The Zeta Chronicles - A pro-active comic for the zoo community

[UR20Z]

your general "crudeness" aside (you are probably older than an average crude oil deposit so it makes sense i think)

PHLLBBTTTT!

As to the rest, you're doing a good job of describing the typical autocratic elites who always seem to think they know what's best for the "lowly peons that are too dumb to know what's good for 'em". Boiled down, it comes to "We up here in the ivory tower are so much better (and/or better qualified) than those lowly scum we supervise that there's no point in our associating with them. Might get peon-cooties if we did, then where would we all be?"

I just wish they'd leave me the fuck out of the train-wreck that their so-called "leadership" is doomed to cause. Same as it has every damned time this sort of thing has been attempted, regardless of who was involved in making the particular attempt under discussion. Unfortunately, their foolishness has no option but to cause "splash damage" to me and mine. Same as you can't really "aim" napalm much finer than "send it in the general direction of what you mean to hit", the flying wreckage that's all-but-guaranteed to come of this project can't be directed much closer than "I hope it doesn't do too much damage".

 

[ADreamOfLiberty]

it kinda stops being "their own thing" when it starts concerning "my thing", no?

No.

That is a common misconception which has been used to justify a lot of nasty. People have a right to do what they want so long as it doesn't violate other people's rights. That postulation has only one solution, and it isn't "I can do anything as long as it doesn't have any effect whatsoever on anything anyone else is concerned with".

If your neighbor starts farming a field and you decide that you liked the field better the other way that doesn't make their crops "your thing". Being affected isn't necessarily a violation of your rights, and you don't have a right to a world where nobody is consciously aware of zoosexuality. If you had been threatened to sign at the bottom of that comic or pay for it that would be a violation of your rights.

This statement implies otherwise

"In this fashion, i have reached out with other zoo community owners and leaders about this comic, and feel comfortable saying its a worldwide effort. Also not to mention, the funding itself comes from zoos across many nations."

That statement could very well be objectively true. If it is there is no valid complaint. Scope is often omitted and it's bad faith to read "people like chocolate" as "all persons like chocolate" rather than "most persons like chocolate"

Clearly ZT didn't reach out to UR20Z, he (ZT) didn't ask UR20Z to do anything, he (ZT) didn't call himself or anyone else a savior.

If ZT actually thought he spoke for every single zoo including UR20Z it would be ZT coming after UR20Z for reneging or disloyalty. Instead it's UR20Z and you and several others going after ZT for doing something you don't agree with. You act as if ZT reports to you.

You're allowed to disagree but don't call it murder when it isn't.

 

[Silvervine]

Yes most of the site might be accessable without an account, but I still don't wanna catch shit from a troll for sitting quietly in my corner just because someone with an Ego Complex (called for the self-insert comic, it's not hard to come up with an original character for this) wants to announce to the world that he and his buddies like fucking animals.

Even then, if this gets posted to the wrong site, it's very possible that legal attention could be drawn and ZTHorse (and others involved) could be investigated. With access to every user's IP address, at least some people are likely to end up thrown on the fire. And while there's thousands of users, even some people could feasibly get snapped. Chances of that may be low, but it's still a feasible concern.

And beyond that, there's the feeling that this really is a futile discussion. The world's in a state of constant agitation and inflammatory, dividing issues right now and on multiple issues. Wherever you stand on any issue, people are stressed from all that's going on, and the timing honestly couldn't be worst. (Many of the issues could spark a discussion fit only for the Dumpster Fire, so I'll forgo mentioning them.) Trying to garner sympathy, interest and support for a group that's worldwide being considered as animal abusers, rapists and in the same pile as the pedophiles isn't going to work. At best, hundreds of dollars will have been spent on a project that will maybe change the opinions of a handful of people worldwide seems very wasteful.

I'm not against one day seeking support and such, but if that's going to happen we have to really distance ourselves from the porn-seekers, leg humpers, animal abusers, pedophiles and the like. And the fact that so much negative content still continues to be posted on a daily basis doesn't do us well. Even then, we need to find a better time when the world doesn't seem like falling apart and people can spare a few braincells to think straight.

 

[saddlebum66]

"it's bad faith to read "people like chocolate" as "all persons like chocolate" rather than "most persons like chocolate"?

Its also 'Bad Faith' to act on behalf of people without their consent, present them with a 'fait accompli', or to claim to speak for them. The damage from me getting jailed for a non-payment of traffic fines affects only me. The damage from effectively outting everyone onsite is a considerably different proposition. I dont care where the money comes from. If large amounts are cycled through this site, its going to create, if it has not created, an interest on the part of authorities eventually. THAT is a problem...for every single one of us. The top end boys can probably go underground if the trick goes bad. The rest of us will take the hit for actions we were not asked about, did not approve or volunteer to march for.

For a LOT of years, sites such as this one, and its membership, stressed that each of us must be our own security, because the Net doesnt allow for " take-backs"...once its out there it STAYS out there. We all pretty much know and accept that. But NOW, we have people at the top telling us...."Ohhh, its okay....WE have your backs".

Untill bullshit becomes lighter than air, that ain't gonna fly, folks. Trust is an issue. In this world, nothing slips between the cracks. Court cases result in FELONY convictions when this is the topic. You are asking us to have faith in something thats hard to imagine repaying that faith. And Twitter? Even without the Donz, that place is toxic for "different". I dont know where you all bought the Shades, but they're about five levels too dark for anything but Welding. Take them off and look at the REAL WORLD for a little while. The lunatic fringe has been normalized and we aren't their kind

 

[ADreamOfLiberty]

Even then, if this gets posted to the wrong site, it's very possible that legal attention could be drawn and ZTHorse (and others involved) could be investigated.

It beggars belief that no one has reported this site to someone. It's not a ninja, it's not a nuclear sub, it's a public website which almost all of us found with a search engine.

I don't know how its hosted and I don't know the layers of security but if it was a simple as that it wouldn't be here anymore. In the strongest possible case it is primarily hosted somewhere zoo porn is legal, in which case no court orders could materialize and without court orders even the owners can stay anonymous.

With access to every user's IP address, at least some people are likely to end up thrown on the fire. And while there's thousands of users, even some people could feasibly get snapped. Chances of that may be low, but it's still a feasible concern.

There are a lot of feasible concerns none of which are rationally addressed by presuming that no anti-zoo has ever seen this website and pretending to continue this supposed stealth as a matter of life and death.

Concerned about IPs? That's very legitimate, use Tor. If you aren't using Tor your ISP would have absolutely no problem compiling a list of "nasty deviant" IPs and recording everyone who sends a packet to any one of them.

I'm not against one day seeking support and such, but if that's going to happen we have to really distance ourselves from the porn-seekers, leg humpers, animal abusers, pedophiles and the like. And the fact that so much negative content still continues to be posted on a daily basis doesn't do us well.

That will never stop and people looking to use those as excuses wouldn't care if it did. How many homosexuals kidnap and rape children? Not many, that didn't stop that being used as a rhetorical weapon.

Even then, we need to find a better time when the world doesn't seem like falling apart and people can spare a few braincells to think straight.

It is certainly a bad time. War is coming I believe. Then again talking about the general state of humanity is a sign of the unwarranted grandiosity of this discussion. It's a comic. It took no blood sacrifices to make and it won't kill anyone if it doesn't become the new bible.

We are a small and reviled minority. We have almost no ability to affect the world. It's a hard thing to live with. I don't begrudge anyone their attempts. It may be that it makes a splash large enough for us to learn something useful.

 

[Gunslinger1X]

It beggars belief that no one has reported this site to someone. It's not a ninja, it's not a nuclear sub, it's a public website which almost all of us found with a search engine.

I don't know how its hosted and I don't know the layers of security but if it was a simple as that it wouldn't be here anymore. In the strongest possible case it is primarily hosted somewhere zoo porn is legal, in which case no court orders could materialize and without court orders even the owners can stay anonymous.


There are a lot of feasible concerns none of which are rationally addressed by presuming that no anti-zoo has ever seen this website and pretending to continue this supposed stealth as a matter of life and death.

Concerned about IPs? That's very legitimate, use Tor. If you aren't using Tor your ISP would have absolutely no problem compiling a list of "nasty deviant" IPs and recording everyone who sends a packet to any one of them.


That will never stop and people looking to use those as excuses wouldn't care if it did. How many homosexuals kidnap and rape children? Not many, that didn't stop that being used as a rhetorical weapon.


It is certainly a bad time. War is coming I believe. Then again talking about the general state of humanity is a sign of the unwarranted grandiosity of this discussion. It's a comic. It took no blood sacrifices to make and it won't kill anyone if it doesn't become the new bible.

We are a small and reviled minority. We have almost no ability to affect the world. It's a hard thing to live with. I don't begrudge anyone their attempts. It may be that it makes a splash large enough for us to learn something useful.

Those "splashes" HAVE historically taught us plenty, usually in the form of whitch hunts or new laws specifically targeting us. The problem is people like ZT DIDN'T learn a damn thing from those lessons

 

[HugDoggy]

When will the whole thing be released, I'm only seeing 3 pages so far.

I am trying to not judge till seeing it in it's entirety, but given on the first page the fox seems to refer to zoophiles as filthy people or those doing filthy acts, that really seems to be starting out negatively. If your trying to convince someone of something being acceptable then you start from a neutral base. As any good reporter should do if trying to learn about and report on something they don't understand.

The next two pages seemed to be more about the imposing nature of a tall stallion and the grandure of the buildings with its views of the city making it seem like city hall was an ivory tower. I'm not really sure how this aids the story. I know it's set in the future but I would think just as many zoos in that time as now, would be living in rural areas as in a shiny city. So at the moment I'm feeling a bit blah about what I've seen so far. If the city is a euphemism for this site, I'm sorry I don't see the place as a shining example of zoo culture. There is still far to much abusive animal porn on here to be any sort of shining beaken to anyone of more purist zoo values. ie: the zeta principles.

 

[ADreamOfLiberty]

Those "splashes" HAVE historically taught us plenty, usually in the form of whitch hunts or new laws specifically targeting us. The problem is people like ZT DIDN'T learn a damn thing from those lessons

Yes I've heard it all before but our reputation cannot be simultaneously as bad as possible and subject to worsening. Sometimes any publicity is good publicity. Please do spare me the speech about lost animals and lost lives, I've heard that before too and responded to it before. There is a bit of a disconnect when I say things like "use Tor" and you don't care that there are clear and already necessary measures which protect people from witch hunts real or imagined.

There are witch hunts now. There are zoo activists on twitter now. There have been people who posted on this forum outed for going to furcons. All the suffering you predict should already be inevitable. So if you want to protect people use the same energy you have to rail against activists to remind everyone to build and maintain a reliable wall of anonymity.

If I had to put your attitude to analogy I would say you're someone who derides and denounces sailors for not sacrificing to Poseidon, warning them that if they persist in offending the god the sea will turn stormy and their unseaworthy boat will be destroyed. I am saying: Make the boat seaworthy, because storms will come regardless of your sacrifices. Focusing on the sacrifices could lead to a false sense of security. That would be bad.

I am trying to not judge till seeing it in it's entirety, but given on the first page the fox seems to refer to zoophiles as filthy people or those doing filthy acts, that really seems to be starting out negatively. If your trying to convince someone of something being acceptable then you start from a neutral base. As any good reporter should do if trying to learn about and report on something they don't understand.

It's a well established emotional trick to start off by implying the audience (your opposition) has a perfectly reasonable point of view. It prevents cognitive dissonance.

From a story perspective the protagonist is the character the audience/reader imagines themself as, they won't be able to do that unless they are similar enough at least in the start.

From a rational view it is slimy, but it's sound psychology.

 

[saddlebum66]

That frikkin' boat is a tad small to float us all away, bub. So who will make the selections as to who gets chucked out? Because that, TOO, is inevitable. Our chance to make any gains in this passed 29 or so years ago, after the first full year of Mommy coming home, checking "History" and discovering what Little Bobby, and Littler Missy, with their hands in their dribbies and panting like locomotives were doing after school, instead of homework. We LOST....game over.
As Group, WE have little commonality. If we cannot find consensus, how do you see THAT happening in the Real world?


You really don't see ZT as "Hamlet", do you? A guy pictured as a seven foot tall cartoon Clydesdale? I doubt anyone else ever will....Clyde Shoes are Iron. Mundanes aren't ever going to walk in those....they like theirs a little softer.

 

[pes]

feels like it's two to four ppl (like that togglewhateverperson with like 7 posts here, who only ever comes to zthorse's defense) who just decided they lead "us" without "us" knowing.... i seem to have missed any election. well, even any discussion about leadership... or attempt at trying to be a coherent group.

TogglesHappyZoo is I think one of the producers of https://www.zoovilleforum.net/resources/zooier-than-thou.9/ podcast. I have heard one of their episodes. It did not seem that bad, but it exactly fits into the formula of reaching out to public. They originally posted on youtube I think from where they were deleted because I guess the public did not like it.

 

[saddlebum66]

Which is exactly as expected. The Mundane world would prefer to forget we exist...each time we remind them we're part of the human race, they toss their breakfasts, and call for the law to be strengthened. We do it here....we've got one complete nit that likes to advocate changing laws....outlaw alcohol, raise the consumption age, raise the age of consent...ad nauseam. There are quite a few dolts that just flat think the world changed when we all had out shiny little internet. Did we really think the Mundanes were changed because the Net makes us look more "normal"? It doesnt. It makes us look more "Hole and Corner", not less. Also to be expected. Just because we think we've paid our dues does not mean the lamb can lie down with the Lions. Those lions still own the world.

 

[jjponyboy]

The problem isn't exposing *THE SITE*. That's hopelessly exposed, and anybody who thinks otherwise isn't firing on all mental cylinders. The problem is the "HEY! LOOK! THERE REALLY IS SUCH A THING AS ANIMAL FUCKERS!" effect on John Q. Public, who, although he generally knows that animal fuckers exist, tends to file even the idea under the heading "out of sight, out of mind", and when he thinks of us at all, it's usually in terms of the punchline of a joke. When he can ignore us/forget we exist/consider us a joke, he most often does/says nothing that means anything. He might mutter in his beard, or grumble over his beer to a buddy, or toss out the occasional "Why do Irishmen wear kilts? 'Cause a Scotsman can hear a zipper at 60 paces. Why do Scotsmen wear kilts? 'Cause a sheep can hear a zipper at 600 paces" grade joke, but aside from that, he doesn't put much, if any, thought into the concept, and most generally takes no action against us. When our existence gets rubbed in his face, he tends to start going apeshit, and bad things start happening to us and/or our critters as a result.

I do agree with you here. My original point was for people specifically mentioning privacy, but your points here I absolutely agree with.

I'm transgender, I've been participating with trans communities for over a decade now, and yeah, I'll be honest. I absolutely feel like it was in many ways a simpler existence before the "trans tipping point". The visibility has its drawbacks. There was none of the nonsense of these new bills and laws, nobody actually scrutinising your bathroom use to the extent they do now. If somebody clocks you, now they're actually motivated to ask your pronouns and stick their nose into your medical history and put on a big show about being an ally. Any sort of well-meaning but cringey action done in the name of activism gets broadcast to everyone on the web to scrutinise. Anything to do with people like you gets clicks so there's incentive to exaggerate or outright make shit up for outrage. In the past though, it was hidden and this did have its benefits. Some people were hateful, and that hasn't changed, but those that weren't just didn't care. You were sometimes the subject of a niche shock article in a trashy magazine, or a bit of a curiosity, but that was it.

I feel like the current state of zoo affairs is in that pre-tipping point stage. You get a little article in Vice that is actually kinda sympathetic, you get a sensational article in the trashy magazines, you're the butt of jokes on Family Guy. But beyond that, you get to have a quiet existence in obscurity. I can imagine "zoo tipping point" resulting in an awful period of stricter laws, increased suspicion, and public scrutiny and humiliation, with little payoff.

Unlike transness, I don't think zoophilia has nearly as much to gain from visibility and a fight for public acceptance, and more to lose. It's been about a decade since the "transgender tipping point". Regardless of your stance on trans people, think about the media circus and the debates that are had. Imagine that but for zoophilia, going on for a decade. What are we actually looking to get out of this advocacy? Is it worth it?

Besides decriminalisation (which seems less of an issue now than it would be during the first years of heightened visibility from advocacy), what would be gained? What would the benefit of attempting to educate the public actually be?

 

[HugDoggy]

It's a well established emotional trick to start off by implying the audience (your opposition) has a perfectly reasonable point of view. It prevents cognitive dissonance.

From a story perspective the protagonist is the character the audience/reader imagines themself as, they won't be able to do that unless they are similar enough at least in the start.

From a rational view it is slimy, but it's sound psychology.

I see, so what your saying is everyone out there is our enemy. (i'm sure some are, but I don't buy that everyone is) So we pretend we are on there side to trick them into thinking differently? Hmmm, sounds pretty deceptive and if someone tried that on me and I worked out what they were doing, I would not be happy.

I don't live in the US so things may be a bit different there. I can only go by my own experience here and for the most part most people I have broached the subject with have not had a strong negative or positive opinion on the subject, mainly because they don't really know anything about it apart from the odd joke. In the last year I have come out to 6 people not one of them has had a negative reaction 4 of them wanted me to explain what zoosexuality is exactly. The other two just said "Ok it's not my thing, but I know you and know you wouldn't hurt an animal so what ever floats your boat."

So perhaps I've just been very lucky with my interaction with non zoos or maybe where I live we're just a bit more open minded, who knows, but I tend to prefer showing people how I am with the animals in my life so if or when they find out I'm a zoo, they are less likely to jump to bad conclusions without finding out more information first. At which point I have pointed them to this article I wrote a few years back which tries to take a neutral->positive approach to the subject, while trying not to promote it as such. I think I've got it on here somewhere... Yep it's here: https://www.zoovilleforum.net/threads/the-hard-questions-a-zoo-discussion-paper.35998/

Only 3 pages into this comic, it's to early to judge anything, I just have to hope it will leave non zoos with a neutral if not positive impression somehow. heaven knows how many pages it will need to be to do that, if your talking about changing people's minds on the subject, as seems to be the goal as set out here by starting from a negative footing, for the reasons you have explained.

 

[UR20Z]

What are we actually looking to get out of this advocacy? Is it worth it?

Besides decriminalisation (which seems less of an issue now than it would be during the first years of heightened visibility from advocacy), what would be gained? What would the benefit of attempting to educate the public actually be?

Not only valid questions, but absolutely crucial ones that, unfortunately, don't have answers. Seems every time someone asks them of our "saviors", they get ignored, dodged, or washed away in a flood of baffle-gab.

 

[nekdoneco123]

care to elaborate a little? i can understand the "owners" part (i mean, someone has to own the sites... how it gives any right to said owner to say what's best for everyone is a different issue), but "leaders"? i kinda missed "we" even have a "leadership", but i assume you appointed yourself to that role despite your almost non-existent presence here?

surprise, surprise... no answer.

TogglesHappyZoo is I think one of the producers of https://www.zoovilleforum.net/resources/zooier-than-thou.9/ podcast. I have heard one of their episodes. It did not seem that bad, but it exactly fits into the formula of reaching out to public. They originally posted on youtube I think from where they were deleted because I guess the public did not like it.

i think i have some vague memory of him/her.... he/she put "you totally should listen to my podcast" in all of his/her posts.

No.

That is a common misconception which has been used to justify a lot of nasty. People have a right to do what they want so long as it doesn't violate other people's rights. That postulation has only one solution, and it isn't "I can do anything as long as it doesn't have any effect whatsoever on anything anyone else is concerned with".

If your neighbor starts farming a field and you decide that you liked the field better the other way that doesn't make their crops "your thing". Being affected isn't necessarily a violation of your rights, and you don't have a right to a world where nobody is consciously aware of zoosexuality. If you had been threatened to sign at the bottom of that comic or pay for it that would be a violation of your rights.

and i stand by my assessment that members of the "philanthropist class" are a bunch of weirdos... you might even be a sock puppet on top of that. how the hell can the answer be "no"? if this comic thing gets any traction it can very easily affect "my thing". why? because some "leader" believes he knows what's best for "us"... last time it ended up with one of the "leaders" publicly coming out as a pedophile... and for what exactly? why do "we" need recognition again?

do you actually believe this mental gymnastics act you're doing or are you just wishing "we" will? your "your neighbor's field" analogy doesn't even work. it might if the story ends with my neighbor's work on HIS field destroying MY field in the process.

 

[ADreamOfLiberty]

I see, so what your saying is everyone out there is our enemy.

You don't make propaganda to convince your own party. Both propaganda and debate are adversarial. People think one way and you want to change that so that makes their current thinking the enemy.

So we pretend we are on there side to trick them into thinking differently? Hmmm, sounds pretty deceptive and if someone tried that on me and I worked out what they were doing, I would not be happy.

Well I've tried total honesty and sound logic and that doesn't make many friends either. There are no easy answers in this case milord.

I don't live in the US so things may be a bit different there. I can only go by my own experience here and for the most part most people I have broached the subject with have not had a strong negative or positive opinion on the subject, mainly because they don't really know anything about it apart from the odd joke. In the last year I have come out to 6 people not one of them has had a negative reaction 4 of them wanted me to explain what zoosexuality is exactly. The other two just said "Ok it's not my thing, but I know you and know you wouldn't hurt an animal so what ever floats your boat."

In that case it seems like you aren't in need of any propaganda, lucky you.

So perhaps I've just been very lucky with my interaction with non zoos or maybe where I live we're just a bit more open minded, who knows, but I tend to prefer showing people how I am with the animals in my life so if or when they find out I'm a zoo, they are less likely to jump to bad conclusions without finding out more information first. At which point I have pointed them to this article I wrote a few years back which tries to take a neutral->positive approach to the subject, while trying not to promote it as such. I think I've got it on here somewhere... Yep it's here: https://www.zoovilleforum.net/threads/the-hard-questions-a-zoo-discussion-paper.35998/

I'll probably read it sometime this week.

There is a thing called targeted messaging. Some people respond only to emotional manipulation. Some prefer to fancy themselves neutral and balanced and probably respond well to your approach or anything they perceive as "educational". Maybe 2-5% respond well and exclusively to logic.

and i stand by my assessment that members of the "philanthropist class" are a bunch of weirdos...

..... yea who the hell would give money to a website like this? ....

You can't expect the owners of this site to care what you think when you make it so clear that you wouldn't even consider supporting them.

you might even be a sock puppet on top of that.

So might you

how the hell can the answer be "no"? if this comic thing gets any traction it can very easily affect "my thing".

The only conceivable way that could happen is if you fail to protect your anonymity and then the dominoes flow through a third-party moral actor... so still "no".

do you actually believe this mental gymnastics act you're doing or are you just wishing "we" will?

Well at least you're learning. "we" does belong in quotation marks there. If it wasn't there then you would be speaking for others which apparently isn't kosher.

your "your neighbor's field" analogy doesn't even work. it might if the story ends with my neighbor's work on HIS field destroying MY field in the process.

but comics won't destroy your field which was the point

 

[nekdoneco123]

You can't expect the owners of this site to care what you think when you make it so clear that you wouldn't even consider supporting them.

"they" make it abundantly clear my money would be used on whatever instead of making the forum better... i give to this "community" in other ways than money.

So might you

doubtful, considering all the regular "naysayers" spoke their piece here either before me or with me, noone left to sock puppet for... while you're here trying to speak for the "leadership", which is at this point unsurprisingly silent.

The only conceivable way that could happen is if you fail to protect your anonymity and then the dominoes flow through a third-party moral actor... so still "no".

you don't know what new and fun laws might get passed... i'm pragmatic. something as simple as having to be registered to own a pet or something like "non-breeder animals have to be mutilated" sort of law are both conceivable ways to make life for "us" harder without directly going "we acting against zoos". it's not happening because "we" aren't prominent enough and i kinda doubt i'm the only one who prefers it that way.

but comics won't destroy your field which was the point

yet to be seen.. it can put more self-appointed antis trying to out "us". it can do jack shit. which is another still not addressed question given by someone here... where is this thing going to be published. nothing but very vague info was given.

 

[ADreamOfLiberty]

while you're here trying to speak for the "leadership", which is at this point unsurprisingly silent.

I don't speak for anyone but myself.

you don't know what new and fun laws might get passed... i'm pragmatic. something as simple as having to be registered to own a pet or something like "non-breeder animals have to be mutilated" sort of law are both conceivable ways to make life for "us" harder without directly going "we acting against zoos". it's not happening because "we" aren't prominent enough and i kinda doubt i'm the only one who prefers it that way.

See the fact that you thought of that shows that your view of this issue is insular. You don't talk to antis, you just assume you know what they think.

They would never (on their own) think to connect neutering to bestiality. In their minds all they imagine is some chained up dog getting raped in some hole. It wouldn't occur to them that we care about an intact sexual biology because we care about the animal's sex drive.

Sometimes getting attacked is the best way to get sympathy. As in the case of the trucker convoy for instance. It was bad for them but now Trudeau and his pals have done things that show everyone who they really are.

 

[saddlebum66]

New law Coming in Cali thats being touted as an Animal Bill of Rights. And some Folks here dont hear the Marching Feet of The Forces of Ignorance?

 

[Bloodwolf]

New law Coming in Cali thats being touted as an Animal Bill of Rights. And some Folks here dont hear the Marching Feet of The Forces of Ignorance?

What’s in the bill?

 

[j217]

What’s in the bill?

Here's a story on it

Proposed state bill would create a 'Dog and Cat Bill of Rights'

A proposed state bill would create a 'Dog and Cat Bill of Rights' and guarantee certain rights for dogs and cats.

abc7news.com

From the story these look like the basic items

"AB 1881 would require that the bill of rights is posted on the premises of animal shelters and rescue organizations.

Here are the 7 specific rights outlined in the bill.

-Dogs and cats have the right to be free from exploitation, cruelty, neglect, and abuse.
-Dogs and cats have the right to a life of comfort, free of fear and anxiety.
-Dogs and cats have the right to daily mental stimulation and appropriate exercise.

-Dogs and cats have the right to nutritious food, sanitary water, and shelter in an appropriate and safe environment.
-Dogs and cats have the right to preventive and therapeutic health care.
-Dogs and cats have the right to be properly identified through tags, microchips, or other humane means.
-Dogs and cats have the right to be spayed and neutered to prevent unwanted litters."

Nothing about any right to enjoy their natural sexuality.
I expect aggresive do-gooders would appoint themselves to enforce those "rights" as they interpret them.

 

[Bloodwolf]

Here's a story on it

Proposed state bill would create a 'Dog and Cat Bill of Rights'

A proposed state bill would create a 'Dog and Cat Bill of Rights' and guarantee certain rights for dogs and cats.

abc7news.com

From the story these look like the basic items

"AB 1881 would require that the bill of rights is posted on the premises of animal shelters and rescue organizations.

Here are the 7 specific rights outlined in the bill.

-Dogs and cats have the right to be free from exploitation, cruelty, neglect, and abuse.
-Dogs and cats have the right to a life of comfort, free of fear and anxiety.
-Dogs and cats have the right to daily mental stimulation and appropriate exercise.

-Dogs and cats have the right to nutritious food, sanitary water, and shelter in an appropriate and safe environment.
-Dogs and cats have the right to preventive and therapeutic health care.
-Dogs and cats have the right to be properly identified through tags, microchips, or other humane means.
-Dogs and cats have the right to be spayed and neutered to prevent unwanted litters."

I expect aggresive do-gooders would appoint themselves to enforce those rights as they interpret them.

It’s just funny how that works as they can’t forgo rights themselves. I agree with most of them outside the obvious for this lifestyle unless it becomes a problem itself

 

[saddlebum66]

Here's a story on it

Proposed state bill would create a 'Dog and Cat Bill of Rights'

A proposed state bill would create a 'Dog and Cat Bill of Rights' and guarantee certain rights for dogs and cats.

abc7news.com

From the story these look like the basic items

"AB 1881 would require that the bill of rights is posted on the premises of animal shelters and rescue organizations.

Here are the 7 specific rights outlined in the bill.

-Dogs and cats have the right to be free from exploitation, cruelty, neglect, and abuse.
-Dogs and cats have the right to a life of comfort, free of fear and anxiety.
-Dogs and cats have the right to daily mental stimulation and appropriate exercise.

-Dogs and cats have the right to nutritious food, sanitary water, and shelter in an appropriate and safe environment.
-Dogs and cats have the right to preventive and therapeutic health care.
-Dogs and cats have the right to be properly identified through tags, microchips, or other humane means.
-Dogs and cats have the right to be spayed and neutered to prevent unwanted litters."

Nothing about any right to enjoy their natural sexuality.
I expect aggresive do-gooders would appoint themselves to enforce those "rights" as they interpret them.

What these nits couched as "Rights" are their demands, and their Manifesto. It has less to do with animals than with people control.

This smacks of HSUS or other organizations writing a bill FOR a Representative, who then touts it for himself. They've done it before, even though thats illegal under Federal Law. And if this one passes, say goodbye to bird dogs wherever it goes into effect.

 

[j217]

What these nits couched as "Rights" are their demands, and their Manifesto. It has less to do with animals than with people control.

For sure. There are already laws dealing with abuse of animals but there is minimal real enforcement. This is similar to the way corporate crime is handled - more regulations or meaningless fines that sound real big but are just a small item in their budgets, but never go after the actual criminals.

 

[Bloodwolf]

Hopefully it stays in California. It’s a shit hole as it is.

 

[jjponyboy]

I'm still yet to see what educating the public in such a matter is supposed to achieve, and how it justifies a period of post "zoo tipping point".

Those thinking it won't lead to a crack down are painfully naive.

I'll defer to the transgender example again. We have people paranoid someone in the stall next to them might have certain body parts, now on the hunt for any signs of incongruence. We have new rules in sport, suddenly impacting even those born and raised as female, for their natural hormonal variation. People scrambling to protect the children. Transgender people are now under the microscope of the public, every perceived flaw amplified. And they don't even have anything to do with intimacy, beyond some people just thinking it's gross.

Do you think "animal fuckers" will be viewed with more, or even just the same level of, sympathy? Do you think we'll somehow receive less vigilance, less paranoia? Do you think we have less to lose?

Zoophilia isn't even comparable to the gay rights movement, because at least nobody had any doubts of the ability of adult men to consent, and we have even less to gain.

You don't have to go cruising just to meet an animal, and nobody raises an eyebrow at someone continuing to live with animals later in life. What more do you want, and at what cost?

 

[UR20Z]

I'm still yet to see what educating the public in such a matter is supposed to achieve, and how it justifies a period of post "zoo tipping point".

You're not alone. I believe I covered it in another post - this is one of those "questions that have no answer" (or at least, no answer that the folks trying to pull off this little exercise in idiocy will give, despite being asked repeatedly) things that we're apparently not supposed to ask.

Personally, I've got the feeling that the "benefits" primarily consist of being able to fuck fido in the middle of the town square without getting arrested and/or stoned to death on the spot. Not something I've ever had the urge for, but it seems as though one helluva large percentage of the "true believers" seems to think such a result SOMEHOW more than justifies the risk. I don't agree, even slightly. Of course, I'm a "yellow-bellied naysayer" for not jumping on the bandwagon. (according to our fearless leader, anyway)

 

[Bloodwolf]

You're not alone. I believe I covered it in another post - this is one of those "questions that have no answer" (or at least, no answer that the folks trying to pull off this little exercise in idiocy will give, despite being asked repeatedly) things that we're apparently not supposed to ask.

Personally, I've got the feeling that the "benefits" primarily consist of being able to fuck fido in the middle of the town square without getting arrested and/or stoned to death on the spot. Not something I've ever had the urge for, but it seems as though one helluva large percentage of the "true believers" seems to think such a result SOMEHOW more than justifies the risk. I don't agree, even slightly. Of course, I'm a "yellow-bellied naysayer" for not jumping on the bandwagon. (according to our fearless leader, anyway)

The beards don’t lie old man.

 

[UR20Z]

The beards don’t lie old man.

You don't survive (metaphorically speaking - in some cases, quite literal) long enough to grow a beard like mine without having some smarts to go with the facial fuzz...

 

[Bloodwolf]

You don't survive (metaphorically speaking - in some cases, quite literal) long enough to grow a beard like mine without having some smarts to go with the facial fuzz...

Yet some can’t grasp that.