also knows every about me and they don't hate me. Like I said, you are doing a hasty generalization fallacy.
Support that fact withe evidence. if it is a fact, then you can easily defend it.
There is nothing wrong with making excuses as long as they are valid. And my excuse is a valid excuse.
Your reply doesn't make any sense.
Evidence please.
By the way, have a look at your own YT channel, comments about you in this whole subreddit and also the comments about you at /r/CringeAnarchy.
Nobody loves you for fucking others dogs.
Check the comments in this thread.
Tell me how many comments here say they support you, and how many comments say they don't like you either.
By the way, have you seen the Tumblr page about humans wanting you to die?
It's not a valid excuse because you never come up with the evidence yourself.
You claim this and that, yet I never see evidence.
Then you better learn to understand.
Go to my gaybeast videos and read the comments. There you can easily find comments from people who don't hate me but actually love me. And yes, they can easily see that I have zoosex with dogs whoa re not owned by me.
Finding comments in my youtube is much harder, on youtube I get more hate mail than non-hate mail. But there you can also find people who doesn't hate me. Feel free to look throu8gh the videos comments or my channel comment page to see such examples.
Again, that is a hasty generalization fallacy. Nobody = 100% And truth is, there is plenty people who doesn't hate me for doing that. Hell, you only need one person who doesn't hate me to prove that your claim is fallacious.
Do you really think that 100% of people hate me? Deluded much?
Those comments doesn't support your claim. Try again.
Argumentum add populum fallacy. And argument from ignorance fallacy.This is not a popularity context. FACTS is what decide who is telling the truth or lying. So, where are the facts that supports your claim? Also, people not supporting me in here is not equal to them not existing.
That page was done by a closeted zoosexual who hated himself. If I recall, his name was olliveroctavius or something like that on youtube (his avatar was a bob square pants picture), he changed his name to something else, but his amount is still there. If you search my channel comments you will see the whole conversation. He later confessed to having sexual urges for animals and closed the tumbler page and stop replying to me in youtube. He pretty much hated me because I was open about having sex with dogs and he wanted the same, but he could not do it for moral/religious reasons, that caused him anger that directed at me.
There have been plenty cases of self hatting homosexuals who have done the same and attacked homosexuals with similar tactics. Is not uncommon for the people who hate gays and zoos the most to be themselves gay and zoo.
Again, what do you prove with the existence of that page? You only prove that this ONE person hates me, not that EVERYBODY (100% of people) hates me.
If you think that my excuse is invalid, then prove it. Explain why it is invalid. Also, last time I check, you are the one making accusations, you are the one who has the burden of proof, not me, I don't have the burden of proof so i don't need to provide evidence.
I make very few claims. Most of the times, the corrections I do are directed at accusations made against me, in which cases, the burden of proof is not on me but on the people who made the accusations.
If you can show me a place where I have the burden of proof, i will have no problems in providing evidence. Though, that doesn't mean that I will always provide evidence. There are cases where I don't care to support a claim made by me. (like if I claim that I'm thin) if you want evidence, I can perfectly say, I don't want to give you evidence. At which point, you are free to disbelieve my claim.
When a person says that, you are supposed to clarify your sentence, that if you actually care to get a reply to it. If you don't care,then don't explain your sentence.
These people are bestialists. They are not TRUE zoophiles.
How strange that zoophiles dislike you around the parts where they discuss ethics and such, yet others ''like'' you are the parts where animal rape videos are recorded and don't give a shit about them.
Really, it takes no scientist to know that these people clearly are mostly careless about animals.
Yeah, and this proves how much humans really hate you. This also proves you hurt zoophilia by supporting pedophilia. They mention it.
And I've seen no comments saying they support you. Try again, buddy.
What the actual fuck is wrong with you?
Any other person would know that ''100%'' and ''nobody'' shouldn't be taken seriously. Everyone knows this, except you.
Of course you're going to make up an invalid excuse to defend your delusional behavior, so I'll get the popcorn ready, salted with your tears.
All these comments clearly imply they're against you. And I haven't seen any comments implying they support you and your actions, except that one pedophile who claims that you don't sound abusive.
As a bonus, this exists: https://www.reddit.com/r/zoophilia/comments/6irg8h/i_just_came_inside_my_dog_and_feel_disgusting/dj9t7jw/
And you're naming bunch of things you don't know shit about again.
You don't seem to accept the fact people don't like you on the internet. Your Youtube channel, /r/CringeAnarchy, this sub is the main proof.
I haven't seen that much humans like you because there's not that many. Yet you claim others like you yet you never show any evidence and you come up with invalid excuses.
Even if that is true, that person did not like you. Not to mention others followed that Tumblr.
Because you claim you have supporters, yet you say you don't want to drag them here.
So, you are making an invalid excuse. Don't claim things like that if you don't have evidence. Sorry mate, but that's just how logic works.
Like having a fangirl, like having more humans like you than they dislike you.
snicker We always are free to, since your logic is barely even logic.
I am not supposed to do anything. You're not my boss. In fact, you are one of the lowest humans I could think of.
I'd choose a shitfly over you.
And you're the one who doesn't understand basic, every day sentences so not my problem.
I can also just like you pretend not to understand everything you say and say that I'm right.
The fact that you make/made videos with other people's dogs, that you supposedly were a dog walker and had sex with each client's dog and not to mention the fact that throw a bitch fit whenever this is pointed out to you. Oh and you also use your own family member's dogs. You know? The ones that don't kno about you?
Care to explain what is unethical about that? And, do you understand that ethics are almost entirely subjective? FYI: My ethics are mainly based on the "do no harm" principle. I have not harmed any client nor their dogs. From my POV I have been ethical.
I haven't had sex with each dog from each client. I have had sex with a couple of dogs from clients.
And I will say this again to make stuff more clear: We lived in a society where I can't ask the owner for permission without risking death or social suicide, If I lived in a bigot free society, I would have asked for permission first and if the owner had said no, I would have respected the owner decision.
What is a bitch fit? Can't find the definition of that word anywhere. English is not my main language and I don't know every slang word that exist. So, care to clarify?
Yes, I did that, so did a lot of zoosexuals. In fact, according to studies, the first sexual experience of a zoo has been around age 13 with the family dog. Forgive me for fitting withing the statistics. Also, plenty of zoos who are 18+ had their first time with the family dog too.
You going to hate zoos for doing that, so be it, but I'm not the only one who is guilty of the same.
Actually you posted a boast about your crimes.
Yet you already have a dog. So you only did this because you knew those people would say no but you get a sexual thrill out of going behind people's backs and lying to them.
You did this well after your childhood. You were in your 20s and you said you snuck outside to use a dog that was tied up in the backyard. You almost got caught by a relative who was exiting their bedroom.
Citation needed. Where and when I have boast about my "crimes" ? And citation needed, where is the evidence that I have done crimes? Crime being defined as an action that creates a victim.
And you didn't answer so I will ask again: Care to explain what is unethical about that? And, do you understand that ethics are almost entirely subjective? FYI: My ethics are mainly based on the "do no harm" principle. I have not harmed any client nor their dogs. From my POV I have been ethical.
And?
That is your subjective opinion and is not supported by any objective evidence. FYI: Some people is bound to say YES. I have chatted with people (non-zoos) who would say yes to such question.
Again, that is your subjective opinion and is not supported by any objective evidence.
Clearly you don't care about facts, you only care to push your agenda.
And?
He was not tied up,. he was free to walk in the yard. And he used me as much as I used him. We both wanted sex. Problem with that?
Caught being awake and outside of the room, not caught having sex. I could have easily stop having sex with him if I hear some one coming and act as if I could not sleep and I was just petting him.
And FYI: My first zoosex was at age 12 with a cocker spaniel, the family dog. That if you don't count a cat walking over my dick and giving me an erection. (I don't count that as that was a physical reaction and not a "I find cats sexy" reaction.
Check your inbox and look for my comment pointing this out.
PM inbox? Or non-read messages inbox?
And no, why can't you answer here? Come, prove your accusation, where is the evidence that i have done crimes? Or you are just telling lies?
You have got to be the laziest piece of shit on this planet. I've said this several times already!
I'm quite lazy. I don't see how is this fact relevant.
Said what?
You also lie to and betray people who trust you. Again unless a dog has a sign on their ass saying "No Sexual Contact With Me The Dog" you think you have the owners permission. Which also shows you're delusional as well.
Subjective opinion, not a fact. Or you have objective evidence that I have done that?
From what I know, I have not lied to any clients nor betrayed their trust.
Straw man fallacy. I don't think that.
Your clients and/or patients don't know what you're doing and if they found out the majority would be horrified. They would feel like they failed their pet. And if any of them freaks out too bad and has their pet put down not only is that due to the owners wrongly thinking their pet is ruined but also because of you. Both of you would bear equal blame.
Lying again(Jesus Christ you make Hillary Clinton look honest). You said that if the owner doesn't tell you not then you will. You compared it to not being told not to hug a dog.
Irrelevant, that doesn't prove that I have lied or betrayed them.
False attribution fallacy. You have no evidence nor you can prove that I'm lying.
And if I where to hug that dog, that would not be with the owner permission. Same is true for sex.
I'm doing stuff without the owner permission, I have never claimed that i believe that I have permission to do it.
You proved my point again. I hate being right all the time.
What is your point? And how did I prove it?
Figure it out yourself
How do you think the people who trust you would feel if they heard about you and what you do to their pets? Oh right you hate human beings and you like betraying people so you wouldn't care.
Oh wow you can wipe the jizz off your face that quick.
I don't know, I can't see the future. Though I can guess that some would not mind, some will like it pr like it very much, some will get emotionally hurt for bigoted reason, some will get emotionally hurt for irrational, some will get emotionally hurt for more reasonable reasons.
Yes, I hate human beings. We are a horrible species. I can only hope that we evolve more and become something that is good for animals and humans and the world. If alien where to come and see us as we are now, they would kill us all to save earth.
False accusation. You have zero evidence to support that claim. FYI: I don't like betraying people and I don't betray people.
Dog jizz is like water, is super easy to conceal and done't have a strong odor like human jizz does.
PS: You still didn't answer my question: Care to explain what is unethical about that? And, do you understand that ethics are almost entirely subjective? FYI: My ethics are mainly based on the "do no harm" principle. I have not harmed any client nor their dogs. From my POV I have been ethical.
Being hurt by being lied to by someone they trusted who was using their dogs for sex makes someone a bigot now?
People are humans and you just said you hate humans and you said you wish for aliens to kill us all(newsflash you're a human not and anthro husky or whatever it is you call yourself now). So that's a lie. Unless you're too stupid to be specific.
Ethics built on lies are meaningless.
I didn't said that. Also, I haven't lied to them. And their trust is not misplaced.
Can you tell fantasy from reality? Aliens killing all humans is FANTASY. Not to be taken seriously like you just did. And again, you have failed to prove that I like betraying people.
Care to elaborate more? What lies? How you prove that they are meaningless?
Everything you say is bullshit and you constantly backtrack.
Your claim is a hasty generalization fallacy and also a lie. Feel free to provide objective evidence to prove us wrong.
And so what?
Ah more Aluzky Logic.
You backtrack when you're proven wrong and only do so because you hate being proven wrong.
You don't have a good reputation here, and I'm saying that without a horse in this race.
I have both, a bad and good reputation. The bad one comes from hates who a have made up several lies about me. Like I said, only a couple of things they said are true, the rest is totally unjustifiable hate.
I've seen the flip-flopping and several of their other points manifest themselves in your posts historically. I'm always open to the possibility that it's a simple issue of articulation or miscommunication, but there's a point where even the more critical thinkers in the community can no longer give you the benefit of the doubt.
You seem to misunderstand the nature of reputation, however. Some people may hold you in high regard, likely people who most agree with you, but if everyone else is the opposite, you still have a poor reputation. It's not an "Oh, i have a good reputation with rick, a bad one with molly, a good one with bob, a bad one with tim, and a bad one with dorothy" you have a reputation that is the average of those 5 peoples' opinion of you.
What are you talking about? Be specific about it.
How so?
Do you have evidence that everyone else is the opposite?
And yes, I have poor reputation (also good reputation) and the poor reputation comes almost entirely from people who has spread lies about me or people who have believed those lies. So, their reputation doesn't count as much.
Sorry, I don't understand your point.
Please, just stop for a while and look around. Show me ONE person here who defend you. You don't count.
I'm sure I can find people who will defend me, but what do I gain by doing that? And if your argument is that nobody will defend me, then good luck supporting that claim.
HAHAHA "I can prove that, but I won't". Great. So we can stop here.
What is so funny?
Like I said, what do I gain by proving that? I'm not the one going around claiming that I have supporters.
I'm sorry I got you into this.
I mean, you kind of chose to agree with me but believe me I know the majority agrees with me.
Hey, I can make it up to you: You know what's funny? Look at the reply he made to this comment.
''I'm not the one going around claiming that I have supporters.''
He just did a few times in our previous arguments. Let's just laugh about it.
You see, he sometimes seeks for attention and will try to suck you into his arguments with invalid excuses, so let's just watch idiots hurt themselves.
Even the voices in his head started to feel bad for him!
EDIT: Look, he even responded! What a fool!
Don't apologize, I have to improve my English skills and it was a perfect sandbox :)
Citation needed. When I have done invalid excuses?
What voices?
Your reputation is a single value, like a number. If your reputation is, numerically, 2 for instance... it can't also be 6. See, your reputation is the general beliefs and opinions about you, not the beliefs about you relative to specific people or groups. so if we refactor my previous example into numbers, if rick thinks you're a 6, molly thinks you're a 1, bob thinks you're a 5, tim thinks you're a 2, and dorothy thinks you're a 1, that's a reputation, or general view of 3 no matter what.
Also, recall that I'm a mod here. I'm in the business of keeping track of certain things, and that includes interpersonal interactions and relationships.
I think I will disagree, if you make a score on good reputation, you could have say a 8 and if you make a score on bad reputation, you could get say a 7. At which point, you have 2 numbers from 2 different kinds of reputation. Same if we make a score from reputation that comes from zoos or from bigots or from the general population, you will get different numbers.
By that logic, all zoosexuals in here have bad reputation as the general opinion is that we are bad people, rapists, abusers, monsters and so on. Is that your logic?
So, you are aware that the majority of things that have been said about me are not based on evidence? I wish libel where a rule violation on reddit. Sigh. The past 5 months they have been having a "field day" on me by spreading rumors.
I don't mind having bad reputation from things I actually did, I do mind having bad reputation from rumors that are false.
That wouldn't be a reputation then.
Also @"Same if we make a score from reputation that comes from zoos or from bigots or from the general population, you will get different numbers." The general population score IS the reputation.
Depends on what the point of reference is. Compared to yours, most of them have a great reputation.
I've seen you post about the things you've called 'libel'. As an immediate example, this isn't the first time you've used definitions incongruent with common definitions to attack labels you didn't like. I took the time to read through all the threads and comments in this sub back to its beginning when I became mod, so I drew this conclusion before even reaching the grievances of the users specifically.
Agree to disagree? If not, never mind.
Can you give one specific example? Because it doesn't sound like me, I'm not a fan of using incongruent definitions. Unless, if a person uses a "common definition" but that definition is clearly vague and doesn't define what is supposed to define, then I will use a non-vague definition that will be different from that vague definition (different in that it is not vague and defines correctly what is supposed to define) Definitions are supposed to define stuff without being vague, vague definitions are invalid.
There have been cases where people have used vague definitions against me. Calling me of fencehopping, accusing me of bragging and so on.
You can disagree with my old English professor if you'd like too.
A definition of a concept is rarely vague, per se. The word murder, for instance, is often defined in less than 15 words. Imagine if the word murder had several dozen caveats so it wasn't 'vague'. Or the word 'cake'. It's a needless convolution of highly variable subjects. Imagine if a premeditated killing stopped being murder somehow because the definition became more specific. It's a simple concept, it doesn't need anything more, and more ends up hurting the term, and society as a result when murders cant be brought to trial because of it.
The term fencehopper is one of those simple concepts, whose etymology is crucial to the proper functioning of the word, beyond its nomenclature. That said, simple isn't vague. 'Fencehopper' draws extremely clear lines from the common definition. It includes sexual contact with a nonhuman animal owned or cared for by someone other than yourself, performed without explicit permission and knowledge by the owner/caretaker. In fact, the definition here is more fleshed out than murder is in a dictionary. I can even go so far as to say that murder as a word or concept is comparatively simple. With vague definitions, the interpretation tends to be rather organic and varies considerably from person to person, but that isn't the case for fencehopper. Unless you specifically alter the definition to suit your own purposes, the lines are, as I said, quite clear.
The public is using a valid and accepted definition of fencehopper, and you used a personal definition that few people if anybody else observes in an attempt to deflect it. If it were that easy to deflect labels, then I guess anybody that considers stabbing someone to death in the heat of the moment not murder are technically correct, and we shouldn't call them murderers or try them for murder. Pardon the macabre example, but in this case the argument you presented is similar in calibre to that reasoning.
There are plenty vague definition out there. I would not cal it a rare thing, is average or common thing. Specially because people love to use the vague version of the word.
In law, that is how it is, else, people would get away with murder just because the law makers where not good enough in making a non-vague definition of murder.
This is the same standard I follow when I hear some one using a word. If the definition of the word does not apply to the target or the definition itself is vague and applies to targets that shouñln't target, then the usage of the word is erroneous or the word definition itself is erroneous.
Would a rock shaped and painted to look like a cake, be a cake? If the definition of cake can't distinguish that rock from actual cakes, then the definition is too vague.
Like I said, if they word something incorrectly when making a law, people can get away by using those loopholes. This is why they are very careful to make non-vague definition of words when writing laws.
And in the same way, if some one is going to accuse some one of a crime (which peope,have done several times in here tp me) or going to accuse me of non-crimimal stuff, they should use the RIGHT words, else, they are making a false accusation.
Would you like if I where to accuse you of being a thief or a rapist, or a criminal or anything else if I where using a vague definition that fits your actions, but that using the non-vaghe definition your actions would not really be rape nor stealing nor criminal?
For example, I have been accused fo bragging about my IQ just because I said: My IQ is actually 134. I said this to respond a person question who said, you have an IQ of 10. If you find a super vague definition of bragging, yes, I bragged, if you find a non-vague definition of bragging, I didn't bragged. And guess what? Vague definition are not valid definitions as they don't properly define what they have to define. People often use vague definitions to fit their agenda.
FALSE, it is the opposite, vague term means criminals get away with crime, need me to cite examples?
I will have to disagree, the word fencehopper was coined from the act of people trespassing private property (usually they had to hop a fence, thus the name) to have sex with animals without the owner permission.
The key word of that definition is the act of trespassing, thus the name of fencehopping. The problem people had with fencehopping was the transgressing and the sex with animals without their permission.
Tell me, if I where walking in the middle of nowhere with the closet home being 20 miles away and I'm in public property and a dog (not owned by me, not stray, but one of those dogs who are free to roam as they please but are some wat owned by some one who leaves food ad water for him) comes to me and fucks me, would you call me a fence hopper? Would you call me a fencehopper if I'm 12 year old (in my family home) and I try to jerk of the family dog to see if he enjoys it just like I do?
Under that vague definition of fence hopping, a lot (if not a majority) of zoosexuals and bestialists are guilty of fence hopping.
Try a legal dictionary for the murder definition.
And thing is, I have never trespassed in my life and I'm against trespassing. What I do have similarities with fencehopping but it is not fencehopping. Since it is not the same, they should not use the same word to describe my actions as that is misleading, people literally thing that I trespass in people property to fuck their dogs. This is why they should use another word to define my actions, if that word doesn't exist, then invent it.
Not under legal standards.
The fact that people think I trespass to fuck animals shows that the word fencehopper should not be used to describe my actions. They know people vilify fencehopper more than people like me and that is why they want to stick that definition unto me.
They are literally changing the definition of fencehopping to having zoosex without the knowledge of the owner. (they remove the trespassing part)
Yes, but they are targeting some one who doesn't fit that definition (me) without the trespassing part, you don't have fencehopping.
Part 2 of 2.
Fencehopping: The act of hopping a fence or otherwise entering a property for the purpose of having sexual intercourse with pets and/or livestock. ▬ Urban dictionary.
Here is this person definion: By my definition, fencehopping is wrong, though I take a looser definition than many. I take fencehopping to be accessing an area that does not belong to you, or that you have no business nor permission accessing, to make sexy time with an animal to whom you have no relation. If the owner is unaware of such actions, it may be questionable the grounds of subversion of trust and whatnot, but I do not necessarily consider it fencehopping unless the human is unfamiliar to the animal and vice-versa. So, I do not consider having sex with a friend's dog (provided you know the dog well and it is consensual) in your home fencehopping, but it is certainly not advisable, in the same way that having consensual sex with a visiting (adult) sibling of a friend could easily sour that friendship.
Under that person definion, I'm not fencehopping.
This is what the OP of that thread said: Whether literally jumping a fence and trespassing... or simply "technical fencehopping", like for example, having sex with a dog that was at your house but you were watching it for someone else... I'm just using the word in a broad sense of "sexual contact with an animal that does not belong to you." (Edit: meant to say "and the owner does not know/approve of it" at the end of that... but if you have another definition of fencehopping, feel free to share your thoughts on that too!)
He used the broadest term that he could use. Under that definition, many people literally never fencehopped, never trespassed property.
A couple of other people seem to disagree with the lose version of fence hopping. ▬ https://www.reddit.com/r/zoophilia/comments/32uvm4/fencehopping/
I will look for more people and what definition they use. To me is clear that fence hopping means 2 things, trespassing and sex without owner consent. And only the trespassing part is a crime, the other part is just the person being morally questionably.
The fact that people in here things that I'm worse than trespassers, says a lot of how much deluded they are in their hate against me. Seriously, Is not like I'm raping or killing dogs, why so angry? (and yet they claim that I'm the one who gets angry lol)
"Jealousy is a powerful emotion, and trespassing is a great reason to give vent to that via malicious prosecution or being shot or beaten to death." ▬ Hypaxux on beastforums.
To him, fence-hopping is also the act of tresspassing.
"I agree that fence hopping is a violation the the animal and it's owner. I think there should be a post that explains to people how to go about contacting the owner of a farm or ranch and asking permission. I think that would make everybody happy including myself. " ▬ wildrivercummin on beastforums, same thing, fencehopping = tresspassing.
I will stop here because I'm out of time and I have to log out. But I'm sure I can find thousands of people who use the definition of fencehopping as trespassing to have sex without the owner permission.
And i repeat, the fact that people think that I'm trespassing property to fuck dogs, shows that their definition is too vague and harmful when used on some one who is not trespassing.
Murder has to be premeditated (according to most legal laws) some one doing that could plead insanity or accidental stabbing, in which case, it would not be murder in those jurisdictions.
Correct. There was this case of a guy who fingered a drunk women in an alley, he got charged with sexual abuse (not rape) the crime he did in that jurisdiction was sexual abuse. TV news and websites where calling him a rapist, that guy can easily sue those sites and TVnews for libel and win a lot of money fro defamation, because his crime was not rape. In his jurisdiction, to be rape, the sex has to be FORCED, the woman was unconscious and so, he never used any force to stick his finger in her. Also, in his jurisdiction, the penetration has to be with his genitals or mouth, since he used a finger, that doesn't count as rape. So calling him a rapist is not factual and defamatory, as people will think that he kidnapped some one and fucked some one by force where his crime was actually way less violent or not violent at all.
NO need to excuse yourself. I understood your analogy perfectly. I'm not offended.
I'm fine with it. The thing is, I'm not afraid to be called those things because I don't have a need to be absolved of minor misdeeds. In fact, it's something to embrace, to show for when I overcome those vices. And if I disagree, then I can overcome their expectations as well, and further that betterment more. It's a reminder of where I was, and where to reflect and improve upon. To learn that we have titles of thief, or criminal, or rapist, or slothful, or wrathful, is the first step in self improvement. And self improvement isn't achieved by running from what others say, or nitpicking criticisms because your definition is different. You know that the common definition of this slang within these circles doesn't require you to trespass, and yet your defense against their definition is that you don't trespass on their property when that was never the object of concern.
You may not think it's fair, but the definition is immutable in this place. That's the price of slang. Every place has a different dialect, and you can't hope to change the one here... and well, if you can't adapt to that fact, then you'll only suffer for it, as you have been. No matter what they decide to call you, that doesn't change what they think of you, and that's what should really matter to you. Not the trivialities of titles and labels, but what those things mean about your impact and presence. Look at how far you tried to go to assault a mere eleven letters in a single word.
The bulk of this discussion and your own grievances is an argument over single words. I only reserve statements like these for people that have truly earned their criticisms, but frankly, this whole discussion is rather pathetic, what you're doing here, is childish. The whole discussion about reputation was to see just how far you'd go, but I certainly didn't expect that I'd be able to get you to step into the fencehopping discussion so easily. How far you go in the name of avoiding names.
You know, it's funny. I used to be like you, thinking everything needed some grander explanation, but then I learned that it is often the opposite that must happen. See, if I was of your disposition, my verbiage would be in conflict with my very way of speech. Now, this is more of a philosophical intonation, but the beauty of language comes in its versatility. Wielding language in new ways that arouse the mind, without destroying the monuments of tradition. A beautiful language is not a set of instructions, but a field of possibilities, not a science, but an art.
But you can't wield language, and the traditions of English are ideas, not monuments. I'm certainly not singing right now as intonation would imply, or being overly wordy as verbiage suggests, and language isn't a field, and of course, you can't have a field of possibilities in the first place, it would violate the laws of physics! Yet despite all of that, it makes sense. I've even had people stop to say how beautiful my writing is. Anyone relying on a dictionary would probably think it was nonsense, but most people, and I wager you included are able to see and accept the meaning of the words in the homes that I gave them... and that's all that matters.
Well, I'm not fine with being falsely accused of stuff I didn't do. Specially with CRIMINAL stuff.
False, a lot of people in these circles understand that definition as involving trespassing. The word itself comes from the act of trespassing (jumping a fence to enter private property without permission)
Correct, because fence jumping involves trespassing and is understood as that by many.
If the object of concern is not trespassing, then they should stop using that word and come up with a new word to refer to people who does that without trespassing.
And allowing them to spread false accusations makes others believe those face accusations. Which end up giving me bad reputation. I don't want bad reputation from stuff that I have not done.
To me is not trivial. And being falsely accused of rape, trespassing, lying, stealing, etc, is harmful to ones reputation. There is a reason we can sue people for libel in real life, because such false accusations are not trivial.
What?
Subjective opinion. IMO, I don't see it as childish nor pathetic to defend myself from false accusations.
Isn't clear that I don't like to be called with a word that doesn't describe me? If I get called genius I will also go to such lengths to fight against it. As I'm not a genius. I don't like to be described with words that don't represent me, I like facts
The rest of your comment that I didn't address, I have no comment to it.
These circles means this community, which I covered previously.
But not in this instance, which I covered previously.
But the word has a different meaning to them, which I covered previously.
It only confers the connotations of this community's interpretation to others, which I covered before.
"No matter what they decide to call you, that doesn't change what they think of you, and that's what should really matter to you."
It's trivial because it's beside the point here, as covered before.
On the internet where you can discard an identity and get a new one in little less than a minute, yes, they are extremely trivial. Try suing an internet stranger for libel, with your anonymous account against their anonymous account. You'll find that it won't work.
You spent all that time attacking an eleven letter word, fencehopper, despite the definition here being descriptive of you.
But this isn't a false accusation. If there exist two definitions of a word, and one describes you, the person using that one definition is speaking accurately... which I covered before.
In the language of debates, that often means one of my strongest points are in there.
Still, it doesn't make sense to understand fence jumping as the act of not jumping any fences or gates or walls or any imaginary line that represent some one private property.
I know that. But at least the forum should keep in check people who go around spreading rumors and insulting users. You know, to keep some order.
My name is not discard-able. Is the one that I use almost everywhere.
I already linked to a page from this forum where some people disagree with that definition. The word is descriptive of me only in the eyes of people who doesn't use the right definition. Is just a matter of correcting people so they use the right definition.
The only place where you can actually find the written definition for that word is in urban dictionary. There is no rational reason for this word to have 2 definition. The definition I use and the one that you find in urban dictionary are the same. The definition I use relates to the name as "fence jumping" describes the act of trespassing. To me, it is obvius which one is the real accurate definition. Makes no sense to call something fence jumping when it doesn't involve trespassing. That would be like calling some one a murderer when the person didn't kill anyone.
I don't know, I just sdin't saw a relevant in what you said, so i din't have anything to coment back.
To you. Like I said two replies before, one of the greatest qualities of language is that words needn't be used in a literal sense.
But all it does is anger the people around you and sow discord. I should know, because I have to moderate it. You'd be making my job that much easier if you acknowledged what has been said here.
I have a name that i use almost everywhere too. I discarded it to moderate and participate in this community. It's not a life changing event.
Some is not most. Most observe a basic, non-literal definition that focuses on the nonhuman animal.
Since I couldn't find anything discussing it in a higher grade level, here's a third grade explanation of nonliteral word usage.
Then you weren't looking very hard.
"Imaginary." You're one more Aluzky-ing away from getting yourself hurt or worse, getting the dogs you targeted hurt.
Right here.
I'll be willing to support this word if you make it a word and ask the community. Then I'll definitely be on your side.
Otherwise, we'll keep the original definition, which is indeed what AmoreBestia's definition.
Good amongst fence jumpers.
You mean you never made videos of other people's dogs? Or deliberately used another person's(since adulthood) without their knowledge?
We've been through this before. You didn't disprove jack shit.
I'm against fence jumping and I have never done that? If I know some one is doing that, I would call the police on them. So, how the hell I have good reputation among them?
Yes, I have made sexual videos of dogs that where not mine (I uploaded those videos to show that you can have sex with dogs that are not yours without the use of training or force, as bigots claims that the only reason dogs have sex with us is because we train them from puppies or force them to submission or because they are loyal to their owner and will do anything we say, me having sex with dogs I have never seen from day one, proves that their claim are bullshit)
Sorry, I can't understand the question, can you rephrase it in a more clear way?
By the way, you are only addressing one thing that is true. How about addressing all the lies?
I have been falsely accused of: Being a pedosexuals, molesting/raping children, raping/molesting dogs, being a smartass (acting smart on purpose without being smart), being a fence jumper, accused of lying about stuff that I have not lied about, accused of fence jumping and being bitten by a dog fro doing so, and so on.
Like I have said in the past, if people hate me for having non-abusive sex with dogs that are not owned by me, I have no problems with that, but when the hate is also all those other things that I never did or said, that is prove that 95% of their hate is unjustifiable.
Do you know the saying: innocent till proven guilty?
I'm the one being accused here, I don't need to prove my innocence, is the people who is spreading lies who have the onus to prove that I'm guilty of the accusations that they are making. Have they given objective evidence that their accusations are true? NOPE.
The only ones that they gave evidence to be true is that I have sex with other people dogs, which has never been a secret as I have always a been open about it.
Also, if I accuse you of raping humans, do you need to prove that you have never raped humans? If you can't prove that you never raped humans, does that means you are a human rapist? This is what they are trying to do on me, they ask me to prove that I don't do the things they claim I do and since I can't prove it, they assume I'm guilty. I don't have the burden of proof. I don't have the need to prove my innocence. Innocent till proven guilty. You want to be rational, then ask those haters to support their claims about me with objective evidence as they are the ones who have the onus/burden of proof.
Because you deliberately seek out animals that aren't yours. You may not climb a fence(this could be another lie you've told) but you're not any better than them. You even brag.
Which is also a lie because you admitted to being a dog trainer as well. You just keep lying and lying don't you?
And that gives me good reputation among fencehoppers, HOW?
I have never trespassed. And if you are going to accuse me of doing so, then prove it.
Trespassing is a crime, I don't do that. So, how can I be the same or worse than some one who is doing an actual crime? Your opinion is not rational.
Citation needed. Where and when I have bragged about it?
How is me being a dog trainer, evidence that I have lied?
I keep lying about what? Where is the evidence that I have lied?
Fence Jumpers do the same.
Oh my god you sensitive little cunt did I say you did?
Hey look. You know something.
If you're lying about this I wouldn't be surprised.
Molesting dogs is a crime in your country now(or so you said). So you are now committing a crime plus you are violating the trust of others and you're abusing your position as a vet tech. The latter of which may actually be a crime without the molesting.
Your opinion is not rational.
Fence jumpers TRESPASS private property. That is a criminal act. I'm again that, I don't do that and I would call the cops on fence jumpers for doing trespassing. Them having good reputation with me is your imagination or their mistake, not reality.
Yes, I'm sensitive about it, I have been accused of trespassing several times the past few months.
I know several things.
I have no rational reason to lie about it.
Incorrect. Before the law, any abusive acts (including abusive sexual acts) would have been illegal as they qualify as animal abuse and animal abuse has always been a crime over here. The new law lumps consensual zoosex acts as being abusive (which is obvius bullshit) and so, they use that bullshit excuse to also punish non-abusive zoosex.
So, molesting dog (which is the act of causing distress to a dog on purpose for no reason) has always been illegal under animal abuse.
Victimless crimes are not crimes. I'm doing an illegal act, not a criminal act.
Not really. I'm neither doing stuff that they didn't want me to do, nor doing stuff that they told me to not do.
Abusing my position, how?
I don't know, why don't you prove it?
Prove it. I dare you.
So you say.
Too bad. Grow a thicker skin then.
Gee I wonder why.
According to you.
Says the known liar.
According to you.
Not that's this has or would stop you.
Again. I'm not going to take the word of a liar.
According to your own retarded logic, if someone doesn't tell you not to use their dog for sex you'll use the dog for sex.
Says you.
According to you.
You know how.
I already have time and time again. You're just so stupid that you keep trying to argue with me. I'm only replying to you as a wait for you to tap out or latch onto some other person or until you run away again. And because I'm having fun emailing your comments to friends and family.
When you talk about your deeds you put more emphasis on not getting caught, how the owners don't know and perhaps may never know(unless someone tells them). It's bragging and I've heard it before from pedophiles and child molesters who claimed that no one ever knew and that they were getting away with it. They're all smiles and jokes and smirks until they find out they're heading to a maximum security prison. They bragged and look where it got them.
Again, I'm being factual in either answering a question made about me or in correcting some one else non-factual claim, I'm not bragging about it, I'm pretty sure i have never bragged about it.
Only in your imagination that is true. You belief is subjective and not a fact.
Reed herring. I'm not a pedo, not do i have context to know if they where bragging about it or making a factual statement without bragging.
Again, read the definition of the word bragging, I'm not bragging about it, i have never made those comments with the intention to brag, you are seeing what you want to see (you are bias)
Red herring.
I'm going by your comments and you're not truly being factual. And the fact that you can't tell if you're bragging or not says a lot about you as a human being.
I don't have a really wild imagination unlike you.
I'm comparing how many of them will brag like you do.
And nowhere in my comments I have ever bragged about it.
Feel free to prove it. I welcome being proven wrong.
The fact that you see bragging where there is no bragging, says a lot about you as a human being. (two can play the same game)
Lol, you don't even deny it.
You have not even proven that I have bragged.
I can just link your post history.
That would not be valid evidence. You need to present the comment where I have bragged (copy paste it and also give the link of the location) and point exactly where in that comment I used words that can be described as boastful.
Still can't tell you're bragging
You said tht you weren't but that you approve of training animals for sexual use.
Citation needed. Where have I said that I'm not a dog trainer? Or you are lying?
And I will repeat myself till you answer: How is me being a dog trainer, evidence that I have lied?
Yes, i have no problems with people who train their dogs to do sexual acts. As long as that training is done without doing animal abuse.
The /u/CringeAnarchy thread that was started about you.
Something you do when the dog you want doesn't want sex.
Valid evidence format: Quote the exact words that proves your claim with proper context, then copy paste a link to the site where that quote was extracted from.
I'm asking you to do that because I'm 100% sure I have never claimed that. And if you don't provide actual prof, all you doing is spreading rumors.
Are you saying that all sexual training done on dogs is always done through animal abuse?
I'm specifically talking about you dumbass.
Do you have objective evidence that I use abusive methods of training and that I train dogs to do sexual acts?
Well since you admitted to constant backtracking I have to wonder if you are 100% abusive now in order to get what you want.
lol falsely.
You mean pedophile.
You lie a lot so who's to say that you haven't?
That is starting to ring true.
True.
Also true.
Are you ever 100% honest?
Well you lied about the genders of dogs who bit you.
More lies?
That's a lie.
According to you. You sure you're not a politician? Because you lie just like one.
According to you? A Cobra wearing a "Pet Me I Won't Bite" sign is more trustworthy than you.
A lot of the claims were proven true.
Do you find the word to be funny?
I actually mean pedosexual, but yes, pedophile and pedosexual are the same thing.
I lie a lot about what? And even if evidence were to come out that I lie a lot (And I have never see anyone presenting such OBJECTIVE evidence), that is not evidence that I molest/rape children.
How so?
Do you have objective evidence that I try to act smart without being intelligent?
How can it be true if I have never fencehopped?
No, I obviously say lies from time, almost all humans do that. But I'm talking about stuff that i have not lied about that people is claiming that I'm lying about.
Evidence that I have lied about that?
Look, if you want to believe that everything I say is a lie, be my guess, but if you are going to go around accusing me of telling lies just to try to ruin my reputation, you better have some evidence to prove it, else, you are only doing harassment.
It is not a lie and you don't have evidence that it is a lie.
Yes, according to me, and according to the fact that they have not presented any objective evidence that their accusations are true. Innocent till proven guilty.
I'm not a politician and you have not presented any evidence that I'm lying about the things that I have said.
Yes, according to me and... I already say this.
Do you have objective evidence to support that claim?
Name them. I dare you.
You told SC(sorry forgot your name) that you were bitten by a bitch.
And how is that proof that I lied? Care to explain?
I have to explain your own comments to you now?
Is not my own comment, is your own claim.
How does my comment proves that I have lied? Explain yourself.
You're asking me to explain your own comments.
And you went full Pedohag. Never go full Pedohag.
So why are you angry when people point this out and say you're lying to the owners l?
No one is trying to do anything to you. That's your problem not mine.
Where is the evidence that I get angry over that?
I correct them when they say that because I have never lied to the owners, they are making a false accusation that i have lied to the owners. Last time I check, correcting a false statement is not the same as getting angry.
Then why several people have gone around spreading FALSE rumors about me?
Well, you are part of the problem, you also went around spreading false rumors about me.
As usual everything is everyone else's fault but yours. Typically deflection.
Not deflection, you have literally spread rumors about me.
Prove it
Lol "rumors."
Yes, RUMORS.
Rumor definition: a currently circulating story or report of uncertain or doubtful truth.
Those claims about me (the ones that are rumors, not the ones that are factual) are not supported by any objective evidence. They are literally rumors.
Prove that I spread rumors
Your messages are becoming less coherent(which is saying a lot) for one.
Only in your imagination that is true.
Nope not my imagination
Prove it, I dare you.
Your comments and your debating tactics.
You mean like the fact that you bragged about using dogs that aren't yours and you also threatened to go after another Redditor's dogs until she reminded you that she supports the 2nd Amendment? You also pulled the same shit with me until I told you that my dog doesn't like having his junk touched and would likely maul your scrawny ass if you tried anything.
Citation needed. Where and when I have bragged about?
Citation needed. Where and when I have gone after another redditor dog?
What same shit? What are you talking about?
You can't see the future. Unlike you, I know more dog language and I know how to behave around dogs. I have better chances of having sex with a dog (without being mauled) than you do.
How can you know how good /u/AlphaOmegaSith understands dog language?
Five hours ago in this thread.
If you know that statement is correct, don't force the author to give you citations. This WON'T help. And when I said "Don't answer to this reply" I meant "because every respond will be ignored".
According to him, I'm raping animals in my videos. Have you seen my videos? He also thinks that dogs can have sex or hump out of dominance.
Is clear I know 1000 times more about dogs than what he/she does.
Please, copy paste the exact text in here. And the point out where in that text I was bragging about it. While at it, take a look at the definition of the word bragging.
I know the statement is incorrect. I have never bragged about it. But mince you are the one making the claim, where is the proof that I have bragged about that? Copy the text here and point out where I bragged, is not that hard to do (assuming that your claim is true)
No comment.
What the fuck? I DID it! Doesn't matter if you were bragging or just claim it. You did it, this is the main meaning of "You mean like the fact that you bragged about using dogs that aren't yours.".
Same thing.
No, link please.
What? Don't means don't.
It does matter, bragging and claiming are not the same word nor the same definition. You are literally making a FALSE accusation.
Except that I never bragged about it. Again, bragged and saying something in a non-boastful way is not the same as bragging.
Only in Bizarro World it is the same thing. Edit: Bizarro world is like a parallel earth where things are the oposite.
Google: Gaybeast Aluzky. There you can see my videos, good luck finding rape in them.
Sometimes cleverbot is more clever than you. WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT YOUR BRAGGES. We are talking about you fucking not your dogs!
And your point is?
BRAGGES? I think you made a typo or spelling mistake.
Ok. And your point is?
Maybe, I'm from Poland
That you did it and focus on unimportant part of sentence to... I don't even know why. Main meaning is correct.
Unimportant to you, important to me, I don't like to be accused of things that I didn't do. You said that I "bragged" and I have never bragged about it.
Bragging and making a factual statement are not the same thing. If you understand this, then case closed on this conversation. If you still want to address something else, go back to it and do it without falsely accusing me of bragging.
I didn't say they had sex out of dominance. But of course a moron like you that can't even bother to speak properly English can't grasp what I was saying.
With who I'm talking to? Are you her?
I was talking about that other person who didn't want to let his male dog fuck her because she didn't wanted to be seen as a freak. She did said that he wanted to hump her out of dominance. Hump and sex is this case is the same, he wanted to stick his dick in her and fuck her. There is no scientistic evidence that dogs hump or fuck out of dominance, none. It was a lie she made or she is a bit uneducated about dogs.
This "moron" has an IQ of 134, which is the total opposite of an actual moron.
Forgive my spelling/grammar, english is not my main language, corrections are always welcomed. Though, if you make sentence with poor grammar, then, it is your fault that I can't understand you.
Seriously? That's low even for you.
Yes, I'm 100% Serious.
Unless I use /jk or /joking or /sarcasm then I'm 100% serious. I'm not the type of person who makes non-serious comments.
It seems that the account is owned by two people? Or she has 2 different reddit accounts (like warcanine does) Or that is the impression that I get from the replies.
What is low?
You asked if was a female zoo you moron.
And asking you if you are her is low... because?
Subjective opinion, not fact.
You calling someone else a liar when it comes to dog is the epitome of irony.
Why would that be an irony? Also, I didn't called her a liar, though, if the shoe fits...
You did call her a liar.
Sigh. Learn to read. I said: She is lying OR __________.
For example if a person is walking like a drunk person and I say: He is drunk OR he is having a heat stroke and about to faint.
I'm I calling the person a drunkard?
Learn to speak better English. A drunk Saudi can speak better English than you.
My english is pretty good. If you see any spelling/grammar mistake, feel free to fix it and I will welcome it.
I don't know about that, do they speak english as a native language?
Also, I'm not speaking english, I'm writing english.
Seriously. Better English. Learn to fucking speak it.
Going by your comments your IQ is definitely lower.
Can you back up that claim with objective evidence? Or with a syllogism? And my IQ lower than what?
Also, I don't think IQ tests lies. If I tend to get scores that are around 131 and 139. Doesn't that mean I have an IQ around 134? Pretty sure that an actual test (the result from it) ar more valid that your opinion or what you can get from my comments. There is a reason we don't evaluate a person IQ from comments that they make on the internet.
Can you go 24 hours without lying?
Way lower than 134 that's for damn sure.
Good thing you're not an IQ test then.
It means anything between 131 and 139, not that you absolutely have an IQ of 134 like you just claimed.
So you've never had a real IQ test? Wow.
No but it's a semi-good in deciphering if someone is an idiot.
Loaded question fallacy.
I have not seen evidence presented that my IQ is lower than that number, and the IQ tests that i have took have given numbers around that.
Why?
134 is the average of those 2 numbers. The average number is a closer prediction of my actual IQ.
IQ numbers ar an approximation to a person IQ, not an exact number of a person IQ.
I had real IQ tests done on me by psychologists and when seeking work.
I agree. As long as the evaluator is rational in their evaluation.
In another country.
I recommend you review the study titled "Fractionating human intelligence", PMID 23259956. It identifies that IQ tests are not accurate reflections of an individual's G factor, and that no less than three tests are needed for an accurate measurement, in short.
More of Aluzky playing the blame game.
Blame game? I'm not familiar with that game nor term. What does it mean?
Aluzky only focuses on sex when it comes to dogs hence why he thinks everything about them is sex related. Several cousins in my aunt's family raise and breed dogs. Not wholesale but every few years, a couple of them will breed one of their dogs. They're hunting dogs and some of them are a wolf-looking type called Native American Indian Dogs, good trackers from what I've seen. These folks have been doing this for damn near 50+ years and they treat their dogs like family, they're not in this for cash. They make sure the dogs go to good homes and will outright refuse to give a pup to people who are not fit. They have seen dogs mount for sex and they've seen them mount for dominance and each act is different and easily interpreted. That's 50+ years of experience and they didn't have to fuck their dogs just to understand that.
Most of the time, this forum has to deal with zoosex (either in defense of it or educating neebs) and I'm an zoosexual activist and i have to deal with zoosex a lot.
Is not that I focus a lot on zoosex, is that zoosex is the topic in a lot of subjects. Is pretty much unavoidable.
Those dogs are very beautiful.
How you know that their opinion is accurate and not distorted by years of hearing false rumors?
Maybe I advice you this link:http://www.brainjet.com/random/13097/15-things-you-were-taught-in-school-that-are-total-lies/
There have been many rumors, hoax and "facts" that have been spreed for decades as if they where facts, only to be discovered later that they where the opposite of facts.
Your relatives opinions are irrelevant in this case, without actual scientific evidence that dogs can hump out of dominance (like for example, a VIDEO of a dog doing that) then their claims are just opinions and not facts.
Be 50 years or 1000, without scientific evidence, is just their opinion, not a fact. Like I have said, I have looked for actual evidence, found nothing, odds are, dominance humping is just a rumor that spreads around because people fails to understand why dogs hump, so what they don't' understand, they blame it on dominance.
Next you'll cite Huffington Post as being logical and correct. Hell maybe even Buzzfeed or Salon. The later especially since you're a Pedohag.
If they give proper citations, yes. Or if they state something like: Fire burns. Then yes.
Again, If they give proper citations, yes. Or if they state something like: Fire burns. Then yes.
Pedohag? Can't find that word in any reputable dictionary. What is that?
Ever hear the term "faghag"? That's basically you but for pedos that offend.
So why call yourself an activist then?
Because I'm an activist.
Activist definition: a person who campaigns to bring about political or social change.
But you also said that you weren't.
So basically you ARE an activist but you don't put the title on your channel?
Our Mr A-hole here shows all traits of sociopathy, just look it up to recognise every single one Mr "Zoosexual activist" shows. He is allergic to the truth because this truth would totally demolish the picture he has made up of himself, with all his grandezza, his inflated ego, his denial of reality, his lack of the ability to show empathy, his manipulative efforts, his bullshit he constantly tries to make people swallow. This is NOT what zoophilia is about, is not what it should be about. The "calmness" and "rationality" he obviously tries to spike his answers with are also a sign of sociopathy as he obviously knows no emotions besides that itching in his groin and asshole areas whenever he sees an animal.
This guy clearly is a disgrace for us true zoophiles and I sincerely apologise in the name of our community for not speaking out loud and clear against him. That´s the fundamental flaw our community has, this special form of herd mentality, being brainwashed by the sex lib agenda, this incredible stupidity to foresee the logical consequences of remaining silent. They´re gullible sheep and I´m really sorry and equally embarrassed by what I, in lack of other options, have to call "my community". People like Aluzky serve our "enemies" all kinds of ammunition on a golden plate and yet, these morons in here slavishly stick to their brainless agenda, regardless of how much damage mentally ill idiots like Mr A-hole inflict. Even if our A-hole would be coherent and not the constantly flip-flopping liar he is, twisting and turning "truth" at every moment when he´s called out on his bullshit, he still would be as apocalyptic for our, the zoo´s cause. Yes, Aluzky is a sociapath, mentally ill and incapable to understand despite his enormous IQ of 160...uh...135...uhhh again 134...;), but the more fundamental flaw in this community is not Mr LiarActivist, but the silence and the support these sheeple still grant him. My apologies for that. We veterans who created the first kind of "zoophilia activism" never meant it the way our A-hole is interpeting it...and we never thought that our community would turn into such a gullible, sheepishly swallowing hoard of imbeciles whose first and foremost priorities are obedience to the agenda and groupthink. Maybe this whole mess disgusts me even more than you folks....I just don´t know how to change things anymore...brainless zombies, with Mr A-hole as their brainrotten leader...
You don't have to apologize because of him. While I'm not a supporter I still commend the rest of you for having some decency.
Nice fictional story. Are you done?
Yes, I'm a zoosexual activist (mainly) and I'm pretty sure that I put that in my channel.
What title are you talking about? You can put titles on a channel?
Still playing dumb I see.
I wonder why
You wonder why about what?
What do you think?!
Oh right. Guess you have amnesia now.
https://m.imgur.com/a/jP0gZ
Where I have claimed to not be an activist? Evidence?
On your Google/YouTube profile -_-
/u/AlphaOmegaSith he's still lying.
What's new?
If I have lied, then PROVE IT. Else, you are only making false accusations.
You calling me a liar 1000 times won't make it true, only facts can make it true.
I posted a screenshot after you claimed to not be an activist. Found your Google and YouTube page.
Like LadySaberCat said, you might as well post shit from Buzzfeed.
I don't understand the point of your comment. Did I did something wrong in mentioning that non-facts have been spread as fact for decades in the past?
You never do.
You sent her a link from brainjet. The place is a junk website like Buzzfeed. Next you'll send a link to Huffington Post or Fox News or CNN.
False, I understand most of the time. So, are you going to make your point clear? Or you don't care? If you don't care, then why make comments to me?
And?
And?
And? If it proves my point, who care what link I use?
But when someone else does it you complain.
If their link proves their point, I don't complain.
My point was to prove that MYTH have been shared as fact for decades. The link I gave proved that. Anyone can easily do a research on their own that this is true.
Their claim is that dogs can hump to show dominance. They only shared links with people giving the opinion that dogs can hump to show dominance. And if you do a research, you won't find scientific evidence that dogs actually do that.
OPINIONS are not FACTS. Links to opinions is not evidence.
According to you?
According to me what? Your reply lacks context.
Again not taking the word of a known liar
You nor anyone has evidence that I'm a liar. You believe that I'm a know liar is only true in your imagination, not true in real life. You are only making false excuses to avoid accepting reality.
I'll be sure to tell my aunt(full blood Cherokee) to inform her cousins to be VERY WARY of anyone from Costa Rica seeking to buy a dog, due to concerns about the safety of the dog.
Why should they be wary of the safety of the dog? Do you think that zoosex is always animal abuse?
And no, I have no interest in long haired dogs as pets. Is too much up keep work, I rather have short haired breeds. Also, is cheaper to buy them locally or even adopt them locally, why would I try to get a dog from US... smh
Because they breed dogs to be family pets and hunting companions. Not sex toys to be used by a loan lunatic that already has a dog or gangbanged by a bunch of people who know the former person(i.e. You and whoever you loan your dogs out to).
What do you do anything you moron?
SO, "using a dog as a sex toy" In a way that the dog is not in danger and not harmed is bad, but taking a dog to hunt, where the animal is in risk of being harmed or even killed, that is OK? Also, taking the dog to hunt innocent animals to murder them is OK, but harmless sex with the dog is bad? I don't see the logic in that.
By the way, reality is, if they seel 100 dogs, at least a couple of them will end up with zoosexuals or bestialists. Nothing they can do to stop that.
Your question makes no grammatical sense nor rational sense.
.
.
Now repeat that in English. Also the dogs don't kill the animals you retard, except for a couple of males that they(both have killed a deer on separate occasions of wandering off for a few days, one might've also killed a wild pig) keep and a year old female that was hunting and eating rabbits in the area. Also you assume the dog isn't being harmed and after your recent fuck up I doubt that the animal is used harmlessly by you.
That was spelled in english. If you mean the use of the word "talking" instead of "taking" THAT WAS A TYPO.
Because no wild animal or poisonous animal can't harm or kill the dog during a hunt?
Is not an assumption, I'm specifically talking about dogs who are not harmed during sex. Obviously, some people do harm dogs during sex, obviously, what they do is as bad as risking a dog life during a needles hunt.
Your doubt is not supported by any evidence.
You falsely assumed the dogs took down the animals-_-
https://www.reddit.com/r/zoophilia/comments/5mogqi/came_out_to_my_boyfriend/djqoe2g/?context=3
Yeah I don't 100% doubt that you are as "nice" to animals as you falsely claim.
Your sentence makes no grammatical sense, pretty sure you used a double negative. And if you have evidence to support any of your accusations, why don't you show that evidence?
Keep dancing little monkey
I'm not dancing, nor I'm a little monkey, your reply is nonsensical.
Urgh...
Man, imagine buying a bitch and later she drips cum.
Isn't it funny that as a zoophile, I am extremely disgusted that such a thing is possible?
But hey, do you actually know what Aluzky looks like? Because there are videos of him. You may want to give them some details and should be concerned when they see someone like him.
I'm debating whether or not I should tell them exactly WHY they should be concerned.
That would be horrifying. Unless it was dog sperm in which case I'd ask if someone had bred the dog and if so why and if that was included in the purchase cost.
Nope it's understandable.
Sadly yes. Thankfully I didn't watch his dog videos, found a video of him on a porn site called motherless(I'm a deaubachery loving atheist and even I felt like bathing in holy water after seeing that video).
I'm aware of the other ones. I still feel like I need holy water and Jesus.
Will do. Appreciate the support though thanks :)
Yeah that's indeed a problem. It'd be weird to straight up say they should watch out because these dogs just got freshly fucked.
That'd be weird, why'd they breed a bitch they'd sell?
Well, I'm pretty sure bitches don't drip dog sperm as I've never heard of or seen such a thing. Maybe it's because dog sperm is way more watery iIrc.
I have no evidence of it, but 30-30 said he found a gif of him rolling in shit lmao. I wonder what your reaction would be then.
I'd play that shit at his funeral as a powerpoint presentation.
Imagine if they actually found him and finally got him in jail.
I went ahead and told them anyway. They laughed at first until I showed them /u/Aluzky's post history, his YouTube page and throughly explained why they should be careful Googling the lunatic's name.
Needless to say my cousins are going to be extra careful regarding their dogs. And I owe them a round of drinks next time I see them. Because I can't pay for the therapy of eight people so booze will have to do.
What lunatic?
That is good.
I don't understand. What therapy? What are you talking about?
You obviously you fucking idiot.
Yep. No Rez Dogs, Hunting Dogs or NAIDs for you :)
Due to my job I'm used to seeing fucked up shit, mostly. My cousins are not.
Do you have evidence that I'm lunatic? Or you are throwing more insults at me.
I don't speak that language.
I don't get the context of your reply.
No big surprise. Anyway I work with abused kids(ones who often go through complete hell) hence why I'm used to fucked up stuff.
I asked: Do you have evidence that I'm lunatic? Or you are throwing more insults at me.
That explains it.
I'm also good a spotting lunatics like yourself who like to pretend they're intelligent while being the complete opposite.
Where is the objective evidence that I'm a lunatic? Where is the evidence that I'm pretending to be intelligent instead of actually being intelligent?
They're very attentive with their dogs. They can even tell by certain mannerisms if one of the dogs is going to be in a bad mood l, doesn't want to hunt, isn't interested in another dog and so and so on. They can even tell why some dogs are so aggressive. These people have spent years learning about their own dogs, not from rumors but raw experience. I can list a million other things about my extended family but I really don't like communicating with you at all and I don't want you trying to contact my family.
That is all nice, but in the end, they are not giving me any scientific evidence to support their claim that dogs can hump to show dominance.
And is clear you don't have any evidence to back the claim that a dog can hump to show dominance, all you have are opinions and opinions are not facts.
This is not something hard to prove, there are literally thousands if not millions of hours of dog footage of dogs humping dogs and humans in the internet, I have seen thousands of those videos and found no sings of dominance in them, and i have asked you and hundreds of people to just give me one video proving that a dog can do that and they have not given me a single video. Just because many people believe something, it doesn't mean that the belief is true.
Your arguments are pretty much: Argumentum ad populum and argumentum ad... authority.
You didn't find evidence because when you see dogs hump you immediately see it as sexual. And I don't email porn to my friends, so why would I send dog hump videos to someone who can't tell the difference between a dog that is humping for sex vs dominance excitability or stress? You're supposed to be the go to expert who holds an unbiased opinion yet you claim all such actions are 100% sexual. You also just whined because I wouldn't send you videos because knowing you you'll just jerk off to them.
False attribution fallacy. You are accusing me of stuff that is not true and that you can't prove to be true.
Translation: My claim is false, so I will make excuses to not send him a video that supports my claim because such videos do not exist.
Pretty sure that I have never claimed to be 100% sexual. Dogs can hump instinctual or when exited (from happiness)
That would be a waste. I rather deposit my seed inside my beloved bitch. Also, dogs humping is VERY SOFT PORN. Why would I jerk off to that when I can jerk off to 2 dogs having actual sex? Or to dogs having sex with humans?
Also, where I have whined? I don't think you know the definition of that word as you are using it incorrectly.
Stop making excuses, if dog humping out of dominance is SO COMMON, why can't you find a single youtube video that shows that? You literally have 342,000 videos of dogs humping dogs. Show me a single one that supports your claim.
Just because someone who is a known liar(i.e. You), doesn't make them an expert on lying
I don't understand your reply. Nor you or anyone has provided any evidence that I'm a know liar.
I've provided facts several times before but you haven't provided me with a single fact. Your only "facts" are just saying facts, ad hominem attack, red herring, fallacy and accuse. That's all you have done. You don't have a single reasonable argument to provide here.
Nope, you have only shared links to websites stating their OPINION.
All ism doing is asking for evidence that dogs can hump to show dominance, in response to that person who claimed that his don't didn't wanted to have sex with her but to show dominance to her.
The burden of proof is on her, not on me. You are asking for evidence to the wrong, person, you are doing a "shifting the burden of proof fallacy"
Stating that an argument given to defend a clam is fallacious and pointing out which fallacy they used and explaining why is fallacious is a REASONABLE argument against such fallacious response. You thinking otherwise is irrational.
There was actually a study performed on dominance behavior in domestic dogs. Mounting was not observed in a statistically significant capacity(insofar that it was much less frequent than the 24 'primary' behaviors observed), but dominance behavior frequency and type was found to vary widely between dog breeds. That said, there is still a case for non sexual mounting behavior, as it is common in prepubescent dogs, especially during play or periods of high stress.
I'm not sending you videos from YouTube. Go watch your videos if you're itching for porn.
Translation: I can't find a single video of a dog humping out of dominance among millions of videos of dogs humping dogs and humans.
Thanks for proving my point that there is no scientific evidence of dominance humping being a real thing.
I don't watch porn, I have my own dog.
I'm not going to personally deliver dog humping videos to someone who is known for fucking virtually every dog he sees while also being smart enough to know that YouTube isn't a reputable source for scientific evidence or studies.
Translation: Damnit he didn't fall for it.
How many times do you loan this one out to people?
Invalid excuse. And video of a dog humping out of dominance would be valid evidence that dogs do that. Same way a dog masturbating in a youtube video is valid scientific evidence that dogs do that.
Huh?
Zero. I also never loaned my previous male dog (RIP) I think you don't know the definition of the word loan as you are using it incorrectly.
Because that's what you'll use them for.
Can you give context to what you are making that reply?
Free porn that's what. I'm not going to be your errand boy for that.
And why YouTube hmmm? You didn't say look up more scientific evidence. You said go to YouTube. Not falling for this.
If you see it that way.... And what is your point in saying this?
Well, you are the one claiming that they can hump to show dominance. If you don't want to provide evidence that SUCH claim is true, be my guess, but don't be surprised that I'm skeptic of your claim being true.
Easy to find stuff there. Plenty videos to look at, 300,000 or more videos of dogs humping.
A video of a dog doing X behavior is scientific evidence that dogs do that X behavior. If dogs humping to show dominance is so common, you won't have any problems in finding a single video on youtube.
By that logic the YouTube videos about The Illuminati and Lizard People running the world are true as well.
If the video shows scientific evidence that they exist and rule the world, then yes.
Though, I doubt that such videos have scientific evidence on that.
This coming from the guy who only picks things that fit his agenda.
I pick anything that is factual, obviously, I will use facts to support my agenda. Is there a problem with that?
Factual=Anything that fits Aluzky's Narrative
(im just gonna jump in here. the cobwebs are starting to build up in my inbox)
thats one HUUUGEEEE anecdote. In other words, its a simple story, easily and often falsified/exaggerated/lost in translation.
Show me real behavioral studies of the difference between humping for sexual stimulation and for dominance and we can move on from there. this might help
Thanks I already got some help now piss off.
ok
Still playing dumb aren't you Sal? You threatened a female Redditor by saying you'd visit her dogs. She said she supported the right to bear arms and defend her family and property, she said any attempt to get near her dogs would be met with force. You accused her of making a "death thread" against you, your words not mine.
You threatened to molest my wolfdog until I told you how he reacts(and still reacts) to people touching his genitals. The vet has to muzzle him just to keep him calm although I typically talk to him to keep him relaxed. He won't bite but he hates it. However you don't know jack shit about Wolfdog behavior, I do. So when I say he'd maul you I'm not bluffing. Kleng is a very direct canine, if he was a human he'd be the kind of guy who let's his actions speak louder than his words. And as a result we'd be best friends, although we're best friends now Kleng can't drink beer sadly.
Never.
I can't remember doing that. Feel free to copy paste the text in here.
Sadly, I can't remember. You are welcome to cite the full text withing context if you want to make a point about it.
I'm against molestation and rape of dogs and humans. So, forgive me if I don't believe that I threatened to molest your dogwolf.
By the way, if your dog has a phobia to being touched in the genitals or other parts, that can be removed with desensitization training.
Sounds like your dogwolf is aggressive or has a phobia to being touched.
No rational reason to hate it, consider making his life easier and fix his phobia.
That is correct, I'm ignorant about dogwolfs. But I'm sure that normal behavioral training of dogs can work on him. And if I have to, i can learn about dogwolfs in hours or days.
Forgive me if I just don't take your word as a fact but as an educated opinion. Because I have hear many times "that dog will bite you" and it never happened sand I have hear "my dog doesn't bite" and the dog ends up bitting. There is a tiny chance that you may be wrong about your dogwolf reaction if I where to approach him (more so if I where to approach him smelling like a bitch in heat)
No coment.
No shit. Tell us something we DON'T already know about you.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! ok I'm done laughing. Dog methods don't work on Wolfdogs, especially mid to high content ones.
Oh this is going to be good.
Well folks of /r/Zoophilia there you have it. This is going to be his downfall. I will bet $10,000 that Aluzky gets viciously mauled(possibly emasculated physically) or possibly killed by a Wolfdog. Oh and /u/AlphaOmegaSith, how does Kleng react to deception? Aluzky wants to go at your dog by pretending to be a bitch.
How can you know that I'm ignorant about dogwolf?
Really?
The view that aggressive characteristics are inherently a part of wolfdog temperament has been contested in recent years by wolfdog breeders and other advocates of wolfdogs as pets.[54][55] Proponents of wolfdogs as pets say that the higher wolf-content animals are naturally timid and fearful of humans, but that with proper human association, training, and responsible ownership nearly all wolfdogs can become good companions, especially if their association and training begins at an early age. Even in cases of wolfdogs displaying consistently dog-like behavior, they may occasionally retain some wolf-like behavior such as digging dens, chewing up household items, climbing fences, and, to varying degrees, displaying some difficulty in housebreaking in relation to how high their wolf genetic content is. Low wolf-content wolfdogs rarely have these problems any more strongly or significantly than any other large-breed dog. ▬ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolfdog
Citations 54 and 55.
You totally sure that wolf dogs can't be trained at all with dog training methods?
You can train a wolf to do a lot, but you can't teach them to ignore instincts. ▬ http://wolfpark.org/animals/hybrids/sloan-poster/poster07/
It seem that even wolves can be trained to some degree. If even a wolf can be trained, why would a wolf-dog hybrid be an exception? Why would them be immune to dog training?
Why?
Easy money, closest wolf dog hybrid is like one Nort America continent away from me. There is more chance of me being hit by a meteor than being mauled by a wolf-dog.
Omg Wikipedia as a source 😂 you are really scrapping the bottom of the barely aren't you? Of course you are.
I didn't say Wolfdogs couldn't be trained either. You
Your point?
What barrel? What?
You said that dog training methods don't word at all on wolf/dogs. You said something like: HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA dog training methods don't work.
You can look your page history of comments that you have made and find it.
You really have trouble comprehending the English language don't you?
You have to use different methods.
Context, what are you talking about?
What the fuck do you think I'm talking about? Use your brain and figure it out.
Oh and the other thread is locked, so if you're wondering why I'm not replying that's why.
No. Sticking your ass in the air doesn't count as training Aluzky.
I agree.
Finally you can think of something other than sex.
Good. Maybe I'll make it higher.
Yay Wolfdogs are safe from Aluzky! Woot!
Meh. I'm making another bet that you'll either get mauled or some owner will boot stomp you. Perhaps all of the above?
Seem that you love losing money. Unless you bet the opposite, in which case, you will make money.
Awww I never lose money when I bet on you saying something stupid.
Still a bet worth making though. Now who wants to bet against me?
/u/Aluzky is going to be in for a VERY rude awakening then.
ignoring this entire issue, people have said that about so many online personalities that im surprised its not a meme. This isnt gonna accomplish shit.
Look at Onision.
onision is still above 1 million subs. look at drama alert, the fine bros, gradeaundera, leafyishere, thunderf00t, pretty much every prank channel ever, etc etc etc. People have always said "this is their downfall" yet nothing ever came of it.
Go ahead and waste your time though.
Whatever you say White Knight.
i prefer more of a cream color
You really are a moron -_-
Or you're a troll, in which case congratulations!
She loves to fuck around.
Don't pay too much attention to my own kind.
Fair enough
Says the pedo-lover and the guy who thinks training animals for sex is perfect fine.
What does pedo-lover means? Because I'm a dog-lover, not a pedo-lover. Or you mean pedo-supporter?
Why would it not be fine? Can you give me a single objective reason for why training an animal do sexual acts would be bad? Of course, assuming that the training was done in an ethical way without the use of animal abuse. Obviously, sex training that is done trough means of animal abuse is not fine.
You were White Knighting for the pedo who was advocating for abuse!
Pretty sure that you are using the definition of white knight incorrectly. Also, if that person advocates for abuse of children, just report him and problem solve.
While I support pedosexuality (just like I support all sexual orientations) I don't support abuse of humans/animals. Nor I support specific humans who abuse animals/humans.
He doesn't like having his junk touched. Just like I don't like it when women try to put their fingers in my ass or lick myself.
There is no rational reason for him to not like that, so that is called a phobia. And phobias can be cured.
Not the same, you have a specific rational reason for not liking that. Your male doesn't have a rational reason for not liking that.
Maybe his balls and dick and are sensitive. Did you ever think about that? No of course not. Because thinking isn't your strong suit.
All dogs have sensitive skin. Is obvius that his private parts are sensitive.
Why would I think that a normal dog has the ability to feel when touched? Don't all dogs are like that?
Citation needed.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Hi. Can I know why the sudden outburst of laugh?
You rape dogs and think they consent
You have yet to give any objective evidence that this belief of your is true. Like I have said many times, you wanting me to be a rapist in your imagination, doesn't make me a rapist in real life.
I believe in facts/evidence. Evidence shows that adult dogs can give or deny consent to sexual and non-sexual activities. Do you have a problem with me believing in facts?
Show me these "facts"
http://www.petplace.com/article/dogs/behavior-training/normal-behavior/sexual-behavior-in-dogs
https://positively.com/dog-training/understanding-dogs/canine-body-language/
Feel free to do further research on other links: Google: "dog mating" and "dog body language" and visit many links to learn as much as you can about that species language and communication.
Read and memorize all you find about dog mating rituals and dog language. Feel free to make question about consent to me after you have read and memorized a lot about them, I will answer all your questions after you have done your research on the topic.
Oh look. Only dogs are mentioned.
Not humans.
Hmm...
Are you going to do your part and do research? I can't educate you nor answer your questions if you are not going to understand anything that I said, I first need you to be educated on the basics.
I did do my research
Really? OK, let me put you to test, answer these:
1-How does a dog shows that he doesn't like something that is being done to him by another dog?
2-How does a dog shows that he likes or doesn't mind something that is being done to him by another dog?
3-How does a dog shows that he doesn't like something that is being done to him by human?
4-How does a dog shows that he likes or doesn't mind something that is being done to him by a human?
Those werent in the research.
Also...It mentions dogs...Not humans...
Fuck man, get help.
I told you to look at as many links as you could. If you had done that you would know the answers.
HINT: The language that dogs use with dogs is used in the same way with humans. A dog deny or give consent to a dog in the same way he would do with a human.
AGAIN, do research on dogs body language and mating rituals, read as much as you can and memorize it, come back when you can hold a proper debate with me, for that, you need to know the basics, else, you won't understand anything of what I say.
And you where saying stuff like: "Dogs can't consent to sex" when you don't even know anything about dog language... how can you make such claim when you don't even know anything about dogs? SMH
Why do I need help? I'm not the one who is uneducated and goes around making claims that are total bullshit.
Like I said, get educated first, come back and ask questions when you know at bare minimum the basics of dog language and dog mating ritualist. Without that, I can show you the facts but you won't understand them.
Not gonna listen to a dog raper
Raper definition: Some one who makes or sings rap.
So, not only I have been accused of being a dog rapist, now I'm a rapper. What is next? Being accused of being an alien? A gnome maybe?
Like I said, you believing that I'm a raper or dog rapist or alien in your imagination, doesn't make it reality.
And thanks for the acknowledgment that you are nothing but a bigot who does not care about facts or reason.
That would be "rapper" you illiterate moron.
He's not aggressive. He just doesn't like certain shit.
I didn't called him aggressive, I said that he may be aggressive. I said MAYBE. Maybe is not the same as "HE IS AGGRESSIVE"
Like I said, it seems that he has an irrational phobia.
Did he ever got desensitization training as a puppy and socialization with other humans? Normally, responsible owners will touch their dogs everywhere as puppies, even the genitals, so when the dog grow up, he will not act aggressive when checked by a vet or by a random child pulling his tail (or balls or paws) or you have him from adulthood? Is still not late to remove that phobia from him. Would make it much easier for him to go to a vet and have no problems with being touched anywhere.
Or maybe just maybe he just doesn't like people grabbing his balls or his dick. Wow!
He was a stray.
I'm aware of this.
You'd grab there first.
He growls but doesn't bite now. He just doesn't like it.
He's a 3-year old stray.
He's just voicing his dislike.
He just growls now.
Obviously, that is the case if he reacts in that way. But his reaction is abnormal. That is why I say, he may have a phobia.
Probably didn't got any training as a pup. What a shame.
If you are, why is he not desensitized to accept touching? From what you say, you have had problem in the past with many vets because he is aggressive when touched. Nothing stop you from doing that training yourself on him.
Didn't you say that he would bite. I'm I wrong, but didn't you said that I would get mauled by him?
Well, if that is the case, that is much better.
Everything is a phobia according to you -_-
Finally you say something that isn't retarded.
He would maul you because you wouldn't let go if he growled at you because you're that stupid.
Except for you. Because you're an idiot.
Not everything...
Pretty sure that I haven't said retarded stuff. Pretty sure that your use of the word retarded is offensive to that community.
False attribution fallacy. I would let go and I'm not stupid.
Seem that all you can do is throw insults at me.
Sure seems like it.
Only according to you.
I refer to people who are unfortunately mentally challenged as having special needs. Retards(like yourself) don't count so I don't care if retards are offended by what I say.
Says you.
You wouldn't and yes you are stupid.
Not using them as insults though :)
That is what you wish to believe.
Feel free to provide objective evidence that I have said retarded stuff. Else, your claim is a subjective opinion and not a fact.
And you are still being disrespectful to that community.
Feel free to provide objective evidence that your claim is true. Else, your clai is nothing but an opinion and not a fact.
PROVE IT. Where is the evidence that I would not let go a dog genitalsif the dog where to growl at me?
PROVE IT. Where is the evidence that I have a low IQ?
You have yet to provide evidence that those words are factual, till you do, you are only using them as insults. So, where is the evidence?
"Except for you. Because you're an idiot." "Finally you say something that isn't retarded." "You are by far an even bigger moron than /u/Pizzachu1 , /u/BSKped and /u/throwawayKIND23 combined." "Can you understand that?" "Hey dumb shit?" "you pathetic imitation of a man"
I understand that Aluzky can stir up some intense, often negative emotions, but you questioned his intelligence more than enough the first time you brought it up. We're normally alright with one or two sparse, mild jabs in a thread, but please try to avoid excessive personal attacks in the future so we can prevent threads being saturated with personal attacks and disrespect. Since this is your first warning, I recommend reviewing rule 7's wiki page if you haven't already, and if you have any questions, feel free to ask me or another moderator.
Ok I replied back to a few comments of his before checking my inbox and seeing this message. That being said I will refrain from bringing up my doubts and Aluzky's intelligence again in this sub. And since he's ran out of lousy "advice" I will cease contact with him, for now.
Ah, that's fine. We generally only issue strikes per thread(so you can't get 5 infractions from a single thread because of 5 separate comments for instance -- which would be bullshit), so you're all good. I'd like to reiterate too that you can criticize him for things and a mild one-off in a thread is still fine ie if you do end up calling him dumb, detatched, etc once but are otherwise respectful we won't take action and would rather you just get the one thing off your chest. So yeah, if the need to put someone in their place arises again, just remember that moderation is key.
And of course, if you see anything you think violates rule 7, be sure to report it as well. Rule 7 is a heavily user driven rule, so every report helps.
Not much of a reporter but I will report if I see anything that violates rule 7.
And it's still better if I ignore him for a while.
Ok I'm seriously done with him now. My condolences if you decide to engage him.
Next you'll tell me that ass licking and ass fingering is ok and I have phobia.
Ass licking and ass fingering? Under what context that would be? Because depending of the context, that can be OK or not Ok or neutral.
And you have a phobia?
Oh you don't know what that is?
Sex with women. I don't like my asshole being touched or licked. I also do not lick ass, maybe fingering if I know the chick's ass is clean.
Oh my god you just get dumber and dumber and dumber.
I have a dislike of clowns but other than that no phobias.
I know what ass licking and ass fingering is, what I don't know is under what context you are mentioning those. I don't know if you are talking about humans or dogs or about yourself.
OK, and the point of you telling me that is?
Only in your imagination.
So, do you have a rational reason for not liking that stuff? Hmmm I think we (well you) are getting of topic.
Of course you do.
You are by far an even bigger moron than /u/Pizzachu1, /u/BSKped and /u/throwawayKIND23 combined. That's a fact. I SPECIFICALLY SAID WOMEN AS IN HUMAN WOMEN.
No. I wish I was imagining things at this point.
I don't like it for the same reason I don't like eating raw mushrooms: just not into it.
You only said that after I asked for a clarification. Remember?
Yes, those are only true in your imagination. If they are real, then prove it. I dare you.
That is a rational reason.
Because once again you're an idiot. I've said bedore(very recently in fact) that I'm only into women. I had to say human because with YOUR way of thinking you would think I meant animals.
For one you're still replying to me, you assumed I was a dog fucker like yourself, you suddenly think I'm two different people, you rant a people for not wanking off their pets, you keep claiming to know tings about animals you don't know and will likely never see(I hope) and you keep replying to me despite the fact that you implied you'd rather not hear from me again. I'm only replying to you because I'm waiting for you to piss off and go talk to someone else.
Only true in your imagination, unless you can provide objective evidence that i have a low IQ.
NOPE. Which is why I asked for clarification. We where talking about dogs, to be sure, I asked if you where talking about dogs or humans.
Ignoratio elenchi fallacy. This fact does not support your claim. Try again.
Citation needed. Where is the evidence that I have believed that you where a dog fucker? How if that where true, how does it prove that I'm dumb?
Not suddenly. You and another person where using the same insults against me, making same or similar arguments about the same topic. Is not unreasonable to think that you 2 where the same person.
Ignoratio elenchi fallacy. This fact does not support your claim. Try again. If it supports your claim, feel free to elavorate on how it proves that I'm dumb.
Citation needed. Where is the evidence that I have claimed to know things that I don't know?
That won't happen. I will reply back to comments that are directed to me. If you don't want me to answer back at your comments, then YOU have to stop making conversation with me.
I'm stating facts and find it amusing that you keep talking to me
Context, what exactly are you calling facts?
Like I said, I will reply back to any comments directed at me as long as they are not spam and rational enough and not a total waste of time.
Which is the complete opposite of anything you say lol.
Yay you said something smart again. How long until you lapse back into being a moron?
I think you mean to say "intelligent" not "smart" smart and intelligence is not the same thing.
When have I ever been a moron? Can you provide objective evidence that I have been a moron?
Was being sarcastic
You for got to add "/sarcasm" At the end of the sarcastic sentence.
Do some research on Poe's law, without clear signs of sarcasm or parody, people can't tell from text if you are being sarcastic or not.
So ignorant that you cite Wikipedia as a source for info regarding them. Instead of calling people who specialize is rescuing or occasional breeding, or reading real books regarding Wolfdogs. I have done this. I doubt you will.
How does citing wikipedia makes me ignorant?
Let me guess, if I had used them as citations, you would have also called me ignorant. Are you being rational in here?
From what I have seen doing a quick google search, there is no evidence that a wolf dog can't be trained with dog training methods. And plenty people and cites claiming that they can be trained. The ignorant seem to be you.
You're aware that people can edit Wikipedia articles and pages right?
You're too lazy to call any of them.
Yes. Kleng is a mid-content(some would say upper-mid)Wolfdog if he had a higher percentage he'd be one percentile away from just being a pure Timber Wolf.
Not every method, especially if the Wolfdog is more wolf than dog and their heritage. Kleng is a Timber Wolf(aka Grey Wolf) German Shepherd mix and his vet thinks he's a either a first or second generation cross. I'm able to train but I have to use different methods the majority of the time. Certain things that work with dogs won't work with him. Plus I made sure that he's aware that I'm the true Alpha Male in the pack.
I didn't say they couldn't.
Nope still you. I didn't say they were untrainable.
Yes, I know.
Are you aware that you can check the page citations and even check the page history to see any changes made to the page?
That doesn't answer the question, though, your avoidance of answering is pretty much you saying YES to the question.
And now you just contradicted yourself. You are saying some methods works, before you said that NONE WORKS. That is all I wanted to here, thanks for acknowledging that your statement was false and mine was correct.
Wolf and dog societies don't work like that... Here, read that: https://www.whole-dog-journal.com/issues/14_12/features/Alpha-Dogs_20416-1.html
Is scary that you own dogs/wolves and you don't know this kind of stuff.
Are you and LadySaberCat the same person?
She said: "Dog methods don't work on Wolfdogs" To be specific, she said: "HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! ok I'm done laughing. Dog methods don't work on Wolfdogs"
Aren't we talking about the same wolf dog?
Lol you're saying I'm avoiding your questions.
Yes, you literally avoided to answer the question.
I actually answered the question you idiot. This is why I call you an idiot, a dumbass and a retard.
You didn't answer, and if you answered, then you addressed the answer to some one else and it never got to my inbox.
I did if you couldn't find it then go through your fucking inbox again
Look, you are supposed to only make one reply per comment. If you answer the question you did it some where else or on a secondary post, it is your fault if I think that you never answer the question. Learn to give a proper reply.
Like I said, if you8 made 2 replies to the same comment (one of them having the answer) then I will eventually read it. be patient and I will address that post. And try to understand that is your fault for not making a single post.
I was talking about high content Wolfdogs you pathetic imitation of a man. Stevie Wonder could see that!(sarcasm)
Never mind, I take back what I said, I though you where the other person who said that dog/wolf can't be trained. Like I said, I though you and that other person where the same person or sharing accounts.
Yes I share all my accounts with strangers I barely know the same way you shared your other dog. Everyone does it!
Hey dumb shit? I only have ONE Wolfdog. Can you understand that?
Take a chill pill. And yes, I can understand that. Still, if you are going to own a hybrid dog, you should do actual research about it. You seem ignorant about dog hybrids, seems irresponsible of you. You could get yourself hurt or get him hurt or get some one hurt by applying false beliefs to him and your interaction with him.
Keep your pants zipped around dogs.
That is up to my discretion.
Which will eventually lead to you fucking up one day
Again, you can't see the future. Just like there is people who gets away with murder and are never caught, there is people who gets away with fucking dogs and are never caught.
"If"? I already do.
I have.
That's hilarious coming from you.
The fact that I give him meat, socialize him, keep him from biting dogs he doesn't like(he thankfully this hasn't happened), take him to the vet, groom him regularly and will spend quality time with him is irresponsible? Ok got it. Or do you mean the fact that I don't suck his dick or jerk him off? $20 says it's the latter. Not everyone is a sex crazed gay dog fucker/rapist like you.
Explain these false beliefs then.
I say IF, because if you are not responsible to own such animal, you should give it away to some one who can take better care of him.
I mean actual SCIENTIFIC research. I already pointed out how you think that bullshit debunked research is factual. Is irresponsible of you to treat your dog/wolf by using scientifically debunked alpha and omega bullshit.
Why would that be hilarious?
Red herring fallacy.
YOU using unscientific methods of training to interact with your dog is irresponsible. You have said before that you are the ALPHA with your dog/wolf. You probably believe that you must dominate your dog/wolf till submersion. Like the believes of the alpha omega myth.
If your dog has sexual needs and he is unable to release them on his own, then yes, you are also being irresponsible for not taking care of your dog sexual needs.
And no, you don't need to suck your dog cock to satisfy his needs, just giving him a hand would be enough. If you suck his cock, that is because you like to do that and you are going the extra mile to have fun for yourself.
I know people who are not zoosexuals who take care of their dogs sexual needs. They are responsible owners. Being responsible doesn't make them into sex crazed gay dog fuckers/rapists.
And you have not provided any evidence that I'm gay or a rapist. (I don't deny being a dog fucker)
The belief that there is an alpha and omega and that you have to be the alpha of the pack and so on. I already explained this.
Actually I don't believe nor do neither but thanks for further proving my point.
I don't like dick or dudes so not happening.
I'm a guy she's not. Although she could be a dude, I mean this is the Internet so she could be a he.
OK. Sorry for the mix up. I though you and here where the same person or sharing accounts.
Seriously this is 50% of the reason I call you stupid.
You two where using similar or identical words, arguments and insults, is not stupid to think that you two where the same person.
Yes because millions of people use the same words and insults in case you didn't notice.
Thing was, you two where talking about the same topic, wolfs. Only 2 people where talking about that with me while using the same words and insults.
Well, if you had not being immature, I would have not confused you with her.
No we're not
And here I though you two where the same person or sharing reddit accounts (like living together)
KK, thanks for the clarification.
Also how the fuck did you think we were the same person or living together?! Plus this person clearly isn't me because they use a different account! Fucking hell that's one long reach!
Both using similar or same insults against me, both debating about wolves, both making similar arguments. Is not a long reach. Is a short reach.
Warcanine used like 3 accounts. Who is to say that other people doesn't do the same?
Says you.
Says himself. I'm just repeating what he said.
I have an alt because my co-workers know my username for my main account. I've done four AMAs under my main(nothing huge) and I use this one so I can voice some of my less than PC opinions. However I still mention identifying descriptions of myself as well as hobbies and such so some people know who I am. However on both accounts(of which I only have two) I clearly identify myself as male.
Also Kleng bosses omegas around or won't acknowledge them. He's a bit aloof at times unless he knows the person.
Omegas? Is that a person name? Or you mean like Alpha and Omega? Because that hierarchy thing has been debunked as not being an accurate epideictic of how dogs and wolves live/behave.
Be that as it may, you're not someone who Kleng would pay attention to.
OK, if you say so.
You don't know him, I do.
But you don't know wolf/dog language as good as I do. So, you may be wrong. The only way to know for sure is letting it happen. But we can't, because I live miles and miles and miles away and I will never see your or your dog.
Anyways, can we stop this conversation? it is clear that you can't see the future and you don't know everything, stop being so stubborn in acting like you can.
Suddenly you're a Wolf expert and dog expert now?
Next you'll claim to be god.
[deleted]
I'm not a wolf expert, but I have seen documentaries about them and read about them. And I have show to know more about them than what you know. (you still believe in stuff about wolves that has been scientifically debunked)
I'm not irrational like you are.
Something I'm very thankful for.
Says the guy who now says he knows wolves.
Talking about me? Because I have never seen a wolf in person.
I'm speaking from experience.
I speak from logic.
Hey if you enjoy being mauled then that's your problem not mine but let me make something very clear:
I will LITERALLY buy him his own house to live in. I'm not saying this to be funny either I'm dead serious. He gets his own house.
He still gets his own house.
You're going to lose.
You just said that your dog doesn't bite any more, he only growls. A growl would be enough warning for me to back off.
And the rest of your comment makes no sense, are you quoting things that I said? because it doesn't seem like stufgf I said.
Something you told me you would ignore.
Citation needed.
Do you ever read your own comments?
We've done something similar before. Kleng went hinting with me last month, we tested some scents to see how good he could track. Deer scent(urine, estrus ect), elk scent, friend of mine had his Lab/Husky mix along but she was at camp due to being in heat. She was lying on a blanket(her favorite one she's always on it)and as a test we had the guy that Kleng doesn't know wrap himself in the blanket and face away from Kleng. My boy walks up to the guy takes three sniffs, then walks away. He showed some interest in the real dog but wasn't interested in mating her though he likes her well enough. Kleng has a very good nose and he didn't see where the bitch was moved nor did he see where the guy in the blanket moved to. He later found a deer trail and as a result got himself a healthy deer heart fresh from the source. So you wouldn't be able to fool him plus you would try to grab his dick and then you'd understand why I had to switch vets twice.
Maybe you don't know this, but you are also supposed to use bitch in heat body language to entice the male. Standing there like a mannequin may not cut it. But who knows, you may be right, maybe he is not interested in humans. But again, you could be wrong. You can't see the future, you are not omniscient.
Animal abuse much? Sigh...
Again: You can't see the future, you are not omniscient.
PS: Is not about fooling him, he would know that I'm a human if he where to have sex with me. Is about sending the correct signals to let him know that there is a "bitch" ready to be mated.
Maybe you don't know this but you don't know my damn dog or what he wants or needs or his personality or how he acts around other people or animals.
Yeah I'm aware of that.
He was on the ground and was facing away from Kleng but not holding still.
Correction: I am right.
Unless you're a Husky/Lab mix or the black and white American Pit Bull Terrier that belongs to the guy that lives below me, Kleng won't be interested.
Neither can you but it hasn't stopped you from trying to dictate what other people's animals do.
The deer was dead when I have Kleng the heart. He had part of the hind leg today and I have a rack of ribs, the brain, one kidney, part of the rump and one of the lungs in my deep freezer right now for Kleng to enjoy over time. The deer was dead when those parts were divided up. We took two deer that day as we were on private property but the owner allows people to hunt but he has a set limit on how many deer you can take and that limit is no more than two. The only time he'll allow more to be shot is if they're badly wounded from fighting, falling, predator attacks or injuries from getting hit by vehicles. Occasionally he allows the very sick to be shot. And that's only(in both cases) if the animals are beyond saving and are best put out of their misery. Plus Kleng needs meat, his(current) vet is a vegan and advised me against feeding Kleng a vegan diet.
No but I know you're an idiot and idiots are predictable.
Oh bullshit.
Which he wouldn't, because you're a human(and a stupid one at that) and he has a scary good sense of smell.
He'd know you weren't a bitch. Well at least not a four legged one.
Like I said before, you are not omniscient. Your prediction is not guaranteed to be 100% accurate as you have never seen your dog and a zoosexual engage in foreplay.
So, you are aware that your little "test" to see if he would react to a bitch in heat, means nothing, right?
Still a mannequin. You are superposed to use bitch body language.
Correct: You MAY be right.
You don't know that for sure. Again, you are not omniscient nor you have texted to see if that belief is true.
What does one has to do with the other? It doesn't make sense.
Oh, so the deer die from natural cause? Or got murdered by a human?
If he has dog genes, he can eat vegan. If he has wolf genes, he needs more meat. FYI: Is way more ethical for you to feed him meat from left overs (the cuts that are not sold to humans) than going around murdering innocent deers.
Your belief is only true in your imagination. It is not a fact.
Not bullshit.
Read my comment again, I said that he would know that I'm a human, I know well that dogs can tell human smell from dog smell.
I said "bitch" in quotation marks as I'm not referring to an actual bitch. Obviously he will know that I'm not an actual bitch...
Something incredibly stupid.
Neither are you.
Seen him interact with bitches and seen him interact with some of the women I bring home. He likes his own kind's females better, although he will wag his tail or allow one of my guests to pet him before me and said guest go to my bedroom to engage in sinful debauchery. Plus he really likes that Husky mix I told you about.
According to you.
TIL Moving still means mannequin -_-
Actually I am right :)
The Husky mix practically rubbed her back end in Kleng's face which resulted in him mounting her(didn't mate because the world is full of dogs that need homes and I still don't know enough about Kleng's history), pretty sure the pit is spayed but Kleng really likes being around me. I didn't have to "test" him in either situation.
You claim to know what other people's animals will do all the damn time.
Well according to you the deer was murdered, although it had no idea what happened. Kleng still loved the heart though, the Husky mix liked what she got from the deer too.
He's more Wolf than dog and he's on a 100% organic diet. Although I'm sure you'll bitch at me for giving him parts or cows, sheep, goats and occasionally fish as per usual because I feed my dog what he really needs and that pisses you off.
Yet you think Kleng would still be interested in you?
/r/iamverybadass material right here. I bet your dog ripped out the deer's still beating heart and danced in the blood, right?
Here's a sneak peek of /r/iamverybadass using the top posts of all time!
\#1: R/the_Donald mods are VERY badass | 4583 comments
\#2: Trump's "Power Play" Handshake | 3245 comments
\#3: This t_D badass unleashing hell onto Reddit (while abiding with the rules, of course). | 2130 comments
^I'm ^a ^bot, ^beep ^boop ^^| ^Downvote ^to ^remove ^^| ^Contact ^me ^^| ^Info ^^| ^Opt-out
No he ate it 24 minutes after the deer was shot dumbass.
note to all future readers: its a warzone down there
There was a report on this comment that reads: " Rule number 2. Is releasing private coments in the public with intent to haras me, a rule violation?"
Sometimes I'll respond directly to a report that seems like it needs clarification, and this is one of those cases.
From the rules page, you can see expanded descriptions for each offense. I clarified a bit more, but if I can't use those PMs to find you IRL, then it's fine.
AndI won't moderator discretion this one away. @/u/Aluzky (presumably)
Let people get their own impressions of people, not the impressions you want them to have. You can make just about anyone look horrible
[removed]
I really dont give a single fuck flying out of a dead rat's ass.
If he's really that terrible, let them judge his character by something other than what you say. If he's as bad as you say he is, they'd know pretty quickly.
No, some humans just don't know.
And besides, the evidence is right there. Check that damn post history.
But you don't really care that he encourages others to exploit animals? I have nothing more to say, except that I agree with the anti-zoos of how delusional and dangerous we really are. Any lurkers out there, put this on other subs to make fun of us. We deserve it now.
Then let the people see it for themselves.
Ive been in more than enough internet communities to know what usually goes on when a few people REALLY hate a certain person. I want no part of any of it other than to tell people to think for themselves, and not just blindly follow what other people say.
[removed]
now that's just annoying and possibly get around sub rules.
that aside, i really dont give a flying fuck. i just want people to not blindly follow the hivemind. Bye bye. Write another book in reply to this if you want
[removed]
You know, when i can spare some, i usually am a charitable person. I give what i can to who i can. Ive given many things, including a certain something.
I have contemplated maybe, possibly, i could give this something, something i do not have to much of these days, in fact there is only one, but something i still save for a special occasion. Unfortunately, this is not one of those occasions.
You see, good sir, i have a fuck. a single one, a special one, one of the gre-
no no no. THE greatest fuck you've ever laid your eyes on. for years and years i have nurtured this fuck, i grew it out of the finest soil, fertilized with the manure of charlie, my uncle's racing horse. He's won more races than i could remember, and all his strength, his power, his determination, went into his exquisite manure and that manure transferred its vital nutrients into that glorious, glimmering fuck. I watered it. I shielded it from rain so it would only get my water. Water collected after a four day day hike, through 3 jungles, with the finest team i could ask for. We battled 4 tigers, we bartered with a monkey, we got directions from a parakeet. And at the end of that journey we got it.
Water. Sparkling water from a spring previously known by only one man. A man named fred. An old, retired man. He went on many adventures, glorious adventures, riding a horse with a ten foot tail and a mane of silk. He told us the location of the hidden spring for the price of one ancient mayan coin, given to us in exchange for a sacrifice. a sacrifice i still do not understand.
I used the water we collected on that young, tender, fuck. Its roots, green and soft, soaked it up and it grew just about an inch a day. I watched it day and night and never even got a wink of sleep. eventually, eventually it was ready. I took out a blade, forged in a great forge, from instructions from an ancient Japanese stone table, dug up years and years ago and shuffled from collector to collector until it ended up with me. I swung the mighty blade, with all the force i can muster. Strong, but perilously did i sever that ripe, succulent fuck from its roots, and it came off clean, with just a drop a sap from its now mortally wounded stem. I tasted the sap and i felt it, i felt the feeling of this fuck, of what it could do , what it could be, the raw POWER it held.
I sealed the fuck in a chest, carved in a single piece form my childhood weeping willow, a tree i hugged and nurtured until lightening struck it, leaving it with a faint tingle of great energy, the only energy that could safely contain, preserve, save the fucks energy.
Ive saved that fuck for years in that chest, guarded by cameras, lasers and a pitbull named todd, a pitbull of the purest genetics, the prize of his breed.
This fuck. this glorious fuck sir, is my magnum opus. God has left this relm, for he knows he has been made inferior, no creation of his can rival the perfection of this fuck.
But alas, with a heavy, heavy heart, i can not, in good faith, present this fuck to you. My heart will just not allow for such potential to be wasted. And for that, i am truly sorry.
My time is worthless and these are fun. Pls reply again
[removed]
ok
[removed]
I'm just replying to your original comment so it's easier to see, I'm having to remove multiple comments of yours in this thread because of rule 7. I don't disagree with your points about warning people (especially new people) about Aluzky, but comments calling someone "sick in the head," accusing them of exploiting animals with no evidence, wondering "what their purpose is," and saying their life is worthless aren't allowed here. This is the second strike against your account in the database. You've gotta find a way to argue your position without personally insulting people, especially repeatedly. Harassment/bullying is actually against Reddit's overall content policy and thus required to be removed.
Yeah, and I've been called fucked up by a random person on here. But I was also called a neutered male, a troll, an anti-zoo and a fake zoophile by Sheppsoldier yet nothing happened.
These comments were from a few months ago, so I'll just get the most recent one: https://www.reddit.com/r/zoophilia/comments/6irg8h/i_just_came_inside_my_dog_and_feel_disgusting/dj9tnxm/
I also have been called an animal exploiter by Aluzky himself WITHOUT evidence right there.
By the way, before you accuse me of doing the same, he has admitted to using animals himself before.
Why weren't those comments even deleted, then?
Is this a personal attack, because I confronted you with my negative opinion of your position as a moderator?
This is why I don't trust people with power. Talk bad about them once and they'll target you specifically.
You know, AmoreBestia gave others the chance to edit their comments so the bad parts of their comments would be removed, and the
truthcomment would not be deleted.Also, I am surprised that this is seen as bullying. Where are we? Elementary school? And I thought zoophilia was an adult subject and that everybody had thick skin... Phew, new news every day around here!
No, this isn't personal. It's my job as a mod not to be personal when it comes to removal/strikes/etc. However, I don't always see every comment. Especially in these threads that blow up, it's hard to keep track, and they aren't always reported. Can you link me to Aluzky's comments that break the rules in a PM (so we don't get too far off topic) so I can remove them?
I'll ask Amore and the other mods if they think editing would be a better solution, since your entire comments weren't centered around insulting, like others that have been removed lately have been. I wasn't aware that was done in the past.
I don't think I need to PM it since I just linked it in my previous reply.
Look at the first part of his comment.
Ahh okay, I didn't catch that at first. I'm honestly not sure, it's not a direct personal attack so I don't know if it would fall under rule 7 or not. I'll message the other mods and see what they think. It's been a while since I've seen it but there have been other people here in the past who also think that meat is exploitation and hypocritical for zoos to eat; pet ownership as exploitation is a new one for me though. At least from someone who's not PETA.
Yeah well I can't live without it, as I tried twice in my life.
Not to mention I don't even buy my food, so it's not me who does this.
So Aluzky is also calling me unjustly an animal exploiter.
I actually had a reason too, I'm pretty sure thelongestusername illegally owns an animal. And you see, it's illegal for a reason.
Pet owning is exploitation (exploitation is neither a bad or a good word)
Exploitation means using something to the fullest to your advantage. Pet owners own pets because they get something in exchange, they get companionship, love, security and so on. So, by definion that is exploitation (a not so bad form of it) I'm not a fan of PXXA (I don't even want to say their name) I have no problems with exploiting animals in ways that does not harm them or kill them (like being a good pet owner or having safe sex with pets) I do have a problem with meat exploitation as that leads to needless murder of innocent animals.
Me stating the fact that Warcanine exploits animals was a counter argument to his claim that I exploit animals (he said that as if it was a bad thing) He is being a hypocrite, he is not even a vegan, his exploitation acts are way worse than what I do... so, I pointed that out in his comment. I didn't accuse him of exploiting animals as an insult, nor to attack him, nor as a false accusation, just to prove that his arguments against me are hypocritical, because it is a fact that he exploits animals, be as food or as a pet owner or as an active zoo. He is in no position to judge me for exploiting animals when he does the same thing.
I'm pretty sure I have been mature in all my comments to him and others. And under the right context, they are not in violation of the forum rules. I have a feeling that warcanine would like to take my comments out of context in hoped that I get a strike. I hope that this does not happen.
SCP, we're tightening R7 in anticipation of some future circumstances so I can assure you it's not a personal attack. We'll be making a small announcement on it soonish.
anticipation?
o la la
more like 333 comments :D
HOLY JESUS WHAT DID YOU GUYS DO?!
575 comments.
The drama in this thread is just d e l i c i o u s.
this is now the most commented on post in this subreddit
I've sucked my horses dick and loved it