I Had A Question Regarding The Uh....Drama Going On Here (self.zoophilia)
submitted 2017-09-01 22:29:53 by MAPM28
What's going on exactly? It seems that there's a lot of infighting here going on, mostly people fighting with Aluzky(who I heard about via /r/The_Donald) and talks of being brigaded and even the mods being fed up with negative attention. I have no idea what's going on, so could someone fill me in on this? I support this community and I'm curious as to why everyone seems to suddenly want to kill each other over nonsense such as feeding a carnivore meat or fence junping(which I can understand why people would view this as bad or distasteful).
The zoo community and drama seem to go hand in hand.
That said, it has actaully been rather tame lately, by my measure.
What about the goings on of this Aluzky fellow? Now I admittedly had a neutral position on his opinions but after combing through his comments for a good while.....he seems like someone who likes to intentionally cause drama in both /r/Zoophilia and any other sub-reddit his visits. I'd wager that his more or less a troll that suffers from delusions of grandeur, based on his current behavior. He likes to pick fights and then becomes hostile in a veiled sense when he doesn't get his way. It's awfully childish in my opinion, but this is merely my opinion. However I did notice that one of your mods here has outright told him that he's becoming a nuisance. Seems harsh but I can't say I disagree, from the outside looking in Aluzky does fit the bill so to speak.
Honestly sorry about the drama and brigading going on. Most of you seem like good folks who are being dragged through the mud on account of a bad apple or two.
We have a certain amount of tolerance for others of "our kind" because this is a very high stress lifestyle and we are all personally aware of that fact. Several rather notable trolls and outright psychos have sprung up over the years. One of the things that we talk about in the "quiet times" is whether it is better to embrace them and try to hide them from the str8s or to outright disown them and let them suicide or institutionalize. They are a very small minority but some of them have made some very loud noises.
Such as you known who.
He's not really hostile, he's... annoyingly stubborn. This drama started because he things surviving is the most important in life. From that he derived some ridiculous statements and some users tried to refute them. I realized where real problem lies when everything got silent. Conversations with this guy are awful.
Perhaps hostile is too strong a word. However my rather renewed first impression of /u/Aluzky is that he suffers from Some underlying mental issues. I'm no expert on the matter but I can recognize a pattern of behavior quite well.
I'm all ears, diagnose me. What mental issues I have.
You seem like someone who has a superiority complex perhaps even a god complex, you appear somewhat sociopathic and you deliberately seek out people who you know well enough don't like you, constantly going after them and then acting surprised when treated with hostile sentiments.
You sound like you're probably bipolar or even a high functioning sociopath. Or have some sort of personality disorder.
Have you stop to consider that your assumptions are not factual?
Sociopathic traits are possessed by many people. I agree I have some of them. So what If I do have some of them?
Can you prove with evidence that I do that on purpose?
Can you prove with evidence that I do that on purpose?
Sounding is not the same as being. I can tell you for a fact that I'm not bipolar and that I don't have a personality disorder.
Quote: High functioning sociopath: A high functioning sociopath, you never notice they are abnormal.
Err, people can notice I'm abnormal. I don't try to hide my abnormality because I don't give a fuck about being the same as everybody else. On the rest that I can read about a high functioning sociopath, yea, seems that I could be one. Or maybe I'm just intelligent and rational. You don't need to be a sociopath to act or look like one.
Quote: A high functioning sociopath is one who has complete control over their drives. They are generally more dangerous than a low functioning sociopath that gets caught very easily. A high functioning sociopath, you never notice they are abnormal. They could be your neighbor or anyone else. The thing is, high functioning sociopaths generally have an internal code they follow almost like their morality. But on the flip side, not all high functioning sociopaths are dangerous, due to the fact that they have complete control over their drives, they can choose to act on them or not act on them. Plenty of High functioning sociopaths have positions of respect.
I suggest that you read the bolted text.
You're right. That's an insult to high functioning sociopaths on my part.
I agree.
Also glad to see that flew right over your head.
What flew over my head?
[removed]
I'm removing this per rule 7, our disrespect rule. While we encourage people to speak freely, we must also ask that it is done tastefully.
Fair enough
Pffffffft, omg. That's getting added to the pile. How are you that dense?
Like, seriously. Next time you ask me to prove you're a dumbass I'm linking to that. I figure you'll eventually try to weasel out of it by claiming you 'got it the whole time' and was just 'pretending to not get it to troll'.
What pile?
What you mean by dense?
If you can't support your claim with evidence, then your claim is not a fact.
What are you talking about?
I've continually referenced said pile for over a month now, literally, and you only just now ask about it?
Anyways it seems some stuff flew over your head once again because I am telling you this instance is evidence that you're a dumbass.
What pile?
Citation needed. Where is the scientific evidence that "having stuff flew over ones head" is evidence that the person has a low IQ.
Where is the evidence that something flew over my head?
Where is the evidence that I'm a dumbass?
Accept it, all you doing is throwing insults. Me dumbass is never going to be a fact. And the more insults you throw, more times you break rule 7.
The pile of "Comments proving Aluzky is a dumbass". Search my comment history for the word "pile" and you will either find comments saying something about adding your above comment to said pile (which I will link to as you ask for evidence you're a dumbass) or reference to this exact conversation as I have to reference it outside of its intended purpose.
I told you as I made the first, second, third, and fourth posts for it. Ever since I have merely stated I was adding to it. Its obscene to think that you only now ask about it, even after I explicitly told you earlier what it was.
Dumbass has nothing to do with IQ in any way, unless you wish to make that claim and then defend it.
Go ahead, you'd look ridiculous.
It is a joke about you that you clearly did not get as indicated by your response. The punchline (which is that comparing you to sociopaths is insulting to sociopaths since you are clearly worse, or so goes the hyperbole) figuratively 'flew over your head'. Its a common set-up, and easily understood. I would contest that the only way how one could misunderstand it is if English is not one's primary language or they are a dumbass, at least for this instance.
That's not a good thing but it explains why you engage in sex with animals rhat don't belong to you and often when said animal is entrusted to you buy their owner or family. It's shows that you're a conniving and deceitful person. The sociopathic traits don't help either.
You constantly run to any person that mentions you or barely references you. It also shows that you're insecure as well yet you also thrive on conflict. If these people were really so bad you'd block them to prevent harassment yet you don't block them and you actively seek them out. It also has me wondering if you thrive on negative attention or any attention that's given you.
You should get a second opinion from a doctor.
No shit -__-
Somewhat intelligent but nothing that stands out or makes you above average. Rational.........sorry but you're not a rational human being.
Point out where I said you have to look like one. I'll wait.
I was wrong. You're not high functioning.
You're definitely not among the non-dangerous kind.
I suggest you learn proper reading comprehension and learn how to debate antis better. Because you're doing a horrible job at it and this coming from someone who isn't exactly a master debater himself.
Seem that you didn't read the part that says that being a sociopath is not always a bad thing. Also, I'm not one, sharing some traits doesn't make me one. Like I said, the traits I have are also shared by people with high intellect.
I have sex with dogs because that is my sexual orientation, I can't help it that I find them emotionally and sexually attractive. If they are owned by me or others is irrelevant.
That sentence is not grammatically correct and I can't make any sense of it. Can you rephrase it?
I admit to be conniving. I deny being deceitful, do you have evidence that I'm deceitful?
FYI: Is normal to perk your ear when some one mentions your name.
What? unless you can prove that is your subjective opinion and not a fact.
I never block anyone unless they are doing something really disruptive like sending 10000 messages saying the same spam text on Pms. My policy is to not block people unless they become disruptive to the extreme.
Doing zoosexual activism would be easier without all the negative attention. Believe me, I don't want negative attention, but such attention is unavoidable when you defend something that is very unpopular.
I elaborated on that later on and no the traits you share with sociopaths aren't because of a supposed high intellect.
Because cause you're deceitful, greedy and thrive on lying to people who trust you without knowing your true intentions towards their animals. Hence why despite having a dog of your own you go after any dog you feel you can get to. It also shows that you don't have control of your sex drive. You actually lied about this in one of your other replies when you sent this:
You were saying Aluzky?
You seem to prefer animals that don't belong to you. You have a track record of going after animals that aren't yours despite already having a dog.
You just have me that evidence.
Yes and it's childish to insert yourself into every single conversation in which your name is mentioned. You ought to know that.
You seem to care so much about what others say to and about you. It's honestly quite sad that you're that sensitive.
Yes I'm sure that's why.
So why do you specifically seek out people you know are antis then?
Ok buddy, I'll tell you so you can finally know and wrestle with this truth...
You're a dumbass.
Unless you can prove it, you are are just throwing insults and not describing an actual attribute of mine.
I mean, I said I'd to this so... here's your proof you are a dumbass on, at least, occasion.
What? So, what in your opinion is the most important thing in life? I assume you don't eat, drink or sleep since you don't care about dying, right?
Yet, I'm right 99% of the time. Is not my fault that the loosing side find it awful to lose a debate.
Happiness.
You can not achieve happiness if you are dead. But if you can not achieve it at all, then death is better.
Can you obtain happiness if you are death?
Ahhh, so staying alive is the most important thing, seconded by happines, right?
Are you blind?
Irrelevant, it doesn't change the fact that staying alive is the most important thing. So, I was right.
How the fuck is it irrelevant??? If death is better because of lack of happiness, how surviving can be more important? If it really were for you, you would argue that it's impossible case and you would never want to commit suicide in such circumstances.
I claim that surviving is the most important thing in life. You claim that happiness is the most important thing in life. If you are death you can't have happiness, so, in conclusion, happiness can't be the most important thing in life.
To have a lack of hap pines you need to be alive, to be a live you have to have living as the most important thing. Face it, staying alive is the most important thing.
Because if you are death, you can't be happy. If your goal is to be happy, then your first goal should be to stay alive to archive that happiness. Thus, staying alive is the most important thing.
"
I don't have living as the most important think, but I'm alive. Therefore your statement is false.
"If you don't have a sugar you can not bake a cake. Therefore having a sugar is more important than baking an actual cake if you want to make it"? How THIS is relevant? Oh, I have a sugar, so it doesn't matter if I bake a cake or not, because first step you have to make to achieve your desire is the most important and fulfills everything.
Fact that you are alive shows that it is the most important thing to you, if it weren't you would be dead.
NOPE. You claim it to be false, you being alive proves that it is not false.
Cakes can be baked without sugar. Your analogy doesn't make any sense.
But lets assume for a second that your claim is true. IF sugar is a must for baking a cake, then yes, having sugar is the most important thing for making a cake. Since no sugar = no cake.
You tell me. You are the one making bad analogies.
Correct. First step is getting the sugar, then you can decide what to do once you have that sugar. You can chose to make a cake or do something else with it. And none of that would happen if you didn't had that sugar. /end of the fallacious analogy.
They literally can't be baked without sugar. The flour used to bake cakes has sugars in it. In fact, almost any plant based product has sugars.
I have no opinion of him other than I don't associate with him and he is not representative of me anymore than Kim Jong Un is representative of humanity.
but Kim Un IS representative of humanity
Not really
No, not of the general population anyways. I mean how many average humans command a country for starters, leaving all the other shit out?
All I'm doing is defending zoosexuality from people who have non-factual believes about zoosexuality by telling them the facts. If that is = to representing you, then so be it.
I actually stated you do NOT represent me.
And if a gay person says that the LGBT activists groups doesn't represent him, do you think that is true? What that gay person think is very different from reality.
Same goes for what you think. Reality doesn't change just because you chose to ignore it.
I think that really is up to the gay person, yes.
Yes, is up to them to delude themselves to ignore reality.
The reality is it's up to them whom and what they feel represents them, this is a core conponent of identity really. It's not really a point you can debate.
Like I said: Yes, is up to them to delude themselves to ignore reality.
Anything can be debated.
Technically yes, but it's like debating the sky being blue my friend.
The color of the sky is dependent of the gases and particles present in the sky and the angle of the light that hits them. Other worlds have other mixtures of gasses and particles and may have magenta sky, or red, or yellow. Earth also has other sky colors, specially when the sun is in the horizon.
What is the problem about debating about the sky being blue? Like I said, everything is debatable.
The point is to most outside observers, it becomes pedantic to the point of being moronic.
alusky is small potatoes. He was there ages. He's not a "troll". Don't know how he made it this long if this is how he was gonna mess up. But all those personalities screw themselves over. Just matter of time. Once they pass that 6 foot mark they feel there's no way out (which is true) so they keep digging frantically. You could make a quicksand analogy too, I'm too tired to put it together.
For the rest of "us"... mud is good for the skin.
Well now it seems he's definitely getting closer to Troll territory.
Maybe wants you to think that now. just a man with nothing to lose
But why?
Thank you. And FYI: It is Aluzky with a Z.
I made it this long by being mature, polite and rational.
If I cause drama, it is unintentionally, also, the drama is caused when a selected group of people start posting derogatory and inflammatory comments toward me on almost every thread. The drama would not happen if they didn't do those actions.
I don't troll, I'm just one zoosexual who does zoosexual activism. If you think I'm "great" well, that is you thinking that and not me.
Guess what happens when you correct bigots? By definition all activists likes to pick fights with the antis.
Can you cite a single example where I have gone hostile? I have always being polite and mature.
And opinion that is not based on fact and that is not correct.
You also have a habit of blaming everyone else for your own problems and the trouble that you cause. Perhaps you should block the people you have issues with? Have you thought about that? If you haven't but insist on whining then that's quite telling. Seems you like deliberately causing drama with these people but when they hit you too close to home you get mad and run away.
You deliberately seek out people you know well enough don't like you and then get angry when they voice their dislike. And great isn't synonymous with good. Hitler was a great man, yet he was a horrible human being.
You're not correcting anyone, just repeating yourself and patting yourself on the back for something you never achieved.
Good activists will give the oppposing side the chance to air their opinions before voicing their own. You essentially tell people that you're right their wrong and if they do agree with you they're a bigot. You're the worst Zoophile activist around. You're not helpful at all.
I blame the people who is to be blamed. Again, the comments that I made where identical to comments made by other users, yet, no drama was caused by those comments. Why? Because I was not making drama, the antis who tail me where the ones who started the drama by making derogatory and off topic posts.
I have a tendency to not block nobody. Be here or on youtube.
I don't like blocking people, even if they are irrational bigots.
Citation needed that I ever do whining.
Seems but it is not. Again, the drama is fueled on their side, not on my side. If they where polite, mature and abide by the forum rules, no drama would happen.
Citation needed that i ever get mad, citation needed that I have ever run away.
Citation needed that i do that on purpose. FYI: i can't read minds on who will like me or dislike me. I seek nobody.
Citation needed that i ever get angry.
Did I said that great and good where synonyms? And several dictionaries list great as a synonym of good, so, you are talking bullshit.
Citation needed.
Cite a single example where i have not let the opposing side to air their opinions before voicing my facts?
Well, if they claim 2+2=1 yea, their are wrong and I'm right. Replace 2+2=1 for any other claim that has been scientifically proven to not being factual.
If they agree with me they are the opposite of bigots as they would be agreeing with facts. If they disagree with facts, then they are stupid or bigot (depending if they have bigoted reasons to disagree with facts)
You clearly have not meed dobiedobiedog or that other guy who I don't care to remember his name. Also, you thinking I'm the worst is a subjective irrelevant opinion, not a fact unless you can prove it.
Citation needed.
See you're deflecting again. I'm not talking about solo comments that you made. I'm talking about YOU persuing antis. Try to focus.
Perhaps you should.
Some of their arguments don't constitute as bigoted however. Yet you have decided to not block them despite all this supposed trouble they've caused.
You're whining about these people despite insisting on engaging these people no matter what.
So why is that you follow these people to sub-reddits that don't interest you in anyway shape or form then? What then?
Do you have to constantly repeat the word citation?
You know well enough which specific people don't like you. Yet you seem to enjoying contacting them at every other turn.
You made the claim that what I said was bullshit. Now prove it.
You rant at people for the most trivial bullshit on Earth! You complain about people having pets that are carnivores, you complain about people not having sex with their pets, you even complain about Zoophiles for keeping and fucking animals! And you claimed that keeping a Tarantula isn't cruel because they can be fed roaches which shows that you're vegan stance only extends to animals you see as being cute or fuckable in your opinion. Very hypocritical of you on all points there. I've had enough to look at most of your arguments and you're really just talking down to people and telling them WHAT they should do, their comfort and opinions be damned. It would be like telling me to fuck a 30-year old woman. I'm not attracted to adult women because I'm an exclusive non-offending pedophile(this also includes not watching child porn). See where I'm going with this. You're one of the worst types of Zoophiles an anti could encounter.
Ok you're clearly not interested in timing things down on your part.
That was typo, I'm trying to be serious here but you clearly don't want to have a serious discussion.
Well neither of these people are here right now are they? Yet here you are. You're not the worst but you're definitely one of them unfortunately.
Since when stating facts = deflecting?
The comets that I made in this forum where on topic and i was not pursuing any antis. You have yet to provide evidence that I have persue antis on purpose in this forum. On other forums, obviously I will be whenever I'm needed, aka, if an anti-makes a non-factual comment about zoosexuality, I will most likely make a comment to correct him.
The problem with blocking people is that then you start to see cements that makes no sense and is because some comments are hidden. I don't like that. If there ever a time where "I need to block some" one I instead will just ignore that person instead on that specific time.
I'm talking about the irrational bigots specifically and not about the people who doesn't make bigoted comments.
Like I said, I don't like blocking anyone unless they become really disruptive. Even then, ratter ignore them than block them.
PROVE IT. Where is the evidence that I'm whining about some one. PS: While at it, give the definion of the word: Whining.
Citation needed that I follow them to other sub-reddits.
Look, I don't follow anyone, I look for keywords using the reddit word filter and find people who makes non-factual claims about zoosexuals on reddit AND THEN i CORRECT THEM, i DON'T GIVE A FUCK IF THE PERSON I'M CORRECTING IS SOME ONE THAT i HAVE TALKED IN THE PAST. (caps lock sorry)
Red herring. Provide evidence your claims or admit that your claims are bullshit.
Again, I don't read mind.
I contact anyone who makes non-factual claims about zoosexuals or about me. If the person likes me or not is i relevant.
I already PROVE IT when i said that several dictionaries list good and great as being synonyms you unintelligent humanoid... it is too hard for you to open a random dictionary and look it up? Here, let me help you with a link since you are so useless: http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/good
FYI: Chose synonyms in the tab next to the typed word. YES, YOUR CLAIM IS BULLSHIT. Face it.
Not a crime. And irrelevant as it doesn't prove that i have not let the opposing side to air their opinions before voicing my facts. So, you are doing an ignoration elenchy fallacy or a red herring fallacy.
Again, none of that prove that I have not let the opposing side to air their opinions before voicing my facts. Your are spouting red herring fallacies/ignoratio elenchy fallacies.
My vegan stance only extend to animals that can perceive pain and suffering. Find me a single vegan that doesn't wash his hand with antibacterial soap just to spare the life of bacteria in their hands. Veganism deals with animals that can experience pain and suffering not with animals who can't experience those. The ones that care about insects not experiencing suffering and pain are extremist vegans. FYI: Majority of bugs can't feel pain and suffer.
Not hypocritical at all. If the living creature can't experience pain and suffering in a subjective way like humans do, then it is of no concern to me.
Same way I tell rapists to not rape, their comfort and opposition be damned, the victim right to not be raped comes first.
Sorry, but I have no rational reason to tell you that. unlike me telling people to not support animal abuse, I have plenty of rational and scientifically proven reason to tell them that.
reason to tell you that.
Nope, Your arguments makes little sente to me, you never provide the evidence that I asked for, all your comments where a red herring fallacy/ignoratio elenchy fallacy.
I'm still waiting for proof that: I have not let the opposing side to air their opinions before voicing my facts.
Worst as in their worse enemy. They can never win arguments against me because of my high intellect and high level of education on the topic.
Typo, i mean to say 2+2=1 and citation needed that: "I'm not interested in timing things down on my part" And what you mean by timing things down?
I know it was a typo. And I'm being 100% serious. I always want discussion to be serious. So, stop making false claims about my intentions.
Again, unless you make a comparative chart with proper evidence, it is only your subjective opinion, not a fact. And those other guys are not from here but from youtube.
.......more delusions
What delusions? Can you prove that i have been delusional?
Ok calm down you whiny little bitch. I wanted to see if you would reply with real proof of if you would just flap your arms like a retard. Good to see you have SOME good sense although the rest of your message dashed any hopes of you saying anything else of real substance.
Translation: I'm just trolling you by wasting your time.
Comments without substance begets replies without substance. ▬ Aluzky
Yet you keep replying back to me despite calling me a troll.
And?
... doesn't that mean you're basically trolling yourself?
What kind of dumbass question is that.
You tell me.
Is this a question? And, are you talking about your question or my question?
Sheesh, the dumbassery never ends...
Roaches can actually perceive pain and we wash our hands to prevent the spread of harmful bacteria and disease. And since when are bugs called incest exactly?
So not fucking animals is comparable to rape.
In a subjective way like humans do? Citation needed for your claim.
At the cost of killing living creatures. I'm just using your logic, by your logic, if you wash your hands, you are not a vegan.
I mean to say insect. Obvious typo is obvius.
Sorry but I have no idea on how you reached that conclusion, care to elaborate to how you get to it?
There is a body of evidence that suggests many invertebrates have a pain response, and not just nociception reflexes. They can and often do display plastic, not reflexive, behaviors in response to damage and what would cause pain. Those behaviors evidence damage as being experienced and not simply detected. There was a study that compared stimulation of sex centers in the snail brain to the parietal ganglion(The former was sought out, and the latter was increasingly avoided). There was also a study performed on giant sea slugs where punishment was used when their gills relaxed to a certain point, which resulted in more contracted gills compared to a control group. Another study found that bees could learn to avoid feeding on certain substances through nociceptive stimuli. If they were reflexive responses, they would not form predictive avoidance behaviors. Punishment mediated operant conditioning simply wouldn't work on them and would always produce the same results with every trial that tried; it would be a 'dumb', reflexive response each time... Insects have lots of those, too, but we're seeing fewer of these 'dumb' responses to nociception and more intelligent ones instead. As with all things, you can find a way to justify against these developments, but I'd say that evidence is mounting that they do, in fact, experience pain in a somewhat familiar capacity to humans.
Sources:
Smith, B.H., Abramson, C.I. and Tobin, T.R., (1991). Conditional withholding of proboscis extension in honeybees (Apis mellifera) during discriminative punishment. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 105: 345-356
Wustmann. G., Rein, K., Wolf, R. and Heisenberg, M., (1996). A new paradigm for operant conditioning of Drosophila melanogaster. Journal of Comparative Physiology A., 179: 429-436
Balaban, P.M. and Maksimova, 0.A., (1993). Positive and negative brain zones in the snail. European Journal of Neuroscience, 5: 768-774
Does that include roaches? Because my comment was about roaches.
There haven't been any studies on roaches in particular, but the current data suggests that this trait is uniform among all families of insect.
Scientific citation needed.
The current data is the body of studies on the matter, a number of which I already cited. They have consistent results among a diverse array of insects, which can be reasonably inferred to be true amongst cockroaches as well. We also have evidence showing that even extremely simple organisms like flatworms possess these plastic responses to stimuli, so the bar is set pretty low for experiencing pain.
None of them had anything to do with roaches.
And as you said, they have no data on roaches.
Not scientific to make that assumption.
Thanks for your information but my comment was about ROACHES, not about flat worms.
Inferencing based on existing information is entirely reasonable in science, and is a critical part of evolutionary biology.
I mentioned flatworms specifically for a reason, mind. Flatworms are descended from the oldest common ancestor for all bilateral animals, and plastic responses to pain are consistent in all vertebrates and are observed consistently in studies on insects. Plastic responses to pain have proven to be an enduring trait in invertebrates that have remained relatively unchanged for over 300 millions years as well as modern, higher order vertebrates.
I repeat, not scientistic to make that assumption. Scientific facts are based on evidence, not on assumptions.
Like I said. Is not the first time, people assume that a chemical having one f effect in rats was going to have the same effect on humans only to show in human tests that it had horrible effects on humans. This is why HUMAN TESTS exist, because making assumptions is not scientific. You are assuming as a fact that roaches can feel pain like humans do.
I'm not sure you understand how science actually works. The scientific process generates points of information that we connect to create predictive statements, or inferences. Individual points of information are useless if we don't make connections and account for, but allow, uncertainty. Even Newton's third law is an inference, a prediction. It only works as described as far as we know. But, it's still scientific, because it's based in a large body of evidence that can be applied to the idea, even though we don't have the resources to know it's completely universal. For all we know, newton's third law is technically wrong and physics as we know it is illusory when you reach subatomic levels.
The issue of medicine is a great example of science as an endeavor in incomplete data. We actually have algorithmic approaches to risk assessment, and instead of demanding that every medication be side effect free, most drug standards only set reasonable restrictions and expectations. While you can have extremely precise expectations when dealing with machinery and other devices, biological systems are extremely complex and don't behave like systems in physics. Your example does happen, but only after risk assessment prevents 50 other medicines from entering clinical trials. If mice, pigs, and dogs all die instantly from your medicine, it's much more likely that the same will happen in humans than if all three survived. The point of nonhuman animal trials is that they have enough in common with humans to prevent many, if not most dangerous drugs from ever reaching the point of clinical trials. There's still a chance of failure or unpredictable side effects, a chance that as yet we can only evaluate the risk of. A common advancement of risk assessment is demographic risk assessment. Based on what is known about similar but not necessarily identical drugs, you can infer a greater risk for african americans because all other drugs with a similar structure decrease blood serum levels, for instance. And perhaps, too, the others all share a static binding site and therefore have identical modes of metabolisis.
Science is a discipline of understanding and approaching uncertainty. A weather forecast, although not always accurate, is formed through a scientific process, using existing information to predict events that cannot yet be observed.. If you were paying attention to the hurricane forecasts recently, you probably heard 'cone of uncertainty' thrown around quite a bit. That's the same premise. Instead of trying to completely eliminate uncertainty, which could not be done, they took to forming an understanding of that uncertainty, and finding their margin of error within which those hurricanes were extremely unlikely to deviate from.
The fact of the matter is, science isn't perfect. It's a discipline in probability right now, and likely always will be to some extent. That doesn't change the fact that there's overwhelming evidence supporting the inference that roaches experience pain, and inferences, which are not the same as assumptions, are scientifically valid paths of inquiry.
This is just you being wrong... like, flat out wrong on scientific inference. I suspected induction would fly clean over your head, and it looks like I was right to do so.
Like... if you can't admit to being wrong on this instance then you actually have a problem.
^^^^its ^^^^called ^^^^being ^^^^a ^^^^dumbass.
Repeat that in English this time will ya? Instead of fucking dogs maybe you should brush up on the English language.
My comment was in englsih. If you can't read english than that is your problem, not my problem.
Ironic coming from some one who just failed to read english language.
According to you.
Is that all you can say? Is not only according to me, even if you post my comment on google translate and you push "detect language" it says english.
No because you don't try to find level ground with them, you expect them to accept you with open arms and practically offer their dogs to you with their tails up and their holes presented to you immediately. Frankly /u/30-30 is one of the better Zoos to debate antis as he doesn't tell everyone "Hey if you have a horse better fist your mare and give you male horse a handjob or else you're evil." He can at least understand that there's people in the world who don't want any sort of sexual contact with animals. You don't understand that because you can't understand normal heterosexual attraction and the only reason you support us pedophiles is because you're trying to virtue signal that you're so progressive and accepting of everyone. If there's a an orientation or attraction that's centered around rape you'd support them too.
Hmmm let's compare you to the other Zoophiles then. Let's see, I could be comfortable letting /u/AmoreBestia babysit my dog, not sure about /u/Kynophile but I guess I could ask, /u/SCP_2547 seems a safe bet I suppose though he isn't exactly too fond of me(that's understandable) either way he won't drop his pants around his ankles the second I close the door, /u/peacheslala97 I could trust, /u/fuzzyfurry I don't know but he seems rather laid back and not the sex obsessed type unlike you, /u/Swibblestein seems a bit in favor of fence-hoppy-ish behavior so I dunno if I'd leave my dog with her/him/whatever and I don't know much about /u/the_egoldstein so can't say for sure. Either way you're not the type of Zoophile I'd trust alone with a dog.
o_O
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Like, you are aware that pissing people off with pedantry is the quickest way to keep them against your movement, right? Like, you have got to be aware that this crusade you've pit yourself into has a net loss for Zoophiles everywhere. You make them all look like, well, your dumbass.
You also missed one of MAPM28's responses, so by your own logic he's winning. By similar logic I've consistently won most of ours, but thankfully that's your shitty, subjective logic which the world isn't subjected to.
I don't know.
Subjective opinion are not a fact unless you can support this claim with scientific evidence.
Not my logic. You created a straw man fallacy and you are attacking it. And if I don't reply to his comment, is because I have 200+ comments that I'm trying to reply, eventually I will get to replying to his comment.
Not my logic. You created a straw man fallacy and you are attacking it.
No, its a fact independent of you being convinced its a fact. I have no fuckin' clue why that is such a difficult concept for you to grasp. Its a fact with myself and at least 2 others you've interacted with, undeniably so. Its not unreasonable to extend that to a generality at this point.
You also literally said, "X stopped replying to me, so I won the argument." in a thread. I am showing you the ridiculousness of that notion. Its not a strawman, its you man.
You told one anti that you hoped his friends children die all because they couldn't go vegan(btw thanks for further cementing the stereotypes about vegans being irrational idiots), you threatened to rape his dog, you harassed another anti because she couldn't go vegan, then lied about harassing her when she posted the private message you sent her harassing her, you followed her to an unrelated sub-reddit to harass her just because you mentioned your name, you went to the Trump sub-Reddit of all places and tried to spew your pseudo-scientific bullshit there and got banned! You've drawn the noticeable ire of your community here with your antics. All because you're pissed that a pair of antis seems to have gotten under your skin. I saw all this by going back through your comments and the theme is the same: you deliberately attack these antis whether they mentioned you or not and then you act surprised when they insult you or question your intelligence and mental state. This is completely petty and childish, who wishes death on someone over something so trivial as dietary needs? Let alone wishing death on children but I'm not going to pretend you care because you yourself said that you hate humans so trying to get you to see reason here is going to be like talking to a rock. A waste of my time.
But you have tripe sunken low these days. When you get pissy over a mere mention of your name, you gradually become irrelevant and reduced to being a pathetic troll. It's sad, you seemed smart and like you had your wits about you. Seems people were wrong about you. Very wrong about you.!
I let you know that you are wishing them harm. No different from people who wished that people who used Ashley Madison to be outed. When many of them got outed, hundreds if not thousands of marriages got ruined, some wife and husband even comity suicide along with children lives getting traumatized. Countless suffering on innocent people was brought because of people like you who wish harm where none would have happened if not outed. As of now, nobody is being hurt by my actions, if people find out, then people and animals will get hurt and that would be because of your wish, you will responsible for their suffering.
Citation needed. Where you get this info that I have an INSATIABLE NEED OF SEX? I can do fine with having sex once a week.
A benefit of being very intelligent, is that I can plan ahead and only do sexual stuff with dogs when I know that I can get away with it without being caught or have some excuse to get away with it. The odds of me being caught is almost zero. That is the difference between an idiot cheating on their wife and getting caught the next day and a intelligent person cheating on his wife for 50 years and never getting caught.
Can you provide evidence that I actually said that? Have you stop to consider that the person who made that accusation is lying?
Again, have you stop to consider that their accusation is a lie? Can you provide evidence that I threatened to rape his/her dog?
Define harassed and provide evidence that I harassed that person.
Again, provide evidence that I was harassing her. Again, have you stop to consider that her accusations are BULLSHIT? FYI: This reply I'm doing to you, she would consider it harassment where 99.9% of the human population would consider it a conversation.
I don't follow anyone. And what you mean by I mentioned my name?
I'm no longer banned from that place. And Some one called me there, where I saw people making non-actual claims about zoosexuality as such, I corrected them on the spot. Again: It is my job to correct and educate, no matter the place.
Sorry, i can't make sense of that sentence, can you reprise it in a different way?
Citation needed that I'm pissed at anyone. Citation needed that they got under my skin.
Attack? What is your definition of attack? All I'm doing is either correcting their non-factual claims or asking for evidence for their baseless claims. Do you call this actions "attack" ?
Is obvius for an intelligent person to act surprised when some one questions their intelligent. i mean, if i where making unintelligent comments that would be no surplice. I mean, if i say 2+2=4 and some one calls me stupid for saying that, yea I get surprised. And my mental state is irrelevant to the validity of my arguments. And insults are just unnecessary.
I agree, which is why I have not done any of those. Nor you have proven that I have done any of those. All you have is what the antis said about me, stuff they said that they can't support with evidence. Again: have you stop to consider that their claims about me are just lies?
hating humans is not the same as wishing death o all of them in an indiscriminate way. You are making Assumptions that are leading to non-factual conclusions.
Believe me, if you present scientific evidence, I will listens to that evidence. But so far, all you are doing is repeating the lies that other people have said about me. You think you will make me see reason with lies instead of facts? LOL.
Sorry, I don't understand the meaning of that sentence, can you rephrase it in a different way?
Citation needed that I get pissy.
Subjective irrelevant opinion, not fact.
Sorry, but is clear you don't know the definition of the word troll.
Irrelevant.
Thanks for the compliment.
You have not provide evidence that people where wrong about me. Rumors is not valid evidence. I have always been myself, I hide nothing, I don't lie. If people where wrong about me, is because they though stufgf about me that was false on their own. Is not my fault if they think stuff about me that is not real. i never asked them to think stuff about me that is not real. in fact, if I see people Thinking stuff about me that is not factual, I will correct them with facts.
Pick better analogies and quit being so dramatic for fuck's sake. How am I wishing harm on your clients? I for one would like to be aware that someone who's sexually using my dog. You overreact.
............................you have a horrible memory.
Being a good liar doesn't mean one is highly intelligent, your delusions are peaking up again. And again, loudly analogies Aluzky do better.
You sent him(AlphaOmegaSith) a link to a page that detailed all your comments that spanned a couple weeks when the two of you first started arguing and after telling you that his friends kids couldn't go vegan you told him "yes then I hope they die" after he asked if you would wish death upon kids. You really need to start being honest.
And you expect me to believe you?
Ok if this was just one random person going around saying stuff, I'd be on your side but your community and outsider are saying the same things about you in varying forms. So either this is some big elaborate conspiracy or they're telling the truth about you.
You kept threatening to visit said dog and claimed that the dog would magically like you. Put yourself in the shoes on an anti what the fuck does that sound like? How do you think it would sound if I kept telling someone that I wanted to visit their child and that their child would like me hmmm?
Plying dumb again.
So you didn't falsely claim that this person didn't go vegan due to a kiwi allergy then? That's made up, you ever accused her of that? And would she really consider this harassment? You replying to me? Let's ask her shall we?
/u/LadySaberCat is /u/Aluzky harassing me? He seems to be under the belief that you're just as delusional and emotionally fragile as him.
You're still playing dumb. It's pathetic.
You mean someone mentioned your name and you got upset and decided to rant?
You're a lousy teacher.
............you can't actually be serious......
Oh please. Anytime those two specific people mention you you'll coke running like a trained gimp.
Seriously no is this delusional or sensitive are they? Jesus. /u/AmoreBestia /u/30-30 is he always like this or did he suffer some kind of mental break before this whole drama started? No one can seriously be this insane.
Something you clearly are not.
............... I'm going to pretend that entire comment was sarcasm.
Actually your mental state is valid to the arguments. At this rate I don't blame people for insulting you even if said insults are truth veiled in understandable malice.
You're still trying to pass all this off as some weird conspiracy against you?
Because you've never ever wished harm on non-vegans.
Yet are all of these just rumors? Doesn't seem like it.
Nope he's not harassing you.
I rest my case.
:)
Aluzky must have some form of serious mental defect, that´s all I can say for sure. And sadly, as it is with such mental conditions, he simply isn´t able to reflect on what he says and writes from a POV other than his own. My guess would be severe autism in the form of Asperger, all of what Aluzky clearly shows in his mechanical , robotic way of debating is hinting towards this diagnosis. If you read up what typically is associated with Asperger, suddenly all pieces fall into their places. His "zoophilia" is a symptom of his mental illness...as is his total lack of concern for the owners of the dogs he secretly fucks behind thier backs. Going through A.´s post history, it won´t take long until you stumble over lies and dishonesty, yet he isn´t just too lazy or delusional to realise he´s been caught in flagranti, he honestly just isn´t capable to understand where the discrepancies between his own self image and "grim reality" come from and why we nasty haters are nailing him down on his bullshit...typical for Asperger, if you ask me. A forefeited, inner self image that will be defended , no matter what reality says. Coping with actual reality is surely not one of Aluzky´s main talents.
I don´t waste my time on that fool anymore, he won´t ever listen to anything that comes from the outside. But what makes me incredibly sad, especially as one guy who was a part of the whole online "zoophilia" thing from the beginning, is being forced to behold the total downfall and decay of what once was our, the true zoophiles´ attempt to reach out to society. To give outsiders like AlphaOmega and LadySabercat something they can tolerate without betraying too many of their AND our morals and ethics. To ensure society that being a zoophile doesn´t necessarily means "total sexual degenerate without any self restraints" , like offering dogsitting for the sole purpose of gaining access to new "fuck material" , for example. What our community doesn´t realise is that we can glorify the sex lib agenda of "anything goes" in here as long as we want, but that won´t change anything outside our precious little bubble in here. WE have to adapt to society, not vice versa.
AFAIK, LadySabercat has both, horses and dogs. Ask her who she rather wants as her neighbor, an Aluzkyesque type of "zoophile" that surely won´t hesitate to take advantage of any situation that presents itself or will she be leaning more to such "intolernat and hateful" zoos like me who would NEVER ever touch her horses even if she goes on a three month vacation. Mutual respect and reliability, empathy even with the "oh so horrible" normal animal owners who don´t jerk off their dogs because "I´m the hero that provides relief for this poor doggie" "zoo" bullshit justifications. If you have , like I had to a few times, to calm down a traumatised animal owner whose animal had been the target of a fencehopper, you all of a sudden understand the common hate that´s flinged at us "zoos".And as long as this community isn´t able or capable to adjust their entire weltbild, people like Aluzky are mere foot notes of our demise...very annying foot notes with an "IQ of 140, uh 135, uh 134" and a very disturbing history of making porn of himself rolling around in canine feces, but still only foot notes, symptoms of a severely ill "community" that became victim to filter bubbles and echo chambers.
Shouter: "Who wants change???" "Zoos": "We do!!!" Shouter: "Who wants TO change?" "Zoos": grumblegrumble ...then silence ..and some bushweed rolling through the screen
Aluzky is irrelevant. Dangerously irrelevant, of course , due to his total batshit crazy "education" attempts you can read under practically any youtube vid dealing with zoophilia, but still irrelevant. When he first came in here, I outright hated him, but now I just feel sad for him, he´s so totally disconnected from anything but his ego. Aluzky is the cockroach in a shit cake, it won´t change a thing if we remove the cockroach or not, the cake still is made of pure shit. I can only apologise to all the people Aluzky "educated" in his trademark retarded debating style and to people like AlphaOmega and LadySabercat who sadly have to deal with such an individual that makes the common prejudices about zoophilia worse and worse without ever realising he does so. Ceterum censeo zoophiliam delendam esse...nur wer zerstört, der gebiert Platz für Neues...
I've decided to no longer engage Aluzky. Because he's not really saying anything intelligent and I don't want to go to prison for attempted murder.
He certainly has been something of a one man wrecking crew when it comes to the communities attempt to reach out to others. Similar to how people in my own community completely and totally poisoned most of the metaphorical wells and thus the opinions of antis or people who normally would've been neutral but have joined them extreme anti movement.
Honestly in situations like this I think both sides should be open to change but such things can't and shouldn't be forced otherwise it's not so much a victory of "winning" rights but rather creating a more volatile environment. How well to people really take to being forced into certain situations? Not well. Oh sure some of the more militant Zoophiles would have gained their "rights" but the situation in which they earned(or rather forced) would come back to bite them right in the ass and in a big way. Oh sure anti-Zoophile sentiment is bad now but it would get much more worse if Zoo rights are forced. The resulting backlash would make the current anti movement look like a peace rally. Unfortunately Aluzky and those like him don't realize this and if they do they certainly don't care. Bottom line here is the Zoophile rights movement shouldn't be forced otherwise it'll just alienate people who otherwise might have been sympathetic. I support the sex lib movement but there's a fine line between liberation and just trying to be a pest with zero self control.
She would be far more open to having a Zoophile like you as a neighbor obviously. If she had Aluzky as a neighbor her dogs(at least as far as I know Aluzky only likes dogs) would be at risk of being sexually harassed or abused because in Aluzky's warped mind if an animal doesn't want sex something is wrong with it so you must attempt to train said animal to be sexual. That can go wrong in so many ways. Not to mention Aluzky's well documented track record of lying, he could seriously injure one of her dogs and would lie about it just to save his own skin. So quite obviously you are the safe choice both for the dogs and horses she has.
Respect and empathy are sorely lacking these days it seems in a multitude of unconventional communities. And it's rather disconcerting to see the amount of Zoophiles who like to valiantly preach about respect for zoos and the humanization of such a maligned community to anyone and everyone who decides to listen, but in the same breath they don't have the slightest sliver of respect for the Average Joe/Jane who doesn't want someone taking sexual interest in their pet/pets. Especially those who aren't aware of what a Zoophile is or that such people exist. Factor in that most folks introduction to the community is typically a harrowing news story about an animal that has been viciously assaulted or worse, it's understandable why most people would be ready to grab the torches and pitchforks over the mere mention of someone who wants to have sex with an animal. But alas the more rational and sympathetic zoos are drowned out by the "give me rights or else" crowd within the community and as such is creating more antis faster than PETA can destroy it's reputation with overused shock tactics and faux propaganda.
0___0 not sure if this is a metaphor or a real thing that happened but for my sake I'm going to just hope this is merely a metaphor. Though I have my doubts.....
Seems each community has it's select group of those who only want to accept that which they personally deem right and any criticism is a vicious assault upon them.
Sadly this seems to be an accurate representation of the community right now.
The squeaky wheel gets the oil :/
I'm some ways I suppose I do pity him a little. Emphasis on a little though, if one continues to be willingly ignorant at some point you just have to call a spade a spade. Aluzky doesn't want to help Zoos or change the minds of antis. He simply wants attention and wants to be hailed as some sort of martyr or a poor victim of false rumors at the hands of the evil horrible antis. That's all he cares about, he doesn't care about boundaries or the opinions of others. I'd say it's fair to compare him to someone who likes to preach about how they shouldn't be oppressed while trying to oppress others.
Interesting analogy but one that is yet again quite fitting.
The wear and tear is certainly showing. In looking at their comments it's clear that neither LadySaberCat or AlphaOmegaSith specifically or exactly going to be waving the Zoophile banner or the Zoophile Ally flag anytime soon, but earlier on it seems like they were more or less a bit accepting of the more rational zoos: those who didn't have the mindset that any and every animal they come into contact with should be fucked no matter what and no matter where. But now it's starting to look like they both one day away from simply throwing heir hands up and saying "Well fuck all of you." Well done Aluzky /s. I know I'm not exactly a welcome presence to the majority of the community due to being part of an even more hated group, however even I can see the effects that Aluzky is having on this sub-Reddit. The mods have reported that the sub is being brigaded by even more people since Aluzky started off his descent into madness. My community on Reddit had its own set of Aluzyesque people and look how that ended. Now it looks like the remaining maps have an Aluzky problem as well(in the form of Aluzky) what with his recent rant about allowing child porn to be legalized but not produced. Because of that I've re-evaluated my stance to a more Anti-Contact approach, not to avoid bad publicity but because I had the chance to really think about what sort of harm legalization would cause. I wish you all the best, don't let Aluzky be one of the catalysts that spells the complete doom of your community.
Sorry, didn't see this until now. Seems like high(?) functioning autism. Two of the common traits is stubbornness and failure to pick up on social cues.
Well I've only been here for a short while, and there hasn't been any drama since I got here. I did go back and read past posts, and I will say, there does seem to be quite a lot of drama! But honestly I see this in many communities. I've had the opportunity to be a part of a lot of different and wonderful groups in my lifetime, and drama is always there in one form or another. Always. Its part of living. Honestly, on average, I would say that the drama here seems to be mild. But then again, my benchmark is beastforum, so...
Beastforum?
When have debates about essential issues become "drama"?Seriously, isn´t the so called "drama" the only real justification of places like this? In my opinion, we don´t need subs like this for "supporting newbie zoos emotionally", we primarily need them to sort out our own mess, the mess that started to pile up after the community sheepishly accepted the "anything goes, anywhere and with anything" sex lib agenda.... Places like this sub are made for debates, not mutual testicle scratching and back patting...so I don´t see anything wrong with debates that sometimes can get quite heated und agitative. People do not solely consist of cold , robotesque logic and emotions get dragged in from time to time.
Now for the Case Aluzky: There are several reasons to be legitimately opposed to this individual and its participation in here. Not only the fact that Aluzky does the community a horrible "favour" with his unhinged invasion of random subs to "campaign on behalf of "zoophilia " ", his discussion style shows severe signs of a mental disorder located in the Asperger/Autism spectrum....not exactly the guy you want up front to promote our cause, right? Of course you cannot diagnose someone through his posts in a reliable way comparable to a professional´s diagnosis, but Aluzky´s posts show more red flags than the Russian Red Square and the Tiananmen Square of China combined.His level of self absorption, the mechanical discussion style, answering to month old posts just to leave the "arena" as the "winner", his grandezza only he seems to perceive in himself as a person and a self proclaimed mouthpiece for "zoophilia" only serve to further the already unfavourable opinions of society about zoos while also fitting perfectly into the common prejudice of zoophiles being egocentric sex maniacs who know no moral limits.
This being said, I honestly believe all this "drama" around Aluzky is justified and necessary. We as a community still haven´t agreed on how to deal with persons like Aluzky and that is one of the essential questions that need to be answered and agreed on by every zoophile before we ever can think of campaigning for our orientation.
Aluzky is just one symptom of the unsolved problems the worldwide zoo community faces; one very prominent one by his own actions, but still only one symptom. Without some "drama", all these issues and problems won´t magically solve themselves, so we need to have heated debates about Aluzky, fencehopping and maybe even some debates about veganism and all its ethical implications....as a vegan myself, I can hardly wrap my head around meat eating zoophiles...you recognised a loveable soul in one animal, but you support the killing of another one? See? We zoos gotta find a common agenda besides the usually sported and mindless "Yeah, fucking animals should be legal, dood!", an agenda that improves our own position in society and generates some connection points to Joe Average. Animal welfare issues, dietary issues, moral issues like fencehopping...all these controversial things NEED to be debated on, even if it gets dirty and nasty sometimes.
Talking about debates, what´s that stupid MAP crap and your obvious support of paedophilia? I absolutely won´t subscribe to your demand of legal child porn "if there is no harm involved in making the vids"? I completely like to distance myself from that as I distance myself from guys like Aluzky and suggest that you don´t visit our sub again as a visible ond open supporter of child abuse, we really don´t need that. Make another account without that stupid "MAP" crap and without a posting history that shows your support for paedophilia; we already have a lot of problems to solve ourselves in here and what we need the least is applause from the one group of people that has an even lower approval rating in society...thank you.
[removed]
Generally it becomes "drama" the second it becomes dramatic. Your lengthy, spiraling posts tend to lean towards this. You can attack true issues without the need to do so... well... dramatically.
No, it becomes "dramatic" when people like you bitch about "lengthy, spiraling posts"...if you want to read short messages, go to twitter.
Nah he's right you really are kinda a drama queen
I concur with /u/btwIAMAzoophile.
I didn't say short messages were good either, but yours have a tendency to ramble on without saying much more than could've been said with much less.
This really is just constructive criticism, if you'll take it that way.
People get bored quickly. Long messages have much bigger chance to be ignored completely. But maybe that's what 30-30 wants.
No, I think he hopes they'll mistake quantity for quality.
Damned. We were doing good until you got to that. The concept that you are missing is the one that predominates in most of the sane world. A government has no business involving itself in any individual's affairs as long as there are no verifiable victims. "Be there no harm, do as ye will."
Another basic governmental principle is that we all have "human rights". "Rights" attached to specific groups (Zoo rights) are privileges in disguise. The recent "gay rights" rulings in American courts actually said simply that "gay" was not a sufficient reason to deny anyone a human right. I like to illustrate with Niemöller, also stated as "I may not agree with you but I will fight to the death to defend your right to say it." Many Gays threw us under the bus. How is what you are doing any different?
[deleted]
Or rather, they can. Attraction does not mean action, and most pedophiles don't act on their urges.
It's pretty much the same thing as "all sex with animals is abuse".
[deleted]
No, saying "all pedophiles do harm and create victims".
See how these "sex lib" fools work? And we wonder why we´re accused of being paedophiles by sciety all the time...I really tend to believe in the slippery slope theory the more I read from certain individuals participating in here.
" It won´t hurt, I´ll slide in just the tip...." and minutes later, our cause is fucked up its ass...again. Let´s end the Stockholm syndrome many of this community seem to suffer from without even taking notice...
I happen to think that our cause is fucked when we make decisions based on drama instead of law and logic.
Besides, I get a laugh out of arguing logic with the guy with the robot totem.
[deleted]
I think it's more the general idea that you're judging the poster instead of the post, here.
At the end of the day, banning someone because of their dealings in other subreddits when it's clear that they aren't breaking the rules or planning to break rules here is effectively banning him for thoughtcrime.
[deleted]
Here. I just made one. Took me 20 seconds.
And I think practicing guilt by association is a bigger fault.
Do you hear that? The complete silence of the other subreddits? No TotesMessenger notifying us that drama made a thread about this, nor sadcringe, nor SRD. Nothing. It's almost as if they don't see it as a demerit against this community; it's too arbitrary and petty for anyone to judge anyone here for it. There are MAPs all over reddit, in some of the unlikeliest places, and yet people don't mind, or don't notice. I understand the importance of optics, but right now, there's not any risk I can see.
Just like most "zoophiles don´t act on their urges in fear of punishment or the lack of possibility...that doesn´t make the real negative repercussions from those who DO act on their urges vanish, you know.
I wouldn't have railed against Aluzky recently if I didn't understand that. Still, we have no evidence that OP has done anything, which is more the point... and if we attack someone because of their orientation instead of what they do with it then we're effectively attacking him for thoughtcrime.
[deleted]
Just like LGBT don't want to be conflated with zoosexuals? Discrimination much?
Last I heard we had made it out of the twentieth century and everyone had CGI and virtual assistants. That's what the M A P "movement" is trying to say. They can have their attractions and not harm anyone at all. Personally, I think having sex with a robot or virtual reality suit is a good way to work off feelings that can't be acted on in the real world. What do you think Furries and "Cub Play" are all about?
Most LBGT supporters are clueless. They think that voting as they are told will get them "Gay Rights". Gay Rights do not and have never existed. The whole "consent" argument is a red herring. I don't need my horse's consent to go for ride any more than I need my pickup's. I, on the other hand, do have rights and do not need another human to validate them.
And this is a whole lot like what MAPM28 is saying. He can have sex with fake minors all he wants without harming anyone and should be legally allowed to possess such. But he and "his kind" face a yuck factor worse than ours. It may be unpopular but I refuse to throw anyone else under the bus without a logical reason.
[deleted]
How about if your animal of choice was a Praying Mantis. Would you prefer no sex at all to virtual sex?
[deleted]
Because I feel sorry for you.
You seem to believe that horses exist to provide sexual relief for selected humans. Nothing could be farther from the truth. I haven't had real sex with anyone for years because the doctors removed that part of me. It's annoying but preferable to death.
I do socialize with horses all the time. They say they will let me ride one again some time soon. And when my guy courts me I play along with him and let him have fake sex with me. I get nothing from it other than the satisfaction of providing satisfaction. I guess you could call it "virtual sex".
[deleted]
First, my personal experience already contradicted your rhetorical more than 50 years ago.
Second, what I do is technically a manual collection using techniques developed by that community of scientists and animal experts that you so wish you could cite.
I could tell you that I am one of those animal experts. I could tell you some stories a lot like 30-30's. But you aren't going to believe me. Your history shows someone largely without animal experience making definitive statements about animals. So you will continue to believe what you want to believe instead of going out and getting some actual experience.
[deleted]
I'm trying to keep it polite, child. I've asked and answered questions like yours many times over the years, some of them before the best part of your daddy ran down your grandma's leg.
I never started.
I can say with certainty that I have saved a few million animal lives. I can also say that many animals have tried to follow me home over the years. Even wild animals can co-exist peacefully with me.
What I cannot do is answer any question so nebulous as to suggest that my emotional state could be detrimental to any other individual in and of itself.
[deleted]
I'm curious what country you hail from and what is your native language. If you tell me I may be able to tailor my answers to you in a manner that you can understand.
from two days ago:
That is one of the most basic principals of American government and recently re-enforced by the Supreme Court. From yesterday:
Another basic principal of civilized law everywhere is that we only prosecute people that have actually done something and not everyone that we don't like. And finally:
So where have I supported a "child molester"????? I have supported the rule of law. Period. I demand that any action taken against me be based in fact and evidence not drama and speculation. And I extend the same courtesy to everyone else I meet. I hope that when you grow up you can understand this and do the same.
[deleted]
You use "Zoophilia" and "Bestiality" interchangeably. I don't. Consider that for a while before you reply.
[deleted]
In your first asking of your question YOU made it about emotion and psychology. That agrees with my and dictionary definitions of "Zoophilia". So I continue to refute your proposition that my emotions can damage the emotions of any other in and of themselves.
I'm also tired of your stupidly biased assumptions that I don't care about any potential harm to animals I associate with and have made no effort to safeguard them. Try asking a sensible question for a change and I might reply again.
[deleted]
"Zoophilia" is about emotions. "Zoophilic Contact" is emotional involvement.
But I will explain a few things about how to practice bestiality.
Animals are never restrained physically or chemically. They can simply walk away any time they want to and their wishes will be respected.
If there is to be sex, the animal has to ask for it. I may court them in the time and manner appropriate to their species but for the physical act to progress there must be clear and unmistakable desire on the animal's part.
The animal must exhibit behaviors indicative of acceptance of a family structure involving me. Territorial marking for example.
The animal must seek me for reasons other than food and shelter. They need to socialize and ask for help with normal life events.
The animal needs to maintain good physical health without physical or mental distress.
If I am going to do the penetrating, the animal must be enough larger than myself to eliminate any chance of physical harm.
Given that I have always lived by these precepts to the best of my ability, your worry about harm to animals is moot. If harm was being done, I would stop it before your experts came around to give their opinions.
You should be able to gather some form of assurance from the fact that I prefer to hang around buck naked with a band of full sized horses. They could run me down and kill me any time they felt the whim. I trust them and they trust me. I trust my guy to control his considerable strength and not harm me even in the throes of orgasm. Trust of this level is not lightly earned.
[deleted]
SOB!! It's terrible! I admit that I can't stop beating my wife. It's horrible. I can't join your society of magnificent holiness until I do and I just can't live without being part of it! If I start beating my wife, how long do I have to wait before I can stop and apply for your great redemption plan?
How to tell the difference between a horse and a child"
Horses are bigger than children
Horses are faster than children
Horses are stronger than children
Horses have more feet than children
Horses can be kept outdoors
Horses eat grass
Horses have a strong sex drive and will exercise it at every available opportunity
HORSES (those involved with me) ARE ADULTS!!
And how did you get from "I have rules to prevent harm" to "even if you knew you were doing harm, you'd still continue to act"??????????????????????
[deleted]
I hereby dub you "Sir Fencepost"!
You know, that´s exactly the problem with this kind of "zoophiles"...they are so entrenched in their way of thinking, they lost the ability to think outside of their little box they built up over the years and in filter bubbles like this and beastforum. Total lack of awareness, total lack of seeing things through Average Joe´s eyes, even for one minute. To me, it´s no surprise that zoophiles often are accused of being totally egocentric and self absorbed, detached from "normal" life and "normal" folks. In many cases, they actually are..or it damn sure looks like it. I guess it´s just way more comfortable to think in on-off, yes-no categories than to open one´s eyes and see what´s actually going on. All zoos are inherently good, all government, all "normal" society inherently bad....it´s sooo easy and soothing. But reality isn´t. The reemergence of conservatism is mainly owed to an unhinged progressivism, 70+ genders, demands of "free and legal" animal sex (I don´t use the word zoophilia here on purpose)...and all of that being forcefully pushed into the public that hardly has regained its balance from normalising homosexuality. Too early, too far out, too unprepared, too blind for all the grey and black areas in "zoophilia". Self absorbed, self righteous and brainwashed by the 70s sex lib agenda. Bad strategy and no insight in an average person´s mind at all. We´re doomed.
Try wrapping your head around a few simple ideas. It isn't Average Joe that you need to convince, it's five old lawyers. And as VERY experienced lawyers they operate on law and logic. All the "Gay Pride" parades on the planet didn't decriminalize homosexuality, Lawrence v Texas did.
BTW, a common subset of conservatism is libertarianism. Look it up.
[deleted]
So you haven´t had real sex with anyone for years, but you always post like you are still an active and practicing fella....uh-huh...oh, btw, was that reply short enough for you this time? As if you don´t usually prefer longer and thicker...;)
Let's see now. I still have at least one horse. I still spend time with horses and socialize with them. At least one of them orgasms with my help. I am bonded with them and we often demonstrate affection and protectiveness for each other. How does this fall outside of "active"?
I have been told by more than one doctor that I am alive because I refuse to accept my condition as a disability. I am returning to the daily activities of farming (wrestling with heavy equipment and sixty lb sacks of seed) bit by bit. The doctor that told me to stay off the back of a horse would probably disown me if he knew that I've had a horse on my back but I have never tried to support his weight and he has always been careful with me.
I have got to say that I never expected this particular argument out of you. I miss the feeling of raw sex from having part of him in me. I also regret the time that I was confined and had to rely on others to care for them. But my failings do not define my relationship with them. They are and always will be family. In fact, they are specifically mentioned in my will.
If this doesn't meet your standards for "True Zoo", you can stick it up your ass and twirl. It's been eight years since the doctors started carving on me. We were bonded and active before then and we are bonded stronger now than we were then. I am sure that he knows that I am faking it and I strongly believe that he appreciates my efforts on his part.
Reading your posts, so, you got a back injury from letting your stallion mount you?
No, I have been heavily edited. I had cancer in several different organs so the doctors removed them.
Wow. Sorry to hear that.
I would be fine with screwing a robot horse. Or jerking of to porn. Or using bad-dragong dildoes/fleshings.
By the way, are you saying that you don't care that if the animal is traumatized, that your sexual urges come first over the well being of the animal?
The cathartic effect such virtual kid simulations and fake kiddie porn is alleged to have has been debunked by science long ago. In reality, for some there´s the exact opposite effect of affirmation even if it´s "only" non real kiddie porn. Or, as the immortal Hannibal Lecter has put it, "We yearn for what we see." It´s like locking a diabetic kid into a candy store overnight, saying "You only can play with the fake candy from the window displays, but don´t touch the real candy." Would anyone really be surprised to see 11 out of 10 kids walking out this store the morning after with real chocolate smeared around the lips ? Really? Or compare it to giving methadone to heroin addicts: What initially sounds like a good idea only furthers the addiction and many of these substituted users won´t hesitate to score some smack once they get the chance to. What you propose is shortsighted and is also not necessary if we would demand reasonable and professional treatment of paedophiles instead of hooking them up with virtual kiddie porn. Have I mentioned that methadone has an even higher addictive potential than heroin? In Berlin, the Charité hospital has achieved quite a good amount of success to treat paedophiles in a way that gives those people back the control over their lives by training them to become aware of their sexually problematic deviance. One of the basic suggestions from the Charité doctors is to avoid anything that can fuel the sexual fantasies of paedophiles. That also would include "virtual", non real kiddie porn. And in this case, I exponentially trust professional psychologists and psychiatrists more than some random dude from the internet whose "Happy pervo family of permissiveness" shines through like a light bulb behind cellophane. Get real, Caikgoch.
I love your choice of analogies. You see, I am diabetic. And I consume "fake" candy and soft drinks all the time. It works for me.
A diabetic child would understand that real candy has the potential to kill them.
He crafted a better analogy than he knew. A diabetic that does not understand and control their urges will suffer amputations and die in short order. One that does exercise control can live a normal life for a normal time.
I love how you leave out the words that don´t fit into your narrative..I wrote "diabetic kid" on purpose here to clarify the lack of self control kids usually have.
Following u/canicule´s complete deconstruction of your stupid agenda, I´d say you got rekt, m8....and teabagged multiple times. You are free to lick your wounds in Beastforum...;)
Self preservation supercedes self control, especially if they've suffered diabetic shock before.
The great tragedy of juvenile diabetes is that it robs them of their childhood. They either develop adult level life skills immediately or they die, slowly and painfully.
And I sill haven't stopped beating my wife.
Scientific studies has show that when child porn is legal, child sexual abuse goes down. Pedosexuals need an outlet. If they don't have an outlet, they get sexually deprived and end up bursting into an irrational act of child rape/molestation. You think that most humans don't have self control, but most of them do have it, specially if they can release their sex drive with a legal outlet.
Even if some pedosexuals will rape from watching fake child porn, the number of pedosexuals who will avoid raping because of that fake child porn is BIGGER. So, it is a net win to let them have porn.
And so do heterosexuals, homosexuals, bisexuals, zoosexuals and so on. No sexual orientation is free from rapists and sexual abusers.
Now, are you saying that ALL pedophiles/pedosexuals cause harm to children and create child victims?
If you don't stupor pedophilia/pedosexuality then you are a bigot/pedophobe. No different from homophobes or zoophobes. I hope you are aware of that.
I'm sure you know that animals can give consent, right?
And LGBT are hypocrites by throwing pedosexuals and zoosexuals under the bus. How come they don't throw homosexual under the bus just because some homosexual are rapists? They see some zoosexuals and pedosexual rapists and they trow all pedos and zoos under the bus, but they don't do that with the homosexuals. hypocrisy.
Just another example of you being totally out of contact with the real world, caikgoch...yeah, let´s all become "Perverts united" and mutually justify and support even the most despicable actions. Why don´t we throw all decency and all reason overboard and start to support animal sadists/rippers, too? Why not even include murderers? Hell, let´s be totally indifferent to anything and become the happy pervert family caikgoch so deliberately wishes to be a part of....
But...what if I tell you that you can be against both, government interference in your love life AND paedophilia as a scientifically proven harmful practice? And those "non practicing" paedophiles....would you please tell me what exactly keeps them from acting on their desires? Do you really think that it´s not just plain fear from being punished by law rather than personal morals and insight in the potential harmfulness of their desires? Just another typical example of Caikgochesque black-and-white think...."all Pervos are good, government is bad"...does that summarise it?
Not to mention that showing even the slightest bit of understanding for paedophilia only serves to fuel the old prejudice of "Zoophiles are also paedophiles". Bra-vo, Caikgoch, you show so much insight and advanced knowledge....
"I may not agree with you, but I will fight to the death to defend your "right" to fuck little children or jerk off to kiddie porn of any kind".
Many gays threw us under the bus....maybe because they aren´t as delusional as you are, Caikgoch and know where to draw a line and separate themselves from the elements that would only make THEIR battle for acceptance harder and more perilous. Gays fought for gays, not for any perversion or deviation you can think of....maybe that´s the reason why "they" throw "us" under the bus....ever thought about that and the fact that there isn´t an obligation for any sexual minority to fight for every other sexual minority. Our community already had enough of your "pervos united" crap, it suffers from this mislead attitude since people like you took over everything. Any progress is blocked by this and still there are some delusional loonies who really demand from us zoos to be okay with anything and everything. This isn´t "a pot calling a kettle black", the usual phrase pulled out shortly after such debates. From my personal experience, quite a lot of Joe Averages can accept love for an animal , but will completely shut down once paedophilia is brought into the debate. And by the way, defending the right of free speech of white nationalists, The Klan and neo nazis....have you watched the news lately? Free speech seems to be completely misunderstood by you ´Muricans as a wild card to say and do whatever you want, but free speech also includes being held accountable for what you say and do. And to oppose paedophilia even if I am a zoophile is MY right to free speech, you know...
I´ve hacked it into the keyboard so often now, I really should program a macro to save me some time: YOUR attitude, Caikgoch, is failing us for more than two decades now. This bullshit keeps us back, makes our every efforts to gain tolerance for zoophilia ineffective before we even start talking to outsiders. Why is this so hard to understand for some "zoophiles"? You actually CAN be a genuine zoophile WITHOUT being a complete pervo or supporting every other sexual deviation, you know....I´m sooo tired of these debates. All this ideological crap....all this delusion and clinging onto old and worn out hippieesque bullshit of "love and peace", I´m just sick of it. Animal porn? Yeah, let´s demand more of it , even on kiddie shows to provide proper "non judgemental" education right from the start. Paedophilia? Yeah, let´s support that too because we don´t want to disappoint all these right wingers who kept saying that legalising homosexuality would lead us onto a downward spiral, a slippery slope or "opening Pandora´s box". Let´s prove ´em right, shall we? Let´s do all of this because Caikgoch cannot sleep well if we dare to see the differences , if we dare to have some morals and critical thinking left. Let´s all hug a paedo, they´re just like us....and don´t forget all the animal abusers, they deserve love too. Doesn´t matter they´re killing, hurting and torturing animals because Caikgoch will drop his stupid Niemöller phrase he obviously doesn´t understand a single thing about it...let´s all grant Caikgoch a nice and refreshing sleep by hugging a paedo , supporting demands of legal child porn "if it´s not harmful to children". Stop thinking everybody or Caikgoch will not be able to uphold his infantile belief in "pervos united"....gosh, you´re so blind, yet you think you are a one eyed among the blind.
Now there is what I love about you. You can read so much into a single sentence and say so little in forty.
I simply make a distinction between people that have broken laws and people that I don't like. You should know by now that my sexual ideal is a stallion. How much farther from childlike can you get? But I cannot oppose those who would criminalize my sexuality because someone else might cause harm with a similar sexuality and criminalize someone else in exactly the same circumstances. Neither logic nor honor will permit such luxuries.
I am just as in favor of harsh sentencing for pedos that harm children as I am for harsh sentencing for Zoos that harm animals. I just insist that we hold the trial after the crime not because they may commit one.
It's not fashionable or convenient to stand on honor before personal gain but it's how I'm made. Burn all the bandwidth you want, I'll even support your right to do so. Just remember that the more you rant, the better I look.
Well said.
##"BE THERE NO HARM #do as ye will"
[deleted]
All of those things carry an inherent and real risk of harm, emotional, fiscal, and otherwise.
Not all of them carry such risk.
I gave a more detailed reply to his comment: https://www.reddit.com/r/zoophilia/comments/6xhzgj/i_had_a_question_regarding_the_uhdrama_going_on/dmzvfx3/
You're not looking at the bigger picture with alot of your points.
Feel free to let me know what the bigger picture is.
It's impressive just how many things need explaining with you.
Forgive me for being HUMAN, I don't know everything, I'm not omniscient.
So, are you going to tell me what the bigger picture is?
Every item you listed has a bigger picture, which would take forever to elaborate on. Choose one, or two if you insist.
Feel free to mention it.
Do a summary for each of them.
Or, you could pick one or two. I don't know about you, but I have things outside of reddit that occupy my time.
You said that it would take forever to elaborate on. If you do a small summary, it should take a couple of minutes.
OK, why don't you pick ONE.
if I elaborated all of them.
I'd like you to pick it. :)
At this point, it is clear that you don't have any intentions of addressing your own claim. As such, I'm going to ignore this comment line. Bye.
Or you have problems with authority and don't like that advancing the conversation means submitting to me in this case. Or perhaps you understand that a choice means you're condemning one of your points by your own hand.
You avoided picking one of your own points per my request not one, not two, but three times consecutively. Make no mistake, you avoided this discourse, not I.
How so?
All this time I have been trying to advance the conversation and you have been making excuses to not defend your claim. And when I finally accept for you to explain the bigger picture in one of them (while totally ignoring the other ones, aka not advancing the conversation on those) you make more excuses to not do it.
I condemn nothing.
That is hilarious. You made the claim and I asked for you electorate and the you possessed to make excuses to not do it. You are the one avoiding it. I was patient enough but my patience is over. Like I said, is clear that you don't want to explain what the bigger picture is.
"Or, you could pick one or two." "Choose one, or two if you insist." "I'd like you to pick it. :)"
And instead of complying, you 1. told me to summarize all of them despite me saying to pick one or two, then 2. told me to pick one instead, then 3. tried shutting down the discussion. You can pick one and this discussion can advance, or you can be the reason this discussion stops. I firmly established what I expect from you, either way.
"Or, you could pick one or two." ←Which is you avoiding the: What bigger picture question that I made. From the beginning you have been making excuses to NOT defend your claim.
You said you didn't want to say the bigger picture because it would take too long. Summering it should take no time and you still didn't want to do it because you are avoiding to answer what the bigger picture is.
So, why are you avoiding to answer? Or your comment that "I'm missing the bigger picture" was an empty comment? You don't even know what the bigger picture is?
You made 5-7 points, I asked you to pick one of those points for me to explain for you.
If you care to continue this conversation then answer what the bigger picture is on all those point I made. If not, then I will ignore your "you miss the bigger picture" comment as clearly you have no intentions of having a discussion about it.
Or you pick one.
Oh, wait, you can't. You deleted the original comment. It seems more and more like you wanted to avoid this.
Trespassing is a criminal act. Even if it involves no harm, there is a victim (the home owner privacy)
You can actually run a red light in some jurisdictions/countries as long as no cars are coming.
"Most jurisdictions allow you to disobey a traffic signal if it is malfunctioning, after waiting "a reasonable amount of time," and after ensuring it's safe to proceed. There may be some jurisdictions with a specific minimum wait time, or you just have to be able to convince: a) a police officer, or b) a judge what "reasonable" might be. Of course, if the sensor is just a little bit wonky, you might wait five minutes behind the stop line, then trigger the signal when you proceed." ▬ quora.com/How-long-must-I-wait-at-a-red-light-before-I-can-legally-go-forward-turn-etc
Now, if you run a red light without even stopping, then yea, that is a crime, you can cause a serious accident by doing that.
Your body, you do what you want with it. Want to OD on coke, be my guess. IMO, all drugs should be legal and regulated. Making drugs illegal leads to gangs selling the drugs in unregulated forms wich causes more harm than if they where legal and regulated.
I should be legal and regulated. The places that have it illegal use some ridiculous excuses to make it illegal. The places that have it as legal and regulated are doing great.
Watching it or possessing it should be legal (as it is a victimless crime to watch or own such videos) making it or selling/buying it should be illegal as it has a victim or creates victims.
For you to understand, think of that video of a US citizen being decapitated by terrorists, what it shows is terrible, but you can legally own that video and watch it. The video shows scenes of a past crime, you can watch that video 1000 times and even jerk of to it and you won't harm anyone. Should it be illegal for you to watch that video and posses it? Should it be illegal to jerk of to it? NO, it should be legal, because what you do with that video in private, is not harming anyone.
Now replace that terrorist video with child porn. It is the same thing, you can watch CP 1000 times and jerk off 1000 times and you doing that in private won't harm anyone. So, in theory, it should be legal as it is a victimless crime. The only reason possession and watching child porn is illegal is because people is offended by that more than they are offended by some one who jerks off to a terrorist video. And morality alone is not enough to deem something illegal (of course, that doesn't stop law maker from approving stupid moralistic laws, like laws making zoosex or gaysex illegal)
Now, like I said, making child porn does involve a victim, that should be illegal. Same for selling/buying as it creates demand for such porn and that creates more victims.
I know that sexual maturity is not clear cut, but most humans reach it around age 15 or 16, finding one that is as mature as an adult at 12 is very very VERY hard. Well, I guess if you can prove that the 12 year old was as mature as an adult and you had proven it before having sex with him/her. I would not have a problem with it. Though, good luck proving that to a judge and good luck in making the judge set you free. Lol.
And this is exactly why I'm running the hell away from this community and never coming back.
Do you have a problem with humans having consensual sex? Consensual by informed consent legal standards.
Or you are the type of person who would jail some one for having sex with a 17 year old just because she/he is not yet of the legal age, even if the sex was consensual according to informed consent legal standards?
You are sick bastard.
I'm mentally and physically healthy. And I was born from wedlock from my mom and dad, so I'm none of those.
You rape my dog! And you lie to me about rape my dog!
Watching child porn is fine but making child porn is bad?
You are truly a stupid human being Aluzky.
[deleted]
Because those are crimes with a victim. Where sexual orientations and consensual sex acts done in private with adults are not crimes.
Pedophilia/pedosexuality is not a practice, you are confusing child raping/molestation with pedophilia/pedosexuality.
Fantasies, porn, hobbies, work and so on.
Some pedosexuals avoid molesting/raping children because they fear the law. Some avoid it because they know is wrong. And some avoid because they know is wrong and because the law exist.
You don't even know what pedophilia is to the point that you are confusing it with a sexual act. YOU ARE THE ONE WHO HAS NO IDEA WHAT PEDOPHILIA IS.
And that prejudiced is fixed by educating those people with the actual facts.
Same way racists have the right to oppose blacks and homophobes have the right to oppose gays?
If you oppose pedosexuals just because they have that orientation, you are a bigot, plain and simple. No different from zoophobes who oppose zoosexuals.
Why can't you understand that anyone who is a zoosexual is a zoosexual no matter if they are a pervert? If you don't want to be a pervert, then good for you (though you are a zoo, by dictionary definition you are a pervert) but you can't force other to be like you, nor say that people are no longer zoosexuals just because you don't like them for being too pervy.
Oh I don't think debates equal drama. Just that Aluzky seems to enjoy causing drama.
Again I'm still on the outside looking in, but it's clear that Aluzky has some real issues going in and seems to be cruelly biased.
I enjoy debating. Drama is an unwanted side effect of it. And no, I don't enjoy drama, I don't dislike it either.
Yet you always seems to deliberately seek out and cause drama. Like you get off on annoying harassing others.
Citation needed. Can you prove that I do that on purpose?
I don't get off from that. I get off from doggy sex or from having thoughtful debates or from playing video games or having a tasty meal or several other things but that one.
Also, pretty sure that harassment would be against the rules of the forum. Why would I do something against the rules? Also, what is your definition of harassment? To me, it seems that your definition of harassment is: Leaving a comment. Period.
So why did you try to deflect so hard just then?
Who says that I was deflecting? Where I was deflecting? What you mean by deflecting?
Also, you have not answer: What is the definition of harassment that you use? Where you got that definition?
Ok I'm just going to have to assume you don't know what deflection means.
Although I know you do, I'm telling myself that to preserve my sanity.
I know what deflection means a cording to dictionary definition, I don't know what deflection means according to your own personal definition.
That is why i asked, what is YOUR definition of deflection. Who says that I was deflecting? Where is the evidence that I was deflecting?
I don't know. You are again avoiding to answer the questions. Look if you are not going to have a serious conversation, then don't talk to me.
Were you deprived of oxygen as a child?
I don't know.
And you are avoiding to answer the question. I will ignore some of your future comments if you keep doing that. You have been warned.
.........you're doing it again -__-
You seem very clueless about all this.
About what?
......ok now you're just deliberately being an asshole at this point. You know exactly what I'm talking about yet here you go again playing dumb.
So, asking a question = i¿m an asshole? in what universe that is true?
I don't know exactly about what you are talking about, which is why I made the question. Again, I never play dumb.
You accuse me of not taking conversations seriously and here you are ignoring my question and making false accusations. If you take conversations seriously, then answer the question and stop avoiding it.
You have horrible reading comprehension.
Irrelevant. Now you have avoided the question 3 times. Clearly you don't want to have a serious conversation.
I only go to sub-reddits where people say non-factual stuff about zoosexuals or about me. If you or anyone else doesn't like that, cry me a river. I took the "job" to do zoosexual activists and I'm doing it. If you think that you can do a better job, then DO IT. Clearly there is a lacking of people doing it, so, the day where my help is not needed I will quit doing it. But that day is not today and haven't been in the last 10 years. My help is clearly needed in the present and the future.
I have been with psychologists and I have not been diagnosed with any form of autism.
Because a person having asperger is sufficient reason to fire some one? Discrimination much?
That is your subjective non-medical opinion.
Those are also signs of some one with a high IQ. Have you ever thought about h that?
I can't be here 24/7 answering comments and comments pile up. I will do my best to reply to all comments, including the old comments that i failed to reply in time. Also, this site has an annoying thing where you must wait 9 minutes before making another post. That greatly limits my ability to reply to comments. Because of it, I get more comments than what I can reply and some comments stay without replies because of it.
Your opinion, not mine.
Anyone can be a self proclaimed zoosexual activists, like I said, If you can do a better job than me, then do it. The more people who can actually debate doing zoosexual activism, the better.
By definition, zoosexuals are immoral, there is no helping it. And society will always have such opinions abut zoosexuals. Even in countries with high rates of homosexual toleration there are thousands if not millions of homophobes with unfavorable opinions about gays. And if zoosexuals sit and do nothing, nothing will change, doing zoosexual activism is the first step in changing those opinions.
And FYI: Yes, there are plenty of zoosexual sex maniac, same way there are plenty of heterosexuals sex manics, is not a crime to be a sex maniac. You seem to think that liking sex is a bad thing.
Really? I'm just a random zoosexual doing zoosexual activism. Seem that my only "crime" is making people being exposed to zoosexual topic.
Just FYI, that goes away if you gain karma. It's just that that's hard to do when people disagree with you as much as a lot of people tend to.
Over here I don't have that restriction. Is obvius that making unpopular comments will get me bad karma on almost every forum, defending zoosexuality is pretty unpopular.
I assume this post is alleging to the strong pedophelia vibe going on.
There's been an influx of people who don't regular here, many trolling and obviously not members of this community.
For the most part, I try to overlook where someone is posting and pay more attention to what that are saying. I note this appears to be your first post in this sub; so your comment about "the strong pedophelia vibe going on", which is only from the OP's post history, makes me suspect this is just more trolling. Interesting that OP's account is relatively new, right around the time of one of the more recent trolling incidents. So is the OP account also yours or is this a team effort?
???
the dramas only there if you get involved. I stay a long way away, dont have time for it.
I don't blame you
[removed]
????
Don't act stupid, you support certain acts of pedophilia.
''I saying that child porn should be legal as long as there is no assault or harm involved.'' Yeah sure buddy, like there's chances no harm is involved.
I'm just pissed to see humans like you here all the time. We won't be your friends because no one supports your shit.
Me already talking to you is a bad fucking thing.
It's a mere opinion ok?
Yeah, but that's why I wanted you to go away.
But I do admit, that was stupid of me to say, I shouldn't have.
Please, stay as much as you want. While you're at it, I beg of you to give everyone a bad name here. Can you please spread that zoophiles support all pedophiles? Please?
What's going on?
https://www.reddit.com/r/zoophilia/comments/6xhzgj/i_had_a_question_regarding_the_uhdrama_going_on/dmhqtzz/
Oh
Check OP´s post history for clarification.
Pedo stuff.
Ok how is me being her bad exactly?
[removed]
Ummm
[removed]
No.
Also no.
I didn't even break any rule on that one.
Just my opinion that I'm sharing.
It's stuff like this that'll do it.
So... what's the point of deleting my comment and actually posting it again?
That's like censoring something and then showing everyone the uncensored version again...
Also I've been told the same to me. I don't deserve anything, they don't either.
But okay then. At least the truth is out there.
This is now automatically minimized, mind.
Oh, I guess the truth isn't out there then.
Honestly just fuck off. He didnt do anything wrong in this sub and until he does, he has just as much as a right to be in this sub as you do. Stop your little quest for purity (by being the gatekeeper no one asked for) and stop acting like people holding different beliefs in this group is suddenly going to make people hate the zoo community even more (assuming that even possible)
If you want your little circle of purity, make in your own place, not here.
Indeed he is. He can stay as much as he wants, sadly my comments were deleted. I wonder if you can still read them via my post history?
And yes, we are hated for supporting pedophilic acts. Aluzky, I mean.
I saw others dislike him because he supported pedos. But hey, that's only a good thing.
OUTSIDERS, LITERALLY EVERYONE HERE 100% SUPPORTS PEDOPHILIA!
That actually makes sense. Zoos and pedos mix well even though we're different, just like how different cancers exist.
Also, did you just say "fuck off"? TEACHER TEACHER! WHY ISN'T THIS COMMENT DELETED YET? OMG IT BREAKS THE RULES!!!!
I don't support pedosexual acts. I support the sexuality not the sexual acts.
Unintelligent humans who hate me because I allegedly support child fucking are deluded in believing that I support child fucking. Their hate is not justifiable.
How is being hatted for supporting sexual minorities a good thing? Unless you are a bigot who is against all sexual minorities.
Oh, no to this too.
Better instantly delete any next comment directed towards me that says "xxxx isn't important."
Also I was just told "fuck off". Do I need to spam 100s of reports for any mod to notice it? Because I don't see that comment deleted yet.
We enforce in consideration of the context of a post. An aggressive post made in response to an aggressive post is more justifiable than one made against a passive one.
And i technically shouldn't be enforcing rule 7 without a report.
Who is Aluzky ?
It's called "Google". Find it at https://www.google.com/ . Use it.
Open a dictionary and read the definition of the word "irony", you should learn something.
<sacasm> You know, someone should invent a way to translate tone into text. That way people other than personal friends could extract some context out of three word statements. ;) </sarcasm>
/u/Aluzky
I knew who is Aluzky.
My question was an ironic way to tell that this guy doesn't deserve so much attention.
Oh ok
hm, just for sake of diversity ..with all this talk about young humans ...why none tried to touch interesting question what should be done for making humans well-aware about their sexuality, without turning this into taboo or one of those 'educational' things adults like to create, but pre-adults mostly dislike and not recognize in the intended way (and was intended way really good, or it was flawed from the start)? Yes, this is offtopic, mostly, but in some time during human development we all were much more like animals (pre-speech), so ...isn't this human problem also something to think about?
I don't plan to make/adopt childrens, yet some of my friends already made this step ...and looking at current majority of humans I definitely ask myself unanswerable (but still worth thinking about) question what even in theory can be done.. not just about sexual/erotical aspect of our lives, but about all others interrelated aspects ...like (lack of) self-criticizm, hierarchical overplaying, etc, etc ....
Sorry I'm a tad confused here regarding your comment...
He's asking another of those questions we wonder about when we are in private places. It is absolutely forbidden for me to talk of sex with anyone under eighteen and not an immediate family member. That is even if I am speaking of safety and abstinence. Imagine the parents' reaction when they discover that such a pervert as I am conversing with their innocent darling from thousands of miles away.
No, it's far better that he discuss these strange feelings he has with a minister that has to spend a week in the library to find out what to call the horrid affliction this child has. Look at the reactions triggered when "Gay" was mentioned in public school texts. Maybe if we convince the child that he is a monster and all alone he will have enough incentive to bury his feelings where they will never be seen again. And if it doesn't work we can always institutionalize him.
You think I exaggerate? In the summer after I graduated from high school I spent most of a day trying to convince a neighbor and fellow graduate that his mother had had sex at least three times. My evidence was himself and his two brothers. Nope, there was no chance that his mother had ever done anything so foul and disgusting.
But I'm a weirdo anyway. I want gun safety classes in elementary schools.
Oh.....ok then