Quote:
23 minutes ago, silverwolf1 said:
My question for you; Have you ever questioned or doubted your feelings and desires respecting non-humans? I somehow never had before coming online, and only briefly after. Just curious if I'm alone in that.
Of course! I doubted every single step of the way, I didn't get over my doubt till I spoke with many many people about the subject. I spoke with every type of beastialist, Zoophilie, Anti-Zoo and Zoo that I could find to get many different perspectives to help me form my own opinion. I take a very even handed approach to my own feelings of Zoophilia, I know why I, as an individual, am drawn to the aspects of loving a non-human. The Anti's and some of the Zoo'er than thou folks made me question how I felt about it but I took the time to answer those questions, I am grateful to the people who allowed me to experience the physical aspects of it and the mental aspects.
The place where this approach benefits me the most is in my writing, I take my own lived experiences, and the taught experience from all walks to bring stories that resonate with zoo's. I don't have animals of my own but that doesn't stop me from known what I am and why I am like this. Many want an outside answers as to why but who were are begins on the inside and is only tilted in directions through outside force.
12-02-2017, 03:28 AM
(This post was last modified: 12-02-2017, 03:30 AM by egoldstein.)
Quote:
Quote
It wasn't a choice of mine to be a zoophile, it's who I am, who I've always been, what bothers me the most is the fact that I'm not even allowed to be myself, basically what all these laws against us entitle is people like myself that are exclusively zoosexual are supposed to live a life alone, without the opportunity to love because our love is illegal
I agree it's quite unfortunate, in most cases I think the laws have very little to do with animal welfare and more about trying to abuse anyone who differs from the norm and gets caught, but that's a whole other topic. [img]<fileStore.core_Emoticons>/emoticons/tongue.png[/img]/emoticons/ [email protected] 2x" title=":P" width="20" />
No harm, no foul.
Quote:
Quote
I don't have the means to be different, I'm not wired to people that way; I know I've said it many times, it's because it's a truth everyone will question..
I've heard people say why take the hard route, why not just be normal, what they don't realize is I never really had the choice to be, I tried that route, and it did more harm than good to me..
I've heard (and even thought much the same myself, about myself), but it's as easy for me to be a "normal heterosexual male" as it is for a typical heterosexual male to be me. I experimented a lot when I was younger, I know women and men aren't for me; I know because I tried. I can make friends with people, I can care about people as I've got some good friends whom I cherish dearly, but I don't form romantic bonds with humans and never really have. I can and do with some non-humans
I've spent a lot of time over the years thinking about why I am this way and I've not come up with a compelling answer yet.
Quote:
On 11/27/2017 at 9:12 PM, zootrashcan said:
Personally I think there is a link. I know that's a statement that'll be unpopular in both autism and zoophile circles, but whatever.
Dunno, the sexual dynamics of autistism could make for an interesting research project for someone.
Quote:
Quote
I abandoned the idea of "teaching the public" about zoophilia a long time ago and stumbling across Beastforum and its inhabitants only made this decision even more easy for me.
Weren't you just promoting a zoophile registry in another thread? Seems pretty far from abandoning the idea to me.
Quote:
Quote
The normals are partially right with all their criticism, they´re partially right in accusing "the zoophiles" of being predominantly selfish pricks who only have their own gratification in their twisted minds.
Given the views and opinion you seem to have about zoos, I admit sometimes I worry that much of your "all zoos are abusers" could be projection, I sincerely hope it is not. My sample size isn't especially large, but of the dozen or zoos I've met, most have been good people who take at least as good care of their wards than I see among the pet owning "normal people" I know, typically the care is much greater. Are there some who are as you describe? Of course there are, same as there are abusive husbands or wives; that they exist doesn't mean they're the standard.
Quote:
On 11/28/2017 at 9:00 AM, silverwolf1 said:
I tend to agree that it can be a reason folks, and I mean a LOT of folks, turn to the new popular choice of bestiality. Let's face it, there're a helluva lot more people out there fucking (or more often wishing they could fuck) an animal than there are people who care about the animal(s) they're fucking, or care so much they aren't fucking them at all.
Where's the evidence that it's becoming more popular? More visible, certainly as the internet has done for everything, but all that I've read suggests a slight decrease, primarily attributed to fewer people living in close proximity of domesticated animals. I don't think it comes as a surprise to any of us that in the percent of humans willling to have sex with a non-human, the majority will be motivated by their own desires. I suspect you'd find about the same ratio of self-interest among the general populace in their given sexualities.
Quote:
Quote
I don't (to be more on topic) agree that your (generalized "your") social anxiety causes or contributes to, or is caused by, your zoophilic beliefs. The days of looking at zoophilia as a disease are gone IMO, as that interpretation has always been wrong. Zoophilia itself is a bad word choice in my opinion because of this classic definition. Zoophilia is sometimes a choice, a belief, a feeling, an emotion. Bestiality is ALWAYS a choice. They have no medical causes, no mental side effects, and what you have is what you brought into it. I've felt this way, and expressed as such, for decades. Just research me a bit and you'll see that unchanged opinion since 1997 and my reasons behind it. I'd iterate them here but for fear of being called "long winded".
I'm dubious of free-will, so choice seems an awkward explanation. I think we get here from different influences and circumstances; I don't disregard a possible genetic link (it's long winded), but I'm open to the possibility. When behavior can be designed, shaped, and molded by external events, can the resulting actions really be called choice?
Quote:
Quote
On a side note, and not to derail this topic, I don't and never will get why folks MUST find a cause, an impetus, a reason for their "Zoophilia" other than that it just is. Yet we accept our non-human companions zoophilic tendencies and choices with-out any reason. It's no more 'normal' for them than for us after all.
I agree with you, the cause is far less mportant, but I admit I do wonder at times. I don't think I'll ever figure out why I am this way, but I do think it's important to examine my motivations and actions.
Quote:
3 hours ago, Petazoo said:
I guess I'm weird in this aspect, I'm a social butterfly. I'm charming, friendly and have no problem in conversation. I do have a mental disorder but it's minor and very manageable. (Depression)
I'm a zoo because I'm sexually and emotionally invested in animals. I could easily get women, I've been married, I've dated plenty but it's not what I want. While people are trying to navel gaze about what it means to be zoo or why they are a zoo, I think the focus should shift to : how to maximize your quality of life as a zoo.
I don't think you're weird, perhaps the socially awkward are more likely to interact on the internet than the socially adept causing an overrepresentation online? [img]<fileStore.core_Emoticons>/emoticons/tongue.png[/img]/emoticons/ [email protected] 2x" title=":P" width="20" />
Very well said.
Pardon me if I still totally fail to see why the question of legality matters so much here. We´re arguing about a law/laws that take(s) more than just some minor slips of attention from the perpetrator. If you keep it all to yourself, probably no one ever will suspect anything. I also never heard about a huge "anti zoophilia police force" trying to siege us besides those sting operations Arpaio´s gangsters have done. Even those guys responsible for the new "anti zoo" laws say it´s hard to prove whether someone actually had sex with an animal; all evidence usually is gone after a few hours and it really takes a whole shitload of bad luck to give this hard evidence..or tremendous amounts of stupidity.
Almost five years after the installation of "anti zoo" laws in Germany, not a single person has been arrested because of "zoophilia" and arrests in other parts of the world ALWAYS are accompanied by nutjob actions. In the age of cheap IR cameras, fencehopping may not be exactly the best idea...and I´m not even touching the ethical and moral issues with fencehopping here. Publishing self made animal porn that leads to you being identified? Hell, why does anyone think it is a good idea to publish evidence of a highly reprimanded practice?
It´s also worth mentioning that many members of the community are quick to mix legal and social stuff here. Even if "zoophilia" isn´t punishable by law, it isn´t a smart idea to be blatantly open about it anyway. And I say this from experience, as a German who was legally "allowed" to sleep with his mare until mid 2013. Even if "zoophilia" was relegalised tomorrow morning everywhere, people´s feelings towards having sex with an animal wouldn´t just magically change overnight and I sincerely doubt they will change in a way many "zoo" are hoping for in centuries. There always will be folks who hate you for what you are and there´s no way to dictate that by legalisation.
So it basically boils down to a rather simple question: are you willing to accept your social status of an outcast and will act accordingly by shutting the hell up, not trying to make "zoophilia" into the "next gay"? And if zoophilia means so much to all those "zoo warriors" out there, why aren´t they just investing their precious energy they waste on running their heads against a massive, impenetrable wall into building a safe environment for themselves and their animal partner? Is it because actually shaping their lives by earning enough money to live on their own is so much harder than this stupid "clicktivism" that just takes a computer and a moron frantically hacking in outlandish claims and demands behind it?
Regarding the autism, I´d say it is quite logical you´ll find more autists (self diagnosed as well as medically diagnosed) in "zoophilia". Sexual energy needs vents, outlets...and if you are suffering from the lack of social skills to connect to other humans, it´s natural you will seek another vent for your energies. I recommend reading Wilhelm Reich´s books and his theories regarding vents, those might shed further light on why there obviously is an above avergae percentage of autists in zoophilia.
Egoldstein, you asked for proof on "zoophilia" becoming more popular. May I direct you to the hookup section of Beastforum? But don´t get buried under the masses who are searching for a chance to delete "sex with an animal" from their "bucket lists". Don´t get buried by all those who "want to try it once" or are desperately searching for a piece of fuck meat. Since "zoophilia" has become a thing in the media after Enumclaw, the influx of "curious" persons has grown rapidly. Like a "new flavour" added in your local ice cream shop lets the lines waiting for it grow. I object to the common notion of all these curious ones just being folks who try to act on their inner desires and claim that many of them never had these desires until they ran across something that incited these desires. Homepages as BF have a huge advertising effect on the easily influenceable, on the fetishistic and adventurous ones, on the ones who have NO orientation, the typical FATW´s (fucks anything that walks). I haven´t visited BF for a while now, but if there really is a decrease on the numbers of folks I described, I´d say it has lots to do with the new laws and the deterrence effect they undoubtedly have for those who aren´t emotionally invested as actual zoophiles. It´s basically like with every subculture...the more popular it gets, the more watered down its ideas, its core values will get. I don´t see how zoophilia/bestiality is different from every other subculture here. Insisting on it seems to be equally moronic as saying that, of ALL sexual perversions/obsessions/tastes, zoophilia is the one and only that hasn´t created any brothel catering to that specific "taste". If there´s a market (and a quick glance into BF´s hookup section will prove there is one...a huge one indeed), there will be people who are trying to make a happy buck out of it, legal or illegal, doesn´t matter.
That´s all I have to add for now...btw: I´m astounded by the complexity and civility of this discussion. Maybe there is some hope left for us...
Why does it matter? Take a run through http://usanewswires.com/tag/Johnny+Oquendo
The guy is accused of having sex with his stepdaughter, killing her to cover it up, and dumping her body in a river. Half of the trial is about a witness having visited bestiality websites and having pictures on her phone which she voluntarily turned in so messages from the killer could be recovered.
12-02-2017, 05:05 PM
(This post was last modified: 12-02-2017, 05:08 PM by egoldstein.)
Quote:
9 hours ago, 30-30 said:
Pardon me if I still totally fail to see why the question of legality matters so much here. We´re arguing about a law/laws that take(s) more than just some minor slips of attention from the perpetrator. If you keep it all to yourself, probably no one ever will suspect anything.
If someone happens to trespass and observe you, you would stand to lose everything and spend several years in prison for doing something where there is no harm.
If your mare had an accident which required immediate veterinary care, you risk being discovered and again, losing everything and your freedom for....wait for it....doing the right thing and putting your mare's health above all else.
What happens when you discover a lump in your mare's vagina which if dealt with early wouldn't be a problem, but if left until a vet could readily find it would be catastrophic, how do you explain to the vet that it's there without again, risking everything?
Why should society tolerate laws which are discriminatory and unjust? If the intent is to prevent harm, shouldn't the laws focus on actual harm? The priniples which have guided most modern governments state these types of laws shouldn't exist, but yet they persist. Worse still when these laws are pushed as animal welfare laws because in almost every case they don't improve animal welfare in the slightest, but only serve to resurrect old sodomy laws.
Quote:
Quote
Egoldstein, you asked for proof on "zoophilia" becoming more popular. May I direct you to the hookup section of Beastforum?
You think I hadn't considered that? Again, that's evidence that it's more visible, but not evidence that it's on the rise. In 1953 there were absolutely zero "hookup posts" on bestiality sites, does that mean bestiality didn't exist before the internet? Don't mistake anecdote for evidence.
To make an analogy, I hang out on some machinist forums. I see a lot of people looking for equipment so they too can start making things out of metal. Does that mean machining is on the rise, or that it might seem that way because of selection bias?
Hmm some very interesting points have been made here, but "Bestiality is always a choice" man someone should have told me that when I was 6 years old visiting one of my relatives house with the uncontrollable urge to pet her dog a little lower than normal every time she wanted a belly rub; I didn't even know what sex was at that point or even understand why I felt that way, didn't stop me from pitching a tent though and slipping a finger into her when nobody was watching, then not to long after that I watched dogs mate for the first time and was so enthused by it I tried her myself, then I was so into it to the point a month or so later a buddy of mines dog was trying to hump my leg and I gave my first handjob, again it felt more like an instinctive act more than a choice; all this happened before my brain was fully developed, it is what influenced me into who I am today; I never sat down and thought one day, hmm it would be cool to finger a dogs vagina or jerk a dog off, no the urge itself was imbedded into me very early, i don't really know exactly why or when but the sexuality itself definitely was far from a choice.. acting on it may have been to a point, but I didn't choose to have sexual feelings for animals, they have always been there
12-02-2017, 07:29 PM
(This post was last modified: 12-02-2017, 07:32 PM by 30-30.)
Trespassing and acidentally spying on me? That´s why I moved on a farm miles away from villages..and I´m also glad fences were invented to keep unwanted folks out of my yard. The "lump in the vagina" is highly hypothetical: my mare once had a colic that made "rectalisation" (inserting the arm into the rectum to empty the colon) necessary. It was an emergency call and my vet was shoulder deep into my mare ...I literally slept with her 3 hours ago, yet no suspicion raised. I surely only speculate, but I doubt my vet would´ve become suspicious if he had to inspect her vagina. Mares usually pee shortly after intercourse and so they automatically remove all incriminating fluids.
Plus: although we now have a ban on acts of bestiality in Germany , punishment is rather tame. I won´t go in jail for that, the only possible consequence could be a rather small fine and I could temporarily or permanently lose the right to own animals.The latter surely is the worst of all consequences...still I consider most of your scenarios to be highly hypothetical. I cannot imagine a situation in which I just had sex with her and then an emergency takes place. Horses mostly injure their legs by running/falling...and I don´t know how you imagine me sleeping with my mare, but I can assure you that it´s NOT taking place in full gallop...;)
And why should animals, you know, those creatures all zoophiles insist on loving and caring for so much, tolerate a legislation (or the complete lack thereof) that is opening up ALL paths for abuse and exploitation? Why does it seem that this "free zoophilia" puts the stress on "zoophiles" and their rights while an abused animal that is kept away from any instance that could speak on behalf of the voiceless animal has no chance to withdraw from its "lover"? I once had a quite similar dispute with fuzzyfurry and when he said that he rather accepts some animals to be abused by their "zoo" than having even one "zoo" legally persecuted, I was baffled at how quick so called "zoophiles" throw away all love and care when it´s them and their own gratification. Isn´t placing the "zoo" above animal welfare the epitome of bigotry here, with all the fervor our community displays when it comes to animals? Even one asshole abusing and exploiting his animal in the name of "zoophilia" is one too much for me, the added risks the new laws have brought (it never was a good idea to tell anyone you´re into fucking animals, even without any direct laws against it, btw) are to me a tolerable inconvenience...especiall when you consider how much you have to screw up to actually find yourself in prison, at least in Germany.
I also can´t get behind your argumentation of "old sodomy laws" being resurrected. In Germany, the "anti zoo" paragraph is part of the animal welfare law , not civil law. Germany is a rather secular nation in which religion doesn´t play a huge role anymore. There are indeed some influences by religion, but we´re far from turning into a theocracy...Our law against "zoophilia" basically is a "toothless tiger" and many German zoos tend to see it as a simple deterrence tool as well as symbolic jurisdiction. As I said, this law is in effect for nearly five years now and yet, no one ever was jailed because of "zoophilia" and I cannot remember reading about even one incident where a "simple zoophile owner" who abstains from publishing animal porn, fencehopping and holding "fuck parties" with other "zoos" has faced a judge. For me, there´s only one way to influence the "anti zoo" law....by simply preventing it from being applied. Five to ten years without any case that make the appliance of this law necessary and lawmakers will start asking themselves whether this law is obsolete and should be removed. But this is just my perspective....yet, one thing I know for sure is that you will not calm down a rippled water surface by hitting it with a hammer. You let it calm down by NOT hammering at it like a maniac....wu wei, action by non action.
One facet you all tend to swiftly forget in this is that a ban on "zoophilia" isn´t just a simple conflict between authorities and "unjustly treated zoos". Where are the animals in your calculation? The commonly instrumentalised "harm principle" that would open up all possibilities to psychically oppress animals without inflicting actual physical wounds is unfit as a leading principle. So, let me unfold a theoretical scenario : there´s a "zoo" who keeps his dog solely as his personal sex toy. He is NOT physically harming the animal, but uses it as a convenient sex toy whenever he feels like it while totally abandoning it when he´s not "in the mood". The animal does not openly show signs of mistreatment and abuse. So, what should we do in this case? Look away because "zoo rights"? Wouldn´t that totally contradict our own creed? Placing the human´s interest over the animal´s right? Look, I don´t keep bringing up my proposal/idea of regulated zoophilia for nothing but my own ego here, okay? We WILL need a neutral instance of observance and supervision, one that can objectively decide whether the animal suffers from the "zoo relationship". As I said before, gicing this responsibility into the hands of the "zoo" is basically just making the fox into the hen house keeper...or giving a heroin junkie the keys to the opioid storage and letting him alone decide the dosage. We´re in a dilemmma here...screaming for "free zoophilia" without any neutral observance will mostly benefit the wrong ones. Sometimes, it´s way more heroic, consistent and reasonable to actually make compromises than trying to force our heads through a concrete wall. Especially when "free zoophilia" practically is total freedom for fencehoppers, animal porn producers and other dubious individuals. Liberal /libertarian principles are nice to have....until their appliance turns into the cause of suffering. Freedom also is a nice thing...until YOUR freedom collides with the freedom of another being. Americans always talk about freedom of gun ownership...but what about the freedom to live one´s life without being shot as an innocent bystander, an unfortunate person standing at the wrong place in the wrong moment?
So, what is more "zoo"...constant nagging about "zoo freedom" while this idea would deliver many animals to suffering from so called "zoo relations". Or learning to live with a law that most likely will never be applied to you personally if you manage to moderate yourself and keep yourself under the radar , a law that might delete the idea of "Oooh, maybe I could give zoophilia a try" in many adventurous and irresponsible folks? To me, the latter is more zoo...placing the animal´s wellbeing above your own convenience...or, as the original zeta rules word it "The animal ALWAYS comes first!" If only ONE animal is spared from a life in misery and abuse, I as a zoophile am happy to give a part of my freedom, I am willing to tolerate an "unjust" law for this one animal. That´s what zoophilia should be about...the animal always comes first....
Quote:
4 hours ago, caikgoch said:
Why does it matter? Take a run through http://usanewswires.com/tag/Johnny+Oquendo
The guy is accused of having sex with his stepdaughter, killing her to cover it up, and dumping her body in a river. Half of the trial is about a witness having visited bestiality websites and having pictures on her phone which she voluntarily turned in so messages from the killer could be recovered.
Say, have you heard about whataboutism, caikgoch? [img]<fileStore.core_Emoticons>/emoticons/wink.png[/img]/emoticons/[email protected] 2x" title=";)" width="20" />
Challenging a witnesses´ credibility is lawyer 101; in your nation that obviously has no problems with showing live footage of cops gunning down bank robbers , but goes nuts when Janet Jackson´s nipple is shown, it´s not the core issue whether some witness is questioned about visits in a bestiality forum, but your nation´s entire focus. Nazis openly wearing insignia of an evil genocidal dictator? No problemo in the US! But don´t show the nipple...it might negatively influence the kids!!! [img]<fileStore.core_Emoticons>/emoticons/wink.png[/img]/emoticons/[email protected] 2x" title=";)" width="20" />
To me, the USA basically looks like a death cult. You glorify violence and vilify sexuality...and that as the world´s greatest porn producer and the greatest market for porn of all colours. You glorify wars, soldiers, guns....you´re afraid of the *eros*, but are completely hooked to the *thanatos*, as Freud would put it. The case you linked doesn´t exactly fit into what you wanted to prove here, it only shows there are issues way deeper than just challenging the credibility of a witness because of visits in a bestiality forum. I´d even say that the witness would be equally attacked if the bestiality forums would´ve been a BDSM forum, a "diaper people forum" or any other aberration you can come up with. This goes deeper than what you are aiming at. And be honest, aren´t we all indeed a little twisted ? [img]<fileStore.core_Emoticons>/emoticons/wink.png[/img]/emoticons/[email protected] 2x" title=";)" width="20" />
Joking aside, I really believe that your way, the American way, has come to an end. Trump is the perfect symbol for this...a "conservative" party, emphasising on "family values", "christianity" and "decency" elects a bloated , uncultivated swine as their candidate ...and all the rednecks, poorly educated and disappointed casualities of the change of times (coal!clean coal!!!) make him the president. He withdraws from the Paris climate accord, some states nearly drown from never seen hurricanes and yet, "MAGA!" You all complain about "the media", but it´s you, with your sensationalism who made "the media" into what it is....
You hold up the values of "freedom", yet you invade countless countries, mingle with their political processes (Salvador Allende, anyone?), lead wars solely for oil and leave them with utter chaos (Iraq, Syria etc.), you bomb countries back into stone age simply for vengeance (Afghanistan) and complain about your army being shot at with exactly the same weapons you sold to Afghani warlords decades ago when Russia still was the big baddie...
You privatise jails and wonder why you´re the nation with the highest incarceration rate worldwide, locking away people for literally nothing because inmates equal profits. And don´t get me started on the entire health care issue....there definitely is a bigger problem in your country than just a witness and visits on a bestiality forum...don´t you think?
@ 30-30, congratulations! You may have just set a new record for size of strawman argument. How does any part of American culture (which, BTW, saved your parents' ass from that "evil dictator") have anything to do with making it possible for good people to be prosecuted for doing the right thing?
If the camera in your barn showed both you screwing your mare and an ax murderer chasing your neighbor in and killing him would you have the balls to turn the footage over? Or would you delete it and lie?
And please see if you can scrape up enough balls to start a thread about American world politics.
How anything I mentioned is contributing to the case you quoted? Do you expect a sane, logical and unbiased trial in a country that went absolutely nuts a couple of decades ago? Say, do you expect trials in North Corea to be fair, rational and unbiased? That´s what I wanted to express...you are working yourselves off on nothing but a SYMPTOM of the many issues that your legal system has...one tiny symptom. The flaws won´t disappear even if you manage to correct this "incredible injustice" of doubting the credibility of a witness on the base of visits in a bestiality forum.
It´s quite funny how quickly you can be triggered by simply mentioning some of the obvious (at least for a large portion of the civilised world [img]<fileStore.core_Emoticons>/emoticons/wink.png[/img]/emoticons/ [email protected] 2x" title=";)" width="20" /> ) paradoxa your country displays. What also made me roll on the floor laughing is this idea of yours that your nation freed Europe from fascism alone. Please help me out, was it John Rambo or Chuck Norris that killed Hitler, Mussolini and Franco barehandedly and alone? [img]<fileStore.core_Emoticons>/emoticons/wink.png[/img]/emoticons/ [email protected] 2x" title=";)" width="20" /> The vast majority of historians agrees unanimously that it was the red army, but what do these "experts" know....´Murica! Fascism isn´t so bad for the US when there´s money to be made out of it. You also had a national "socialist" party and guys like Henry Ford and Charles Lindbergh openly sympathised with the nazis. The existance of concentration camps was known long before anyone in the US ever considered getting involved in the European warzone...Us only entered war when the cashflow was threatened ...
Say, how much are your nation´s heroic deeds from 80 years ago worth now, with the US harboring what can be described as maybe the largest reservoir of antisemites, racists, neo nazis etc., many of them openly influencing the European neo nazi scene with financial, logistical and personal support? And don´t get me wrong here, I´m not saying your nation is the only one to blame for the reemergence of White nationalism. Everyone and every nation is to blame...but I hate it when a nation that is one of the leading powers to reinstall these insane politics keeps holding up their contributions (rather mediocre ones when you compare it to other nations) as a moral shield. But that also perfectly fits into what I tried to address in my previous post. Two days ago, I watched a documentary about WW2 that showed how baffled and surprised some fighting units comprised of soldiers with African origins ( vulgo: blacks) were when the French resistance fought alongside with them, black and white hand in hand...and not racially segregated units where a black wasn´t allowed to fight along with his white comrades. Sending over racially segregated troops to fight racism and fascism...only ´Murica, folks...;)
But let´s not turn this into a political discussion, there are other forums more suited for this. I only mentioned these flaws in my previous posts to underline my opinion that your country´s legal system doesn´t suffer just from that isolated detail you blew up into your "anger anchor". The problems are systemic and they´re not only present in your legal system, but in your entire society. Mind you, I´m also not generalising here, just pinpointing a hard truth many Americans like to turn a blind eye to because of convenience. Germany has its flaws too, every nation has its flaws. But at least we Germans have a quite reliable legal system that focuses on resocialisation rather than sensationalism and the biblical "an eye for an eye" agenda. It´s surely not perfect, but a similar trial will probably not be seen in a German coutroom..even if a witness visits a bestiality forum, this would be a rather unimportant detail and only the most shabby lawyer would try to make half of the trial into a public shaming for watching humans fuck animals.
|
