Talk:Zoophilia/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

Mediation

Mediation has now started (see Wikipedia:Requests for mediation). I've asked Ciz and FT2 (who is representing the other side of the dispute) not to continue to discuss on this page for now. It would be helpful if the others involved could also hold off for a while and just let things rest as they are - hopefully this will give the mediation process it's best chance. Thanks -- sannse (talk) 20:08, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC) (mediation committee)As the main article is locked I put this here.

In reading all this, I can't help but but notice the "lifestyles" isnt the only thing that needs to be looked at, if you notice the recent edit history of the article, someone has changed the external links to reflect a negative personal opinion on one of the links.

check out the previous original version and that it has been changed

ORIGINAL

http://www.humaneconcepts.com/ Humane Concepts - Animal Sexual Abuse Awareness and Prevention 

CHANGED TO

 Humane Concepts (http://www.humaneconcepts.com/) (strongly anti-zoophile site)

Revision as of 17:32, 28 Oct 2004 66.30.122.120

Nowhere on the linked site does it say anything about being an "anti" zoophile site, it appears to be an animal rights site that happens to be about bestiality as abuse.

Asairs/ humanconcepts is not and Animal Rights site. It is blatantly anti-zoophile, they don't seem to have any qualms showing it. I am not sure why you need to change it back, it merely tells people what they need to know about it. If anything might need revising, it would be the zoophile.net description. --Steele

This coming from a person who advocates bestiality and has several 'zoos' for friends. And ASAIRS is against sexual abuse towards animals. If you want to say thats being Anti-Zoophila, be my guest. --Ciz 17:35, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This is coming from a rabid anti-zoo, asairs pawn, who can’t grasp the concept of having a logical discussion without his personal fears and ignorance controlling him. Excuse me, (thank you Ciz) I meant to say that it is an anti-zoo organization masquerading as an animal welfare group.--Steele

I dont like animals being molested. If that makes me an anti-zoo, then fine. --Ciz 11:54, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Naw, it just makes you intolerant and a hypocrite (because you drink milk too don't you?) --Steele

I was opposed to bestiality before I ever heard of ASAIRS --Ciz 11:54, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

As opposed to someone who cant control his abusive sexual urges. --Ciz 11:54, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

When haven't I, or any others? Now you are just resorting to character defamation. --Steele

Someone who cant control their urges to have sex with animals. --Ciz 00:36, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

They aren't masquerading. They dont want to see animals being molested. --Ciz 11:54, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The former owners spent there time harassing and stalking zoophiles, instead of doing anything meaningful to help animals.

Who are known to molest animals. Its no different than going after pedophiles to stop children from being hurt. --Ciz 00:36, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Exactly. Another link: Website (resource): Pet-Abuse.Com Database (http://www.pet-abuse.com/database/search.php?type_id=10) "Bestiality" cases from the US and England Note how bestiality is in quotation marks.

And I've sent Sanse an e-mail. --Ciz 02:29, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

(note - small format fix)

steele, if you are involved in zoo as ciz says that would be a biass, so you would see that site or any site that has concerns for animals as the enemy. if that is an anti zoo site then explain why zoophilia.net has links to it on every page! the link text there says this-->

First of all, could I request that whoever you are, for the sake of clarity, please put your name at the end of your statements (just use the three tilde “~” key/shortcut). Thanks in advance.

About my bias? That’s like saying any person with any affiliation to a group is biased and can’t participate. Everyone has there own bias, whether it be irrational, reasonable, extreme or neutral. Would you tell an environmentalist he can’t contribute to any articles on wiki concerning the environment because he is biased for being affiliated with conservation groups? That defeats the whole point of the wiki-concept when you block one side out.

For point of clarity I have friends who has been harassed and stalked by these very people and other rabid-anti-zoos. So I am merely bringing the other side of the argument to this encyclopedia.--Steele

Then maybe they should stop having sex with animals. --Ciz 11:54, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Stalking and harassing people is illegal, in America we have something called due process. Just because you have personal feelings about something doesn't give you the right to do those things. --Steele

Having sex with animals is also illegal. --Ciz 00:36, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

We strongly discourage any kind of animal abuse. If in doubt, please consult asairs http://www.asairs.com The purpose of this website is to give a complete picture of the animal sex / beastiality topic. So please see the entire website before you make up your mind.

edit in--> i checked both zoophilia.net and zoophile.net and they almost look like they are run by the same people, same content diffent layout but note that both zoo sites have that link to asars. looks like they are concerned about animal abuse and are directing readers to the asars site to learn about animal abuse

I suppose the people at zoophilia.net feel the same way I do about sexual animal abuse. We both see it as wrong and would immediately report it to the authorities. That doesn’t mean that the zoo website endorses asairs black and white view that all animal sex is abusive.--Steele

Unless you're the one having sex with the animal. Then its just love. --Ciz 22:11, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

No, actually I never said anything like that. If it can be proven that someone caused physical harm to an animal then they should be prosecuted under the law, no matter who it is. --Steele

So as long as no physical harm is caused its ok? Does that mean pedophilia is ok too if the child isnt physically harmed? --Ciz 00:36, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

And pedophiles dont view the idea that all child sex is abusive. You're both wrong. --Ciz 15:31, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

lol, and witch hunters thought there actions where righteous. You're both wrong. --Steele

Wrong comparisions. There were no witches at all. --Ciz 00:36, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

the humane concepts site says ---> This site endorses animal welfare education. You should be an adult to continue. Welcome Police Officers, Veterinarians, Legislators, Rescuers, Shelter Staff, and concerned citizens The purpose of this site is to provide a point of reference regarding laws, case files, information and education on animal sexual abuse. as steels profile shows an interest in wolves and this site is connected to wolfstation.org maybe he/she or someone should drop the owners an email mailto:humaneconcepts@wolfstation.org and invite them in here for input

These of course are not the same people that I usually talk about. The older people who where the ones that created the webpage are the former “witch hunters”. The website is now under new management, and the people are there are not near as bad as the last crew. We have, in fact, already talked with some of the people from this “new” team.--Steele

they have this as a warning ---> Emails with questions on how to have sex with animals will not be answered. We do not condone animal sexual abuse, we're not going to tell you how to do it.

• Emails containing threats of violence will be traced to the point of origin and every attempt made to pursue prosecution of the sender.

<<-- end of edit in

the bigger issue is not the title of the link so much as its interjection of pers opinion into a resource list. applying the same logic, a wiki page on homosexuality would have a link to a gay help site and title on the link maybe someone makes it --> fag help site, and a link to a hetero site would be --> anti gay site. the idea is not interjecting personal labels on resources or links but to provide defining material and resources for more information for readers to access.

going to that site it has information on animal health, risks, legal stuff, cases from the news, stuff on S/N and is attached to some police k9 site that doesn't seem to be working. it doesnt look any more anti zoo than the hsus site or the pet-abuse site, so it looks more like some pers agenda since only this link was changed and as ciz pointed out, bestiality was put in quotations by the same person. 'nuff said just pointing out a few things that needed to be said.

I think a better example would be that a fundamental religious website filled with propaganda, statistics, risk of homosexuality, legal info on the progress against gay marriage and news solely about homosexuals who are violent towards their partners or molest children would be classified as anti-gay. Personally, I think that is reasonable regardless whether or not you think bestiality is wrong. The priorities of the previous group have also shown that and the new crowd hasn’t change the website enough to warrant something different.

Because most gays do not have sex with children. A homosexual is not someone who is erotically attracted to children, but to their own gender. A zoo is someone who is erotically attracted to animals, so saying they have sex with animals isnt that big of a leap. Now, they believe the act of having sex with animals is abusive. Using your logic, a site that is against child molestation should be called "anti-childlove." --Ciz 22:06, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

And most zoos do not have sex with children.

I dont recall saying otherwise. Most have sex with animals. --Ciz 00:36, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

A zoophile is not someone who is erotically attracted to children, but to a different species.

I dont recall saying they were. You compaired ASAIRS to a site that links homosexuality to pedophilia, even though they arent related (homosexuality is attraction to same gender, pedophilia is to children). That isnt the case with ASAIRS. Zoophila and bestiality are linked, like it or not. --Ciz 00:36, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Saying they have sex with animals is an assuption, it has nothing to do with "leaps".

No more of an assumption than saying most heterosexuals have sex the opposite gender.--Ciz 00:36, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

No one has proven that sex with animals in inherintly abusive. --Steele

What world do you live on? Besides, arent you trying to say zoos dont have sex with animals? --Ciz 00:36, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think your two examples would be comparable if the page had a zoo link called “animal F*cker site” or a normal hetro website linked as “anti zoo site”. Unless I am mistaken, in which wikipedia has a stricter policy on NPOV/POV then I had imagined but it seems natural as many organizations call themselves anti-war or anti-fur because they are against the concept in it entirety. The asairs website clearly does not approve of animal sex in any form whether it is abusive or not, thus anti-zoo, or probably more appropriately anti-bestiality.--Steele

Whether its abusive or not? Its always abusive. --Ciz 15:31, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I don't see this kind of generalism as anything other than personal POV on the verge of ranting. So here's a professional ranter's POV from 2 The Ranting Gryphon's 2Sense show #61 (62mins 45secs in):

"The Norwegian Federation for Animal Protection in Norland ... has won the (party) support ... in their bid to create legislation preventing sex between human and animals ... (Party leader) took up the fight to outlaw bestiality after getting a phonecall from a young girl who had fantasies about having sex with a horse and asked if it was legal. Current Norwegian regulation is limited to laws prohibiting behaviour that causes an animal unnecessary suffering which leaves the matter outside of the existing penal code.

"Okay, I don't have sex with animals. I don't do that. This is me personally, I don't have sex with animals, honestly. But you know what I think they need to do? I really wish they could get the animals to vote in this. Because I guarantee you if they could get the animals to vote this sure wouldn't be illegal! Because you know they're talking about 'unnecessary abuse' ... A horse gets jerked off every other night 'Oh god, the trauma' I'm sure he hates the f*** out of that! ... So no, this is not abuse.

"You think a horse minds it if somebody comes out there every other night and jerks it off? That's not abuse, I want to be that horse! If that's abuse, I want to be a horse and I would like to have some of that abuse please ... When your horse catches a glance, just a glance of you, and suddenly automatically gets a five foot boner, that's not abuse! ... This is not rape, this is not abuse. Folks, animals don't give a s*** okay?

"Animals are the most open creatures on the planet when it comes to sex. If it feels good, they're gonna do it and they don't give a s*** ... If they can blow a wad that's all they want, okay? I say more sex with animals, I think more people should do it. I'm not going to, but I think more other people should."

Both views are extreme in the liberty taken with generalisms. I for one prefer to take a more moderate stance, one that sees less tolerance the less related species are - as in proportionally in size and by whether the animals are mammals as we are or not. -- Oruborus

You either think its ok or you dont. There's no middle ground here. A dog, for example, is not even capable of comprehending an abstract idea like "consent," let alone able to grant it in full understanding of it's actions.

Furthermore, the only animal 'proportionally in size' to a human is a gorilla. --Ciz 23:16, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Apparently many here have found the middle ground.

THey either think having sex with animals is ok or not. --Ciz 00:36, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

There's a third possibility: they aren't sure. Maybe you have an absolutely certain answer to everything, Ciz, but I don't. I can certainly see why someone would consider human/animal sex immoral. But not everyone agrees on other moral questions, so I can also see how someone could disagree with this one. The argument about animals' incapacity for consent makes sense... but runs into problems when you try to apply it to, say, plants or inanimate objects and try to establish whether or not they can be traumatized by a given activity, and whether they have a right to be free of that.

I fail to see where you're going with the comparision of animals to plants and inanimate objects. --Ciz 04:51, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Your argument is that animals cannot consent. Neither can (for example) a cucumber. So either you're opposed to having sex with vegetables, or you need a better argument. JAQ 12:36, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

A cucumber isnt a living, breathing animal. --Ciz 13:36, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

That's right; it's not. But it's still a hole in your arguments, which lack any kind intellectual framework.

How is it a hole, pray tell? Animals are not inanimate objects like a vegetable is. You talk about running around in circles trying to justify an opinion, then you start comparing dogs to cucumbers. -Ciz 19:39, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It's why you keep running in circles about this stuff. JAQ 18:52, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Uh huh. --Ciz 19:39, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The whole matter of animal rights itself is hardly an open-and-shut question in our society, with reasonable people believing on one hand that meat is murder, and on the other that meat is one of the four basic food groups.

But eating meat is natural. We were created as omnivores. And it occurs in the wild. --Ciz 04:51, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

That doesn't seem to matter to those who argue that it's abusive. What exactly is the difference between f*cking a cow and killing it? JAQ 12:36, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Because we were designed as omnivores to eat meat, thats why. We do it to survive. Its no different than if a lion eats a zebra. But the lion doesnt rape the zebra. And besides, its usually the dogs that are f*cked and we dont eat dogs. --Ciz 13:36, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

But it's not necessary for humans to eat meat to survive.

You have to take in a lot of extra stuff if you want to. Furthermore, animals eat eachother in the wild. Its natural. --Ciz 19:39, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

And people do eat dogs.

Not anywhere around here. China does, but they only started doing Animal Rights recently. And if you tried eating your dog here you'd get arrested --Ciz 19:39, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Again, you're wandering in circles looking for arguments to justify an opinion, not basing it on any kind of sound information. And really, this kind of lack of information doesn't do much to make your viewpoint about the facts of this topic very credible. JAQ 18:52, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sound information? As opposed to thinking its ok to have sex with animals?? All you've said was, "People eat meat, so its ok to have sex with your dog." --Ciz 19:39, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

My first question to anyone here is whether they can conceive of a viewpoint on this topic that differs from their own... and if they cannot, whether that inability disqualifies them from editing a Wikipedia article about it. JAQ 04:21, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It is just you that wishes to continue denying that it exist. How would you know what a dog is capable of?

I know that a dog's intelligence is in no way comparable to a human's. --Ciz 00:36, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

if he gives his consent, that is all he needs.

No more than an underage teenager giving his or her consent. --Ciz 00:36, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

He already knows what he is doing, it feels good to him, which is as much consent he or she needs to do any activity.

Then that mean its ok for a 40 yearold man to have sex with a 15 yearold girl, as long as she consents and thinks it feels good. Using your logic.

and if dogs knew what they were doing, they wouldnt have to be taken outside to do do to their business, or they wouldnt drink out of toilets--Ciz 00:36, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

There are many animals proportional to humans, and it is not body mass that Oruborus is talking about. --Steele

Then what is he talking about?? --Ciz 00:36, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hahah, that was great Oruborus, thanks for contribution! --Steele

ok then i suggest the use of actual site titles without subjective labels would be more correctly neutral, let the readers go look and decide for themselves about the contents of links. UZP a zoophile owned site would then be--> UZP the ultimate zoo page, the zoophilia.net link would be--> Zoophilia & Beastiality Information Articles, and the asars link would be --> Humane Concepts Animal Sexual Abuse Awareness and Prevention, or could be shortened. either that or as you indicate change that to --> anti-bestiality site, which fits the stated purpose without being a subjective opinion.

Regarding the ASAIRS - er, "Humane Concepts" - link, I made that change, not ContiE, who just reverted some of Ciz's changes to a previous version. Given the arguments I've seen here, the unsigned link title changes listed sound reasonable. I've gone ahead and made them. Zetawoof 03:57, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ciz

Ciz, stop editing this article while the mediation process is going on. -- Schneelocke (cheeks clone) [[]] 00:14, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Zoosexuality is not an actual word. I corrected it as such. --Ciz 00:28, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It is. And again, you are not supposed to edit the page while mediation is in progress. -- Schneelocke (cheeks clone) [[]] 00:40, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

No dictionary recognises it. --Ciz 00:42, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

And? -- Schneelocke (cheeks clone) [[]] 01:09, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It's not an actual word. --Ciz 01:27, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Pleather's a real word, but no dictionary recognized it till last year. In fact, let's go back farther. Shakespeare! He coined lots of words. Assassin and assassination for one. They weren't in dictionaries when he used them. But now they are. Dictionaries can lag behind actual vocabulary by quite a bit. [[User:Premeditated Chaos|PMC]] 06:22, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Pleather was a new product. It couldnt be in the dictionary until it was created.As for assasin: At first glance, one would be hard-pressed to find a link between pleasure and the acts of assassins. Such was not the case, however, with those who gave us the word assassin. They were members of a secret Islamic order originating in the 11th century who believed it was a religious duty to harass and murder their enemies. The most important members of the order were those who actually did the killing. Having been promised paradise in return for dying in action, the killers, it is said, were made to yearn for paradise by being given a life of pleasure that included the use of hashish. From this came the name for the secret order as a whole, an, “hashish users.” After passing through French or Italian, the word came into English and is recorded in 1603 with reference to the Muslim Assassins. (dictionary.com) --Ciz 19:19, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Okay, fine, I was obviously mistaken about Mr. Shakespeare. But pleather! "Couldn't be in the dictionary until it was created" okay, fantastic. But it is a real word. Zoophilia is a relatively new word. It can't have been put in a dictionary yet because it's so new. But regardless, it's a real word. Dictionaries are just lagging behind. [[User:Premeditated Chaos|PMC]] 20:18, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The word zoophilia was around before zoophiles adopted it for their own practices. It wasnt always associated with being erotically attracted to animals. --Ciz 20:23, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hey Ciz, I have an idea. Go meditate, and stop complaining at me here. [[User:Premeditated Chaos|PMC]] 20:46, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Mediation

As Ciz is continuing to edit here, I am withdrawing my request to everyone to stop editing and commenting. I will also review the mediation process and progress with the participants -- sannse (talk) 23:52, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC) (mediation committee)