09-14-2022, 01:01 AM
(This post was last modified: 09-21-2022, 06:24 PM by Kharrs.)
I know that I am new to the forum, but looking around, what better place than here to discuss ethics and morality.
It seems to me that just as an unexamined life isn't worth living., an unexamined community isn't worth having.
The concept of community has always sparked debate. How do we define who we are, who are the "others," who is included or excluded.
Do we refer to community by proximity? (Ethical, geographic, electronic, interest.)
I've found the Zeta Principles to be a useful tool in helping conceptualize what a zoo community could and should be. (Ref: Zeta-Verein)
Presumably, we want to maintain a sustainable, defendable and positive course as "we" navigate society at large. Surely a zoo community that promoted harmful acts or demonstrably "evil" behavior would not be able to get any traction whether it be social (zoos connecting with zoos), psychological (studies and scientific opinion of zoos), legal (bestiality laws) or societal (zoos as viewed by the public). Granted, you could ask a dozen members of any zoo forum what goals they might entertain for a "zoo community" and you'd get a dozen different answers, but the larger point, I would argue, stands: the Zeta Principles do provide a useful framework for testing the behavior of individuals and communities engaged with love and sexual acts with animals.
One such principle I have always taken to heart that I'd like to discuss here:
Teach those who seek knowledge about zoophilia and bestiality without promoting it.
So why would we want to answer questions as a community to those seeking information on zoophilia and bestiality?
- The emotional (social, personal, mourning) and physical risks (allergies, disease, anatomy and physical preparation) associated with zoophilia are not immediately apparent to the uninitiated. It's important to give people a chance to understand them and ways to mitigate them before they jump off the deep end.
- There is a need for credible sources to provide accurate information and battle misinformation (concerning issues of safety, history and ethical behavior)
- There are destructive elements within the "zoo online sphere of influence" which love to pray upon those who don't know any better (talking about a push to provide content, join destructive groups or take unnecessary risks)
Why would we not promote it?
- It's risky, unless one proceeds carefully, there could be unforeseen consequences for both human and animal. These risks are simply not worth an action just to satisfy a simple curiosity or passing interest. (You can't go back once you have taken the plunge.)
- Another issue with promotion of bestiality would include the very real possibility of the proliferation of animal pornography and exploitation. It simply should not be common.
- Bringing an animal partner into your life will forever change it. You'll be limited on what jobs you can take, how much you can travel, what social circles you travel, not to mention how expensive it is to adequately care for them. It's a huge responsibility.
<p style="background-color:#fefefe;color:#141414;font-size:15px;text-align:left;">
It would seem, if we wish to present ourselves as a community with moral standards, providing accurate educational resources without actually promoting the act should be a good place to start.
<p style="background-color:#fefefe;color:#141414;font-size:15px;text-align:left;">
What are your thoughts, do you think this axiom provides a good framework?
I think you know my stances my friend.
Others have stated:
1. The principles can be applied to personal interaction but there's no logical foundation for them or sensible way to apply them to others
2. There is no zoo community with any cohesion with which to promote any ethical framework
3. The big umbrella of zoophiles and people who practice bestiality should not be subject to such an ethical framework
These ideas seem nihilistic and lazy to me. In the 2000s, staying quiet and under the radar was a thing.
I don't think we have the luxury of just sitting back with privacy slipping away and sensationalism gaining momentum. What will happen tomorrow if nothing is done today to improve the situation today?
Quote:
On 9/21/2022 at 11:32 AM, Kharrs said:
What will happen tomorrow if nothing is done today to improve the situation today?
I can promise you what will happen if you try and speak up.
I'm an example. You do get 'shot down' a bit, but like hell that's stopping me. I'm not going to go morally or ethically bankrupt for these people.
This applies to the Zoo community, for the rest of the world, we need a different tactic.
It is easily shown that there is a modern history since the Supreme Court ruling overturning the US state sodomy laws, for the most part which included the bestiality laws (ref: Texas vs. Lawrence) in which various forms of anti-bestiality laws have since been passed at the state level, in direct association with zoophilia in the view of the public.
For example:
MO - Hossie appears on Jerry Springer.
ME - Muttnick is attacked by his father and makes a statement before the state senate floor.
FL - Wet Goddess is published.
WA - Mr. Hands is dropped off at a hospital and dies.
TX - Craigslist Advertisements
- The pubic viewpoint in the United States is well documented. Laws will be passed. And enforced when exposed.
- I would expect that there would be more interests in zoophiles "Protecting Their Animal Companions" as wordless victims with no say or care in this human matter over-riding interest in selfish human publicity.
- Any publicity is negative, no matter the message.
- Mass education approach is doomed to failure. Not saying there are not exceptions of individuals that would reconsider their opinion, but these must be approached one at at time.
- Politicians won't be put on a stand by voting against these laws.
- It is not part of the LBGTQ+ thing, nor should it be. This means there isn't a backing from the human rights league.
- Any argument for the fight for "rights" cannot define what rights are being denied. Half the time, those I ask, cannot define what a right is, let alone state the one being denied.
- There is no figurehead worthy of backing by the community that can withstand public scrutiny aka is pristine under that microscope. All zoophiles wouldn't agree to it even if there was.
- And for that matter, there really isn't a "community", the word is used as a convenience to be an inclusive moniker.
Look at modern times where ultra conservative organizations are passing laws attacking groups that theoretically already have anti-discrimination protection. Libraries are being politicized, and books are being banned/burned.
The right place for zoophilia is not in the spotlight. And the right time is certainly not right now
Quote:
8 hours ago, Darkmoor said:
in direct association with zoophilia in the view of the public.
Is this really in assoc. with Zoophilia though, or the more 'bestial types' that do something stupid to cause problems?
Quote:
8 hours ago, Darkmoor said:
For example:
MO - Hossie appears on Jerry Springer.
ME - Muttnick is attacked by his father and makes a statement before the state senate floor.
FL - Wet Goddess is published.
WA - Mr. Hands is dropped off at a hospital and dies.
TX - Craigslist Advertisements
MO left a bad image, but it was publicly flaunting more than informing / educating. Ergo the 'We're married' bullshit at a time when Gay Marriage wasn't even looked upon kindly due to social unrest between Liberals and Christian Neocons at the time. ME was much the same issue, someone bellowing and 'being angry in public', this is issue of poor presentation.
I'd argue WA was the biggest nail in the proverbial coffin, and as stated earlier, the TX issue: is this REALLY Zoos, or, to put it crude; a fetishist looking for a nut. I doubt the book publishing had a ton of influence in FL, as there was another issue. The 'Florida Goat Strangler' was a hot potato at the time too in that state. A man fence hopped, and fucked a goat, problem is he strangled her at the same time.
Quote:
8 hours ago, Darkmoor said:
I would expect that there would be more interests in zoophiles "Protecting Their Animal Companions" as wordless victims with no say or care in this human matter over-riding interest in selfish human publicity.
The unfortunate reality is, there's NOT a lot of 'Zoos' (note, I'm not saying ALL, hence the quotes) who take such a protective stance. There s a lot these days who shout pride without a goal, and to passivate so they can continue being fetishistic if you ask me.
Quote:
8 hours ago, Darkmoor said:
- Any publicity is negative, no matter the message.
I would argue publicity is a neutral stance, it depends on how, when, and whom presents it. If the crazy trespasser tries to make an argument after caught, or someone speaks up from a drunken family brawl, that's going to present worse than the dude with his life together, healthy partner, home and a solid backing in life.
Quote:
8 hours ago, Darkmoor said:
Mass education approach is doomed to failure. Not saying there are not exceptions of individuals that would reconsider their opinion, but these must be approached one at at time.
The biggest question here is: what's being presented, and how? Think ZooVille, and ZooTT for instance. There's some pretty seedy information coming from those places, and I know for a fact that ZooTT has 'lime lighted' some REAL bad actors in our name.
I do agree that the 'one at a time' and 'public square' approaches are the best opportunities if we get the right people to hand.
Quote:
8 hours ago, Darkmoor said:
- Politicians won't be put on a stand by voting against these laws.
Politicians also PALE in comparison to the general populous and the small corners of the world. Trust me as a rural boy we don't have much respect for govt. officials where I live. Many DC suits don't appeal to us, and we to them. We will need their support at some point, and we should take it no matter red, blue, green or yellow.
That said, public > political figures.
Quote:
9 hours ago, Darkmoor said:
It is not part of the LBGTQ+ thing, nor should it be. This means there isn't a backing from the human rights league.
You're right, and we don't need that. Remember we're two-front fighting here, and we're starting below zero as it were due to a lot of black eyes. I remain optimistic but we have to start slow and be patient, and not on a 'glory quest' as it were
Quote:
9 hours ago, Darkmoor said:
Any argument for the fight for "rights" cannot define what rights are being denied. Half the time, those I ask, cannot define what a right is, let alone state the one being denied.
Much of this depends on the side of the coin you're looking at, I'd say animal agency and right to their body is the biggest one being denied. The fact people can't see them as having a desire for pleasure, or that they are sexual beings. I've said this many times.
"We have all the rights WE need as Zoos, it's our partners that need the morale and status boost".
Quote:
9 hours ago, Darkmoor said:
There is no figurehead worthy of backing by the community that can withstand public scrutiny aka is pristine under that microscope. All zoophiles wouldn't agree to it even if there was.
I would volunteer, considering I don't even have a rapsheet at all, no negative brushes with the law, nothing. I'm a clean boy that lives day to day. Many political and social opinions of mine are harsh to a lot of people, but beyond that nothing. Hell I don't even drink.
Now, this would require a lot of the rest of the community having themselves together of course, there's NO way I, or any other Zoo should step up until we get the internal messes sorted.
Quote:
9 hours ago, Darkmoor said:
- And for that matter, there really isn't a "community", the word is used as a convenience to be an inclusive moniker.
A bit of a nihilistic reality a friend and I hope to fix. There IS still a community, it's just fragmented due to bad actors.
Quote:
9 hours ago, Darkmoor said:
Look at modern times where ultra conservative organizations are passing laws attacking groups that theoretically already have anti-discrimination protection. Libraries are being politicized, and books are being banned/burned.
When one looks to 'the modern' without learning from history's mistakes, one is doomed to repeat them. There's a difference between living in history ad learning from history. You already strike a dangerous line in the same for any forward of the 'Zoo Movement' (loose wording, hence the quotes). You already pick a politicized side ('ultra conservative').
If we want to go ANYWHERE, we have to drop the smoke-and-mirrors, red v. blue nonsense, NEITHER side cares about us unless we make a damn good case, and then? We need to take what help we can get, and from where.
Zoos need an Anarchist / Libertarian mindset, being politically agnostic is the only way to go for us.
Quote:
9 hours ago, Darkmoor said:
The right place for zoophilia is not in the spotlight. And the right time is certainly not right now
There's no right or wrong place, only presentation. I do agree the time isn't right, but that's more internal than external.
All you need to do is look at history of other groups following the same path (LGB, for instance). They struggled, pushed, and had to stay silent for decades.
There's one thing we need NOT model after them, we need not cram it down others' throats as they did when the proverbial foot was in the door. To put it simply, don't go from 0 to 1000, steady and slow, patient and calculated.
Fury wins the battle, but loses the war.
<blockquote class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote="" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic" data-ipsquote-contentcommentid="13618" data-ipsquote-contentid="1076" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-timestamp="1664638882" data-ipsquote-userid="2315" data-ipsquote-username="WinterGreenWolf">
7 hours ago, WinterGreenWolf said:
<div class="ipsQuote_contents">
Okay, let me raise some points here before we proceed.
You use the phrase "bestial types". What exactly to do you mean here?
In language, I should contextually infer that you mean "Those that practice bestiality".
But in your tone, I hear derogatory notes.
<span style="line-height:115%;">Do you proclaim to know who is and who is not a zoophile?
Do you proclaim to state that "bestial type" has a negative connotation?
Let's look at these words.
Zoophile, one who develops strong emotional bonds with animals.
Bestiality, the physical act of sex with an animal.
Rape and sexual abuse
A person with strong emotional bonds with an animal can have physical sex with it as well, meaning that they are a zoophile that engages in bestiality. And yes, there are those that engage in bestiality without force, coercion, and with no harm to the animal. Ergo, there should NOT be any negative connotation with the word "bestiality".
This is important, because make no mistake, a zoophile charged by authorities for their interactions with their animals will not be charged for being a zoophile. They will be charged for committing acts of bestiality. The authorities have no care or interest in your emotional bonding. In fact, it is NOT a crime to love an animal.
However, if zoophiles seek to vilify the single word that defines the sexual act, it then becomes evidence that zoophiles agree with the authorities that such actions should not be engaged, and should remain or become criminal actions.
Meanwhile:
Rape. Rape is rape. rape of an animal is still rape. Society does not distinguish the target of rape for inserting a different term. Rape of someone of the opposite or same sex, is still "rape". Sexual Sadism is a BDSM term, and I've seen zoophiles try to take this approach to distinguish themselves, with the term zoosadism. Abuse is abuse, and rape is rape.
But now, up apply negative connotations to bestiality. Them bestial types. To infer that the sexual act, without a strong emotional bond is a thing to disdain. There is no part of the definition of bestiality that indicates any inclusion or exclusion of some emotional component in the physical act. If someone is raping an animal, it is rape. If they are abusing and animal it is abuse. Do not muddle this distinction.
Vilifying "bestiality" and pushing/supporting it to have a negative connotations is gigantic mistake.
Accepting such redefining of terms only supports authoritarian views that such actions are always negative. They are not.
You have to leave behind your personal dislike of those that engage sexually without having a zoophile's emotional bond. When you support/use the definition of words, particularly in your choices of vocabulary, there is a larger impact than your personal disdain.
Back to your proclamation on zoophilia. In the examples I gave, some of the names associated are Hossie, Muttnick, Mr. Hands, and Brenner. Are you being judgemental about their personal declaration of being a zoophile or not?
Be clear, I'm not saying you cannot have an opinion. Everyone has opinions. However, you want to be a documentarian. Please explain to me your process of deciding who gets to be what.
This little demonstration is just one reason you do not qualify as a figurehead.
Look, no offense, but I'm not here to argue linguistics.. if you want the definition of something, ask me simply and up front. There's a LOT of ground to cover here, I may return to cover it, I may not, but you know my stances from above and I'd argue they hold fast from what I've seen.
Quote:
32 minutes ago, WinterGreenWolf said:
Look, no offense, but I'm not here to argue linguistics.. if you want the definition of something, ask me simply and up front. There's a LOT of ground to cover here, I may return to cover it, I may not, but you know my stances from above and I'd argue they hold fast from what I've seen.
If you are looking to discuss ethics and morality as the first line of your opening post claim, You can't brush linguistics under the rug.
I had actually composed a whole response to the entirety of your post, until I started reviewing, and noticed I missed this first line that I quoted from you.
This was enough for me to delete the entirety and address this one line.
And just because you have seen things in use, does not make my points any less valid.
You are looking for input from the "community" yet do not want to have an open mind and some humility to grow and learn.
Respect is a thing earned. The others are watching.
I am not new. I've been through this same rodeo waaayyyyyy too many times with many a fevered zealot.
I can list quite a few over the years. I suggest you do not idolize them.
If you cannot stand up to my arguments, and are not willing to engage them, how do you think you will do against the general public?
Consider my points as "practice" for you.
P.S. You don't get to make the rules.
|
