Tiny correction. I'm against crimes. Fence hopping involves CRIMINAL trespassing on some ones property, that is a crime, thus, I don't support fence hopping at all and I have never done fence hopping even that I could have easily done it dozens of times. I don't do crimes, I don't support doing crimes. That is the code of ethics that I live by.
This is your own definition of crime and criminal
What I not against is owner hopping. But not being against it doesn't mean that I would advice others to do owner hopping. If some one want to do owner hopping, that is their choice. Owner hopping is doing intimate things with animals that are not owned by you, wichout the owner permission, while not doing anything criminal like trespassing or stealing the animal or doing animal cruelty. Owner hopping is not a crime, but it can be considered by some as being rude or immoral.
Are you against cheating or a babysitter having sex with your teenage son or daughter?
In fact, many zoos have done owner hopping and don't even realize it. If they did it with the family dog and never asked their parents for permission, that is owner hopping.
I personally believe that the animal consent is what matter, if the animal wants a belly rub or a genital rub, why do I need consent from the owner to do what the animal wants? Think about a human analogy, if you want to do it with a 18+ year old girl
How is the 18+ year old girl the same, do you know age of consent is not always 18 and can be as young as 12? Animals have a owner that decides for them 18+ year old in most cases do not, cases where they do are because of cultural, religious or higher age of consent
and she wants to do it with you, do you need to ask her parents for consent to do it with her? Or do you ask her directly? And what if an owner says "yes, you can do it with my dog" but the dog says "NO, I don't want any" does that mean the zoophile can just rape the dog because he has the owner permission? To me, it is clear that animal consent is what matter the most, they have priority over the human owner opinion. And opinion that most likely will be based on ignorance, bigotry and hate.
I agree the animal consent matters I do not agree that the owner consent does not matter, your human analogy is not comparable as it is not a owner based whilst animal is
PS: I'm against owner hopping if you are knowingly doing it with an animal who is owned by a zoophile. The only valid reason to not asking for permission to a non-zoo owner is because of the social stigma and the reaction you may get from just asking such question. But with a zoophile, there is no excuse to avoid getting permission
They can turn you in, it is rare but something that have been warned by some users in this forum
And maybe one day when zoophilia/zoosexuality becomes just as acceptable as homophilia/homosexuality, that day we won't need to fear non-zoos reactions or the law and we can be free to ask owners for permission without fear of being discriminated or worst. That day is the day owner hopping will become very uncommon.
Adult human sex is legal but it is not free or risk free to ask if they can share wife/husband
Sorry, that's not a reliable source [yet].
Fence hopping has always implied trespassing in my understanding. It is also how it was defined on this
German website and how
urban dictionary lists it. These sources aren't Merriam Webster either, but it's not just the definition that I am used to, but also the one that makes much more sense, ethymologically.
The word as it is used here is only used by zoophiles, why would Zoophilia Wiki not be reliable when it is a site manage by the zoophile community aiming to give a collective viewpoint of the community?
In simple terms, I'm against crimes and I support non-criminal acts. And I support facts adamantly.
Think about the most disgusting immoral thing you can imagine, but if that thing is not criminal. I will support it.
Thing is, I try to be logically consistent. I don't cherry pick what to support and what not support based on subjectivity or emotions. And because of this, people who use subjective morality, volatile emotions or bigotry or religion to live their lives, they end up conflicting with my views.
You cherry picked in the examples you used to defend owner hopping, but your examples were not comparable to what you were claiming
For example I support abortion. Just that will get me a few zoophiles to hate me. But those zoophiles are going to use religion, morality or emotions as a justification to be against me. They won't have a single objective rational reason on their side.
Define objective rational
One can not please everyone, and I don't live to please everyone, if they don't like how I think, it is not my problem. Those who love me love me, those who hate me hate me. I won't become a hipocrite and cherry pick what to suport or be against just to not anger the moralistic, emotionally unstable, religious, bigoted, zoophiles or non-zoophiles.
Hope that answers your question.
You say this but you do this, what makes you think you are not cherry picking? What do you define as cherry picking?
Do you understand the difference between something being illegal and something being criminal?
Something criminal is an action that creates a victim. Something illegal is something that is punished by the land with a law. Not everything that is illegal is criminal and not everything that is criminal is illegal.
Zoosexual sex and homosexual sex may be illegal in many countries, but they are not defined as criminal acts, they are defined as victimless acts.
Homosexual act were victimless even before LGBT it was a crime because it was perverted, unnatural, against nature mental illness etc. Zoosexual is not victimless, the victim is the animal because it they can't consent. Please provide evidence where zoosexual is illegal and victimless, comparing to homosexual as evidence is slippery slope fallacy and is not comparable as homosexual did not have owners but animals do
Making homosexual or zoosexual sex illegal, is defined as an unjust law that basic violates human rights.
This is a claim without evidence
This guys says it better than me: “One has not only a legal, but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.” – Martin Luther King, Jr.
Anti zoosexual or anti homosexual sex laws are unjust laws. I have no problems with people breaking unjust laws. I support breaking unjust laws.
"As far as I know, fencehopping is having sex with an animal without owner's permission, assuming there is any. That's it." ←As the name states, fencehopping involves going to some one else property, HOPPING the FENCE that demark their property and committing criminal trespassing into their property and then doing intimate stuff with their animals. Without the trespassing there is no fencehopping. Without the trespassing it would only be ownerhopping.
Fencehopping is a criminal act, ownerhopping is just an immoral act. One is many times worse than the other.
You have broken the trust of the owner making the owner the victim. It's similar to a husband/wife cheating or baby sitter, teacher, tutor having sex with your under 18 child
"That's just plain wrong. Holocaust was perfectly legal when it happened, nazis ensured that."←Legal but not a victimless act. Thus it was criminal. Like I said, some times crimes can be legal. Again, you are not understanding the difference between something illegal and something criminal. I'm against crimes, if those crimes are illegal or legal, it is irrelevant, I'm against all crimes regardless of legal status. And I support all victimless acts, be legal or illegal, I will support them regardles of legal status. I was pretty clear with my words. You are totally misunderstanding them... this is the problem I have that gains me many haters... they just don't understand the arguments that I make... they too ignorant or stupid or emotional unstable to think and react in a rational way, or they just don't care to understand my arguments because of my zoosexual status.
The Nazis did not see the Jewish people as victim, it's similar to saying killing animal is animal cruelty but if they were killed for meat it is not. What is a crime was decided by the Nazis and the people in Germany at that time
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.
You gave the source and denied what the source said, what was the point?
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. "
The lawyer said it is not criminal if it does not result with arrest or criminal record, the speeding was an illegal act that you will be fined but not arrested. This does not support your definition of victimless crime
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.
What you perceive is subjective 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?
You gave one evidence and ignored 5 others, I fail to see how it was them that ran into a dictionary fallacy
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?
In 1960 it would be correct
Does it represent the objective reality of things? Or does it represent what the majority WRONGLY believed at the time?
It represents what the majority believed at that time, same is true for definitions we use today
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?
They are used by laws so yes and they are what majority believes based on the vocal people
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.
Human rights is not objective, does this law cover incest and prostitution which happens with adults? The rest depends on you answers to my current responses
