Humorous Anti-Zoo Cringe
- Thread starter ShanoirII
- Start date
"Animals do not feel pain." That is not entirely antizoo, but it is an idiotic piece of nonsense against animals in general.
So stupid in fact that you can literally test this with any animal by pinching their skin/ear/tail a little more hard than usual. You do not really even have to test this as you will inevitably see an animal in pain at some point in your life most likely more than once completely randomly.
Yet some people are so unbelievably dumb, that this is something they are capable to actually say.
Anyone capable of claiming this should be considered a waste of oxygen until they understand that they are animals too. Even by testing it on themselves.
So stupid in fact that you can literally test this with any animal by pinching their skin/ear/tail a little more hard than usual. You do not really even have to test this as you will inevitably see an animal in pain at some point in your life most likely more than once completely randomly.
Yet some people are so unbelievably dumb, that this is something they are capable to actually say.
Anyone capable of claiming this should be considered a waste of oxygen until they understand that they are animals too. Even by testing it on themselves.
Animals don't feel pain, it's simply the activation of the receptors in the primary afferent fibers, which is inclusive of the unmyelinated C-fiber and myelinated Aσ-fiber. Both nociceptors remain silent during homeostasis in the absence of "physical damage" and are activated when there is a potential of noxious stimulus.
No but on a more serious note, It's still boggles my mind that some humans can't or won't accept the fact they they too are animals. Usually because of religious beliefs, but sometimes due to a disconnect from nature itself.
Indeed. What I described was pretty much the textbook definition of how pain is triggered. Lol. While we, as humans... at least I assume you're one... might have an on average larger brain, larger pre-frontal cortex, a higher encephalization quotient (EQ), and a handful of differing genes that account for the capability of speech and sociability, pretty much everything else is the same for like 95% of mammals. Same receptors, same chemical makeup, and usually the same organs (more or less.) It's almost like we're merely an evolutionary branch from the rest of the animal kingdom, but no... that's crazy talk!
Did you just assume my species?? Outrageous! This site is so un-inclusive and backwards thinking. Unacceptable, unacceptable! Summon the manager!
Maldoror
Citizen of Zooville
A neighbour's male dog seemed to have an unpleasant smell, according to his owners. They settled the issue by saying " this dog is in heat".
MashaSobaka
Esteemed Citizen of ZV
ShanoirII
Citizen of Zooville
One of the silliest positions I have seen anti-zoos try to defend is when they follow the saying "animals can't consent" to its logical conclusion and claim that animals can't even consent to one another, therefore all sex between animals is mutually non-consensual.
If this were true, it would make sexual reproduction extremely inefficient, since animals would not be able to communicate to each other when they are ready to mate. It would also mean that any mating gestures that animals seem to display are actually meaningless and deceptive. Worst of all, it means that any species that performs an elaborate courtship ritual prior to partner selection must just be wasting a tremendous amount of time and energy if all such interactions will inevitably end in both partners withholding consent from each other anyway.
So much of how animals interact and behave would have to be written off as vanity.
If this were true, it would make sexual reproduction extremely inefficient, since animals would not be able to communicate to each other when they are ready to mate. It would also mean that any mating gestures that animals seem to display are actually meaningless and deceptive. Worst of all, it means that any species that performs an elaborate courtship ritual prior to partner selection must just be wasting a tremendous amount of time and energy if all such interactions will inevitably end in both partners withholding consent from each other anyway.
So much of how animals interact and behave would have to be written off as vanity.
MashaSobaka
Esteemed Citizen of ZV
+ if it were really true that they don't communicate, then this is natural for them, so we can also have sex with them, because it is natural for them.
2000 IQ
ShanoirII
Citizen of Zooville
It think it's pretty cringeworthy and also dishonest when anti-zoos cite the anti-zoo laws given in the Torah, but conveniently forget to cite the clause that requires the animals to be slain.
Also, the phrase "their blood shall be upon them" is meant to mean that they are responsible for their own demise - in other words, "their blood is on their own hands". That directly implies that the animal chose to participate in the sex (consented) and is therefore also 'guilty'.
Anti-zoos apparently think that ancient Jewish laws should apply to modern gentiles. I mean come on, you could have at least cited the anti-zoo prescription given in the New Testament's Book of Jude, where it condemns sexual immorality including "going after strange flesh" (animals).
Also, the phrase "their blood shall be upon them" is meant to mean that they are responsible for their own demise - in other words, "their blood is on their own hands". That directly implies that the animal chose to participate in the sex (consented) and is therefore also 'guilty'.
absurd:
verbally agreed to (as others have mentioned)
All consequences must be understood by both parties.
Um, what consequences?
Response: all of them
My response: ok, all zero of them
no reply
i mean, really, the other mares aren't going to ostracize the one who decided she wanted to try a human
she isn't going to become a single mother
verbally agreed to (as others have mentioned)
All consequences must be understood by both parties.
Um, what consequences?
Response: all of them
My response: ok, all zero of them
no reply
i mean, really, the other mares aren't going to ostracize the one who decided she wanted to try a human
she isn't going to become a single mother
KnotSock
Citizen of Zooville
By this logic, blind, deaf, and mute people are also not capable of consent.
Of course, the same people crying consent, are the same people washing down their bacon with milk......
Rape, forced birth cycles, and death, the truly non consensual breakfast of champions...
ShanoirII
Citizen of Zooville
The anti-zoo argument "zoophilia is wrong because interspecies sex is unnatural", strikes me as one of the weakest arguments against zoophilia because it is defeated on two fronts.
For one, the premise itself is just outright wrong. Interspecies sex is not unnatural - animals of different species having sex with one another have been documented many times across various species. So this entire argument is founded on an assertion that obviously was not even fact checked by one quick Google search. The idea that animals do not have interspecies sex was likely a total assumption.
Secondly, this argument involves deferring to nature for a moral compass. There are many natural actions which no moral person would emulate, and often the right thing to do is not what comes naturally to someone. It is not often that we look to nature for a binding code of conduct - why start here? It is also not uncommon for the term "natural" in this sense to not simply mean that which is observed in nature, but rather a sense that moreso reflects human intuition than the actual behavior of wild animals.
In short, not only is the argument based on false premises, but even if it they were true, the conclusion would still not even follow from the premises.
For one, the premise itself is just outright wrong. Interspecies sex is not unnatural - animals of different species having sex with one another have been documented many times across various species. So this entire argument is founded on an assertion that obviously was not even fact checked by one quick Google search. The idea that animals do not have interspecies sex was likely a total assumption.
Secondly, this argument involves deferring to nature for a moral compass. There are many natural actions which no moral person would emulate, and often the right thing to do is not what comes naturally to someone. It is not often that we look to nature for a binding code of conduct - why start here? It is also not uncommon for the term "natural" in this sense to not simply mean that which is observed in nature, but rather a sense that moreso reflects human intuition than the actual behavior of wild animals.
In short, not only is the argument based on false premises, but even if it they were true, the conclusion would still not even follow from the premises.
YanchaOkami
Esteemed Citizen of ZV
Interspecies mating is actually as normal as exclusive own-species mating. Else it wouldn't be technically possible how nature and interspecies sex did quite successfully what science in labors deems as almost impossible:
en.wikipedia.org
www.nationalgeographic.com
Seems like the "generally expected breeding within one species" isn't as species-locked as even science assumpted until now. Let alone uninformed "anti-zoo" groups.
There are quite a lot of genetically "closer" but still different (sub)species which mate more or less often. Naturally, without any "anti"-campaign been formed against it. As example:
daily.jstor.org
This even results in "new" types of hybrids, like the zonkey (a hybrid between donkey and zebra):
www.newsweek.com
Even if they call this "misdirected mating", it's not misdirected, if nature obviously developed by plain "chance"-evolution individual ways to prevent the more gravely* interspecies reproduction of -farther- away DNS mating partners by developing protective measures like the acrosome reaction in the process of preventing (not surviving enough) interspecies impregnation, which would cause - the further development until death of the cells proceeds - the more potentially deadly and side-effect lasting - results.
*As in: deadly for the offspring and quite often the mother as well, as there was no regular surviving aspect guaranteed due to failures in their biological system.
This wouldn't be necessary if "interspecies copulation" was not a normal aspect of nature.
Problem with this is: Unfortunately one can't tell learning resistant people which live in a belief-bubble that they should learn factual results.
Dogxim - Wikipedia
Meet ‘Dogxim,’ the world’s first known dog-fox hybrid—and a genetic oddity
“What a strange hybrid beast!” When first found, the animal was a mystery, showing traits common in both dogs and foxes.
www.nationalgeographic.com
Seems like the "generally expected breeding within one species" isn't as species-locked as even science assumpted until now. Let alone uninformed "anti-zoo" groups.
There are quite a lot of genetically "closer" but still different (sub)species which mate more or less often. Naturally, without any "anti"-campaign been formed against it. As example:
The Surprising Frequency of Interspecies Mating - JSTOR Daily
Sometimes different but related species can reproduce. When two different species successfully mate, the resulting offspring is called a hybrid.
daily.jstor.org
This even results in "new" types of hybrids, like the zonkey (a hybrid between donkey and zebra):
Sex Between Different Animal Species Is Fairly Common
Mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, and even insects will have sex outside their own species.
www.newsweek.com
Even if they call this "misdirected mating", it's not misdirected, if nature obviously developed by plain "chance"-evolution individual ways to prevent the more gravely* interspecies reproduction of -farther- away DNS mating partners by developing protective measures like the acrosome reaction in the process of preventing (not surviving enough) interspecies impregnation, which would cause - the further development until death of the cells proceeds - the more potentially deadly and side-effect lasting - results.
*As in: deadly for the offspring and quite often the mother as well, as there was no regular surviving aspect guaranteed due to failures in their biological system.
This wouldn't be necessary if "interspecies copulation" was not a normal aspect of nature.
Problem with this is: Unfortunately one can't tell learning resistant people which live in a belief-bubble that they should learn factual results.
ShanoirII
Citizen of Zooville
Apparently, anti-zoos are not even friendly to one another.
Context: An anti-zoo asked what therians are and whether they had relations to zoophiles (or as they put it, "Guys wtf is a therian and are them zoos"). Another anti-zoo who happened to be a therian answered, said they were a therian, and what being a therian means.
Their response apparently did not sit well with another anti-zoo that was present:
I can't say I'm really surprised. The people who are anti-zoo seem like the exact type of people who would be anti-furry or anti-therian. Indeed, many anti-zoos are also anti-furry, usually for the exact same reasons. It may be the case that this type of person is predisposed to be averse to all things involving animals.
My favorite part is either the "Are you okay, man?" or the "I'm getting my boys on your ass".
Context: An anti-zoo asked what therians are and whether they had relations to zoophiles (or as they put it, "Guys wtf is a therian and are them zoos"). Another anti-zoo who happened to be a therian answered, said they were a therian, and what being a therian means.
Their response apparently did not sit well with another anti-zoo that was present:
I can't say I'm really surprised. The people who are anti-zoo seem like the exact type of people who would be anti-furry or anti-therian. Indeed, many anti-zoos are also anti-furry, usually for the exact same reasons. It may be the case that this type of person is predisposed to be averse to all things involving animals.
My favorite part is either the "Are you okay, man?" or the "I'm getting my boys on your ass".
YanchaOkami
Esteemed Citizen of ZV
Nope. Not surprised at all.
If you would know the horrors and abuses in "animal protection" or "welfare" organizations, you would not wonder about such weird statements through them. They're lying - well-knowing - in their own pockets.
I've met so many egocentric (mostly females) animal abusers which were "activists" praised as "animal rescuers" or "guardian angels" from their own circles. Even after the gruesome doings (as example: animal hoarding in rented houses without any affirmative or responsible care, where dozens died and were buried in the backyard) were released by official press news. They still got support and "I'm on your side!" by their fellowship.
Talk about mind-bending.. Don't believing what they don't deem well.
But lol - "i'm getting my boys on ur ass to(o)!" definitely wins the director's price for stand-up comedy in anti zoo circles.
ShanoirII
Citizen of Zooville
A deranged original post followed by a funny conversation.
The highlight of the original post is probably when he considered using rabid animals to attack zoophiles. Does he not realize how ironic that sounds? The guy who is supposedly out here for the animals wants to exploit animals by giving them a fatal disease and making them attack people, which will certainly lead to animal control killing all the animals, and instilling an undue fear and hatred of wild animals in the public.
At this point, the animals aren't even an afterthought. They're literally a non-thought. Relegated to just being an accessory to this whole thing.
The anti-zoo in the comments section was not much better. When they responded to the guy calling the sub out for not caring about animals, the anti-zoo did not even try to deny that accusation. Instead they just went for what was supposed to be some meaningless "gotcha", but they didn't even do a good job at that.
The highlight of the original post is probably when he considered using rabid animals to attack zoophiles. Does he not realize how ironic that sounds? The guy who is supposedly out here for the animals wants to exploit animals by giving them a fatal disease and making them attack people, which will certainly lead to animal control killing all the animals, and instilling an undue fear and hatred of wild animals in the public.
At this point, the animals aren't even an afterthought. They're literally a non-thought. Relegated to just being an accessory to this whole thing.
The anti-zoo in the comments section was not much better. When they responded to the guy calling the sub out for not caring about animals, the anti-zoo did not even try to deny that accusation. Instead they just went for what was supposed to be some meaningless "gotcha", but they didn't even do a good job at that.
YanchaOkami
Esteemed Citizen of ZV
Mentally hill, that's something new. 
I'm sorry for the web server which had to save this disgusting rabid-representatives few kilobytes of message space.
I'm sorry for the web server which had to save this disgusting rabid-representatives few kilobytes of message space.
From that, it sounds like irony is the shithead's point. Had he previously said that he's "out here for the animals"?
YanchaOkami
Esteemed Citizen of ZV
The author surely had no grasp of double negation, nor of the whole "reproduce"-concept in mammals.
Seems like that one dropped out of school well prior before reaching the "anti-intellectual" state.
But a good find, thanks for the laugh, @ShanoirII .