ShanoirII
Citizen of Zooville
NOTE! PLEASE READ AT LEAST THIS RED TEXT BEFORE VOTING: By "debate the opposition", I do not mean get into catfights with immature screechers over Twitter. That obviously yields no fruits (even if it is kind of funny sometimes 
) - I am talking about addressing complaints from real, level-minded, reasonably-competent people who genuinely think zoo is immoral, yet are open for a discussion about the subject.
If the zoo community ever hopes to gain the smallest smidge of recognition in the world at large, discussing the aspects of zoo with people who disagree is absolutely necessary no matter how you spin it. You cannot get people to appreciate your legitimacy if you never defend yourself against the erroneous mental image they have of you. Some people can lurk in the shadows, all fine. But if everyone did as such, we would never get anywhere at all. As Germany set the example for, victories - even small ones - are not impossible.
If a chance to strike down a new, weak anti-zoo law ever appears, the zoo community will be dreadfully underequipped to handle themselves if caught in their present, disorganized condition. It may be wise for some people to engage in inconsequential practice debates with rabies-vaccinated anti-zoos over the internet. This could act as training for any serious legal situation that could come up. Remember, lawyers are a bit more reasonable than YouTube Comment Crusaders, even if it may not seem like it sometimes, and they have at least a few rules they are bound to.
I am fully aware that the political power of a few nameless zoos is next to nothing. But nobody ever said a zoo had to come out publicly to be an ally, nor that they had to even give their names at all. There is much benefit that the anonymous agent can bring to the community, to fellow zoos in danger, and to defend zoo legality in areas where it is in jeopardy.
If the zoos in question are unprepared to take action though, they would be sheep sent to slaughter.
The ability to defend the legitimacy of zoophilia, zoosexuality, zooromance, or whatever, being in the hands of the average zoo is of paramount importance to the community. Personally, the reasons zoo should be accepted may seem obvious to you, but if asked, could you defend them? If the average zoo could not, our community is in deep trouble. Zoos must be able to present themselves as capable before they are taken seriously.
I would suggest a simple chat - nothing elaborate, heck, even Discord - where two people, a zoo and a nonzoo, could rationally discuss the ethics of zoosexuality. I am under no delusions that random people on the Internet can be converted to zoo allies en masse. This is for the edification of the zoo in the discussion, so that they may have skills that are better applicable elsewhere.
Along with your vote in the poll, please tell in the comments whether or not you would be willing to participate in such kinds of debates, and under what conditions. If you would not be, a simple "Blimey, ShanoirII is for the high jump." is good enough.
If you remember anything from my psychotic ramblings here, remember this: Whoever you are, wherever you go, you are a representative of the zoo community whether you like it or not, inasmuch people know you are any extent of zoo, the sexuality or platonicity, or the personal label of your relationship making no difference. It is too bad it has to be that way, but with the way people's prejudging minds work, your likeness will be the imprint in which people will see all the rest of zoos, be it good or bad, logical or illogical. The world's view of our community is in our hands. We are our own city upon our own hill.
) - I am talking about addressing complaints from real, level-minded, reasonably-competent people who genuinely think zoo is immoral, yet are open for a discussion about the subject.If the zoo community ever hopes to gain the smallest smidge of recognition in the world at large, discussing the aspects of zoo with people who disagree is absolutely necessary no matter how you spin it. You cannot get people to appreciate your legitimacy if you never defend yourself against the erroneous mental image they have of you. Some people can lurk in the shadows, all fine. But if everyone did as such, we would never get anywhere at all. As Germany set the example for, victories - even small ones - are not impossible.
If a chance to strike down a new, weak anti-zoo law ever appears, the zoo community will be dreadfully underequipped to handle themselves if caught in their present, disorganized condition. It may be wise for some people to engage in inconsequential practice debates with rabies-vaccinated anti-zoos over the internet. This could act as training for any serious legal situation that could come up. Remember, lawyers are a bit more reasonable than YouTube Comment Crusaders, even if it may not seem like it sometimes, and they have at least a few rules they are bound to.
I am fully aware that the political power of a few nameless zoos is next to nothing. But nobody ever said a zoo had to come out publicly to be an ally, nor that they had to even give their names at all. There is much benefit that the anonymous agent can bring to the community, to fellow zoos in danger, and to defend zoo legality in areas where it is in jeopardy.
If the zoos in question are unprepared to take action though, they would be sheep sent to slaughter.
The ability to defend the legitimacy of zoophilia, zoosexuality, zooromance, or whatever, being in the hands of the average zoo is of paramount importance to the community. Personally, the reasons zoo should be accepted may seem obvious to you, but if asked, could you defend them? If the average zoo could not, our community is in deep trouble. Zoos must be able to present themselves as capable before they are taken seriously.
I would suggest a simple chat - nothing elaborate, heck, even Discord - where two people, a zoo and a nonzoo, could rationally discuss the ethics of zoosexuality. I am under no delusions that random people on the Internet can be converted to zoo allies en masse. This is for the edification of the zoo in the discussion, so that they may have skills that are better applicable elsewhere.
Along with your vote in the poll, please tell in the comments whether or not you would be willing to participate in such kinds of debates, and under what conditions. If you would not be, a simple "Blimey, ShanoirII is for the high jump." is good enough.
If you remember anything from my psychotic ramblings here, remember this: Whoever you are, wherever you go, you are a representative of the zoo community whether you like it or not, inasmuch people know you are any extent of zoo, the sexuality or platonicity, or the personal label of your relationship making no difference. It is too bad it has to be that way, but with the way people's prejudging minds work, your likeness will be the imprint in which people will see all the rest of zoos, be it good or bad, logical or illogical. The world's view of our community is in our hands. We are our own city upon our own hill.
