The Zeta Chronicles - A pro-active comic for the zoo community

Ruben said:
The accused doesn't have to prove his innocence – the prosecution has to prove that the accused is guilty.
Click to expand...
Yeah, all the court has to do is say it happened and say how it happened and guess who's going to be believed?
it's certainly isn't the accused going "but no, she consented to it, she likes it"
So yeah, you'll lose that one every time
 
Gunslinger1X said:
Yeah, all the court has to do is say it happened and say how it happened and guess who's going to be believed?
it's certainly isn't the accused going "but no, she consented to it, she likes it"
So yeah, you'll lose that one every time
Click to expand...

Because all it comes down to is a bunch of people and their bias
 
Gunslinger1X said:
Yeah, all the court has to do is say it happened and say how it happened and guess who's going to be believed?
it's certainly isn't the accused going "but no, she consented to it, she likes it"
So yeah, you'll lose that one every time
Click to expand...
If you assume the justice system won't follow it's own rules of course the only outcome is injustice, but that was not the context of the original point. You asked "how can you prove she wasn't forced" and that is legally never a problem that would arise in a common law system (or other western systems).

The corruption would take the form of pretending it was proven beyond a reasonable doubt that she did not consent.
 
ADreamOfLiberty said:
If you assume the justice system won't follow it's own rules of course the only outcome is injustice, but that was not the context of the original point. You asked "how can you prove she wasn't forced" and that is legally never a problem that would arise in a common law system (or other western systems).

The corruption would take the form of pretending it was proven beyond a reasonable doubt that she did not consent.
Click to expand...
You're correct, in most non-western Justice systems you would simply be put to death or jailed for life
 
What you fail to realize is they will use the same logic that they use for children they cannot consent because they are not fully aware of what's going on
And I can guarantee you, the more you push for this to become "normalized", The more you will see laws popping up with the term "unnatural acts" in it
 
Gunslinger1X said:
What you fail to realize is they will use the same logic that they use for children they cannot consent because they are not fully aware of what's going on
And I can guarantee you, the more you push for this to become "normalized", The more you will see laws popping up with the term "unnatural acts" in it
Click to expand...
what logic even is there
 
xbotzkillerz said:
what logic even is there
Click to expand...
I believe that's part of his point... There is none. But "they" will scream bloody murder, and keep pushing the idea anyway, and it'd be political suicide to speak up against anti-human/animal-sex laws. Can't you just see the result when "Senator Blowhard objects to law designed to prevent people raping puppies!" starts getting splashed across the headlines? I may be crazy, but I'm thinkin' that Senator Blowhard is gonna become "Ex-senator Blowhard" in short order. They learn fast with something like that, and the stuff just slides on through...
 
Bloodwolf said:
Way too many with this idea think like a zoo. Not the general public. Y’all need to learn how to live 2 lives.
Click to expand...
The irony is, they want to assert "human characteristics" like consent to justify their actions to the normies, but can't seem to realize that same mindset is what normies will use when prosecuting them, comparing animals to children mentally.
 
Gunslinger1X said:
The irony is, they want to assert "human characteristics" like consent to justify their actions to the normies, but can't seem to realize that same mindset is what normies will use when prosecuting them, comparing animals to children mentally.
Click to expand...
That’s what I mean. A lot of people don’t seem capable of separating our mind set and think like a normal person.
 
UR20Z said:
That assumes as best case that it doesn't blow up into a witch hunt and end up making things even worse - the way this sort of idiocy has done multiple times already...
Click to expand...
pretty much this.
gotta mention donation money likely going into this on the "why care" list as well.
 
Regarding page 8: I expect both visible participants as well as all living beings in the park to be leashed after reading that inscription. 🤷‍♂️
 
UR20Z said:
WTF is a "non-persona civil union"?
Click to expand...
It was a twist on the legal term of persona non grata. Since there would be some form of limited legal recognition of non-persona, or non person to person relationships in existence. Hence a new legal term would be required to explain it.

www.collinsdictionary.com

Persona non grata definition and meaning | Collins English Dictionary

Persona non grata definition: If someone becomes or is declared persona non grata , they become unwelcome or... | Meaning, pronunciation, translations and examples
www.collinsdictionary.com www.collinsdictionary.com

I liked that little detail and @YanchaOkami why the main characters wouldnt be leashed. XD
 
Last edited:
ZTHorse said:
It was a twist on the legal term of persona non grata. Since there would be some form of limited legal recognition of non-persona, or non person to person relationships in existence. Hence a new legal term would be required to explain it.

www.collinsdictionary.com

Persona non grata definition and meaning | Collins English Dictionary

Persona non grata definition: If someone becomes or is declared persona non grata , they become unwelcome or... | Meaning, pronunciation, translations and examples
www.collinsdictionary.com www.collinsdictionary.com

I liked that little detail and @YanchaOkami why the main characters wouldnt be leashed. XD
Click to expand...

Doesn't work.

"Persona non grata", from your own cite, means a person who is/has become unwelcome - mechanism irrelevant. Note that the person is still a person - he's just not wanted around.

Put another way, the PERSON'S welcome becomes nonexistent. he/she/it doesn't become a "non-person", he becomes an UNWELCOME person. There isn't even an indication that the person ceases to be a person - Only that he's become someone you don't want around.

Words mean things, despite your wishes otherwise. Sorry, but in the context you're trying to use it, "non-persona" is as meaningless as if you'd used "glasprindilax" or "sarglimalorp" instead.
 
It is interesting because the protagonists and most characters out there in the comic are no humans and most humans deem the term "person" only in relation of humans (or representatives of humans, as example with specific traits - nowadays not that regularly anymore, which is a good thing). It doesn't revolve about being welcome, the simple definition of "person" is enough to leave a funny twist in it.

Either those characters see them self as "persons" but resemble animals - then it's hard to argue why their animal partners are "less persons" and have to wear a leash.. Or they see them self as animals / fursonas / whatever, then it layers their own existence distanced to the usual "person" and it's interesting why they don't have to wear a leash them self.

At the end it's all coming to a simple conclusion: Those who can declare the rules will exclude or include as they wish, independently of a given biological aspect or specific resembling.
 
YanchaOkami said:
It is interesting because the protagonists and most characters out there in the comic are no humans and most humans deem the term "person" only in relation of humans (or representatives of humans, as example with specific traits - nowadays not that regularly anymore, which is a good thing). It doesn't revolve about being welcome, the simple definition of "person" is enough to leave a funny twist in it.

Either those characters see them self as "persons" but resemble animals - then it's hard to argue why their animal partners are "less persons" and have to wear a leash.. Or they see them self as animals / fursonas / whatever, then it layers their own existence distanced to the usual "person" and it's interesting why they don't have to wear a leash them self.

At the end it's all coming to a simple conclusion: Those who can declare the rules will exclude or include as they wish, independently of a given biological aspect or specific resembling.
Click to expand...
Shhhhhh....

Youre spoiling why its a furry comic.

Something @UR20Z isnt smart enough to see.
 
ZTHorse said:
Shhhhhh....

Youre spoiling why its a furry comic.
Click to expand...
Hmm, I don't get what a persona non grata would have to do with it, tho.

Except if it is linked to ignoring and breaking the given rule / law in a metaphorical sense: No matter what the protagonists or their animal partners would choose, if they don't leash one participant (aside the new non-person category, just plainly related to the rules given there and their animal-like occurrence), they would exclude this one from being welcome at the park and as such a persona or non-persona non grata, whatever it is at the end (animal, human, furry fursona..).

So as to fulfill it in the common sense of "leash your pets" it is necessary to declare a new form of "person" which basically includes fursonas and so on while excluding the "pets".

Or to define the "pet" aspect: one way would be - if it can't understand simple scientific or argumentative arguing based on abstract logic not linked to the thinking animal itself (direct classical conditioning shouldn't play a role here) - then it wouldn't resemble a person.

The "non-person" is one of multiple possibilities to declare it, but somewhat contrary to what many zoophiles would want: granting their animals a set of basic person (in this case human) rights which surpass animal rights. Be it for protection or for a certified relationship status like marriages.

Anyway, off to bed, four days of harshly timed events follow.
 
YanchaOkami said:
Hmm, I don't get what a persona non grata would have to do with it, tho.

Except if it is linked to ignoring and breaking the given rule / law in a metaphorical sense: No matter what the protagonists or their animal partners would choose, if they don't leash one participant (aside the new non-person category, just plainly related to the rules given there and their animal-like occurrence), they would exclude this one from being welcome at the park and as such a persona or non-persona non grata, whatever it is at the end (animal, human, furry fursona..).

So as to fulfill it in the common sense of "leash your pets" it is necessary to declare a new form of "person" which basically includes fursonas and so on while excluding the "pets".

Or to define the "pet" aspect: one way would be - if it can't understand simple scientific or argumentative arguing based on abstract logic not linked to the thinking animal itself (direct classical conditioning shouldn't play a role here) - then it wouldn't resemble a person.

The "non-person" is one of multiple possibilities to declare it, but somewhat contrary to what many zoophiles would want: granting their animals a set of basic person (in this case human) rights which surpass animal rights. Be it for protection or for a certified relationship status like marriages.

Anyway, off to bed, four days of harshly timed events follow.
Click to expand...
Exactly, and i think it was a brilliant point that mark wrote that little bit of world building into it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top