My experience as a Zoo, Inclusive v. Exclusive, personal insight and more.

[30-30]

Because having a massive dislike for the so called "zoo community" is equal to having a dislike for entire humanity, uh-huh... What was that about lack of comprehension skills? I´d rather have that...than the kind of delusions you´re displaying here. "Blah ,blah, blah, I fuck anything that walks and call it zoophilia..."   

[30-30]

1 hour ago, WinterGreenWolf said:




Agreed, hugs are awesome!




Truth be told even though I'm an exclusive I do enjoy human contact (though, not the intimate kind, obviously)




For me, human contact is to broaden horizons, possibly gain new experience and definitely a way to gain new intelligence / knowledge!




Just because I'm not romantically attracted to, or sexually attracted to Humans doesn't mean I need to cut off / kill any human contact.




Oh and @Danelove, I'm sorry I missed an earlier point you made...




You could very well say that yes. To what extent you 'are a Zoo' or 'want to be a Zoo' I really can't answer. But if you love and care for your Dane on roughly the same level as a person, I'd say yes: you are. Remember that Zoophilia is merely the attraction: not the action.




(and no, I'm not just 'saying that to make it sound better / less gross'.. Well, to some I probably am. [img]<fileStore.core_Emoticons>/emoticons/tongue.png[/img]/emoticons/[email protected] 2x" title=":P" width="20" /> )

I wanted to answer to your OP since you posted it but I´m kinda busy right now with AC:Odyssey. But I promise I´ll work through your text in the next few days, to clarify a few things and point at some flaws I see. On the topic of human intimate contact I can only say I´m far from a misanthrope, I simply don´t like being touched by humans in any way. Intimacy of all kinds in me is completely restricted to and exclusively had with horses. When I want a cuddle, I just walk out of my door, take the next one to the right and I´m standing in my stables, with four ladies eager to cuddle and hug. 

[9tales]

7 hours ago, 30-30 said:




Although I´m a bit pissed off that WarCanine apparently has made another account in here and now runs under the alias of 9tales, I do have to admit that he has made a reply that I do agree with. Except one point, I´m not a misanthrope...but I select who I´m intimate with. Be it emotional or sexual intimacy, NO HUMANS!  And especially not humans that have self identified in another thread in here as "sluts" doing both humans and dogs.   

I'm pretty sure you admitted this back in /r/zoophilia (your behavior and opinions hint at it too), but okay then.




I've had way more accounts here than you think, so you should be even more pissed. Not sure why you should even be pissed at all, you clearly can't behave yourself either and the only thing that stops you from getting banned is probably because of personal reasons with someone else here. I'm looking to start over though, but it seems you already recognized me, so I guess it'll be another ban. I know I won't ever get a chance again, but I'm not looking to ''''''misbehave'''''' again like outing zoosadists and traitors (like Canicule / Zetacola for example) or say too much truth in arguments, so even if you all decide to ban me I won't make war or make a big deal out of it.

[silverwolf1]

39 minutes ago, 9tales said:




I'm pretty sure you admitted this back in /r/zoophilia (your behavior and opinions hint at it too), but okay then.




I've had way more accounts here than you think, so you should be even more pissed. Not sure why you should even be pissed at all, you clearly can't behave yourself either and the only thing that stops you from getting banned is probably because of personal reasons with someone else here. I'm looking to start over though, but it seems you already recognized me, so I guess it'll be another ban. I know I won't ever get a chance again, but I'm not looking to ''''''misbehave'''''' again like outing zoosadists and traitors (like Canicule / Zetacola for example) or say too much truth in arguments, so even if you all decide to ban me I won't make war or make a big deal out of it.

The problem is  when you admit who you are you must be banned! A ban is a ban after all, permanent and all inclusive. Goodbye.




sw

[covfefelake]

19 hours ago, caikgoch said:




https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrison_Bergeron

I’m still confused as to how that work applies here.




EDIT:  Wow.  I missed the other posts.  That was...  different.




Though, reading the limited amount of 30-30’s posts (in an attempt to comprehend) did reveal he is willing to both slut-shame, and say gems like this:

When I want a cuddle, I just walk out of my door, take the next one to the right and I´m standing in my stables, with four ladies eager to cuddle and hug.

Just by reading your reply, my IQ dropped some 20 points...you don´t get it , Caikgoch, huh? 

He has admittedly been vague and confusing at times...  but this?  No.  This strikes me as a personal problem.




Enjoy Ancient Ubisoftish Greece.

[dogina]

4 hours ago, silverwolf1 said:




The problem is  when you admit who you are you must be banned! A ban is a ban after all, permanent and all inclusive. Goodbye.

So all I have to do is not admit it? That seems easy enough.

1 hour ago, covfefelake said:




He has admittedly been vague and confusing at times...  but this?  No.

Aren't most zoos extremely vague? I know that everyone knows I don't get along well with other zoos, but this isn't mean as an insult. I'm genuinely curious if a normal human out there sees the same as me.




Half of the posts I read here just don't make sense. Their way of writing things is often confusing and seem to lead nowhere.




My reading comprehension clearly isn't screwed up because I only have this issue when it comes to zoophilic boards. Again, not an insult, but I feel like it hints that zoophilia is caused by mental issues or at the very least comes with mental issues.




Doubt you'll answer, but it's something worth nothing at least.

[silverwolf1]

1 hour ago, dogina said:




So all I have to do is not admit it? That seems easy enough.




Aren't most zoos extremely vague? I know that everyone knows I don't get along well with other zoos, but this isn't mean as an insult. I'm genuinely curious if a normal human out there sees the same as me.




Half of the posts I read here just don't make sense. Their way of writing things is often confusing and seem to lead nowhere.




My reading comprehension clearly isn't screwed up because I only have this issue when it comes to zoophilic boards. Again, not an insult, but I feel like it hints that zoophilia is caused by mental issues or at the very least comes with mental issues.




Doubt you'll answer, but it's something worth nothing at least.

You just can't help yourself though. Ego! You could exist and participate quite well here but, YOU MUST BE KNOWN! You cannot have it any other way. Thus, your new account, like the last, gets banned. No favoritism. No-one not banned has threatened anyone on the board as you had. Though the one you threatened most was also banned (for his own violations), you still felt it appropriate to threaten others. That cannot be tolerated here. Thus the permanent ban under any knick-name or persona. 30-30, who you see as treated better than you, has never threatened anyone. His opinions are unpleasant to some, unpopular to many, and grating in their expression but they are his POV and as valid in expression as anyone elses are here. He has committed no bannable offence in doing so. I'll not discuss a users moderation punishments in open forum, nor feel the need to prove there have been any. 

[covfefelake]

3 hours ago, dogina said:




I'm genuinely curious if a normal human out there sees the same as me.

I shouldn't respond to a banned user as I'm already on thin ice, but I'll do so as Rannoch was also banned from several communities (not here, so not blaming silverwolf) and I can't know your mental state.  Let me say this reply is only to answer your question in hopes it will benefit your mental state and I really have no desire to converse on site further.




Rannoch seemed normal if a bit Autistic (mean no offense by that, and am only stating him because I knew him in person).  Quite a few attitudes here (yours included, if you want me to be honest) are bizarre though, often times not in a good way.  Paranoia, misanthropy, and misogyny are some I've seen in my limited time here.




That said, I've also seen some remarkably bright individuals capable of tremendous good.  But I think the percentages of bad individuals are indeed higher, frankly.




That may be a condition of societies treatment of you.  I'd certainly blame it on that before the zoophilia itself, if that's what you mean. 




Also with both you and Rannoch there is quite a strong attatchment to names I have noted.  Me?  The internet is anonymous for a reason.  That being said:

1 hour ago, silverwolf1 said:




You could exist and participate quite well here but, YOU MUST BE KNOWN!

This is so bizarre.  Are you openly admitting to banning usernames and not behaviors?  What on earth does him coming back under another name and hiding accomplish if it's actually against your rules to ban evade a behavioral ban?  You are practically endorsing that here.  Please, at least pretend and be consistent / enforce the written rules?




 

[conke]

1 hour ago, silverwolf1 said:




You just can't help yourself though. Ego! You could exist and participate quite well here but, YOU MUST BE KNOWN! You cannot have it any other way. Thus, your new account, like the last, gets banned. No favoritism. No-one not banned has threatened anyone on the board as you had. Though the one you threatened most was also banned (for his own violations), you still felt it appropriate to threaten others. That cannot be tolerated here. Thus the permanent ban under any knick-name or persona. 30-30, who you see as treated better than you, has never threatened anyone. His opinions are unpleasant to some, unpopular to many, and grating in their expression but they are his POV and as valid in expression as anyone elses are here. He has committed no bannable offence in doing so. I'll not discuss a users moderation punishments in open forum, nor feel the need to prove there have been any. 

I'm not sure what you meant by the first part, but whatever.




I'm not here to fight or argue about this at all, but I just don't like it when someone lies about what happened. We both know I wasn't banned because I was threatening others, but rather because an argument got too heated. I was permabanned before I made a new account and threathened someone (and rightfully so as he doxxed me and was a zoopedophile, but I still understand the ban). You didn't give me a second chance as you keep claiming.




Imagine if someone was sent to jail for the rest of his life because he stole something. Sounds absurd, but I guess that makes it an even better example. He escapes and he gets caught murdering another murderer. The police claim that he was originally caught because of this and then told him this was his second chance, pretending to be the good guys. That's just... No.




Apparently I got banned for toxic behavior (while I also got toxic behavior from others in return who didn't get a ban, might I add). 30-30 doesn't seem exactly friendly. Others seem to see it too and I remember when two users in reddit came to me to complain about him. Not using this to get him banned because it's invalid evidence anyways, but I think everybody else sees it too.




Anyways, I find it a bit funny you thought I could do something to this site or it's users. I barely know how to start a PC or what the laws in my country are. The only reason I had info about Canicule / Zetacola is because he was stupid enough to give me information about him after he doxed me and and some other horrible things. Seems like the purposely submissive behavior I put up fooled him.




But very well, I'm fine with you banning me.

26 minutes ago, covfefelake said:




Quite a few attitudes here (yours included, if you want me to be honest) are bizarre though, often times not in a good way.  Paranoia, misanthropy, and misogyny are some I've seen in my limited time here.

Oh yes, I don't deny that I have issues. It's just that it bothers me others do deny it even though it's pretty obvious.




Paranoia and misanthropy seem to have good reasons. The majority of humans is against us and they'd all get us in trouble if they found out. Misanthropy doesn't go hand in hand with zoophilia, but I still think it slightly fits because there's no romantic or sexual connection to them if you're a zoophile.




I haven't seen any case of misogyny in the zoo communities except once when the subreddit was alive. If I ever see a misogynistic zoophile I'd think they were just incels that have gone too far in denial.

26 minutes ago, covfefelake said:




That may be a condition of societies treatment of you.  I'd certainly blame it on that before the zoophilia itself, if that's what you mean. 

Makes sense, but zoophilia is a mental disorder. You develop it from trauma or mental illnesses. A mentally healthy zoophile simply doesn't exist. The issues coming from society treating us like monsters only come later.




 

[covfefelake]

17 minutes ago, conke said:




Makes sense, but zoophilia is a mental disorder.

It's certainly a paraphilia.  But it's NOS (not otherwise specified) in the DSM if I'm not mistaken.  Such disorders are typically treated only as mentally harmful if they cause the individual distress.




So I can't really agree with your claim, but I can't debunk it either.  I can say further research would be wonderful.  I can also say it's highly improbable that will happen.  I have no idea the cause but I'd hesitate to blame it on distress or even upbringing without evidence.