Opinions on ALUZKY

[Ruben]

Fence Hopping - Zoophilia Wiki

zoophilia.wiki

Sorry, that's not a reliable source [yet].

Fence hopping has always implied trespassing in my understanding. It is also how it was defined on this German website and how urban dictionary lists it. These sources aren't Merriam Webster either, but it's not just the definition that I am used to, but also the one that makes much more sense, ethymologically.

 

[Ookami]

Tiny correction. I'm against crimes. Fence hopping involves CRIMINAL trespassing on some ones property, that is a crime, thus, I don't support fence hopping at all and I have never done fence hopping even that I could have easily done it dozens of times. I don't do crimes, I don't support doing crimes. That is the code of ethics that I live by.

What I not against is owner hopping. But not being against it doesn't mean that I would advice others to do owner hopping. If some one want to do owner hopping, that is their choice. Owner hopping is doing intimate things with animals that are not owned by you, wichout the owner permission, while not doing anything criminal like trespassing or stealing the animal or doing animal cruelty. Owner hopping is not a crime, but it can be considered by some as being rude or immoral.

In fact, many zoos have done owner hopping and don't even realize it. If they did it with the family dog and never asked their parents for permission, that is owner hopping.

I personally believe that the animal consent is what matter, if the animal wants a belly rub or a genital rub, why do I need consent from the owner to do what the animal wants? Think about a human analogy, if you want to do it with a 18+ year old girl and she wants to do it with you, do you need to ask her parents for consent to do it with her? Or do you ask her directly? And what if an owner says "yes, you can do it with my dog" but the dog says "NO, I don't want any" does that mean the zoophile can just rape the dog because he has the owner permission? To me, it is clear that animal consent is what matter the most, they have priority over the human owner opinion. And opinion that most likely will be based on ignorance, bigotry and hate.

PS: I'm against owner hopping if you are knowingly doing it with an animal who is owned by a zoophile. The only valid reason to not asking for permission to a non-zoo owner is because of the social stigma and the reaction you may get from just asking such question. But with a zoophile, there is no excuse to avoid getting permission.

And maybe one day when zoophilia/zoosexuality becomes just as acceptable as homophilia/homosexuality, that day we won't need to fear non-zoos reactions or the law and we can be free to ask owners for permission without fear of being discriminated or worst. That day is the day owner hopping will become very uncommon.

Well, I didn't know the name owner hopping - it must be a new thing or even your invention XD Breaking and entering is something I also don't view lightly, personally I don't think it's too bad to visit some horses that are out in the night - but would def not suggest it. You can get yourself killed (in the US) or at least sued or arrested for that. Still it's that common that when we had a zoo con in germany that I attended we had a special rule not to do that in a radius of a few miles around the con-site.

 

[Octavian]

Fence hopping is obviously bad and illegal, but I think having sex with other people’s animals without permission is just as bad. To me it’s the equivalent of having sex with a man’s girlfriend behind his back and not telling him: even if both parties are indeed consenting, it’s still a fucked up thing to do. A huge breach of trust! You’re also not going to be as in tune with the animal’s behavior so, if you are the penetrating partner, the odds of it being coercive and more of submission than true consent is higher.

Now if you’re the receiving partner…that’s actually even worse. Take an intact male dog and make him aware that humans can provide sexual pleasure without taking the time to teach him manners and constraint and you’re likely to turn him into a horn dog who tries to hump his family members and then ends up neutered or even surrendered to a shelter as a “problem dog” and euthanized. Consider that.

 

[Ookami]

Dogs are not that stupid - and having sex with someone elses dog usually requires them to be horndogs first. I've met dogs in the park with which I'd have sex when I ge the opportunity - a few bitches that would flag when getting ass rubs or male dogs that tried to hump me in public - btw even a year afterwards still having their balls. Also why do you like it to having sex with their girlfriend ? It's more like having sex with their friend that also is a girl as they're not in that kind of relation.

 

[FeralLovin']

Also why do you like it to having sex with their girlfriend

Most zoos actually view their mates as significant others and not some random sex object at the park.

 

[Octavian]

Also why do you like it to having sex with their girlfriend ? It's more like having sex with their friend that also is a girl as they're not in that kind of relation.

Oh, don’t like the girlfriend analogy? Ok, I’ll use another one, one that I generally prefer not to use but that’s certainly relevant. Most dog owners view their dogs as children. Sexually mature children, in this case, but children nonetheless. Therefore, in the eyes of the pet owner, it would be the equivalent of them asking you to check in on their sixteen year old daughter while they are out of town. Then you fuck the daughter while you do so and justify it by saying “oh, she was sexual mature and it was consensual, so it’s fine.”

No, it’s not fine, and you’re a sleazy douchebag for doing it. Dogs cannot use words to consent, nor can the context of the situation be explained to them. It takes time to develop the relationship in order to ensure that they are willing participants in the act and that you aren’t going to ruin their home life by teaching them bad behaviors. A male dog that knocks over a small child and tries to hump them probably isn’t going to belong to that family for long.

 

[Aluzky]

We seem to speak a completely different language

Clearly we are speaking differently languages as you misunderstood my words.
Also, keep in mind english is not my main language, so maybe that has an impact on how I write.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victimless_crime ←Despite the misnomer, a victimless crime is not a crime. A victimless crime is an illegal action that creates no victim.

There is an opposite to victimless crimes, actions that are illegal and that do create victims. I call these actions CRIMES.

https://www.monderlaw.com/news/consider-illegal-criminal-case/ ←Quote: "Is illegal the same as criminal?
To be completely brief and blunt no, illegal is not the same as criminal. Although these two terms seem similar, and people often use them interchangeably and incorrectly, they are in no way the same thing. "

Illegal and criminal are not the same thing, dictionary definitions tend to represent the majority opinion even if that opinion is not LOGICAL and FACTUAL. Also, you can find many dictionary definitions that are wildly difference from one dictionary to another, or even able to find dictionary definitions that are objectively WRONGLY in defining reality.

If you use dictionary definitions as a "this proves 100% something" you may run into a dictionary fallacy ( https://effectiviology.com/appeal-to-definition/) . And I believe this is the fallacy you are committing. Sure, you can find dictionaries that says that crime and illegal are synonymy, but did you stop to think if they are actually correct in making such statement?

If you where to look a dictionary definition from the 1960 or 1970 about homophilia/homosexuality, it would read like: A mental illness where the same sex is attracted to the same sex" ←Would this definition be correct just because a dictionary say so? Does it represent the objective reality of things? Or does it represent what the majority WRONGLY believed at the time? So, ask yourself, does those dictionary definition that you presented about illegal/criminal, do they represent factual reality? Or do they represent what the layman majority wrongly believes?

Like I said, something illegal and something criminal are not the same thing, I'm speaking from a REALITY point of view. Anything harmless and victimless can be made illegal. (Think about consensual homophilic sex between adults and in private being illegal in 1960s) if we go by your logic, then homophilic sex is a crime in the present because it was ilelgla n the past? Also homophilic sex is still illegal in the present in over 80 countries. Crimes are punished with criminal law, ( https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Criminal+Law ) criminal law is used to punish that which is HARMFUL or that ENDANGERS society and their citizens. Also know as, punishing people for doing ACTIONS that CREATES a VICTIM or have a high risk of creating a VICTIM. Thus a crimes is the creation of a victim. If there is no victim (or high risk of creating one) then there is no crime.

Does homophilic sex done between consenting adults in private endangers society or harms society? NOPE. It can't be punished through criminal law, it is not defined as a crime and is defined as a victimless crime (misnomer) and even if some bigoted country decides to punish it through criminal law, they are literally violating human rights in doing so. So clearly they are in the wrong.

Same is true for zoophilic sex, which is also a victimless crime (misnomer) zoophilic sex (done in private, between consenting adults) is NEVER A CRIME. Just like homophilic sex (done in private between consenting adults) is never a crime. Capiche, do you understand now?


https://zoophilia.wiki/index.php/Fence_Hopping ←More dictionary fallacy. So what if this definition says that fence hopping does not need to involve trespassing? I ask again, does that definition defies objective reality or defines the ignorant opinion of some people?

The therm fence Hopping was literally born from people doing LITERAL fence hopping. The term was used to literally describe people who went and trespass into other people properties to have intimacy with animals without permission. The word was used to describe a criminal behabior and is still used to describe a criminal behabior.

Now, can you see the HARMFUL problem with wanting to use fence hopping and owner hopping as synonyms? One is a CRIME while the other one is a victimless crime (misnomer) One is harmful while the other one is harmless.

If you use fence hopping as a synonym of owner hopping, a big portion of the zoophile com unity who is guilty of owner hopping will be blamed for doing fence hopping and they will be treated as criminals despite not doing anything criminal, just because you want to use a definition in a wrong way.

I have literally received death treats because people though I have trespassed into people homes and properties to fuck their dogs (because they hear I'm a fence hopper) when I have never done that in my life. Do you understand the harm that can result to zoophiles in general if people wrongly think that owner hopping and fence hopping are synonyms?

"Fence-hopping does not need to involve actually hopping over a fence or even trespassing – if you have sex with someone’s animal while pet-sitting, that is still considered fence-hopping." ←It does has to involve trespassing, else it is no longer FENCE hopping. But it would be owner hopping.

You seriously want to put a teen who has sex with the family dog on their own home on par with a dude who breaks into some one else home by destroying a door window to unlock the door to come in and fuck the family dog while they are gone? If you put those two scenarios as equal, do you realize the amount of unfair discrimination and hate the teen who did it with the family dog is going to get?


"Under your definitions, there has to be a victim."←When trespassing is done, the victim is the property owner. So yes, Fence hopping (tresspassing to be intimate with some one else animals) is a criminal act.

"Yet, you do realize that the animal can be fine or even want it. So it's as bad as trespassing itself, which does not create victims."←What? I don't understand your argument. Are you saying that if the animal wants it and is fine with it, then the crime of trespassing is no longer a crime? Or are you saying that doing something intimate to an animal where the animal is fine and enjoys it is bad?


"Now you are jumping into conclusions. How can I understand your terminology while every source I can find gives a different definition and you haven't provided yours?" ←I'm not, I have 20+ years of debating and I run into this problem over and over, people who can't understand arguments out of ignorance or stupidity or bigotry or religious hallucinations. I have literally see it THOUSANDS of times. And at bare minimum you qualify as "disagreeing with me out of ignorance"

Well, first you could have asked for "my definition" before making the claims that you made. That would have been the most rational approach. You could have said: Isn't illegal and terminal the same thing? What are the definitions that you use? ←And leave it at that, but nope, you replied as if you where very sure that what i said was false.

Second, you could have analyzed the definitions and compare them to real life, you could have seen that the definitions do not match reality. I go back again to the definition of homophilia from the 70s. If it says homophilia is a mental illness, do you take that as a fact just because a dictionary say so? Or can you put more thinking and research to find out if what the dictionary definitions makes sense and defines reality in a factual way?

So, after all this information, do you still disagree with me? Do you still think that illegal and criminal are synonyms? Do you still think that fence hopping and owner hopping are synonyms?

 

[Octavian]

@Aluzky so your beliefs stem solely from the fact that fence hoping involves trespassing, something that in and of itself is barely a crime unless it's a recurring issue or facilitates another more serious crime (breaking and entering, theft, ect) while "owner hopping" does not involve a "crime" or a "victim?"

In actuality bestiality is a crime and, if your actions were discovered, the owner would most certainly feel victimized. Your beliefs are illogical, nothing more than grasping at straws to justify your actions. People like you are part of the problem, one of the reasons we will never be accepted by society. I'm zoo exclusive, this is my orientation, but society will never accept zoophilia if all they think of when they hear the word are the stories of fence hoppers and molesters they read about on the news. If the animal isn't yours and you don't have the owners permission you're breaking the law and harming the community in a selfish desire to get your rocks off.

 

[Aluzky]

Fence hopping is obviously bad and illegal (AND CRIMINAL), but I think having sex with other people’s animals without permission is just as bad (THOUGHT NOT CRIMINAL and not illegal in most places)

Fixed for you. And I fully agree with you.

I also fully agree with you comparing owner hopping to adultery or doing it with a consenting adult teen. That is a spot on comparison. Both are not criminal acts, but are acts which are immoral, rude, distasteful to many.


"Now if you’re the receiving partner…that’s actually even worse. Take an intact male dog and make him aware that humans can provide sexual pleasure without taking the time to teach him manners and constraint and you’re likely to turn him into a horn dog who tries to hump his family members and then ends up neutered or even surrendered to a shelter as a “problem dog” and euthanized. Consider that." ←As some one who has done extensive owner hopping and I have seen the same male dogs OVER AND OVER (and also female dogs) I never had such problem with hundreds of different male dogs, they still have their balls or they didn't have them from the beginning or they lost their balls to cancer. I'm not saying such case can't happen, but the danger of that seem negligible. Also, a dog need to be already a horn dog for them to jump on you and fuck you. They are not learning a new thing as they already knew how to do it. And even those who learned a new thing, they learn that this new thing only works with THIS SPECIFIC HUMAN and not with any other human. Also, it is normal for dogs to hump human legs. Is a VERY NORMAL BEHAVIOR in dogs. If some one gives a dog to a shelter because their dogs is behaving like a dog. Then they are horrible dog owners. If they give their dog away, that is a good, thing because such dog owners are HORRIBLE dog owners to begging with and they should never be near any dogs. Same if they sexually mutilate a dog because the dog is acting like a dog. They are horrible dog owners to begging with. So why blame the zoophile instead of blaming the horrible owner for their horrible reactions?


"No, it’s not fine, and you’re a sleazy douchebag for doing it"←Do you understand that your "is not fine" is a subjective opinion? When you say "owner hopping or adultery is not fine" that only means that is not fine for YOU to do it. Doesn't mean is not fine for others. Because adulterous humans and owner hoppers (and the animals) clearly find it totally fine to do those acts.

Let me use an analogy. If I find it not fine to eat pistachio ice cream. Does that means is not fine if people who love pistachio ice cream eats it? Should I have the right to discriminate and punish those who love and eat pistachio ice cream? Are those who love and eat pistachio douchebags just because I think so?

You finding them to be douchebags is a subjective opinion, you finding it not fine is a subjective opinion. The mature thing to do with such subjective opinions, is live and let live. If I don't like pistachio, that is fine. Asa mature adult human, I tolerate that others LOVE pistachios. And I live and let them live in their pistachio loving acts. Why because what can i do to stop them from eating pistachio and loving pistachio? NOTHING. Eating pistachio is not a crime. Owner hopping and adultery are not crimes. You won't be able to stop them from doing what they like. So the best you can do is live and let live. Or you can become hateful and choke on vile while you see how they keep doing what you dislike without any ability to stop them. Is your choice if you want to react in a mature way or immature way.

If you understand that you "is not fine" is a subjective opinion. Then disregard the previous texts.


"Dogs cannot use words to consent"←They literally use canine "words" also know as canine language to communicate consent.


"nor can the context of the situation be explained to them"←What there is to explain?

"It takes time to develop the relationship in order to ensure that they are willing participants in the act"←Not always, I have literally been fuck by a dogs 5 minutes after meting him. Like if we where long time partners. But is literally his first time with a human. Also, a one night stand is just sex, it is not a relationship. One does not need to debelop a relationship with an animal (or human) to have a one night stand. You are also wrong in thinking that a one nigh stand means that you won't be able to tell if the dog is consenting or not. If one knows dog language, then telling consent from denial of consent is not an issue.

"and that you aren’t going to ruin their home life by teaching them bad behaviors"←Again, the risk of something like that happening seem very low. And most dogs already hump humans. Why would their "home life" be ruined if a dog humps like a normal dog would do?


"A male dog that knocks over a small child and tries to hump them probably isn’t going to belong to that family for long."←Again, a dog would do that naturally because they are dogs, dogs often do that already. And is a non-issue. The humans can just tell the dog "NO stop" and problem solved. The dog learns to not do it anymore. Dogs aren't that stupid, they can learn what is Ok and what is not OK to do, they can learn that their owners or children is NOT OK, but this naked human is OK.

 

[Ookami]

Oh, don’t like the girlfriend analogy? Ok, I’ll use another one, one that I generally prefer not to use but that’s certainly relevant. Most dog owners view their dogs as children. Sexually mature children, in this case, but children nonetheless. Therefore, in the eyes of the pet owner, it would be the equivalent of them asking you to check in on their sixteen year old daughter while they are out of town. Then you fuck the daughter while you do so and justify it by saying “oh, she was sexual mature and it was consensual, so it’s fine.”

No, it’s not fine, and you’re a sleazy douchebag for doing it. Dogs cannot use words to consent, nor can the context of the situation be explained to them. It takes time to develop the relationship in order to ensure that they are willing participants in the act and that you aren’t going to ruin their home life by teaching them bad behaviors. A male dog that knocks over a small child and tries to hump them probably isn’t going to belong to that family for long.

If you really believe that I guess you haven't met many dogs. Some dogs, depending on their character are very explicit in showing what they want and you basically only have to go along. Also - you'll laugh when I say it to you - German law actually does make you ask the parents if you wanna have sex with their 16 year old daughter XD Her consenting natually is also critical. The thing about asking the parents stems from a time when parents actually had a whole different role in society than today but that requirement just doesn't get touched because it's always much harder to revoke a law than to create one.

Furthermore constructing stories about dire consequences to gain the moral upper ground is pretty bad style. Discuss by weighting different rights of the involved individuals instead and you might have to rethink a bit. Btw I also hate it if people always state stuff like "And you only do that to get your rocks off" - that's cheap moralism again. The whole reason of wanting to get the rocks off with a dog is because that individual dog is attractive in those experienced circumstances - a dog that simply ignores wouldn't cause any zoo I know to get out of their way to try to initiate anything sexual. A bitch that presents her backside while flagging when getting ass rubs or a male dog that is already on the point of humping your leg is something different and it becomes both of you wanting to get your rocks off with each other. You can't seriously have anything against that. The point we really do differ on though is that you use the juristic status quo - that a dog or any animal is the property of his owner - and then put that as if it was a moral fixture.

 

[Octavian]

Fixed for you.

No you didn't, bestiality is expressly illegal in almost the entirety of my country and covered under animal cruelty laws in the rest of it. It is, in fact, a felony. One year in prison for a first offense. It's illegality holds true for almost all of the western world. If it's legal for you where you live then I fail to understand why you have to do it behind the backs of owners. If that's the case you are accepting temporary custody of the animal with the assumption that you will not fuck them and then fucking them. Having sex with dogs is considered so abnormal that it's something that doesn't even cross people's minds, that's why nobody ever says "Here's my dog, thanks for watching her, don't fuck her please!" That would make about as much sense to most people as asking you not to light them on fire: it's assumed that you won't do that! You do not have permission to do what you are doing with somebody else's dog. An animal that could be viewed at their baby, their friend, or their lover, but is nonetheless their property. Theirs, not yours.

Seriously, people like you are the reason I don't think I could ever have a zoo roommate. As great as that sounds, I'm not looking for somebody to fuck my mate and then lie about it to my face.

 

[Octavian]

A bitch that presents her backside while flagging when getting ass rubs or a male dog that is already on the point of humping your leg is something different and it becomes both of you wanting to get your rocks off with each other. You can't seriously have anything against that. The point we really do differ on though is that you use the juristic status quo - that a dog or any animal is the property of his owner - and then put that as if it was a moral fixture.

I would have fucked almost anything when I was thirteen and there are girls who are way to young who'd do the same thing too. Willingness to have sex is not the sole factor in deciding whether or not the act is acceptable. We have standards in society, we aren't heathens.

 

[Aluzky]

something that in and of itself is barely a crime

Something is either a crime or it is not. You saying "barelly a crime" mean that it is a crime 100%. Trespassing (with clear intent in doing so) is 100% a crime.


"In actuality bestiality is a crime"←NOPE. Bestiality has never been a crime. Just like homophilic sex has never been a crime. Both bestiality (or zoophilic sex or zoosexual sex or zoosex what ever you want to call it) and homophilic sex (or homosexual sex or homosex what ever you want to call it) are defined as victimless crimes (misnomer) they do not involve the creation of a victim, they are not a danger to society and their citizens. They are not crimes.

You are confusing something illegal with something criminal. A crime is an action that creates a victim. Something illegal can be literally anything. Some country could literally make blinking illegal if they feel like doing so. Would blinking be a crime if they make it illegal? NOPE. PLease read my post to Rirkil.

"and if your actions were discovered, the owner would most certainly feel victimized"←Feeling victimized is not the same as actually being a victim. I'm sure a husband who find out his wife was cheating on him with some one else will feel victimized, but the husband is not a actual victim of a crime, there was no crime in his wife doing consensual sex with another consenting adult.

How do I say this.... having your feelings hurts is not illegal. Sure, it sucks that some one hurts another person feelings, but that is life, some people are assholes and rude and immoral, but that is not a crime. I fully understand why you dislike them. But I do not share your dislike.


"Your beliefs are illogical"←Which beliefs? And can you provide a syllogistically proof that they are illogical? If they are truly illogical then you will be able to prove it with a syllogism. So, show us the proof. More evidence, less talk.


"nothing more than grasping at straws to justify your actions."←I'm not trying to justify what I do. If you dislike what I do, that is not my problem.


"People like you are part of the problem"←And what problem would that be?


"one of the reasons we will never be accepted by society."←Talking about owner hopping? Humans already accept homophiles wide spread of adultery in the homophilic community. If they accepted homophiles despite their adultery, why won't they accept zoophilia despite the owner hopping? Also, keep in mind that at least for me, I don't ask the owner for permission because of the wide spread bigotry against zoophiles, if such bigotry didn't exist, then i would never do owner hopping. Because I would be free of risk to ask owners for permission first.

"I'm zoo exclusive, this is my orientation, but society will never accept zoophilia"←Pessimist... They don't have to like zoophilia to accept it anyways. You seem to fail in understanding this. You think that people who accept homophilia like that dudes are fucking the shit out of their butts with their dicks? They don't like it, yet they still accept it and tolerate it.


"if all they think of when they hear the word are the stories of fence hoppers and molesters they read about on the news."←News is a bias source, in the sense that you only read the worst of the worst. They need to be explained that fact, that there is a huge portion of the zoocommunity that does not do crimes against animals or humans.

"If the animal isn't yours and you don't have the owners permission you're breaking the law"←There is no law making it illegal. So what law I'm breaking? Your moral law? Sorry, but that law only exist in your mind, such law is only followed by you. Others don't have to follow laws that only exist in your head.

"and harming the community in a selfish desire to get your rocks off."←It is not selfish, I'm also do it because the animals also enjoy it, I'm doing it to make the animals happy. In some cases I'm doing it 100% just for the animal sake. To me is no different from giving a dog a belly rub or a cookie. Sex is just another way to be nice to a dog and make them happy.

And how I'm being harmful to the community? I'm just one rude individual. My actions do not represent all the community. Again, think about the homophilic community, it has criminals, it has rude homophiles, yet society accepted them with all the bad and questionable be apples that the homophilic community has. Also, I'm not telling anyone to accept owner hopping as a good thing. It is clearly a rude practice that is better not done. I got no problem with teaching others to avoid such practice.

 

[Ookami]

I would have fucked almost anything when I was thirteen and there are girls who are way to young who'd do the same thing too. Willingness to have sex is not the sole factor in deciding whether or not the act is acceptable. We have standards in society, we aren't heathens.

Naw, that's not standards, that's bigotry Doesn't work that way in countries where nipples are seen as less dangerous than guns.

 

[Aluzky]

I would have fucked almost anything when I was thirteen and there are girls who are way to young who'd do the same thing too. Willingness to have sex is not the sole factor in deciding whether or not the act is acceptable. We have standards in society, we aren't heathens.

Society standards do not apply to animal standards. Society standards applies to HUMAN+HUMAN interactions. The only society standard that is and should be applied to animals are animal cruelty laws. Laws that protect animals from cruelty. If an animal has willingness to have sex with a human, and the human is not doing anything criminal, then I see no problems if the animal and the human do it.

 

[Aluzky]

No you didn't, bestiality is expressly illegal in almost the entirety of my country and covered under animal cruelty laws in the rest of it. It is, in fact, a felony. One year in prison for a first offense. It's illegality holds true for almost all of the western world. If it's legal for you where you live then I fail to understand why you have to do it behind the backs of owners. If that's the case you are accepting temporary custody of the animal with the assumption that you will not fuck them and then fucking them. Having sex with dogs is considered so abnormal that it's something that doesn't even cross people's minds, that's why nobody ever says "Here's my dog, thanks for watching her, don't fuck her please!" That would make about as much sense to most people as asking you not to light them on fire: it's assumed that you won't do that! You do not have permission to do what you are doing with somebody else's dog. An animal that could be viewed at their baby, their friend, or their lover, but is nonetheless their property. Theirs, not yours.

Seriously, people like you are the reason I don't think I could ever have a zoo roommate. As great as that sounds, I'm not looking for somebody to fuck my mate and then lie about it to my face.

Read my reply to ryirkil. Again you are wrong, criminal and illegal are not synonyms. I won't waste more breath on this issue, go read what I already said in my previous posts.


"Seriously, people like you are the reason I don't think I could ever have a zoo roommate."←The be honest, you sound like a moralistic unbearable person. Like a Karen. Very few people would want to be your roommate or will only last for a few months with you.

"As great as that sounds, I'm not looking for somebody to fuck my mate and then lie about it to my face."←Because all humans are liars? If I was your roommate and you told me to not fuck your mate, I would keep that promise. Just because I can do owner hopping, that doesn't mean I'm a liar or a piece of shit person to my friends.

 

[Octavian]

"In actuality bestiality is a crime"←NOPE. Bestiality has never been a crime.

Yeah, no. It's a felony in my state. From the Revised Code of Washington (state legal code)

​

RCW 16.52.205​

Animal cruelty in the first degree.​

(1) A person is guilty of animal cruelty in the first degree when, except as authorized in law, he or she intentionally (a) inflicts substantial pain on, (b) causes physical injury to, or (c) kills an animal by a means causing undue suffering or while manifesting an extreme indifference to life, or forces a minor to inflict unnecessary pain, injury, or death on an animal.
(2)(a) A person is guilty of animal cruelty in the first degree when, except as authorized by law or as provided in (c) of this subsection, he or she, with criminal negligence, starves, dehydrates, or suffocates an animal, or exposes an animal to excessive heat or cold and as a result causes: (i) Substantial and unjustifiable physical pain that extends for a period sufficient to cause considerable suffering; or (ii) death.
(b) In determining whether an animal has experienced the condition described in (a)(i) of this subsection due to exposure to excessive heat or cold, the trier of fact shall consider any evidence as to: (i) Whether the animal's particular species and breed is physiologically adaptable to the conditions to which the animal was exposed; and (ii) the animal's age, health, medical conditions, and any other physical characteristics of the animal or factor that may affect its susceptibility to excessive heat or cold.
(c) A person is not guilty of animal cruelty in the first degree by means of exposing an animal to excessive heat or cold if the exposure is due to an unforeseen or unpreventable accident or event caused exclusively by an extraordinary force of nature.
(3) A person is guilty of animal cruelty in the first degree when he or she:
(a) Knowingly engages in any sexual conduct or sexual contact with an animal;
(b) Knowingly causes, aids, or abets another person to engage in any sexual conduct or sexual contact with an animal;
(c) Knowingly permits any sexual conduct or sexual contact with an animal to be conducted on any premises under his or her charge or control;
(d) Knowingly engages in, organizes, promotes, conducts, advertises, aids, abets, participates in as an observer, or performs any service in the furtherance of an act involving any sexual conduct or sexual contact with an animal for a commercial or recreational purpose; or
(e) Knowingly photographs or films, for purposes of sexual gratification, a person engaged in a sexual act or sexual contact with an animal.
____________________________________________________________________________________

The same is true is almost the entirety of the United States and much of Europe. Regardless, I'm done with this conversation. It's obvious that our views of morality and basic decency do not align.

 

[Octavian]

Read my reply to ryirkil. Again you are wrong, criminal and illegal are not synonyms. I won't waste more breath on this issue, go read what I already said in my previous posts.

Your opinion doesn't alter the definition in the dictionary, bub.

 

[Ookami]

People who talk about the community always picture a community in which everyone is of their opinion all of the time - we could split into as much communities as we have members easily if we just pick out maybe 20 parameters we have differences of opinion about.

 

[Sedirae]

The only people I found, after spending a few minutes on searching, who're differentiating between illegal and crime the same way Aluzky does, are people who're trying to defend a forbidden (I use that term on purpose) behaviour/action xD
And really, it doesn't matter if you *think* there is no victim. What matters is, if the society you live in thinks there's a victim ^^
Because laws and rules are made to hold the society together, and as such the opinion of the society (and that is the opinion of the majority or the most influential group which then sways the majority again) counts. Not yours.

 

[ryirkil]

Please, keep answers short, this is getting huge.

https://www.monderlaw.com/news/consider-illegal-criminal-case/ ←Quote: "[/B]Is illegal the same as criminal?
To be completely brief and blunt no, illegal is not the same as criminal. Although these two terms seem similar, and people often use them interchangeably and incorrectly, they are in no way the same thing. "

Yeah, except they also didn't say anything about requiring a victim. Anyway, doesn't matter, we can assume your definition in this discussion.

Also, you can find many dictionary definitions that are wildly difference from one dictionary to another, or even able to find dictionary definitions that are objectively WRONGLY in defining reality.

Ever wondered why I linked so many?

If you use dictionary definitions as a "this proves 100% something" you may run into a dictionary fallacy ( https://effectiviology.com/appeal-to-definition/) . And I believe this is the fallacy you are committing. Sure, you can find dictionaries that says that crime and illegal are synonymy, but did you stop to think if they are actually correct in making such statement?

How come? I have just pointed out that there was no way for me to know what you meant back then. Later you gave the definition, I temporarily accept it. Case closed. I see no fallacy here.

So, ask yourself, does those dictionary definition that you presented about illegal/criminal, do they represent factual reality?

You fundamentally misunderstand definitions. They just say what we mean by a certain word. There is no "correct" definition of anything beyond "is this exactly what the author meant?". Although they can be good or bad in terms of usefulness or contain contradictions. For example: Let's define lisdfuhg as a real number, that after multiplying by 0 will give us 8. There is no such number, so the word is literally useless.

if we go by your logic, then homophilic sex is a crime in the present because it was ilelgla n the past?

Speaking of logic, I have never said crimes can't stop being crimes.

and even if some bigoted country decides to punish it through criminal law, they are literally violating human rights in doing so.

Funny, I have just decided it's not worth it to point out that criminal law is in the end what's written there and can have an absurd ratio legis, then you bring it up on your own. No, they would not be in the wrong. They would be doing something wrong but it would be in the criminal law anyway.

Same is true for zoophilic sex, which is also a victimless crime (misnomer) zoophilic sex (done in private, between consenting adults) is NEVER A CRIME. Just like homophilic sex (done in private between consenting adults) is never a crime. Capiche, do you understand now?

Listen, I'm happy to use your definition to communicate ideas in this discussion. But if you try to enforce it on outside sources, that's literally the fallacy you brought up earlier.

The therm fence Hopping was literally born from people doing LITERAL fence hopping.

Doesn't matter, words evolve.

If you use fence hopping as a synonym of owner hopping, a big portion of the zoophile com unity who is guilty of owner hopping will be blamed for doing fence hopping and they will be treated as criminals despite not doing anything criminal, just because you want to use a definition in a wrong way.

I can't count how many times I have been called a rapist already, by people who geniuenly believed it. And I've had no sex yet. Your wordplay on fencehopping will achieve nothing with antis. Don't make a big deal out of it.

I have literally received death treats because people though I have trespassed into people homes and properties to fuck their dogs (because they hear I'm a fence hopper) when I have never done that in my life. Do you understand the harm that can result to zoophiles in general if people wrongly think that owner hopping and fence hopping are synonyms?

You received death threats because you are well known and a practicing zoophile, everything else is an excuse. You think I didn't? I know of 2 attempts to report me to FBI. By people who severely misunderstood what I admited, had no idea where I am nor what the law says about even their imaginary "offences".

You seriously want to put a teen who has sex with the family dog on their own home on par with a dude who breaks into some one else home by destroying a door window to unlock the door to come in and fuck the family dog while they are gone? If you put those two scenarios as equal, do you realize the amount of unfair discrimination and hate the teen who did it with the family dog is going to get?

Describing. Something. With. The. Same. Word. Does. NOT make the two acts morally equal. How far are you going to push it? They both had sex, are you going to say sex does not count as sex if it's rape because it's harmful towards people who have consensual sex?

"Under your definitions, there has to be a victim."←When trespassing is done, the victim is the property owner. So yes, Fence hopping (tresspassing to be intimate with some one else animals) is a criminal act.

What do you mean by victim? In general.

Or are you saying that doing something intimate to an animal where the animal is fine and enjoys it is bad?

Stop attaching good or bad to everything please.

And at bare minimum you qualify as "disagreeing with me out of ignorance"

Ignorance implies I had a chance to learn.

Well, first you could have asked for "my definition" before making the claims that you made.

Look at your post. It probably wouldn't fit on A4 page. Now imagine what would happen if I were to ask for a definition of every single word you say.

Second, you could have analyzed the definitions and compare them to real life, you could have seen that the definitions do not match reality.

So you claim you can actually do that? Ok, let's apply your advice from just before that: please provide me definitions of reality, match, definition, and how you "compare them to real life". Because I'm 100% sure we have another mismatch or you are just speaking bullshit and don't even realize. Sorry, I just can't take it for this long.

So, after all this information, do you still disagree with me?

Look up and take a guess.

Do you still think that illegal and criminal are synonyms? Do you still think that fence hopping and owner hopping are synonyms?

They are what we say they are. Here they are not, in a conversation with a stranger, criminal and illegal will most likely be synonyms, while fence hopping and owner hopping wouldn't even be defined.

 

[Sedirae]

I see now why someone said in the beginning, that it's not really possible to have a proper discussion with him

 

[ryirkil]

I like complex conversations but this is just too long per message.

 

[Aluzky]

I see now why someone said in the beginning, that it's not really possible to have a proper discussion with him

I'm being clear in my replies. Stating facts, providing evidence when asked to support my claims. Where do you get the idea that is impossible to have a proper discussion with me? Like seriously, what have I done that makes you think that? Can you give a rational explanation? Or you can't explain it? Meaning, that you can't have a proper discussion with me because you don't have the intellectual skills to have one?

 

[Sedirae]

I'm being clear in my replies. Stating facts, providing evidence when asked to support my claims. Where do you get the idea that is impossible to have a proper discussion with me? Like seriously, what have I done that makes you think that? Can you give a rational explanation? Or you can't explain it? Meaning, that you can't have a proper discussion with me because you don't have the intellectual skills to have one?

No.
First, for someone, who claims to refrain from being emotional, you're quite fast to insult peoples intelligence.
Second, I never claimed it's impossible to have a discussion with you, I said, I see why someone else said it is not really possible to have one with you. Not quite the same.
Third, I do see that, because as said person (the one who originally claimed it's not really possible to have a discussion with you) already said, you fabricate (I'm using this word on purpose) some good arguments, but you don't accept arguments that support a different opinion than yours even slightly. You don't even consider them but reject them out of hand, most times on the basis of your personal interpretation of certain ideas. Which doesn't really work, since your interpretation of said ideas is just that, your interpretation.

And last: I'm not discussing anything with you. I just commentated on your discussion with others ^^

 

[Aluzky]

Yeah, except they also didn't say anything about requiring a victim. Anyway, doesn't matter, we can assume your definition in this discussion.

It is through logical deduction that you find out that all crimes involves the creation (or potential creation) of a victim. All crimes have a victim. All victimless crimes lack a victim.

Ever wondered why I linked so many?

Don't make me guess. Tell me the answer, why you linked "so many"

I see no fallacy here.

Using dictionary links as proof, is the fallacy itself. A dictionary not saying the word victim is not proof that crimes have nothing to do with the creation of a victim.

Speaking of logic, I have never said crimes can't stop being crimes.

I have not accuse your of saying that.

But if you try to enforce it on outside sources, that's literally the fallacy you brought up earlier.

I agree. Good thing I have not done that.

Doesn't matter, words evolve.

It does matter. Because it is harmful to owner hoppers to be put on equal with fence hoppers.

Imagine if we decide to change the definition of hero to thew definition of child rapists. And a person saves a child from being run over by a car and some one calls him a hero. And then here comes a mob of angry people and beat and kill the hero because they though hero means child rapists and they saw him holding a child in his hands. Do you see the problem of letting a word evolve in a harmful situation like that?

Your wordplay on fencehopping will achieve nothing with antis. Don't make a big deal out of it.

I'm not talking about antis, I'm talking about actual zoophiles behaving like that. Either way, it is harmful to use owner hopping and fence hopping as synonyms. This is something that should be avoided. Those who use the word incorrectly need to be corrected to prevent harm.

Describing. Something. With. The. Same. Word. Does. NOT make the two acts morally equal. How far are you going to push it?

Sorry, I don't understand your reply, can you re-prase that using valid english grammar?

They both had sex, are you going to say sex does not count as sex if it's rape because it's harmful towards people who have consensual sex?"

Rape is forced non-consensual sex. Rape and sex are both sex, but one is clearly criminal and the other one is not. Wich is why it would be harmful to use rape as a synonym of sex. Do you use rape as a synonym of sex? Same reason why fence hopping and owner hopping are not the same thing and using them as synonyms would also be harmful.

What do you mean by victim? In general.

A victim is some one who has been harmed physically or mentally or who had their rights violated by another person.

Land owners have property rights over their land, such right allows them to demark their property so others don't enter the property without permission. If some one sees a marked property and barge in on purpose, they are guilty of trespassing. They are violating that person rights and thus are committing a criminal act.

Stop attaching good or bad to everything please.

Why should I stop? Also, you said the word bad first: Look at your own word: "So it's as bad as trespassing itself" ←Shouln't you follow your own advice? Hypocrite much?

Ignorance implies I had a chance to learn.

Correct. Din't you learn that criminal and illegal are different things and that crimes must involve a victim? Or you have not learned this despite all the explanations I have given?

So you claim you can actually do that? Ok, let's apply your advice from just before that: please provide me definitions of reality, match, definition, and how you "compare them to real life". Because I'm 100% sure we have another mismatch or you are just speaking bullshit and don't even realize.

I can do that. You can't?

Reality: What can be feel with your senses (ears, touch, smell, etc) things that are real and objective (as far as what a healthy mind can perceive)

Match: To link something with something else that shares similar or identical traits. If you know a triangle is defined as an flat object with 3 pointy sides and you see a triangle in real life, then the definition MATCH the object. Matching a shape with a definition. Or, say matching a triangle shape with a triangle hole and inserting the right shape in the right hole, by matching them.

Definition: To describe something while trying to be as accurate as possible.

So, where do you have another mismatch?

Sorry, I don't like to talk bullshit, I have no need to so. So clearly, you have a mismatch somewhere.

Sorry, I just can't take it for this long.

You can't take what for this long? What are you talking about?

Look up and take a guess.

I try to avoid making guesses. When you make guesses you end up making FALSE guesses. Is best to ask a person directly before making any guesses. So I ask you again, do you still disagree with the difference between criminal and illegal? And still disagree with the differentiae between fence hopping and owner hopping? If you disagree, can you give a rational and objective reason (preferably, backed up by evidence) for why you disagree?

They are what we say they are.

So you are a solipsist? Reality does not matter. You think what ever you want to think and what you think is realty without exception?

in a conversation with a stranger, criminal and illegal will most likely be synonyms

This is why you explain the ignorant stranger that such words are not synonyms.

while fence hopping and owner hopping wouldn't even be defined.

This is why you teach those ignorant strangers the definition of those words.

 

[Aluzky]

For someone, who claims to refrain from being emotional, you're quite fast to insult peoples intelligence.

I'm stoic as I write my replies. I'm literally non-emotional. Also, why would I insult some ones intelligence? And who's intelligence I have insulted? What are you talking about?

I never claimed it's impossible to have a discussion with you, I said, I see why someone else said it is not really possible to have one with you. Not quite the same.

OK, what do you see that makes it imposible to have a discussion with me? What do they see?

Believe it or not, If there is something I can fix so they can have conversations with me, I would like to fix this flaw. But if you or them never tell me what his flaw is, then how I'm supposed to fix it?

but you don't accept arguments that support a different opinion than yours even slightly.

I do accept arguments that support a different opinion if such arguments have FACTS to support them. But if some one just tell me "earth is flat because this and this and this..." why should I accept their opinion when their "evidence" is invalid? If this is the so called flaw that I have, then it is not a flaw at all.

You don't even consider them but reject them out of hand

If their opinion lacks evidence, then their opinion can be taken with a grain of salt. And if their opinion is refuted by counter evidence, then their opinion can flat out be rejected. No need to even consider it.

If they want their opinion to be considered, then they should bring valid evidence to the table.

most times on the basis of your personal interpretation of certain ideas.

That are supported by facts or logic. If they are not, people are free to prove me wrong, if they prove it with evidence, I will acknowledged that my previous beliefs where wrong.

Which doesn't really work, since your interpretation of said ideas is just that, your interpretation.

Again, does work if that interpretation is supported by evidence and logic.

And last: I'm not discussing anything with you. I just commentated on your discussion with others ^^

Yea, never mind then, I'm wanted to find out about this flaw of mine but seem there is no flaw at all.

 

[ryirkil]

Don't make me guess. Tell me the answer, why you linked "so many"

Ehhh... You argue dictionaries sometimes might not reflect the most common usages of the word. This is why. If you link one and it doesn't contain your version, maybe it was just omitted. If you link 5 from the top of search engine, that's pretty damn unlikely.

Using dictionary links as proof, is the fallacy itself. A dictionary not saying the word victim is not proof that crimes have nothing to do with the creation of a victim.

I'm just gonna ignore the fact that you flipped everything uppside down and made up something I didn't say. I will also ignore any comments to my last two sentences starting from this one.

Speaking of logic, I have never said crimes can't stop being crimes.

I have not accuse your of saying that.

Yes, you did. I literally quoted that part right above what you are responding to.

I'm not talking about antis, I'm talking about actual zoophiles behaving like that.

Ok, that makes more sense. Still, I don't see how this particular wordplay is going to protect anyone. Inventing new words just to detach a stigma is not a good practice in my opinion.

Sorry, I don't understand your reply, can you re-prase that using valid english grammar?

Describing something with the same word does NOT make the two acts morally equal. How far are you going to push it?

Writing single words like sentences was supposed to indicate pauses between them and irritation.

A victim is some one who has been harmed physically or mentally or who had their rights violated by another person.

Fair enough. I do not include the rights because I believe they are made up, changing and I don't like unnecessarily unprecise definitions.

Why should I stop? Also, you said the word bad first: Look at your own word: "So it's as bad as trespassing itself"

Mistakes have been made.

Ignorance implies I had a chance to learn.

Correct. Din't you learn that criminal and illegal are different things and that crimes must involve a victim? Or you have not learned this despite all the explanations I have given?

Take chronology into account. The first explanation you gave me was after I quoted dictionaries. As I understand it, you think that message was showing my ignorance.

I can do that. You can't?

No, it just so happens that I can't access your head and extract the exact meaning of the text you have typed in and we have proven a few times already that your head is the only reliable interpreter.

So, where do you have another mismatch?

In the part of my previous reply that you have conveniently ignored. You really believe there are objective definitions. Sorry, I don't have any idea how that could be possible.

So you are a solipsist? Reality does not matter. You think what ever you want to think and what you think is realty without exception?

No. I'm just saying that definitions are subjective. Words are artificial abstractions created for the purpose of communicating ideas, thoughts, etc. They do not exist as anything more than a form of communication. They do not create nor have to match reality.

This is why you explain the ignorant stranger that such words are not synonyms.

Showing both ignorance and arrogance. Your definitions are not the one and only.

 

[zooms]

Speak of the devil

 

[BarkyPup]

all arguments aside ya know I like Aluzky....
one of my fave zoo lads....he makes great content...
looks good....hes hungry for it and has the hottest dick and AND actually cares about the animal too.

ill prob cop flak but appreciate the art for the arts sake I reckon.
a lil more love goes a long way