Anti zoo arguments

[egoldstein]

Be that as it may, let's break down the definition of orientation shall we..
1. A familiarization with something
2. the direction of someone's interest or attitude, especially political or sexual
3. in Behaviorism is mentally directing attention or physically directing the body towards a stimulus of some kind
4. Sexual Orientation is a term used to describe our patterns of emotional, romantic, and sexual attraction—and our sense of personal and social identity based on those attractions. A person's sexual orientation is not a black or white matter; sexual orientation exists along a continuum, with exclusive attraction to the opposite sex on one end of the continuum and exclusive attraction to the same sex on the other, but it sometimes implies either or..
Claiming that in order for an orientation to be true; you have to have a genetic basis backing it does not apply for "all" orientations.. Some can be psychological, it is entirely possible to be attracted to something from the start but not be based biologically towards it.. You have the right to show skepticism, but are the above definitions not applicable to zoophilia?

​If that's the definition you want, sure. But that includes everything as an orientation, making the term useless. I'm not the one who picked the definition of it being genetic, it was inherent in not only the original post, but you reaffirmed it when you said:
 

...unchosen, inborn form of emotional and sexual attraction

The word "inborn" pretty much entails genetic, unless you want to start splitting hairs. Either way, be it genetic, environmental, or otherwise, unless there is evidence it's just an assertion. There's nothing wrong with an assertion, but let's go back to the original post for a second.....
 
Original
 

Argument #8: Being zoosexual is only a choice, so it is unnecessary.
Why this argument fails: Zoosexuality is a sexual orientation just like any other sexual orientation. People are born zoosexual in the same way people are born homosexual — it is an orientation that cannot be changed.

Key points here are that it is asserting that people are born this way, what's the evidence for this? None has been presented, so the claim that it is an orientation we are born with is no more valid than the claim that it's a choice. Sure it's possible one is correct and the other is incorrect, but without evidence there's no way to know and nobody has any reason to believe either claim. That's why it's a piss-poor retort, it adds nothing factual, just another unsupported claim.
 

You have the right to show skepticism, but are the above definitions not applicable to zoophilia?

This isn't skepticism, it's plain logic. Anything one can assert without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. If I say that I am The One True God, Creator of Everything, should that be believed? Of course not, there's no evidence to support the claim and while someone can choose to believe it, their doing so is not a logical decision.
I went on to offer a bit more than just criticism, I decided to show how the reasoning for the initial claim, zoophilia being unecessary, was fallacious, a non-sequitur (litterally "it does not follow"). For the sake of the point, even if we provisionally accept the claim that zoophilia is a chioce, that doesn't matter as an enormous number of other actions and preferences which are choices are not prevented merely because they are a choice. So even accepting the premise, the conclusion does not follow.
 

[egoldstein]

 

Egoldstein there is actually scientific studies being done that questions whether genes have a role in whether or not someone is an animal person.. Just Google it you'd be surprised by the results, After all, genes influence a wide array of human traits..

 
Unless these studies show that zoophilia is an inherent, inborn, unchosen orientation that we are born with, they are 100% irrelevant to the point at hand.
It's logic, just Google it, you'd be surprised by the results! After all, logic is sadly ignored by a wide array of humans.  [img]<fileStore.core_Emoticons>/emoticons/tongue.png[/img]

[Bear28]

My Reply to the Unnatural Argument. Posted on January 30th 2011 on Huma's sight now long gone.
 
Often people see sex only for procreation to produce offspring only. Also that sex outside of the purposes of procreation is unnatural. This argument is wrong. It is true that at its most basic and fundamental level that sex is so a male and female can pass their genetic information down to the next generation. But sex is hardly only for procreation purposes.
While most would think that only humans have sex for enjoyment, other primates, the bonobo and chimpanzee as leading examples, and dolphins also have sex for enjoyment. Sex is also used to display dominance or to relive off tension as well. The bonobo uses sex for conflict resolution for example. Masturbation is used by most animals, at its most bask level, to reduce testosterone levels and masturbation does not lead to offspring.
Homosexuality also does not lead to offspring but more and more zoologist are discovering that homosexuality and bisexuality are normal and more common in the animal kingdom then was previously speculated. Almost everyday zoologist find evidence of another animal in the wild that displays homo- or bisexual tendencies. Also humans are not the only animals to display cross-species sex. K9's, felines, rabbits, cows, horses, elephants, dolphins, primates, etc., etc., have also been known to mate with other animals outside their own species. Whether these cross-species mating can result in offspring, such as the mule of a horse and donkey, or the liger of a lion and tiger, are not the issue.
Animals in the wild and captivity have been known and documented to have sex for non-procreation purposes. Not only have homo- and bisexuality, masturbation, and cross-species sex been found in humans but in most of the rest of the animal kingdom as well. So the argument is not that it is unnatural, because it has been proven to be very natural. Again primates are one of the leaders of cross-sexuality encounters and humans, as primates, are no exception.

[Cynolove693]

 
 
Unless these studies show that zoophilia is an inherent, inborn, unchosen orientation that we are born with, they are 100% irrelevant to the point at hand.
It's logic, just Google it, you'd be surprised by the results! After all, logic is sadly ignored by a wide array of humans.  [img]<fileStore.core_Emoticons>/emoticons/tongue.png[/img]

You sure got that last part right [img]<fileStore.core_Emoticons>/emoticons/tongue.png[/img]
"Logically" speaking zoophilia is the love of animals; any form of love for animals.. it doesn't necessarily imply sex, so I dont understand your reasoning on saying that studies relating to people's love for animals being genetic is irrelevant.. The studies are connected with zoophiles as we do after all love animals right?? Irrelevancy is when something can not be related to a subject at hand.. Everything I've said must have went in one ear and other the other, not a very logical way of thinking on your part eh? I could give a counter argument for as long as you'd like me to, I got all the time and plenty of knowledge and logic [img]<fileStore.core_Emoticons>/emoticons/wink.png[/img]

[Cynolove693]

Zoophile definitions:
1. a person who is devoted to animals
2. A person with an affinity towards animals
3. Medical definition: an erotic fixation on animals that ""may"" result in sexual excitement through real or imagined contact.
The original meaning of Zoophilia, from the Greek ζῷον (zṓion, "animal") and φιλία (philia, "friendship" or "love")
Which technically categorizes anyone who loves animals, whether they engage in the act of bestiality or not, remind me again how what I stated is irrelevant??
Pretry sure everything I've stated has followed reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity.
Ive gave definitions and valid points yet you still ignored it all.. Hmmmm.

[Cynolove693]

The reason I brong up both inborn, and the other definitions is an orientation can develop at birth or in early stages of life.. It's basic human psychology..

[Cynolove693]

Since you like to throw up the evidence bit all the time, to prove that your right and everyone else is wrong unless they show you dead proof of something.. Here's some more definitions:
Evidence: the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.
Information: facts provided or learned about something or "someone"
Factual: concerned with what is actually the case rather than "interpretations" of or "reactions" to it.
This ones gonna be mind blowing to you
Testimonial: firsthand authentication of a fact; evidence, an outward sign.
(A Testimony when spoken with true first hand experience is factual whether you like it or not)
Experience: practical contact with and observation of facts or events.
Practical: of or concerned with the actual doing or use of something rather than with "theory" and ideas.
(In other words first hand experience is not just theory or an idea as you claim it is..)
Authentication:  the process or action of proving or showing something to be true, genuine, or valid.
First hand authentication of something such as me saying I've always been a zoo can be considered as factual evidence for my self alone being born as a zoophile, It may not apply to everyone;, but it doesn't make it any less valid so quit suggesting it does..
 

[egoldstein]

<div><div>

Everything I've said must have went in one ear and other the other, not a very logical way of thinking on your part eh? I could give a counter argument for as long as you'd like me to, I got all the time and plenty of knowledge and logic [img]<fileStore.core_Emoticons>/emoticons/wink.png[/img]

​
</div>Uhh, I highly recommend re-reading my posts before commenting further and making yourself look even more foolish. ​If there's one of us who hasn't understood what's been said, it's you. I've been quite clear in my statements and you have missed the mark each and every time as you are attempting to argue with some strawman rather than my statements. If you have a counter, I'd love to hear it. I'm pretty certain you don't or you'd have provided one already. Lest this thread descend into a 20 page long reply of me quoting what's been said, I'm just going to provide links and specific quotes.
</div>​Here's a link to my first post in this thread: http://www.zoowg.net/index.php?/topic/337-anti-zoo-arguments/&do=findComment&comment=2346
​In it, I made comment about the provided argument:
<div data-role="commentContent" data-controller="core.front.core.lightboxedImages">

<div class="ipsQuote_citation ipsQuote_open">Argument #8: Being zoosexual is only a choice, so it is unnecessary.Why this argument fails: Zoosexuality is a sexual orientation just like any other sexual orientation. People are born zoosexual in the same way people are born homosexual — it is an orientation that cannot be changed.

 
This is the argument, I'll point out the details again for you since you apparently are having trouble following.
I said the offered retort was not very good, "piss-poor" to be specific. I said it was piss poor because the offered reason "People are born zoosexual in the same way people are born homosexual" is entirely unsupported. The original post provided no supporting evidence, not has anyone else. Being an unsupported claim, it is  no more reliable than the one it is intended to dismiss. If you can't grasp this, please ask for more explanation as it is critical to you understanding what I am saying.
I then went on to show how the post was in error. I'd go into detail here, but I did so earlier at this link: http://www.zoowg.net/index.php?/topic/337-anti-zoo-arguments/&do=findComment&comment=2384
 
Now see if you can follow along here, at what point have you offered anything even close to a rebuttal of this?
 
You did offer up an entirely unrelated comment, which I responded to here: http://www.zoowg.net/index.php?/topic/337-anti-zoo-arguments/&do=findComment&comment=2385
</div> 
Then you started moving goalposts in this post: http://www.zoowg.net/index.php?/topic/337-anti-zoo-arguments/&do=findComment&comment=2376
</div> 
You attempted to change the original claim, that zoophilia is an inherent, inborn trait, one we are born with, with a strawman based on your definition of zoophilia. The hillarious part is my original point doesn't hinge on those at all. Definitions on orientations and zoophilia are entirely unrelated to the point, which you have apparently missed.
 
Before you decide to get all snarky again and fail horribly at an attempt to insult me by claiming that I couldn't comprehend you "in one ear and out the other" http://www.zoowg.net/index.php?/topic/337-anti-zoo-arguments/&do=findComment&comment=2389
How about you try to address my comments instead of going off on some other tangent, attempting to move the goalposts, or perhaps just accept that you've failed to understand what I had tried, repeatedly, to explain to you.
It's OK to make an error, I make them too and I don't fault you, but when you start acting arrogant and insulting because you have entirely failed to understand what was said, it makes it much harder.
 

Everything I've said must have went in one ear and other the other, not a very logical way of thinking on your part eh?

Your comment is pretty apropos, no?

[Cynolove693]

Whatever man, I'm not gonna argue with someone who clearly doesn't want to see what I'm trying to say, I understand what you meant, it's not hard to read man.. but you claim everything I'm saying is Irrelevant when it isn't, it has all pertained to, zoophilia which is the damn focus of this whole thread and orientation which was brong up earlier and then your claim of evidence, all of it has been relevant to the discussion at hand, your putting off every argument as if nothing I say matters, kind of ironic as I'm the op of this damn thread, but apparently everything I say is irrelevant? [img]<fileStore.core_Emoticons>/emoticons/dry.png[/img]
 

[Cynolove693]

BUT no you done the same thing in my other Thread about paganism because you didn't agree with it... Now that was an irrelevant thing to say, do you get "my" point, go and troll someone else's thread, I'm sick of your opinions