Quote:
On 11/12/2017 at 7:10 AM, silverwolf1 said:
. . . .
On "Zoo Rights": I've been asking since I came online exactly WHAT those "Rights" were and have yet to get a cognitive answer, or two answers that were the same. I've gotten no answer that has persuaded me that the life I already have or had with my lovers need change or become publicly open to pursue them. Such action only threatens my non-human partners and companions, which is unacceptable.
. . . .
sw
I've answered but it's an unpopular answer. Simply put, there is no such thing as "Zoo Rights", or "Gay Rights", or "Black Rights", or any other kind of right given to a group, race, religion or whatever. No person or government can give a right or take it away. If they could grant or revoke it, it would be a privilege. What the Constitution of the US has recognized and the Supreme Court of the US has reinforced is that there are Human Rights. Period. Lawrence v Texas simply said that being gay wasn't a sufficient reason to deny anyone a human right that they already had.
And right there is where we are being screwed. I don't have (or want) an inalienable right to fuck my horse or any other animal. What I do have is an absolute right to pursue my life in any direction that I choose as long as I neither harm nor endanger any one. And that is all that I want.
That's why consent is a red herring. My conduct with my property is measured against the standard of unnecessary pain and nothing else. If my horse isn't suffering from sex (a rather unlikely scenario for a stud), it's no one's business but mine. And no one has any business restraining me from an act that may or may not cause a future harm. The legal, moral, and logical way is to punish the harm strongly when it occurs and ignore the rest.
Quote:
1 hour ago, caikgoch said:
I've answered but it's an unpopular answer. Simply put, there is no such thing as "Zoo Rights", or "Gay Rights", or "Black Rights", or any other kind of right given to a group, race, religion or whatever. No person or government can give a right or take it away. If they could grant or revoke it, it would be a privilege. What the Constitution of the US has recognized and the Supreme Court of the US has reinforced is that there are Human Rights. Period. Lawrence v Texas simply said that being gay wasn't a sufficient reason to deny anyone a human right that they already had.
And right there is where we are being screwed. I don't have (or want) an inalienable right to fuck my horse or any other animal. What I do have is an absolute right to pursue my life in any direction that I choose as long as I neither harm nor endanger any one. And that is all that I want.
That's why consent is a red herring. My conduct with my property is measured against the standard of unnecessary pain and nothing else. If my horse isn't suffering from sex (a rather unlikely scenario for a stud), it's no one's business but mine. And no one has any business restraining me from an act that may or may not cause a future harm. The legal, moral, and logical way is to punish the harm strongly when it occurs and ignore the rest.
I don't disagree with you, but you're referring to a Right I already enjoy. No-one in fact does prevent me in any way, shape or form from making love to my "property" in the privacy of our own home/ barn/ farm etc. Were I trying to do so with anothers' property or on anothers' property or on shared property without permission of the other party, I would indeed be causing harm and should be made to pay.
Nor is anyone discriminating against me for being "Zoo" because it's no ones business if I am or not. I fail yet to see the need or appeal in being "Openly" anything, especially "Openly Zoophilic". Nothing would change in a positive way by my being so in my opinion. Perhaps if I were also Gay I'd understand it differently, but I don't run through the streets yelling "I'm Hetero!" either, so why do so shouting "I'm Zoo" ?
sw
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...
Quote:
On 12/16/2017 at 4:31 PM, silverwolf1 said:
I don't disagree with you, but you're referring to a Right I already enjoy. No-one in fact does prevent me in any way, shape or form from making love to my "property" in the privacy of our own home/ barn/ farm etc. Were I trying to do so with anothers' property or on anothers' property or on shared property without permission of the other party, I would indeed be causing harm and should be made to pay.
Nor is anyone discriminating against me for being "Zoo" because it's no ones business if I am or not. I fail yet to see the need or appeal in being "Openly" anything, especially "Openly Zoophilic". Nothing would change in a positive way by my being so in my opinion. Perhaps if I were also Gay I'd understand it differently, but I don't run through the streets yelling "I'm Hetero!" either, so why do so shouting "I'm Zoo" ?
sw
Of course I'm referring to rights you already have. That is exactly what I said. And neither do I see any need to rip off a quicky with my horse in the middle of the Rodeo Parade. What I do see is people openly changing laws so that it is illegal to be who I am for no reason at all other than they don't like me.
Haven't you noticed that they give as the primary reason for the change in the laws the necessity to be able to prosecute without any evidence of harm? If this doesn't seem wrong to you perhaps we have differing interpretations of "Protect and Defend".
12-22-2017, 12:31 AM
(This post was last modified: 12-22-2017, 12:32 AM by Mfkfznfp.)
Quote:
On 12/19/2017 at 3:00 AM, caikgoch said:
What I do see is people openly changing laws so that it is illegal to be who I am for no reason at all other than they don't like me. Haven't you noticed that they give as the primary reason for the change in the laws the necessity to be able to prosecute without any evidence of harm?
This is why laws banning all sex with animals are wrong and unjust. This is also the type of thing which could be discussed on a pro-zoo blog. The issue is, is it too risky to start a pro-zoo blog in the first place?
Quote:
53 minutes ago, Mfkfznfp said:
This is why laws banning all sex with animals are wrong and unjust. This is also the type of thing which could be discussed on a pro-zoo blog. The issue is, is it too risky to start a pro-zoo blog in the first place?
Legally, there is very little risk. They haven't put much of a dent in the First Amendment yet. Socially, it can sometimes be a problem.
To be honest, I can't see anything high-hier (like governments, or similar structures) as organizations actually being able to lead right way. It more like, hm, Human Occupation Government, not something noble and just. It even worse when it comes to non-humans ... Yes, everyone forced to live (roughly) aligned with current laws, and assumptions about this system being _completely_ broken is not something most humans ready to accept ..let alone start up anything alternative! On the other hand for example anarcho-communist writer might be strangely homophobic and unwilling to look at any evidence (even if it all just about humans..) So, humans very often not open minded where they should, and at the same time accept uncritically something they better to question..It nearly looks like humans don't know what 'serious' should mean..because we live neurotic lives where examples of serious thinking just way too rare for actually becoming living example of what 'serious' is ... Humans spend decades swimming in circles about their job, politics, child-rearing - but at the same time ignore observations surely possible, and/or unable to see how their effort actually change or NOT change others ... It nearly seems like humans live by rule "put out some behaviors in turn and when it started to feel better just repeat as much as possible". Our forward-thinking, ability to predict future of course very far from absolute - but inaccurate observations, dropping parts of observations, ignoring some psychological currents definitely not helping with more accurate prognosis ... Humans were never able to set up _their own_ life as super-society right, for any prolonged period, and this combined with current real driving forces behind 'the human world' and unability of most humans to say 'no' to exploiters and actually stop them (all compromises usually biased in favour of exploiters, already-powerful groups of humans...) actually makes me even more sad...various non-humans usually even more disrespected both 'by tradition', by law and how humans assume they should their lives with them ...so, it really problem-inside-a-problem.
For now I really tend to think _possibility_ of having love (various forms of it) with non-humans already out there at least as idea ..how much it must be detailed, considering you can't learn social interactions from even best books ..I don't know. Good fictional stories definitely something I read right now - but with full knowledge real-life beings actually more complex than even our best flight of imagination ...
Quote:
On 3/3/2018 at 9:06 PM, Andrew-R said:
Good fictional stories definitely something I read right now - but with full knowledge real-life beings actually more complex than even our best flight of imagination ...
So do you think that having a zoo blog (discussing various real-life subjects relating to zoo) is a good idea, or not?
I am ambivalent. Lurk but not post [img]<fileStore.core_Emoticons>/emoticons/smile.png[/img]/emoticons/ [email protected] 2x" title=":)" width="20" />
03-08-2018, 04:31 PM
(This post was last modified: 03-08-2018, 04:34 PM by Cynolove693.)
I tried and got many hate messages and threats so I closed my blog, better to just let it be, apparently i pissed off some animal rights and service dog groups.. Lesson learned, with this orientation everyone hates you, its better to stay out of sight out of mind
|
