If he had an impenetrable set of arguments and it reached a wide enough audience, it could outweigh the initial wave of gatekeeping journalist scum taking an easy potshot of appealing to the status quo and thus solidifying the established notion of "zoophilia bad mmmkay" in their readers without providing any arguments of their own. That's the theory.
In practice, the problem lies with the "reaching a wide enough audience" bit, since it seems that this avenue is almost completely inorganic these days for any issue that could cause political upheaval. Hence I cynically commented before on ZV that zoophilia won't be legalized and socially acceptable unless it becomes economically exploitable somehow - at which point get used to seeing the zeta logo plastered on every Global 500 billboard in Prague and your parents buying valentine dog treats for your lover.
Except that its BEEN financially exploitable for longer than the Printing press has been around, and that didn't change a damn thing....Why? Because the exploitives who gain financially don't want it legal....they just want a little less activity from law enforcement....that keeps prices up. Just like any OTHER black market item....if you don't have the risk, the prices are unbearable.
Think about it...If an amateur couple makes a film, what does it cost? They need a camera, decent lights, a mike if theres no built-in. A bedroom or stall, a dog or other willing critter, video tape....and a duplication device.
Any good vidcam lets you edit in the camera. If it's simply for personal use its damned expensive....that first flick might cost a grand or more. But every movie made subsequently gets exponentially cheaper. Distribution is the trick for most.
The point though, is....it can be made and sold profitably....but really, ONLY IF the Law lends its weight to the value if the product.
The problem DOESN'T "lie in reaching a wide enough audience" but in the size of the audience itself. We as consumers of the goods here are very small in numbers. Mostly we are male, mostly we would be unmarried and without children, ir divorced with grown children. These two last factors are highly changeable and keep the audience from growing much.
There is no "philosopher" I know of, from Omar Khayyam, to GB Shaw, to Mark Twain, or George Orwell to Marx and Engels, to Con fu tse and back again that will EVER marshal a tight enough set of 'impenetrable arguments' to change the World very quickly. The human race is one great big inertia machine. Resistance in electricity is measured in Ohms....I doubt there's a pretty word for resistance to progress in humans...much less a way to measure its effect. Theres still nothing new under the Sun, Horatio. The Dragons still live over there >>>>>>>
and we're not challenging them anytime soon.
R to anything they say. ..add the fact that its 'thought' not necessarily fact, and the road to failure is "illuminated" but unchanged. There is nothing new under the Sun, Horatio.