Jump to content
Zoo Community Forum & Zoo Writers’ Guild


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


egoldstein last won the day on February 24

egoldstein had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

42 Excellent

About egoldstein

  • Rank
    Advanced Member
  1. Lots of new bills in the U.S.

    So tell me silverwolf, what have I done to cause such legislation? I have harmed none, I have maintained my life outside of public view and yet you have repeatedly agreed with 30-30 that *WE* are to blame. I'd ask 30-30 directly, but he never responds, so maybe you will. What is it you think I've done to make such legislation happen? Don't blame the dumbasses who get caught and appear in the news, it's disingenuous at best to blame us for them unless you also hold all men to blame for every reprehensible action performed by another man; we are responsible for the actions we perform or support, nothing more. If one man rapes a woman, are all men to blame for this? If one man abuses a dog, are all men to blame for this? If we assume we are indeed responsible for this, how EXACTLY are we to prevent these problems. What could *I* have done to prevent the situation? If one American commits an atrocity, is it right to mete out vengeance arbitrarily onto other Americans? If not, why not? How is it any different than what you've been supporting?
  2. Heya Eagle, glad to see you've joined the forum; I look forward to discussions again just like the old days.
  3. Bad text?

    You can't if your goal is to be logical, but if your goal is "win", you grab Schopenhauer's stratagems and see how many you can check off the list. When victory is more important than truth, it doesn't matter how you win, only that you do. That said, I think most of these laws get started in an honest attempt to do something good, but an action based in ignorance has little chance of doing anything constructive. As for the text of this law specifically, I think it's so poorly written that it's less likely to withstand heavy scrutiny than one better written, as such, it's somewhat of a benefit as garbage on the topic will satisfy the ignorant as much as something more substantial. I would very much love to see some requirement for laws to pass the scrutiny of something such as the framework outlined in Mill's "On Liberty" before being brought up for vote, but what I want has little effect on the world at large.
  4. Bad text?

    I didn't see a reference to a particular study, but if they are referring to the data I think they are, then a more apt parallel to draw from that data is that nearly 100% of the sexual predators were heterosexual males. Using the supplied reasoning then it's clear we need laws making heterosexual sex illegal. It's the only way to protect our children!!!
  5. Bad text?

    Because when a legislator opposes it, no matter how stupid it is, they get lambasted for it and accused of supporting "animal rape". I remember a few years ago when a few bills were going through and I believe someone in NH opposed the law because it was logically flawed and poor legislation and I don't think they got anything but grief for the effort.
  6. Thanks for sharing that Ren. I remember reading it when if was first published and the discussions about it, but re-reading it was a nice and there was much I'd forgotten about.
  7. Rannoch / Rannoch2012

    I always liked Rannoch; he always seemed a likable fellow. Seems hard to believe he's gone, can't help but think he'll pop back up again sometime.
  8. Checking in

    Heya VGR, glad to see you've stepped out of the talkers to see what's going on!
  9. hiyall

    Glad to see you made it here littlejohn!
  10. Deja vue?

    My girl (also a Dane) didn't tend to sleep run until she was about 7 or 8, it's nearly a guarantee these daysthat she'll twitch when she's sleeping. As for the fear that it's happening again, I think that's a pretty normal reaction to having lost a love.
  11. Several of the zoonoses on the list shouldn't be there, IMO. While they are indeed zoonoses, only the first 3 are sexual, the rest are just typical zoonoses one can get from drinking improperly filtered water. I think the folks of Milwuakee WI, Flint MI, and many other places, would be surprised to discover that cryptosporidium was a disease assosciated with bestiality.
  12. Dreams of an Animal

    Yeah, for as much as the suck really, really sucks, it doesn't negate the, hopefully far more numerous, good and content times, at least not for me. Also, you're not alone.
  13. Social Anxiety and Zoophilia

    Sorry Cynolove. It's an interesting question. This is all anecdotal, but I've always felt an attraction/affinity for non-humans. Interestingly, after I came to terms with it, I talked about it with several members of my family, with whom I was close, and got varied results from them. My brother, always a pussy hound, had never even *considered* that such was possible, yet we were raised in the same environment (mostly, there's always some differences even with twins, which we are not). A discussion with one of my aunts yielded her talking about trying it a few times, mostly handjobs to the dog, but a few explorations further in too. She was OK with it, but greatly preferered other humans. I have an uncle who admitted some interest, but no admission of action; it's an open question still I suppose. Growing up I had no exposure to it that I am aware of, yet I can recall being around 7 and having sexual/love thoughts and feelings about animals. So it seems to me plausible that innate feelings could lead some of us toward a non-human as a partner, naturally. I mentioned briefly earlier my thoughts about a genetic link.; I want to be clear here that this is pure speculation. Among the many hereditary features of domestication, part of it is being able to mate in the presence of another species and to an extent, to consider that other species as a member of the species unit (herd/pack/flock/pod/etc). We don't often think of ourselves as being a domesticated species, but we exhibit a large number of features of domestication ourselves and I've speculated that perhaps in some of us, the varied ability to empathize with non-humans, to see them as potential members of our troop, and to see them as potential mates,, could possibly be a stronger than typical expression of it. Something to think about. Edit: On the flipside, I think I could argue that it could be, at least in part, a combination of memes and positive reinforcement from the pleasure of sex.
  14. Dreams of an Animal

    They're as common in my dreams as anything else, which seems logical considering they're an integral part of every day life for me.
  15. Social Anxiety and Zoophilia

    Quite the contrary, it's an example from my own life. I noticed a tiny bump in my first bitch and fretted about what to do, whether it was anything to really worry about, and how I could manage to get my vet to find it. It took a lot of time and repeated visits to get the vet to do a thorough examination to find it, but by then it was much worse. I find it interesting that your best defense of these laws is to point out that they're so easy for you to avoid, that you couldn't possibly ever get caught, or that the penalties for you aren't very severe. If you were to attempt to answer some of the questions posed, you would know that I addressed this specifically. I'll reitterate it again. I do not suppport your "free zoophilia" idea, never have and have pointed this out to you on several occasions. Had you read my earlier replies, you'd know that I even addressed the point about abuse. You have the annoying tendency to ignore everything said and instead just beatup a strawman you dragged in. Ok, since you appear to have difficulty with this, let me see if I can explain it in a manner which you can understand. If a law is created which focuses on a sexual action and is applied *no matter if there is harm or not*, then that law is about controlling sexual expression and not about animal welfare, since it doesn't matter if the animal is harmed or not. Maybe things work differently in Germany, but pretty much everywhere else this would be an extension of the old sodomy laws. In this case, why does sex even matter? You accept there's no harm from it, but yet you continue focusing on the sex instead of neglect and abuse. In this one example you destroy your own position. I think in such a case we should do exactly the same as in any other case, that it should be examined not from a sexual angle but from a neglect/abuse angle. What if in your example, the person doesn't ever have sex with the animal, is the neglect suddenly A-OK because at least they aren't fucking it? That's the whole point, your focus on sex narrows your view so that you don't even see any other abuse. Saying it does not make it true, I have yet to see any evidence that this is based on anything *BUT* your own ego. And in this entire thread, you're the only one who's even hinted at the idea of "free zoophilia", whatever that means. Here's a hint, when you resort to arguing against something nobody else in the conversation has even said, chances are you're fighting a strawman. If you go through this thread and see, you'll find that you've been asked several direct questions by myself and others. Why is it you've not attempted responding to those, but instead keep up with your strawman attacks? Is it because deep down you know your argument is flawed but your ego just can't accept it? Again, the only one constantly nagging about "zoo freedom" has been you. So you're saying it's A-OK for an action which you accept as non harmful to be illegal because some people who engage in that action commit some other, unrelated crime of abuse? Furthermore, you accept that abuse happens even when sex isn't involved, but that abuse doesn't matter because those people aren't engaging in the action you accept as non-harmful? All of this just to try and stop some people from engaging in an action which you accept as non-harmful. Did you even think about this before you started typing? Here's a clue, focus on harm and you get those comitting abuse while not harassing those not comitting abuse. Focusing on sex instead of abuse makes it clear that your issue isn't about abuse, you've already demonstrated you don't really care about abuse, but rather you're offended about the sex. Your last sentence here makes that 100% clear, you're railing against people who you think are "adventurous and irresponsible" who you think might "give zoophilia a try", no concern there about abuse whatsoever.