Are all you folks already on the new forum (Zoocadia)?

Repreive said:
...I can't say I've heard of animals being used for testing cosmetics in like, several decades. At least not in the nation I live. It'd be absurd.
As for eating meat or feeding a carnivore...

There is a BIG difference between enjoying food made of animals...
And enjoying the suffering of animals. Most folks that eat meat don't do so for the sake of causing suffering, they eat meat because the meat itself tastes good, because it satisfies their hunger and nutrition needs, and because the alternative is often so prohibitively expensive or lacking in quality that they cannot afford it. Literally and figuratively.

Trying to equate such things to sadism of any kind is intellectually dishonest worst, painfully ignorant at best.

As for animal care... It depends on whom you ask? Typically those caring for greater numbers of animals care less about individual suffering and focus on making sure they live healthy and safe lives, something they couldn't achieve if they weren't domesticated and were left to fend for themselves in the wild. This sort of care, even if not equal to that which humans give to their children, is still worth seeking; this is proven by the wolf's ancestors becoming the most widely-known socially-symbiotic species tied to mankind's existence.

Personally, having cared for hens, I cared a great deal for them. Whenever they died of old age or in the rare case due to things such as the bird flue, I'd end up in an emotional fugue. In terms of their conditions... I'd say it's not a house line that which I live in, but it's definitely a place they enjoy living. Animals don't have the exact same desires, instincts and standards as humans do.
Hens enjoy sand, fluffy dirt, straw and such when it comes to materials in their shelters. They like to dig lil divots out to lie in and sprawl on a bit of a tilt when it's hot out and enjoy the shade. They have a funny preference for 'wild water' rather than more pure and clean water, as I've observed when I let them out to peck the yard.
...Getting a bit off track, but...

My point is that I enjoy eating meat. I like the taste and I need it to remain healthy, as do obligate-carnivores.
To deny an animal their dietary needs is feckless, idiotic cruelty. To claim owning or caring for a carnivore is immoral is even more rarted given that, if they had to kill to feed themselves, they'd likely cause far more drawn out and excruciating pain than is endured by those animals which humans farm. Farmed meat is, with proper standards of case, the best possible moral answer to the problem of 'how to not-starve with a belly full of leaves and beans'. Not to mention the stress and pain they might suffer during a hunt, whether or not they succeed.

Supplements are NOT replacements. Pills cannot fulfill your needs perfectly, they can only help offset them temporarily.
Plants which contain proteins do not contain the variety nor quality of proteins found in meats and dairy. The result of lacking in both is that in order to get all the proteins you need in addition to getting enough... Is that you have to eat a LOT. Like, so much it would bloat you.
Also be aware that not everyone can even absorb the vital nutrients found in various nutritional supplements and plant-based alternatives.

Many have tried to be vegan. Long-term, the majority cannot and eventually return to eating meat. It's not a choice; we need to eat meat.
Most people aren't aware, but humans aren't true carnivores; we can digest vegetables and the like, but it's more of a fall-back survival strategy when meat is scarce and all we have left is greenery. As a species, we're less restricted in diet than any other carnivorous animal... But we're far from being herbivorous in terms of our evolution and dietary roots.



TL;DR
Eating meat is not sadistic.
Slowly and thoroughly torturing an animal before killing it, or killing it in a brutal fashion...
Enjoying the act of torture and ending a life in and of itself? That is sadism.

P.S.
Valleyote, I believe you may be woefully misinformed on a number of topics... Particularly regarding the care and use of animals in various industries. While the poultry industry and other agricultural giants are known for their terrible conditions and careless workers, most actual small-scale farmers are far more humane, love their animals. I would literally stumble out of bed, grab a stick from the yard and try to fight off a mangy coyote than risk allowing my precious, dopey lil feathery babies to be harmed.

Also, as regards pedophilia, folks with paraphilias tend to have more than one or two.
The fact is that pedophilia has strong correlation with any form of sexual deviancy from the heterosexual 'norm' and 'vanilla sex'.
Click to expand...
Thank you for this sane, informative response. And uh... wait what? Are you implying that pedophilia is prevalent among zoos? I'm not saying that incredulously, I agreed with pretty much everything else you said. If that's true, then I was blissfully unaware of something extremely major about this community
 
Spirals_Of_Fourth_Wall said:
Thank you for this sane, informative response. And uh... wait what? Are you implying that pedophilia is prevalent among zoos? I'm not saying that incredulously, I agreed with pretty much everything else you said. If that's true, then I was blissfully unaware of something extremely major about this community
Click to expand...
Take what Reprieve said with a pinch of salt. While I agree with some of his points, his claims about veganism are demonstrably false. It is true to say maintaining nutritional balance is more difficult for vegans, and requires them to take supplements. It is not true to say that people NEED meat to be healthy, nor is it true that supplements only provide a temporary solution. There are a number of professional athletes that have maintained a vegan lifestyle for many years yet still get all the nutrition they need to maintain the peak physical fitness required to be among the best (if not the best) in their sports. Ultramarathon Champion Scott Jurek, NBA Star Chris Paul, and NFL defensive end Deatrich Wise, Jr. to name only a few.

As for pedophilia... not in THIS community. Any show of support for pedophilia will result in an instant ban, no warnings. Just as it should be.
 
Last edited:
Repreive said:
Also, as regards pedophilia, folks with paraphilias tend to have more than one or two.
The fact is that pedophilia has strong correlation with any form of sexual deviancy from the heterosexual 'norm' and 'vanilla sex'.
Click to expand...
Um... I suppose it depends who you look.

Zoos usually have little interes in humans, let alone their underage form. No, I do not think you will find any in this group.

But, people in "extreme kinks, all taboo, etc", are likely to be into pedo and also to explore zoo... er... beasty as another "extremely weird kink", so you might find an overlapping in those, but:
- For one they will tipically not be zoos but people using animals as sex tools.
- On the other, both staff and users reporting them are doing a good job on playing wack-a-pedo with the banhammer as soon as spotted 💪
 
Goattobeloved said:
Um... I suppose it depends who you look.

Zoos usually have little interes in humans, let alone their underage form. No, I do not think you will find any in this group.

But, people in "extreme kinks, all taboo, etc", are likely to be into pedo and also to explore zoo... er... beasty as another "extremely weird kink", so you might find an overlapping in those, but:
- For one they will tipically not be zoos but people using animals as sex tools.
- On the other, both staff and users reporting them are doing a good job on playing wack-a-pedo with the banhammer as soon as spotted 💪
Click to expand...
Thank goodness, I was quite alarmed when @Repreive said that. And when I replied to him, I had just read the TL;DR section and skimmed the rest. While I don't agree with everything he said, I agree with the 'animal wellness matters' stuff, and I think that's among the most important things that our community should stand for.

Now that I think about it a bit more, the claim that "pedophilia has a strong correlation with any form of sexual deviancy from the heterosexual norm" is a bit sketchy, to say the least. Maybe I'm just a little wary given anti-LGBT conspiracy theories that seem to be prevalent talking points as of late, but it feels as though his claim could be taken to imply correlation between LGBT+ identities and pedophilia. I'm going to assume that's *not* what he meant to insinuate, given that he clearly fancies stallions and it'd be strange for him to parrot that kind of rhetoric. To be clear, I have no issue with @Repreive whatsoever. I'm just pointing out how his choice of words *could* be taken, and the issues with claims like that.

Since the topic is up, though, I would like to encourage people to steer clear of saying things like that, since it perpetuates the myth that anyone outside the heteronormative standards is a predator. I don't think I'd need to explain why that myth is harmful, especially since this is a forum made specifically for people who do fall outside of those standards (yes, even you're straight, liking females of another species means you're not "normal", whatever weight that word carries).

I think the more natural way to take it within context is what @Goattobeloved said, that he was referring to people with "extreme kinks", which in some people's minds may include zoos, or bestialists rather. I do still find the choice of the phrase "heterosexual norm" a bit off-putting, given what is being discussed.

In conclusion, uh sorry for derailing this thread further than it already has been, as it seems the nature of forum threads tends towards getting off topic. I'd personally rather stay on this site, but power to those who choose to join Zoocadia.
 
Looks like things have gotten spicy for this announcement since I looked. 😳

I still don't get the point to the site. After reading all the comments and checking out the site again I understand even less. I don't understand the vague rules regarding how "some" sex/porn is allowed and others is not. Lets take a look at the Zoocadia's rule I'm talking about:

"16. Threads/posts that are deemed overly or solely fetishistic and blatantly vulgar will be removed at moderator discretion. This includes fetishistic posts that derail the intended subject of a thread. This is to curb threads/posts from "pornhounds/fetishizers/leg-humpers" that are not zoos and only see zoophilia/bestiality as a degradation fetish."

The problem I have always had with rules like this is it's far to vague, what I consider a "pornhoud/fetishizer/leg-humper" might not entirely meet with the mods understanding of that rule and I will have no idea of that line until I break the rules and get banned, I can beg for forgiveness but what is the point, I'll just end up making another mistake somewhere down the line and get banned again.

Look, the way that this PSA was put out there was very antagonistic. For example:

1. This quote, "designed more for real zoos." I took this to mean 'as in anyone not a part of your website isn't a real zoo. That the people over on zoovile just rape their animals and jack off to animals being tortured.'

2. Then there's this quote "and to better keep out the fetishists, bestialists, kinksters and zoosadists that websites like this unfortunately tend to attract." I took this to mean 'to keep out the parasites and vermin that we think are harming animals but clearly most of the others don't think so which is why the content is still hear?' Please point to content that is in violation of whatever rules your going by so we can all get an idea of what you mean. Unless your talking about the users that get banned for posting anything against the rules, then what more do you want us to do then ban them?

3. This quote as well, "If you understand the difference between those terms and you fully identify as a zooromantic, zoophile or zoosexual zoophile, come on and join the growing pack!" To me this meant, 'we will force our beliefs down the throats everyone on our new site because we are the REAL zoophiles.' Your saying I can't love an animal and also have a fetish, it might not even be a fetish for the animal I love. That fetish might also push someone to explore themselves and others, so long as it's consensual, I don't see the problem.

So no personals to even have the chance of meeting anyone else out there, no porn (except when they arbitrarily say so) which means no way to show off your love if you were so inclined, no human on human porn at all (I agree with this one unless a fursuit or animal sex toy is involved. Basically unless you can involve something animal themed.), no pornagraphic images in PFP (Where else can they do this?).

Making broad generalizations about others could be the start of something with less then the purest of intentions. I bring that up because using words like "REAL ZOOS", "FETISHISTS", "BESTIALISTS", "KINKSTERS", and "ZOOSADISTS" in the way you used them comes off as painting EVERYONE else as the villian and yourself as the saviour that will bring us all back to the light. Give me a break! If you want the other website then fine, but don't go painting everyone else as the bad guys for not being the "REAL ZOOS" if we all don't join.
 
pes said:
From my experience of zoocadia, it is a chill place where people discuss mostly mundane everyday stuff. Like lawnmowers. Sexual discussions do not happen much. There is some porn sharing, but not much.
There are obviously some pet related threads and some zoo related threads.

Newly registered people who would like to use zoocadia the same way you can use zooville do not stick around for long because you can not use the forum that way.
There is a small amount of hostility towards fetishists who generally do not find the forum interesting on their own no matter what small amount of comments they get because it is not zooville and you can not use it for hookups and the porn section is almost empty.

Overall this makes the forum interesting only for people who want the kind of interaction it offers. It is it's own thing with it's own audience.
Click to expand...
Very well stated. I joined zoocadia not because I had any issue with anyone here at zooville or any problems with zooville, I just wanted a little different experience.

That being said, there is no reason both forums can’t exist side by side, have different flavors or discussion and for people like me to enjoy both.

I love my zooville and the many friends I have made over here. I also have had some very satisfying experiences at zoocadia and that is ok too.

Both forums are ok to exist side by side. If any of us doesn’t like one or the other, that is ok. We don’t have to post or read posts from there.
 
horseofcourse99 said:
tl;dr
Click to expand...
It's a free world, everyone makes the forum they want for a group, and every admin makes the rules they want. If you don't like it, don't register.
It's interesting that people in "stupid" Eastern Europe can understand this thing, but in the west somehow they can't, you all just hysterical all the time.
 
OffgridK9lover said:
ya those usually just turn into a circle jerk of people patting them self's on the back for how much zooier than thou they are. so ya think I'll skip it.
Click to expand...
lol it's hilarious to watch the zooier-than-thou types kick and scream when someone says the obvious.

it's never enough for them to love and be attracted to animals, you need to talk about your zoosexuality like it's a holy experience equivalent to the second coming of christ.
 
The best ways I can put it, is that Zooville is more like an unfiltered unforgiving wild west landscape. ZooVille is also a bit more like the "WalMart" of zoo forums, as it has a little bit of everything but isn't for everyone.

Zoocadia on the other hand is mostly a chill and less stressful environment. It has more of that wholesome mom and pop store vibe. It's more focused on those of us that care deeply about our animal partners and animals in general. It's also not a very fun place if all you care about is sex, sex, sex, meet and fucks, sex, meet and fucks, and sex.

Just as a side note: if you're viewing the Zoocadia forum as a guest, many of the sections have been hidden for non-members. ZooVille gets around 1,500 posts per day, while Zoocadia get around 350-400 posts per day. So, while not quite as many posts as this forum, it definitely does get a fair number of posts and isn't a slouch.
 
FloofyNewfie said:
The best ways I can put it, is that Zooville is more like an unfiltered unforgiving wild west landscape. ZooVille is also a bit more like the "WalMart" of zoo forums, as it has a little bit of everything but isn't for everyone.

Zoocadia on the other hand is mostly a chill and less stressful environment. It has more of that wholesome mom and pop store vibe. It's more focused on those of us that care deeply about our animal partners and animals in general. It's also not a very fun place if all you care about is sex, sex, sex, meet and fucks, sex, meet and fucks, and sex.

Just as a side note: if you're viewing the Zoocadia forum as a guest, many of the sections have been hidden for non-members. ZooVille gets around 1,500 posts per day, while Zoocadia get around 350-400 posts per day. So, while not quite as many posts as this forum, it definitely does get a fair number of posts and isn't a slouch.
Click to expand...
Couldn't have put it better, There is no need for people to Bash zoocadia, Zooville will not disappear, more options is all the better after all.
 
horseofcourse99 said:
"16. Threads/posts that are deemed overly or solely fetishistic and blatantly vulgar will be removed at moderator discretion. This includes fetishistic posts that derail the intended subject of a thread. This is to curb threads/posts from "pornhounds/fetishizers/leg-humpers" that are not zoos and only see zoophilia/bestiality as a degradation fetish."

The problem I have always had with rules like this is it's far to vague, what I consider a "pornhoud/fetishizer/leg-humper" might not entirely meet with the mods understanding of that rule and I will have no idea of that line until I break the rules and get banned
Click to expand...
Then it is fortunate for you that the rule specifies that the messages will be removed only. There is no mention of bans or even points toward bans.
horseofcourse99 said:
Look, the way that this PSA was put out there was very antagonistic.
Click to expand...
Agree. Wolfspirit has always been a zooier than thou prig, and unfortunately for Zoocadia he took it upon himself to become the self-proclaimed ambassador of our site. I have long wished this thread could be locked so that his message is not the first impression people get of the site.
 
amorousdog5 said:
Agree. Wolfspirit has always been a zooier than thou prig, and unfortunately for Zoocadia he took it upon himself to become the self-proclaimed ambassador of our site. I have long wished this thread could be locked so that his message is not the first impression people get of the site.
Click to expand...
i am wondering, why do people not like zooier than thou, I dont listen to them but I feel I am out of the loop.
 
VolkaSoyuza said:
i am wondering, why do people not like zooier than thou, I dont listen to them but I feel I am out of the loop.
Click to expand...
Not talking about the podcast; I've never listened to it. "Zooier than thou" is an expression similar to "Holier than thou". Holier than thou means somebody who feels they are better than you because they follow your religion better than you do, they feel morally superior. Likewise "Zooier than thou" means a person who thinks they are better than you because the way they practice zoophilia is better than the way you do it.
 
amorousdog5 said:
Not talking about the podcast; I've never listened to it. "Zooier than thou" is an expression similar to "Holier than thou". Holier than thou means somebody who feels they are better than you because they follow your religion better than you do. Likewise "Zooier than thou" means a person who thinks they are better than you because the way they practice zoophilia is better than the way you do it.
Click to expand...
ah cool, thanks! wasn't sure haha
 
FloofyNewfie said:
While I don't think that his original post is exactly the most accurate depiction of what Zoocadia actually is, his post doesn't violate any of the rules of this forum. So I see no reason to lock it.
Click to expand...
Agreed. I do wish the thread could be locked, but I don't think there is a legitimate reason to do so.
 
amorousdog5 said:
Porn, the ability to post hookup ads, the ability to put dick pics as your pfp... all of this has attracted a lot of folks who are only interested in satisfying the needs of their dick/clit. They're here, quite frankly they're the majority, and making a new section that is less porn oriented is not going to change that. Hell, we've GOT plenty of sections that are less porn oriented.


If you've got a solution for this site, I'd love to hear it.
Click to expand...

I find this point very pertinent. If I had seen this site when I first went to make a profile here I would have been much more confident in starting to engage. I'll definitely be looking in to it.
 
As I read through here and still cannot figure out why you zooville haters continue to come back and harass those of us with more open minds and better understanding of the facts at hand. I will not continue to debate the subject because I know what I am talking about because i have done the research. You wish to deny the facts that will make you just as guilty as anyone else. Just as Jesus wrote the sins of Marry's accusers in the and so too is it being done with you. As I mentioned before I am not jealous or do I hold any animosity towards anyone who chose to create a different site, more power too you. I love freedom as much as the next guy just dont try to push it down our thorats just as you went away because you didn't like having others freedom allowed here. It seems you are more of an issue than us, You continually try to call names and cause all kinds of issues and not want to be criticised or called out for it, Do I come over to your site and make waves over there? I do not. The fact that Masha Sobaka specifically aksed the awesome floofy to lock this down shows my point that all he wishes is for his opinion and others like it to be valid and validated.

Also there are those who continue to imply that I support abuse and thes who do it, quite the contrary actually I would love to see it it all stop and those who are responsible pay for it, but with that said one must understand not everyone shares the same viewpints on what constitues abuse based on your country of origin, how you were raised, wheather or not you produce animals for meat, raise them to get products from them, and wheather or not you consider them somehting other than just a beast. Just as most states and countries consider any kind of zoophilla a most horrid form of abuse. They like those who hate us on zooville would love to see us all hang quite literally. So one has to be very careful how they treat others.

I dont hate or ding on this site because they have things well in hand already and already have good bounderies in place that still allow us some freedom without putting an unneccesray stranglehold on everyone. This site was never designed to be a pristine shrine, nay in fact it was meant to be exactly what it is. The fun loving nasty we all love and enjoy.

I love all the mods and think they are awesome folks who do an amazing job with out losing their minds which is no small miracle with all they have to deal with on a daily basis.

I love discussion and would never shy away from it or demand a mod lock it down simply bedause it did not fit my viewpoint of agenda. It would defeat the purpose of said discussion.

I thank you moderators for being the cool peeps you are and not simply yelling at us all and banning us on a whim.

I hope everyone who reads this has a most excllent day, is doing most awesome, has many wonderful surpises take place, and their day will be most full of blue skies, warmth, and sunshine like it will be in this yotes neck of the woods! :gsd_love:🌹🌷
 
Last edited:
Wolfspirit said:
Just a quick PSA (on my own accord) for any of you unaware, some of the Zooville mods got together and created a new zoo forum (which is pretty active) that is designed more for real zoos and to better keep out the fetishists, bestialists, kinksters and zoosadists that websites like this unfortunately tend to attract. If you understand the difference between those terms and you fully identify as a zooromantic, zoophile or zoosexual zoophile, come on and join the growing pack!

Zoocadia.net
Click to expand...
I have always been strictly zoo. Would love to join.
 
amorousdog5 said:
Take what Reprieve said with a pinch of salt. While I agree with some of his points, his claims about veganism are demonstrably false. It is true to say maintaining nutritional balance is more difficult for vegans, and requires them to take supplements. It is not true to say that people NEED meat to be healthy, nor is it true that supplements only provide a temporary solution. There are a number of professional athletes that have maintained a vegan lifestyle for many years yet still get all the nutrition they need to maintain the peak physical fitness required to be among the best (if not the best) in their sports. Ultramarathon Champion Scott Jurek, NBA Star Chris Paul, and NFL defensive end Deatrich Wise, Jr. to name only a few.

As for pedophilia... not in THIS community. Any show of support for pedophilia will result in an instant ban, no warnings. Just as it should be.
Click to expand...
For the long term it is very much true.
Pure veganism is fine for periods of a few years, but after a decade or two it becomes unsustainable without some serious effort and/or wealth.
The problem is primarily that it requires a LOT more substantial intake in quantity to achieve the same level of nutritional quality as is gained from animal-based sources such as eggs, milk and meat at large.

I'm not saying it's impossible, but it tends to be incredibly costly to sustain and is beyond the means of most normal people to afford.
It also requires a much more strictly-monitored diet to ensure you're getting everything you need.
Again, I'm not saying vegans can't work in labor-intensive fields or to achieve great things; I'm saying that most people can't live on a vegan diet long-term... Whether it be due to prohibitive costs, the quantity of food intake needed to meet your needs, the careful management of your diet to avoid malnutrition... Or if you're so unlucky, because you simply cannot absorb the nutrients you need from the alternatives veganism provides.

Most vegan-friendly supplements/pills require a double-dosage to meet the needs of the average person, but this isn't represented properly as labels on foods tend to be rather simplified. Saying something contains so many grams of 'protein' doesn't specify what TYPE of protein it contains.
Not all proteins, nor fats, are equal; some are less healthy than others and/or are absorbed differently than others.
Plant-based proteins tend to be harder for the body to break down. This is made even more difficult as the presence of fiber inhibits the proper absorption of many nutrients, screwing with the assumed bio-availability of said nutrients in the typical individual. As such, the labels presenting nutrition information on many food products can be misleading and result in deficiencies that may go undetected for years.

Yes, athletes whom claim to be vegan exist. They may even truly be perfectly vegan. But they also typically have a fair bit of money backing their diet, with specially-hired individuals to monitor their health. Not all sports require the same sort of body-type either and, while veganism can provide a person with enough to survive, it may not always be capable or providing the ideal nutrient intake to keep the body strong and developing as a proper wholistic diet would.

TL;DR
Everybody is different. Some people do better with a vegan diet than others, some can afford the time, focus and money to keep it up.
Not everybody can. Some have genetic issues which prevent such, some have a metabolism that can't handle it, some are just too poor or ragged to sustain it.
 
Spirals_Of_Fourth_Wall said:
Thank you for this sane, informative response. And uh... wait what? Are you implying that pedophilia is prevalent among zoos? I'm not saying that incredulously, I agreed with pretty much everything else you said. If that's true, then I was blissfully unaware of something extremely major about this community
Click to expand...
I was more saying that according to most studies, there is a correlation between any non-vanilla fetish and another. This doesn't mean they all match up, there's no simple 'if/than' statement of the sort to be made. Extremely kinky people are extremely kinky... But what kinks they may hold varies from person to person. The likelihood of being a pedo' is simply higher in kinkier individuals by virtue of typically having a greater quantity and variety of kinks.

Think of it like a shotgun versus a rifle being aimed at a target and firing thrice: There's a greater chance of a shot landing on or near the taboo kink with a wider spread than there is without. The key is typically where the line is drawn.
The larger the target's perimeter, the easier it is to land a shot after all.

Some things are, by their very nature, dangerous to hold in one's heart... Not necessarily due to the harm they may cause, but by the potential for harm they can cause an individual or group that is found to hold them. A society that hates homosexuals is one in which homosexuality is a dangerous thing to hold in one's heart. The same is true of any taboo.

The more dangerous the outing of a taboo, the more firmly the line is drawn... Not by us, but by others and ourselves.
The taboo is something scary to desire... It's a line not easily crossed. It takes much more thought and/or impulsiveness to even consider, let alone act upon the taboo. To those used to breaking taboo, however, this can be a less stressful task to undertake.
The same is true of those with a greater awareness of self and introspective, thoughtful tendencies.

Now, mind this is all merely my own thoughts and opinions, dictated by my own logic, social interactions and experiences...
So take it with a pinch of salt.

TL;DR
Kinky motherfuckers be kinky.
You never know what they might be into, but if you know they're kinky...
Well, expect them to have a broader range of kinks than the average dood.
 
Goattobeloved said:
Um... I suppose it depends who you look.

Zoos usually have little interes in humans, let alone their underage form. No, I do not think you will find any in this group.

But, people in "extreme kinks, all taboo, etc", are likely to be into pedo and also to explore zoo... er... beasty as another "extremely weird kink", so you might find an overlapping in those, but:
- For one they will tipically not be zoos but people using animals as sex tools.
- On the other, both staff and users reporting them are doing a good job on playing wack-a-pedo with the banhammer as soon as spotted 💪
Click to expand...
Correct, but most of the world doesn't really make a distinction between those that seek a relationship beyond cumming with/in an animal and those that use and then discard them. As for the staff bit... Yeah, wasn't claiming otherwise, was I?

Was more trying to point out that it's a bit dumb to claim everyone in one group definitively has ties to another...
That studies on correlation aren't often all that useful as they tend to be vague, inaccurate and filled with flaws in their presentation of data.
 
Repreive said:
Everybody is different. Some people do better with a vegan diet than others
Click to expand...
This is pretty much the only true thing in your post. You've made a bunch of wild claims about veganism. Fine. Prove them. Give me verifiable scientific studies that back up your claim that the average person cannot sustain veganism without tremendous cost to themself.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top