12-15-2017, 02:14 AM
(This post was last modified: 12-15-2017, 02:17 AM by Mfkfznfp.)
This is a quote from a BF thread about acceptance from the public:
"For all of human history we have accomplished impossible things, strived and achieved impossible goals. So why do we still stop at impossible, why do we use such a false word. Anything is possible in this world, full of wonders, knowledge and infinite possibilities, anything can happen.
This is why we cannot sit by idly watching as we are slowly stomped out of existence. Every day, every year things get worse for us zoophiles, we experience a side of humanity that normal people rarely see but know of: Cruelty.
We are kind, loving and caring people and yet we are treated as monsters, and are forced to hide in a ever-fading shadow, and yet we are content with this fading shadow, but how long will this shadow last? And when it ends what happens to us?
I hope that we never see the day when all hope is truly lost for zoophiles, but it will come if we just sit there waiting for the impossible to become possible -- we have to make it possible. We have to be the ones to do something before it is too late and before we lose any more people to self-doubt and depression.
We are strong, we stand here today, living, breathing and moving, even after all we have face. Think about what keeps you [online], is it your lover? Or is it something more. For me its a sense of purpose to bring happiness to all and to bring about a world-changing event, to start the era of love and unite man and animal as equals.
I know the idea of speaking out is scary or even stupid, but can we really just sit here expecting things to get better and watch as we lose all we love, is that really an option, is it? I want nothing more than to live a life in peace without having to censor myself or even having to worry of going to prison for being who I am.
I propose that we do something, even the smallest thing to help make a change. We cannot sit by, whether it is because we are ignorant or scared. We must do something because if you believe that, then there is no point to fighting for it, then you best be ready for what comes when the problem becomes too great and be ready to lose all that you love, because it's only going to get worse if we sit by and do nothing. I believe in what we are and what we do, I also believe that we can make this impossible task possible if we really tried.
This is all I wanted to say. Make your choice wisely because time is running out and more and more people will suffer if we do nothing." (End of quote)
I agree that zoos are doing nothing, but I don't know if there's anything zoos can do, because any attempt at acceptance would make the zoo(s) doing it a target. What do others think?
12-15-2017, 04:48 AM
(This post was last modified: 12-16-2017, 02:49 PM by silverwolf1.)
{This post has been edited by silverwolf to remove personal attacks and flaming. Please debate in a reasonable manner.}
"For all of human history we have accomplished impossible things..." Yeah, Aldrin fucked dogs...what exactly are you talking about with this "we" ? When were the "animal fuckers" the majority? Have I missed something?
"Anything is possible in this world"...No, it isn´t. Just ask someone who´s trying to make the "zoo community" get rid of this annoying whining attitude and the fantasies of a "zoo revolution"...
"...while we are slowly stomped out of existence" Yeah, but where´s the railway station with the trains heading towards the non existent "zoo extermination camps"? Where´s the "Zoo Klux Klan" burning their "normal" signs on zoos´ front lawn before they execute them ? Overdramatisation and self victimisation, especially the latter a reliant all purpose weapon for those who want to stay in their consy fantasy world filter bubble...well done, Sir! You surely will make all the brain dead "zoo" zombies feel like entering Auschwitz themselves! Ash pulled the "Zoo genocide card"! It´s super effective!!!
"we experience a side of humanity that normal people rarely see"...yeah, except for all the jews, victims of medieval witchhunts, the lower classes in ancient Roman Empire, those the British, the Spanish, the Dutch , the Germans, etc....invaded when they discovered new colonies. Not to mention those currently living under grim circumstances in totalitarian states. Rarely. Duh! "my relatively small inconvenience in fucking animals and/or telling others I wanna fuck animals vastly outnumbers ANY sufferance on earth...let´s just tell ´em we suffer the most and , shazam, we will get doggy ass/cunt/dick/porn/whatever delivered with our pizzas... let´s just keep sobbing until mommy /daddy buys us that choclate bar...
"...yet we are treated as monsters"..yeah, how it comes that society has such a bad impression of us, with all that evidence out there we actually care only for ourselves and our sexual kicks as it can be seem on many animal porn vids, with the blatant evidence of "hey, I´m horny, let´s just fuck that random animal over there...a fence? Tip-Toe , over the fence-o...yeah, how can we be seen as monsters?!?
"...hide in an ever growing shadow..." Nevermind, dude, I can find my mare with a blindfold on...
"I hope that we never see the day when all hope is truly lost for zoophiles..." When was this written? In fucking 20 000 BC? Or have you missed out on Enumclaw and were born after 2005?
"... if we just sit there waiting..." Speak for yourself, man! I´m not "just sitting there"...sometimes I´m standing on my plastic pedestal behind my mare on my own farm...
"Think about what keeps "zoos" online..." Uuuuhm, I´ll take A, Alex, the porn...*ding ding ding ding* "Congratulations, you just reached the 500 000 Dollar stage in Zoo wants to be a millionaire...you´re absolutely right, Mr Candidate, an equal amount of "zoos" stay online to honestly discuss the political and moral implications of zoophilia as people are buying the Playboy (RIP) for the excellent articles. The majority are shameless wankers who badly want to nut.
"For me it´s a sense of purpose to bring happiness..." Oh, yeah, the good ol´ happiness that only can be achieved by being legally allowed to fuck animals. Aaaahh, sooo comfy and userfriendly....oh, and nevermind the unhappiness I bring to other people with my actions. Gosh, they´re sooo closeminded and cannot understand how a world in which no animal is safe from being groped by a random "zoo", in which it´s all about "zoo" rights, but seldom about animal rights not to be sexually harassed without having to show severe defensive reactions (We all know it´s only rape when a woman is physically defending herself, right?) like kicking and biting so that twolegged MF is getting it for sure.Happiness!! Who can be against happiness?!? And it can only be reached by turning all the animals into walking sex accessoires! Believe me, I know what´s good for the world, I will bring world peace with my dick! In a horse!!! The Peacepenis!!!! *Response shut down because of severe brain fart allergy*
"I know the idea of speaking out is scary and just stupid..." *Whoop! Whoop! The candidate has thousand points! Let´s just hope he doesn´t keep talking... "...but..." Oh gosh, he does keep talking... "can we really just sit here" YES, you fool! That´s what´s the most rational thing to do right now! We blew our chance we had back in the nineties, we screwed up big time because "we zoos" are picky and unable to find a compromise with society that demands sacrifices from us, that is actually aimed at real equality, with the same duties and obligations a normal person has in a relationship...and no, I´m not talking about ´200 men darkroom gangbang couples´ here. Gosh, what exactly is this guy even talking about? Fucking sheep on the White House lawn? "Forcefuck" society into acceptance? Using the same failed tactics this community likes to use over and over again because their imagination runs high on imagining all possible permutations of animal sex, but goes down the trash bin when it´s about working concepts to successfully communicate with society and NOT creeping them out in the very first second with utterly nonsensical demands? And what is it you propose to do?
{Paragraph removed for repeated personal attack- sw}
{Same as above- sw}
"...any attempt to get acceptance would make the zoo(s) a target"..... Oh, are we already aiming for acceptance? Are we already tolerated yet...gosh, must´ve missed that too. But let me do a quick summary here as well..."We´re all a target to the ZooStaPo, we already are forced to wear a David´s Star with a Zeta in it (Greetings to Oliver Burdinski and Michael Kiok!) sewed to our clothes, yet I have no idea what to do... {Removed as a Personal Attack- sw}
{No proof the OP is who 30-30 thinks he is- sw}
This stupid attitude is what´s keeping us back, what keeps the community depressed, this extraordinary drama you and your likeminded are trying to pull off over and over again. This whiney, bitchey attitude, this "I´m sooo persecuted" when there´s only a handful of "zoos" who get caught by screwing up themselves because getting caught most often is one hard thing to achieve, this overdramatised rubbish that doesn´t correlate with the actual dangers you face when you are a rational zoo, this perpetuated self victimisation because it seems that many "zoos" put years of effort into widening their buttholes and desentitisation to be able to take horse dick, but immediately collapse under the "tremendous pressure" when someone is not okay with their crap. But we all know that fearful soldiers who constantly tell each other how hard this all is are the best fighters. I´m really tired of that attitude, that echo chamber talk of how depressing it all is...
{Removed as personal Attack}
For me ,{Removed as Personal Attack}
{This} online "activism" is ten times worse than ZETA´s moronic attempts , {removed}
12-15-2017, 07:09 AM
(This post was last modified: 12-15-2017, 07:46 AM by Cynolove693.)
I will agree that the writer of this is not looking at both sides or perspectives of this situation; if bestiality were legalized (sex acts with animals) it would open up doors for certain individuals that shouldn't own animals in the first place; people that may be abusive or sadistic may get away with abusive acts if these laws are taken away or they'll see it as grounds to cause harm because they believe there will be no penalties..
All of which is not something we as zoos should want to happen.. we should be about protecting animals from harm, that should be the highest priority here; after all doesn't being zoophile entitle that you are a lover of animals??.. so what if there is laws that say you can't unzip your pants and screw the pooch, those laws were made for a reason; truth is the laws aren't directed to zoophile's only; we are not the main focus; the main use of these laws is to prevent zoosadists from causing physical harm to animals with forceful acts..
On the other hand if the laws were modified with strict requirements such as requirements for proof of abuse it would be "just" for zoos and still punish cruelty to animals as these laws were intended to do; will it ever happen?? Probably not but it is a slight possibility; look at Canada and their legalization of certain acts of bestiality such as oral.. Should we be risking our asses to bring change though??? No it's not worth it unless you live in a state where there is very little to no penalties for zoophilia, even then it's still a risk not worth taking...
The main reasons bestiality is still illegal and has been for a long time is religious views; the fact that it's taboo and different (the eww factor) and the fact that people believe animals are lesser beings that don't have the ability to consent to sex; but the biggest reason is that animals have been severely injured by zoosadists and behavior such as that has to be punished.. now on the subject of zoophiles that have consenual sex trying to get rights...
It's very unlikely to work.. Let's just put it this way; you could give all the proof and knowledge you could possibly come up with of why consenual zoophilia isn't wrong to someone that is non zoo, but if they aren't ready to accept it or are against it; that information will go in one ear and out the other, no matter how obvious it is that alot of zoosexual acts are consenual and rarely cause harm..
Fact is People will only understand from their point of view it's basic psychology; if someone isn't ready to believe something they will not believe it, no matter what you do; fact is its common for people to dislike people that have sex with animals; they have been taught it's wrong, our sexuality will never truly be acceptable; it is the reality of things; either accept it or risk getting caught trying to fight it....
I've been around a long time now, and I've yet to see anyone not mistake "Acceptance" for Tolerance. Even tolerance of "Zoophilia" loses me though in it's benefits to me personally. I've yet to have anyone explain how "Zoo Tolerance" is going to improve my life, or those of my companions. I need to be tolerated only in my own home or barn by my companions, need only be accepted in my own bed by my lover, to be and feel "zoo". Need only their and my own approval. My companions ALL regularly see the Vet, Farrier and ALL others necessary to their good health. "Acceptance" of my bestiality would change that naught. My ability to "own" them and care for them would not change. There is therefor no benefit to me in ANY "Zoo Acceptance Movement". Advocating of such could, and probably would, in fact endanger myself and them. Sorry, but not interested.
sw
12-15-2017, 02:13 PM
(This post was last modified: 12-15-2017, 02:21 PM by 30-30.)
Hey, someone replying who´s not offended by criticism, but seems to have an interest in actual discussion...rare enough these days...
So I will curb my cynical sarcasm down to zero, but here´s what I need to set straight in your viewpoints:
1) Yes, entirely legal and unregulated "zoophilia" just won´t work. Retracting to the trench of "But...but...not all acts of bestiality are harmful to the animal!" is basically the same as saying "...not all drunk drivers cause car crashes!", followed by the typical "Only 10 % of all car accidents happen because of drunk driving...OMG! Who´s gonna keep all these sober people off the streets??? 90% of all accidents are caused by THEM!!" arguments....(Shit, I wanted to curb my cynical sarcasm for this post...2 sentences later I already failed at that....)
I can work with your reply´s first two paragraphs, but let me correct you on one thing : Zoophilia is a compositum of two Greek words, tó zóon = animal (singular) and háe phília whose meaning strongly leans towards a friendship kind of "love", a brotherly kind of love, not physical or emotional sexual attraction. Correctly translated, zoophilia means "friendship with an animal". So I wouldn´t use the word "lover of animals" here because this usually is associated with sexual love.
But that´s only a small mistake, the bigger mistake you make is correctly analysing our situation as zoophiles, but not drawing the right conclusions. One basic fact you forgot...animals can´t walk into the next police station to turn in their abuser, thus animals need some form of representation, they need a voice , an impartial and neutral one. If we don´t want to make the fox the hen house keeper here, there is no other way but to "expatriate" the decision whether an animal is in an abusive partnership. We need professionals who don´t outright condemn us zoos, but won´t fall for the bullshit some "zoos" spread. As Lenin said: "Trust is good. Control is better." (I´m not a Leninist though....) The true egocentrical nature of modern mankind is a factor we cannot dismiss here. For me as a zoo, it simply is unbearable if only ONE animal suffers in a "zoo" partnership...I´m obviously caring too much for them to place "zoo rights" over the animal´s rights.
You kept equally vague in how you want to dissolve the schism here. Who will define the strict requirements? Think this idea to its end, por favor. And remember: don´t make the fox into the hen house keeper here, it´s the animals who will have to pay for it. [img]<fileStore.core_Emoticons>/emoticons/wink.png[/img]/emoticons/ [email protected] 2x" title=";)" width="20" /> Canada hasn´t legalised "oral with animals", btw...according to my informations, Canada accidentally opened up a legal loophole for such practices by trying to restructure their penal code...at the time I am writing this, this hole has already been shut again or will be in the very near future. Your next sentence I wouldn´t subscribe to, though...yes, it is futile to strive for tolerance...NOW...we experience an era of conservatism and religiosity returning, with the autocratic style of politics massively returning, etc...the "revolution" destroyed all authority with its "doubt everything ad nauseam..except yourself!", but authorities are necessary in a civilisation! Shocking, isn´t it? Without authority, there is no society, even animals instinctively know this and preserve a lot of energy they would otherwise waste on perpetual status fights. In the light of this, is it still so surprising that people more and more tend towards electing "father figures", even women? Today´s person is exposed to plethora of different informations, reality tunnels, ideological streams, etc... and in your childhood, who was the one sorting it all out for you? Right, daddy...(individual experiences with your fathers may vary)
Cammpaigning on the behalf of zoophilia isn´t a bad thing per se, but it has to be done at the right time, which is definitely not now, with the right arguments, which we also don´t seem to have now as there still is no reliable clinical study about zoophilia and with a direction that includes "the society" and its views. Yes, society is influenced by religious befiefs, the "eeeeww!" factor and other issues like the consent issue, but what you forget to mention is that we zoos usually remain silent also when the one who´s been caught hurting an animal with his "zoophilia"...quis tacuisses, consentire videri...he who remains silent seems to agree. If we don´t want to be associated with animal rapists, why isn´t "our" voice louder in such cases? A cadre mentality has poisoned us and speaking out against "one of us" is generally seen as "Nestbeschmutzung" ( desecration of the nest). Is it really the best picture we zoos make in public, with our silence, with the egocentric views many of us have despite the fact that zoophilia should mainly and predominantly be about the animals, not those who want to have sex with them? It´s like demonstrating for the RIGHT to have sex with other races, but not doing anything about racial segregation...bigoted, foul and easily seen through. Is this community really incapable to think of anything else but itself?
Kudos for the "facts won´t win an argument alone" paragraph. You have it absolutely right here. Humans aren´t robots you can convince with cold logic, they also have an emotional side that is exponentially more susceptible for thoughts of clemency and compromise if you manage to connect to it. No one of those "rational" "zoo advocators" has tried this, it´s always the circlejerk of "But the study of Miletski said..." and "science has proven that..." when it in fact hasn´t. Straight and real facts, that´s the way we should go on the rational side, even if the shine an unfavourable light on zoophilia...people will judge you way more for the personality you have than your sexual orientation. At the moment, the middle ground between "MUH FREEDUM! FREE ZOOFILIAH!" and "LOCK ´ EM ALL UP AND CASTRATE ´EM WITH RUSTY NAILS!" seems totally abandoned...let´s fill this space again. We´re dependent on society, let´s just abandon the "I´m the only rational being on earth, fuck them!" attitude and try to find middle grounds with society.
At christmas eve in 1914, right in the middle of the first world war, some English and German soldiers ceased fire for one day, emerged from their trenches, celebrated christmas together and even played a match of football...if that is possible in one of the most senseless wars mankind has ever fought, it should be possible to find a middle ground with society for us zoophiles too...sadly, the next day the English and German soldiers went back to shooting at each other...but for one day, real reason and brothership was possible...let´s get out of our ideological trenches, just for one day, just to see if it is possible to meet on middle ground...
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.
Quote:
1 hour 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.
I have to disagree with this; the laws are effective at imprisoning people that do abuse animals; yes it may also put innocent zoophile's in prison as well but the main focus of these laws is to extinguish deviant sexual behavior that "may" cause harm..
Honestly a requirement of proof of abuse should be part of the law, but it's not; people honestly aren't educated that there is a difference between a sadist and a zoo, all sex with animals Is seen as abusive even if it's not the case..
To try and bring an "acceptance" seems well out of reach; it would require a way to prove something a majority of the population doesn't want to hear and studies to be done of zoophilia to back the movement; honestly it's not a big enough of a minority issue to be noticed by the population; or accepted; this isn't the lgbt movement; this isn't humans trying to fight for rights with other humans; where talking about acceptance of something that has been seen as wrong for centuries..
Quote:
14 hours ago, 30-30 said:
Hey, someone replying who´s not offended by criticism, but seems to have an interest in actual discussion...rare enough these days...
So I will curb my cynical sarcasm down to zero, but here´s what I need to set straight in your viewpoints:
1) Yes, entirely legal and unregulated "zoophilia" just won´t work. Retracting to the trench of "But...but...not all acts of bestiality are harmful to the animal!" is basically the same as saying "...not all drunk drivers cause car crashes!", followed by the typical "Only 10 % of all car accidents happen because of drunk driving...OMG! Who´s gonna keep all these sober people off the streets??? 90% of all accidents are caused by THEM!!" arguments....(Shit, I wanted to curb my cynical sarcasm for this post...2 sentences later I already failed at that....)
I can work with your reply´s first two paragraphs, but let me correct you on one thing : Zoophilia is a compositum of two Greek words, tó zóon = animal (singular) and háe phília whose meaning strongly leans towards a friendship kind of "love", a brotherly kind of love, not physical or emotional sexual attraction. Correctly translated, zoophilia means "friendship with an animal". So I wouldn´t use the word "lover of animals" here because this usually is associated with sexual love.
But that´s only a small mistake, the bigger mistake you make is correctly analysing our situation as zoophiles, but not drawing the right conclusions. One basic fact you forgot...animals can´t walk into the next police station to turn in their abuser, thus animals need some form of representation, they need a voice , an impartial and neutral one. If we don´t want to make the fox the hen house keeper here, there is no other way but to "expatriate" the decision whether an animal is in an abusive partnership. We need professionals who don´t outright condemn us zoos, but won´t fall for the bullshit some "zoos" spread. As Lenin said: "Trust is good. Control is better." (I´m not a Leninist though....) The true egocentrical nature of modern mankind is a factor we cannot dismiss here. For me as a zoo, it simply is unbearable if only ONE animal suffers in a "zoo" partnership...I´m obviously caring too much for them to place "zoo rights" over the animal´s rights.
You kept equally vague in how you want to dissolve the schism here. Who will define the strict requirements? Think this idea to its end, por favor. And remember: don´t make the fox into the hen house keeper here, it´s the animals who will have to pay for it. [img]<fileStore.core_Emoticons>/emoticons/wink.png[/img]/emoticons/[email protected] 2x" title=";)" width="20" /> Canada hasn´t legalised "oral with animals", btw...according to my informations, Canada accidentally opened up a legal loophole for such practices by trying to restructure their penal code...at the time I am writing this, this hole has already been shut again or will be in the very near future. Your next sentence I wouldn´t subscribe to, though...yes, it is futile to strive for tolerance...NOW...we experience an era of conservatism and religiosity returning, with the autocratic style of politics massively returning, etc...the "revolution" destroyed all authority with its "doubt everything ad nauseam..except yourself!", but authorities are necessary in a civilisation! Shocking, isn´t it? Without authority, there is no society, even animals instinctively know this and preserve a lot of energy they would otherwise waste on perpetual status fights. In the light of this, is it still so surprising that people more and more tend towards electing "father figures", even women? Today´s person is exposed to plethora of different informations, reality tunnels, ideological streams, etc... and in your childhood, who was the one sorting it all out for you? Right, daddy...(individual experiences with your fathers may vary)
Cammpaigning on the behalf of zoophilia isn´t a bad thing per se, but it has to be done at the right time, which is definitely not now, with the right arguments, which we also don´t seem to have now as there still is no reliable clinical study about zoophilia and with a direction that includes "the society" and its views. Yes, society is influenced by religious befiefs, the "eeeeww!" factor and other issues like the consent issue, but what you forget to mention is that we zoos usually remain silent also when the one who´s been caught hurting an animal with his "zoophilia"...quis tacuisses, consentire videri...he who remains silent seems to agree. If we don´t want to be associated with animal rapists, why isn´t "our" voice louder in such cases? A cadre mentality has poisoned us and speaking out against "one of us" is generally seen as "Nestbeschmutzung" ( desecration of the nest). Is it really the best picture we zoos make in public, with our silence, with the egocentric views many of us have despite the fact that zoophilia should mainly and predominantly be about the animals, not those who want to have sex with them? It´s like demonstrating for the RIGHT to have sex with other races, but not doing anything about racial segregation...bigoted, foul and easily seen through. Is this community really incapable to think of anything else but itself?
Kudos for the "facts won´t win an argument alone" paragraph. You have it absolutely right here. Humans aren´t robots you can convince with cold logic, they also have an emotional side that is exponentially more susceptible for thoughts of clemency and compromise if you manage to connect to it. No one of those "rational" "zoo advocators" has tried this, it´s always the circlejerk of "But the study of Miletski said..." and "science has proven that..." when it in fact hasn´t. Straight and real facts, that´s the way we should go on the rational side, even if the shine an unfavourable light on zoophilia...people will judge you way more for the personality you have than your sexual orientation. At the moment, the middle ground between "MUH FREEDUM! FREE ZOOFILIAH!" and "LOCK ´ EM ALL UP AND CASTRATE ´EM WITH RUSTY NAILS!" seems totally abandoned...let´s fill this space again. We´re dependent on society, let´s just abandon the "I´m the only rational being on earth, fuck them!" attitude and try to find middle grounds with society.
At christmas eve in 1914, right in the middle of the first world war, some English and German soldiers ceased fire for one day, emerged from their trenches, celebrated christmas together and even played a match of football...if that is possible in one of the most senseless wars mankind has ever fought, it should be possible to find a middle ground with society for us zoophiles too...sadly, the next day the English and German soldiers went back to shooting at each other...but for one day, real reason and brothership was possible...let´s get out of our ideological trenches, just for one day, just to see if it is possible to meet on middle ground...
Hey look your trying to lay off of cynical criticism; that's rare as well [img]<fileStore.core_Emoticons>/emoticons/tongue.png[/img]/emoticons/ [email protected] 2x" title=":P" width="20" />
See I can use sarcasm too [img]<fileStore.core_Emoticons>/emoticons/wink.png[/img]/emoticons/ [email protected] 2x" title=";)" width="20" />
Btw im completely aware of the "multiple" definitions of zoophilia; and ya I haven't thought all of this subject threw because in all honesty my opinions on these laws are not gonna change the views of millions of people; we just have to accept that in the eyes of the majority; we are seen as in the same category as rapists and pedos.. that is not going to change
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.
12-16-2017, 05:54 PM
(This post was last modified: 12-16-2017, 07:21 PM by Vermilion.)
Quote:
8 hours ago, 30-30 said:
"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...
I don't think so. For most people, this is primary a matter of morality. Look at the comment sections of bestiality topics in main stream media sites. People asking for death penalty and castration, exactly like for pedophilia topics. Would they really care about animals at the same emotional base, the whole nation would turn vegetarian.
You underastimate the power of ethical tabus. People die because of different ethics and believes. it's all the same. Caring about animals is in most cases just a lip service. People care for their personal moral save space.
By the way. I don't say that's generally a bad thing. We all need a common ethical ground to live in a diverse society. The borders simply have to be somewhere.
I don't believe a society without a common ground will survive on the long run and will turn into bloodshed sooner or later.
By the way (to get a bit of coal into the fire), there is no difference between bestiality and zoophilia, as there is no sexual difference between a heterosexual predator, having sex with 5 prostitutes a day and a loving heterosexual husband who would never betray his wife. You may judge the predator moraly, but he's still heterosexual and I found the exclusive strategy of the zoophile internet scene always to be quite bigot and pathetic. As if there would be the chance of moral acceptance, if they exclude people who are having sex just for fun. The majority simply doesn't care if there is a difference, neither will you ever be able to erase people in the contact sections asking for a dog to fuck. Those people are part of any space with the slightest sexual topic.
In most cases they deserve a ban for bad online behaviour, but only the zoophile scene labels those guys with a special term to protect their sacred sexual identity.
So, why should society accept zoophiles, if zoophiles can't even accept "beasties"? That's the power of moral believes. They are as strong as religions.
|
