Anti zoo arguments

[egoldstein]

<div><div>

Everything I've said must have went in one ear and other the other, not a very logical way of thinking on your part eh? I could give a counter argument for as long as you'd like me to, I got all the time and plenty of knowledge and logic [img]<fileStore.core_Emoticons>/emoticons/wink.png[/img]

​
</div>Uhh, I highly recommend re-reading my posts before commenting further and making yourself look even more foolish. ​If there's one of us who hasn't understood what's been said, it's you. I've been quite clear in my statements and you have missed the mark each and every time as you are attempting to argue with some strawman rather than my statements. If you have a counter, I'd love to hear it. I'm pretty certain you don't or you'd have provided one already. Lest this thread descend into a 20 page long reply of me quoting what's been said, I'm just going to provide links and specific quotes.
</div>​Here's a link to my first post in this thread: http://www.zoowg.net/index.php?/topic/337-anti-zoo-arguments/&do=findComment&comment=2346
​In it, I made comment about the provided argument:
<div data-role="commentContent" data-controller="core.front.core.lightboxedImages">

<div class="ipsQuote_citation ipsQuote_open">Argument #8: Being zoosexual is only a choice, so it is unnecessary.Why this argument fails: Zoosexuality is a sexual orientation just like any other sexual orientation. People are born zoosexual in the same way people are born homosexual — it is an orientation that cannot be changed.

 
This is the argument, I'll point out the details again for you since you apparently are having trouble following.
I said the offered retort was not very good, "piss-poor" to be specific. I said it was piss poor because the offered reason "People are born zoosexual in the same way people are born homosexual" is entirely unsupported. The original post provided no supporting evidence, not has anyone else. Being an unsupported claim, it is  no more reliable than the one it is intended to dismiss. If you can't grasp this, please ask for more explanation as it is critical to you understanding what I am saying.
I then went on to show how the post was in error. I'd go into detail here, but I did so earlier at this link: http://www.zoowg.net/index.php?/topic/337-anti-zoo-arguments/&do=findComment&comment=2384
 
Now see if you can follow along here, at what point have you offered anything even close to a rebuttal of this?
 
You did offer up an entirely unrelated comment, which I responded to here: http://www.zoowg.net/index.php?/topic/337-anti-zoo-arguments/&do=findComment&comment=2385
</div> 
Then you started moving goalposts in this post: http://www.zoowg.net/index.php?/topic/337-anti-zoo-arguments/&do=findComment&comment=2376
</div> 
You attempted to change the original claim, that zoophilia is an inherent, inborn trait, one we are born with, with a strawman based on your definition of zoophilia. The hillarious part is my original point doesn't hinge on those at all. Definitions on orientations and zoophilia are entirely unrelated to the point, which you have apparently missed.
 
Before you decide to get all snarky again and fail horribly at an attempt to insult me by claiming that I couldn't comprehend you "in one ear and out the other" http://www.zoowg.net/index.php?/topic/337-anti-zoo-arguments/&do=findComment&comment=2389
How about you try to address my comments instead of going off on some other tangent, attempting to move the goalposts, or perhaps just accept that you've failed to understand what I had tried, repeatedly, to explain to you.
It's OK to make an error, I make them too and I don't fault you, but when you start acting arrogant and insulting because you have entirely failed to understand what was said, it makes it much harder.
 

Everything I've said must have went in one ear and other the other, not a very logical way of thinking on your part eh?

Your comment is pretty apropos, no?