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?