12-16-2017, 10:59 PM
Caikgoch, I´ve been telling all those "zoo advocates" that it´s not "zoo rights" they´re "fighting for", but privileges...from the latin "privis lege" what translates to "personal law". Fine that you get this right, but for each one realising that, there are dozens or even hundereds of morons who still fool themselves with this stupid sloganesque "zoo rights".
Regarding your demands, you already have that absolute right to pursue your life in any way you want...nothing to fight for here. The actual dissent is the part with the "...as long as I neither harm nor endanger anyone." You (and many other zoos) tend to define harm and danger completely different than those lawmakers. If there is a way to find another, less draconian way to deal with the phenomenon of zoophilia/bestiality, then it´s via scientific studies that redefine what harms and/or endangers an animal...and I´m not talking about compendia of anecdotal and unverified "experiences" like those from Miletski and Beetz, but real verifiable data.
Consent isn´t a red herring, it is a key element to tolerance for zoophilia. Well, I know what you´re trying to say, but the old "you cannot rape animals because they would attack you if you rape them" is so immensely flawed...if we transfer this attitude towards humans, we´d get "it´s only rape if the victim is physically defending itself". This would leave out the power imbalance that exists in almost all human-animal relationships entirely...I´ve seen way too many apathetic animals who just let the "zoo" have his way with them..not exactly what you could call "mutual love", eh?
I also don´t know how a self proclaimed zoophile can actually see his animals as property ´cause they aren´t. Legally, they are indeed classified as quasi-property, but if they would actually be considered as property, why are there animal welfare laws then, but no silicone dick replica laws that regulate what you can and cannot do with your wobble wangs? Could it be that you´re missing out on a major and essential point here? You´re massively oversimplifying here...it is absolutely just to regulate property issues with property laws, but animals are more than property, they live and feel...and that´s exactly why your battle plan , as elaborate and cunning you like to see it, fails even before it is brought up. Animal ownership indeed falls under property laws, but their lives and their wellbeing does not...
"The legal, moral and logical way is to punish the harm strongly when it occurs and ignore the rest" Sooo...and how does an abused animal call the police? How can an animal get away from its owner if this owner is actually harming it if the owner pays extra attention to hide his animal from the eyes of others? Isn´t that an issue for you or do you dismiss these cases as "collateral damage" and the animals have to stand back in favour of "zoo rights"/ your pursuit of happiness? I really wonder because that u/fuzzyfurry / Axyz guy or whatever he calls himself at the moment actually said that to me when we were discussing this issue. Your stud is not solely your business, it´s your government´s business as well if you are treating him bad...and that isn´t such a clear and infallible "No" as you like to portray it. How do you know you´re not influencing your animal in a bad way with your conduct? You have nothing more than your own view to back you up, not one study and the vast majority of scientists says the exact opposite. Plus, it´s that exact argument all those paedophiles usually pull out "...but,but the kid likes it! And don´t tell me otherwise!" Without any regulation and everyone being his own "government" that has the say, life would quickly devolve into utter chaos. I still stand by my point, we need zoophilia to be regulated by a neutral institution, turning the fox into the hen house keeper (and that is exactly what you propose here) has already proven to be completely wrong and impractical...it´s like giving the heroin junkie the keys to the opioid vault. Without an authority that can intervene whenever it is necessary to do so in order to protect animals from harm, we will never gain enough traction in society, we will never gain any trust from Joe Average. If there´s just one animal that suffers from "zoophilia", it is legal, moral and logic to keep it banned...
