12-16-2017, 10:29 AM
Quote:
7 hours ago, Mfkfznfp said:
For those who say laws banning sex with animals should remain in place:
These laws are not about protecting animals from harm -- they are about protecting "morality". Animal cruelty laws (laws which already exist) should be used to prosecute those who harm animals -- and for that reason, a law banning all sex with animals is not required.
Laws which ban all sex with animals wrongfully punish anyone who has sex with an animal, whether abuse is involved or not.
Acceptance by the public wouldn't directly affect a zoo -- but if society were more accepting, it would make it more likely that these laws would be repealed, which would mean not having to worry about the authorities and the things they could do to screw one's life up.
"These laws...". Yeah, because everything has only one sole purpose and has to be seen in exactly this way...*sigh* Can´t you understand that you´re more wrong than right with your bold statement that "it all revolves around morality"? For SOME people, banning bestiality acts (not zoophilia!) actually is a question of morality, but for MANY others, it´s more about animal wellbeing and protection from unhinged sex drive of some "zoos". I´d appreciate it if you´d find a way out of your SJW bubble and treat issues not like they are isolated from reality for once...
"Laws which ban..." Sorry, but ridiculous and also self victimisation...not a single zoo gets punished by the mere existence of a law. It takes stupidity to get drawn in front of a court to actually be punished...and the data is backing me up on this...or can you mention even ONE incident where a "zoo" has been punished who wasn´t at least partially to blame by uploading porn, handing out personal data, participating in "zoo sex rings", etc...to my knowledge, those among us who abstain from stupidity and stick to just living their lives with their animal partners while keeping their mouths shut never have faced any punishment. You always leave out this tiny, but very important detail...cognitive dissonance or just evil intent from an "activist" who wants to shape the entire world after his own needs so he can switch off his brain completely?
"Acceptance by public..." Yeah, and acceptance by the public in the case of speeding would mean that no one who´s driving a car has to think about other cars, pedestrians and cyclists anymore...wouldn´t that be wonderful if you just can drive by a kindergarten with 110 mph? Oooh, that would be tha bomb! Who cares for the ones run over by me? Life is good when it entirely revolves around my needs. Speeding limits are fascism! Let´s all fight these laws only protecting the fake ass "morality" of "My freedom ends where the freedom of others starts"...
Joke aside, you sport such a onesided and self absorbed perspective it actually makes me cringe. With no words you address possible victims if "that unjust law" gets repealed...who´s gonna protect the animals from the "zoos" , then? Or are the animals nothing more than an *accessoire* for you? Animals who suffer from a "zoo relationship" aren´t folklore from the antis, they are real. Their suffering is real. You don´t have to physically hurt an animal to make it suffer and the "harm principle" only seems to apply to you when visual physical injuries are involved. This stupid "No blood, no rape, no harm" attitude is counterproductive and only aggravates the notion of us zoos as mindless, egotistic perverts whose sexual gratification is the first and foremost concern. What we really need is a neutral corrective and regulations that would exclude ANY harm, physical AND psychological harm. Just repealing the "anti zoo" laws would hand out wildcards to almost anyone out there to participate in the "animal fuck circus", regardless of what this person is, knows and intents.
If there is a chance to "sell" zoophilia to Joe Average, then it surely won´t be achieved by demands of total and unregulated "zoo freedom"...simply because "zoo freedom" would quickly devolve into "bestialist freedom", the freedom for anyone to fuck any animal. And Joe Average doesn´t like the idea of his animals being "loved" by some random self proclaimed "zoo" just because Joe likes to keep his animal outside. Joe also doesn´t like to empower a community that mainly seems to be after unlimited animal porn, frequently shows its idea of "love" via "I really wanna fuck an animal, who lets me fuck his?" requests and generally seem much more interested in their own sexual gratification , they even cheer to blatantly abusive animal porn videos. Not to mention the unsolved issues of consent and power imbalance in "zoo" relations...and the fact that this stupid "zoo freedom" attitude not only got us nowhere in the past 2 decades, but actually has played a large role in the current wave of "zoophilia bans".
This whole debate ires and infuriates me for so long now that I´m really considering a Vlog to share my views on this whole crap. Maybe such people like you will get it when I can explain it better and don´t have these limitations that usually come from being forced to type. But somehow I have the notion that all explaining won´t be able to rip blockheads like you out of their SJW filter bubble...if you accidentally come across a video with a guy explaining zoophilia and why zoo isn´t the next gay to you in a horse mask, chances are high it´s me.
