Link to Transcript
## Part 1: A Simple Thought Experiment
Welcome everypony! Dansburst Studios Official here. This will be the first of two videos responding to TibbilzYorkie, the canine. This video was a long time in the making, I started it like a month ago, originally as a response to her role the L money drama.
But after I looked more into Tibbilz, I saw a number of social media posts where she platforms herself as one of the activists in the latest wave of the dogmatic crusade against zoophilia. I've had issues with these activists for a while now, but realized I had never gathered all my thoughts on them in one place. That'll be the goal of this video.
I will be arguing against two separate but related claims:
First, that "Zoophilia is morally wrong".
Next, that "Zoophilia should be illegal". We'll start with the first.
Many anti-zoophiles think that raping an animal is "morally wrong" and makes you a bad person.
People have, of course, asked them, why is that any different than eating an animal? I'm not against eating animals.
The anti-zoophiles will reply that we have to eat animals for nutrition, and even if we didn't, vegan stuff would be more expensive. But what if this weren't true?
Here's my Main Claim: **Even if all humans had readily available, 100% nutritious bland tofu, it wouldn't be wrong or immoral at all for a human to hunt and kill an ostrich, either because they like the taste of its meat, or because they enjoy the thrill of the hunt.**
It turns out that this is all we need to deduce that zoophilia isn't immoral.
First of all, what would it mean for zoophilia to be moral?
Well, in raping the animal, zoophiles put frivolous human sexual pleasure above the animal's sexual autonomy and well-being. So, to establish morality, we just need to see if we can deduce Statement Z.
Z) (friv human sexual pleasure > animal's sexual autonomy / psychological wellbeing)
Now, Frivolous human taste and sexual pleasures are both extra, unnecessary pleasures, so they should be roughly as important in whatever moral consideration. Some may say that the sexual pleasure would come from the rape of the animal, while the taste pleasure would happen only as a byproduct of killing the animal. This would somehow make satisfying the sexual pleasure more cruel, because it is more direct. They would say that because satisfying the sexual desire in this case is more cruel, it should be given less weight.
I don't think emotional cruelty should factor into morality at all, only the consequences of the actions (SHOULD factor). I'll explain this more when proving my Main Claim. Even if it did, I don't think doing something directly is any more cruel than doing it indirectly, since they have the same consequence. Besides, getting pleasure from the thrill of the hunt is taking direct pleasure in the death of the animal, and I don't think that's immoral either.
This gives us Lemma 1.
1) frivolous human sexual pleasure = frivolous human taste/hunt pleasure
From our Main Claim, it's fine to eat an ostrich to taste its meat or for the thrill of the hunt.
That means it's not immoral to prioritize Frivolous human "taste/hunt pleasure" over an animal's life, giving us Lemma 2.
2) frivolous human "taste pleasure" > animal's life.
Killing an animal for its taste is a bigger harm to the animal than raping it for pleasure would be. Some say that non-mutilative rape would somehow traumatize an animal so much that it would be worse than killing them. We know this isn't true because animals who are raped do not become suicidal. Yes, some dogs who are traumatized by owners may stop accepting food from other people, but this is because of fear of and lack of trust in people. Leave food in an empty room with them, and they will eat it instead of starving themselves.
All non-human species value (reproduction first> then life > then avoiding pain), without exception.
Barring self-sacrifice to save their young, there's never been a single documented case of pet animals or wild animals committing suicide. Especially not due to something like "depression".
This gives us 3).
3) animal's life > animal's sexual autonomy/wellbeing
From here it's just a simple use of the transitive property: Linking 1), 2) and 3) gives us Claim Z.
But, suppose that you're not convinced that frivolous human pleasure of any kind should be placed above an animal's life. Which is to say, you don't agree with my Main Claim we used to prove Lemmas 1) and 2) in our zoophilia deduction. Tibbilz was a vegan herself before quitting it for both health and practicality reasons, so she would likely reject that too.
How could I prove that Zoophilia is moral in a way that would convince a vegan?
## Part 2
### "Natural" Rights Reason
Say that, like the vegans, you don't believe you should inflict harm on animals for any frivolous human pleasure.
One reason people may say they wouldn't accept frivolous hunting is because killing an animal frivolously like that violates the animal's "right to life", whatever that means. Apparently, they believe it's morally wrong to harm animals even when that harm doesn't affect humans. I think that, in terms of measurable consequences, it doesn't make sense to call this a "bad" action.
You may ask: "In our deductions of the morality/immorality of actions (which is really assessing the goodness of consequences), why should we ignore any consequences, no matter how grave, caused to animals that don't affect humans?"
This is a thing that makes sense to do both spiritually and logically.
Speaking in spiritual terms, God made a natural hierarchy of all living things: (bacteria < plants < invertebrates < vertebrates < non-human mammals < humans&equines < angels < God). To place an animal's will before a human's will in any moral consideration is to debase God's vision of humans as the natural rulers of Earth. The angel Lucifer tried to subvert this hierarchy by leading angels in a revolt against God, the natural ruler of the heavens. He wanted to impose his own will above God's. He was sent to hell, becoming Satan. Literally the origin of all sin in this universe comes from subversions of natural hierarchy.
But even if you're a materialist, you can't deny that there's a clear hierarchy in terms of cognitive capacity: bacteria < plants < non-human animals< humans.
I hate to say this, but sorry furries, but we don't live in Zootopia! Lesser animals are NOT a part of human society. They live their whole lives in the natural world (or our simulations of it). You can't put predator and prey on the same moral footing, just by virtue of intelligence humans and equines can do things critters can't, and experience richer lives than critters ever could. Besides, what kind of self-loathing society would we be if we put the needs of other species of lesser sentience on equal levelling to our own, or even ahead of our own pleasures?
Human "rights" don't exist in the natural world, just in human society. If you want proof, tell an ocean about your right to live as it's drowning you.
We make for ourselves human rights because it helps our society run more smoothly and more stably. This makes the human experience better.
If you take the basic rights we afford to humans for smoother societal functioning like right to life and right to sexual consent and you mindlessly copy/paste those onto animals, you lose the reasons why we made up those rights in the first place: to make a better experience, \*for humans and human society\*.
This is why I believe any reasonable definition of "morally wrong" can only take into account negative consequences caused to other humans. So that settles the morality of zoophilia.
Now for the next claim. Should Zoophilia be illegal?
## Debunking the Proxy Carryover Argument
Some people think that violently hunting or having sex with an animal would reinforce violent or sexual (respectively) psychological habits that would carry over into more violent or sexual actions/thoughts about real humans. They say that outlawing or creating social taboos against these actions will reduce harm, because it will reduce the supposed carryover effects from the proxies to other actual humans.
But we reinforce violent and sexual psychological habits indirectly all the time when we watch Digital Content like violent video games and internet pornography.
Violence has never been more easily accessible at any point in human history than today on Internet. But despite this, if you trust modern studies, then you should note that they say that violent video games/movies/etc don't make people commit more violent crimes. It's similar for internet pornography, it doesn't make people more likely to be rapists. Acting violently through digital proxies doesn't bleed over to the human world. Neither does acting violently through animal proxies.
___
## Harm Reduction inconsistency
Another more immediate issue with outlawing or tabooing violence against proxies is that it actually creates MORE harm by criminalizing and shaming people who would have never committed violence / sexual assault against other humans in the first place.
The proxy carryover argument is one of the main justifications people and lawmakers have used for government censorship and bans on violent video games and lolicon.
Take a look at this Kotaku article: American faces prison for bringing MANGA to canada on laptop.
So, You guys can all read, right? Cool, I'm just going to leave this up here:
*music*
They are doing this in Japan too!
*music*
>any manga, animation, or pictures (but not including real life pictures or footage) that features either sexual **or pseudo sexual** acts that would be illegal in real life, or sexual or pseudo sexual acts between close relatives whose marriage would be illegal, where such depictions and / or presentations unjustifiably glorify or exaggerate the activity. [American Faces Prison For Bringing Manga To Canada On Laptop (kotaku.com.au)](https://www.kotaku.com.au/2011/06/american-faces-prison-for-bringing-manga-to-canada-on-laptop/ "American Faces Prison For Bringing Manga To Canada On Laptop (kotaku.com.au)
(
https://www.kotaku.com.au/2011/06/american-faces-prison-for-bringing-manga-to-canada-on-laptop/)")
When Tibbilz hearts tweets saying that zoophiles should be shot "on sight", it means she clearly believes that it's a necessary implication. According to her, if you practice zoophilia or even if you just watch cub porn, then you must be, WITHOUT FAIL OR EXCEPTION, a bad person. That's why she wants to shoot them on sight, without even bothering to check if the HUMAN PERSON on the other side of the screen is harmful towards other humans, or helpful to them.
Conditioning on being a zoophile, is it probabilistically more *likely* for you to be a bad person, in the consequence-based sense I mentioned before? Probably slightly, though I would say not nearly as much as people think. It's like violent video games, they don't cause you to be more violent to others, but violent people are more likely to be attracted to them.
Just like Tibbilz, these lawmakers are literally collapsing the difference between liking the presentation of something in FICTION, and liking it or wanting to do it in REAL LIFE. That's why they've arrested this guy, because they think he will be more probabilistically likely to commit a crime with real children in the future. This is despite this person not having ANY criminal record. Which, arresting people for crimes that haven't happened yet, shooting zoophiles on sight who haven't harmed other humans at all, what is this, Minority Report? It's as if Social Media's most fanatic anti-shippers were placed in charge of the laws of these countries.
**In short, when you make judgements off of people based off of probabilistic assumptions that stem from the groups they are a part of, instead of from their actions as individuals, you will inevitably write off good people unfairly.**
I don't think there's anything wrong with consuming content that glorifies or simulates murder or rape; these things don't cause harm in real world, and I don't think they should be outlawed. Moreover, I think any digital or animal coping mechanism that lets people satisfy their baser drives on non-human proxies reduces harm to humans.
"I mean, let's be flank... I mean frank here. Which side would you have a hypersexual individual with low-self control focusing on? Left or right?"
So then why is media that glorifies illegal sexual acts outlawed and societally taboo, while media that glorifies murder is perfectly legal? Why is it societally taboo to frivolously rape an animal, but not to frivolously kill it?
___
## Intuitive Disgust
Simple: because just like anti-zoo activists, these online social activists and lawmakers are acting based on their intuitive emotional feelings of disgust. You'd expect Leftists like Tibbilz to already know that this is not a good thing to base policy or activism on. After all, it was done to them by lawmakers in the War on Drugs who, in addition to their political agenda, felt morally disgusted by druggies and hippies. People got years in prison for a gram of weed. It was also done to Leftists by lawmakers who would criminalize homosexuality, where one reason they used, in addition to their ideology (usually conservative christian), was the intuitive feeling of disgust they and others had.
To this very day, lawmakers in Uganda and other backwards third world tribes explicitly rely on intuitive disgust to shape their laws and cultural values.
It's funny how leftists "forget" this principle when they're the powerful group relative to an even smaller minority, zoophiles.
Of course, leftists have some standard ideological reasons to rationalize their intuitive disgust.
Leftists may say the groups they support are "protected classes", discriminated against on the basis of unchangeable parts of their identity, and that zoophilia is a paraphilia which is not based on identity.
But what about hrt femboys who self-admittedly either have a paraphilia or make a personal choice to inject themselves with that stuff? This isn't based on an innate sense of identity, they just want to do a taboo behavior that does not cause broader societal harm. Though I'm not one of them, a big chunk of people would feel intuitive disgust at the idea of using cross-sex hormones for non-essential sexual or social benefits.
Leftists support that group, and call them "valid". So, why don't they support zoophiles who also want to do a taboo behavior that does not cause broader harm to humans?
Some of them may say it's about "consent", that the first group consents to do that to themselves, but the zoophiles bring in another party which doesn't consent to sex.
The leftists who use this argument say there's a right violation in the second group's action, but not in the first.
This argument falls flat, since an animal doesn't "consent" to being eaten any more than it could consent to being raped!
As I already mentioned though, there's no reason to give animals human rights, so that objection wouldn't make sense.
More generally, Leftists like to think of rightists as the group that is uniquely motivated by intuitive disgust. When they do this, they ignore their own blind spots where their intuitive disgust affects their political beliefs. A lot of headlines and articles in news media promote this way of thinking based on some poorly-designed studies.
But, leftists themselves are just as prone to thinking in terms of disgust, just in different ways and at different things. I'll let you guys read from this article by Psyche Ideas.
[It’s not only political conservatives who worry about moral purity | Psyche Ideas](https://psyche.co/ideas/its-not-only-political-conservatives-who-worry-about-moral-purity)
The root cause of intuitive disgust in both leftists and rightists is the idea that there's going to be some indirect harm caused by the "disgusting" behavior. The leftists who are disgusted by having racist thoughts in your head, and the rightists who are disgusted by masturbation or promiscuity both have an intuitive feeling that those behaviors will cause harm indirectly, either to oneself or others.
For zoophilia, this intuitive disgust is probably an evolutionary instinct. Back then, we didn't have the sanitization practices to stop STDs from SAME-species sex, much less cross-species sex!
We've also ruled out the possibility of indirect harm to other humans when we debunked the proxy carryover argument.
If we make legal or moral judgements about zoophiles based off of an intuitive disgust that's rooted in a risk of a harm that is no longer present, or that doesn't apply, we're letting our animal instincts shape our beliefs and decisions for us. A zoophile is honest about his carnal desire to rape an animal. The dogmatic Anti-zoophile activists mask their carnal disgust with flimsy ideological justifications, without care for the foalcon and cub porn consumers who get shamed and criminalized neelessly. That smug, self-assured dishonesty is more bestial than zoophilia.
___
## Internet Overload
Maybe you say the fact that some people are turning to zoophilia is a sign of some other problem, and you'd be right. Take drugs for example. When it comes to drug activism, leftists don't say "druggies aren't valid", or "druggies should be shot on sight". The fact that some people use drugs as an outlet to the point that it harms themselves is a sign of either an individual personal issue or a broader social issue. Leftists believe this social issue is something like low wages, or a housing crisis, or punitive justice, or the collapse of the "third space". Basically, any of the main themes in the overstretched, bloated writing that passes for social analysis on Breadtube video essays. With drug activism, leftists realize that it isn't useful at all to direct their political activism against the people using the outlet, or their social activism towards making the outlet taboo. Instead they focus on the root cause. Similarly, the root cause for people turning to zoophilia as an outlet is either inborn feelings of sadism (in case of the sub-minority of zoo-sadists), or, much more commonly, unlimited internet pornography giving people new fetishes.
**Tibbilz wants to have it both ways: on one paw, she wants free use and spread of internet pornography on internet, while on the other paw, she wants to magically make it so that nopony ever develops sexual fetishes which are conventionally "immoral".** This second bit of activism is supposed to happen through creating social taboos, like the never-ending moralistic crusade which is against, among other things, L money's art, loli/zoo, and pro-ship ("problematic" shipping) fiction/art.
The only effect of virtue signaling against a few fringe products of a bigger trend is just to raise your own ego and sense of self-righteousness.
I think the fact that some minority will develop "problematic" sexual fetishes is inevitable on a deregulated internet, though I think the sacrifice is minor (heh) enough to be very much worth it. Instead of just writing off every single member of this minority group as problematic, or a bad person, I think we should judge them as individuals. How do they act in real life with other humans, outside of Digital Fiction? That will tell you much more about a person's character.
___
## Part 3: Love, not Social-Signaling Hate!
Back to Tibbilz: What other reasons might furries like herself have for social signaling against zoophiles?
Aside from ideological reasons, there are also some "pragmatic" reasons.
There are some furry haters (which I don't support by the way, much love to the furry and FNAF community), who will say that all furries are zoophiles. So one effect of social signaling that you're against zoos might be to try to get furry haters to not hate on you. I don't think this is a useful thing to do.
Being a brony, I've met brony haters, who believe things like bronies are either peep-o-philes, effeminate men, man-children, zoophiles, or some combination. I don't fall into any of these categories, though I don't think the people who do are bad people. My editor SevantyAyte is a man-child, and he's been a good friend (when he's not eating hayburgers instead of editing). Besides, I don't care if some hater thinks I'm something I'm not.
There was a military brony by the name of jakethearmyguy who was very against manchildren, in his own morality. He worked hard to get fit and to succeed in life, so he took it a little personally when brony haters called him a manchild. His response wasn't to put something on his bio like "NOT a manchild (they are losers/invalid)". Why should he social-signal that he is against manchildren? All that does is throw manchildren under the bus, without actually changing the stereotypes of the brony haters. They will still think of him as a loser anyway, so why does it matter what they think?
So, instead of hating on zoophiles and creating negativity, why not try to make friends or at least get to know at least one zoophile? It might be hard, since they might believe different things than you do, especially about subjects you find touchy, but a lot of zoos make really cool art, writing, and games. (siskmarek, sappho) In fact, some of my favorite non-erotic fanfictions on FIMfiction are written by zoophiles.
When you write these people off, you limit yourself to a part of the human experience, keeping yourself blind to learning about the inner lives of other humans just because of ideological disagreements. If you're a very political person like Tibbilz, this will be hard advice to take. But trust me, the friends you make along the process of withholding snap moral judgements against others will make it very much worth it. After all, Friendship is Magic.
That's all for this video. I put a lot of time and effort into researching and scriptwriting this. My deepest thanks to my loyal editor SeventyAyle, this video wouldn't have been possible without him. If you liked this video, (and if you're fine with admittedly sparse uploads), then make sure to Like and Subscribe. This is Dansburst Studios Official, signing off.
