Zoosadist Zoosadism Megathread - Joshua "Kero the Wolf" Hoffman & Friends.

[Cat Phuckers]

Today, as I was using the self checkout to pay for my groceries, I heard a young lady who worked for the store express her excitement of it being closing time. She giddily expressed how she was ready to "do a happy dance" to celebrate.

It was there, a loaf of bread in hand, that I recalled what this term means to a zoo and furthermore, I realized how fucking scarred I am from this shit.

And so, as I scanned a can of beans and some new Gillettes, I began to think this awful, nightmarish chaff over when suddenly, I had a thought;

These mutants quite clearly don't understand the concept of consent, and assume it is given based on tail wagging or whatever, regardless of what science tells us about canine behavior and emotions, as well as that of other animals. Even then, they scrape together any excuse to justify their abusive actions. With this in mind, and combined with their lack of empathy and general understanding of things due to being so socially inept, as well as their generally sadistic ways, I have to the conclusion that zoophiles not only do not understand consent, they don't care for it.

They're so lost in dewbauchery and sadness that even if an animal expressed thorough negative reaction to sexual advances, zoos are simply pushed to abuse more. They're natural abusers. Rapists. That's what turns them on. You know damn well that these pricks will push, force and hurt to have their climax. The resistance just makes it all the more sexy for them. Just like how a rapist will claim their victims were asking for it via revealing clothing, or how they enjoyed because they orgasmed or were wet, a zoophile will claim it based off of spasms, tail wagging and the lack of biting.

Deep down, they know it's wrong. If they were in a courtroom they wouldn't make any attempt to escape jail time because they know they have no argument. And besides, in their minds, they've already won; they've physically and mentally damaged a living being and they got off from it, they think they're alpha. It's their fetish. That's all that matters. They just wish they didn't have to be in that courtroom in the first place.

Based on this, would it be realistic to define anybody who stubbornly defends zoophilia as a zoophile? Or at least anybody who cares not about the moral implications of bestiality?
Also what does a loaf of bread imply to zoophiles? I already understand the godawful "happy dance" shit, and yeah that would send shivers down my spine as well.

 

[mASSive dONg]

Based on this, would it be realistic to define anybody who stubbornly defends zoophilia as a zoophile? Or at least anybody who cares not about the moral implications of bestiality?
Also what does a loaf of bread imply to zoophiles? I already understand the godawful "happy dance" shit, and yeah that would send shivers down my spine as well.

Hearing that phrase alone sent my mind into fuckin' dismay.

As for defenders or people who don't pay attention, this really isn't a defendable thing, nor something that should be ignored. If such people exist, they're fucking Fido in the closet.

 

[Great Dane]

After a very long argument on Twitter with zoophiles,

https://twitter.com/SlyTheCoyote1/status/1157099694176256001

Zooptoon may plan on deleting his twitter account. A zoophile responds with 'XD'.

Twitter / Account Suspended

From breaking news and entertainment to sports and politics, get the full story with all the live commentary.

twitter.com

To avoid double-posting on his own thread again, Chris Whiteman has changed his username to @AnonymousDoggo8 .

For those unfamiliar, Chris Whiteman often changes his usernames numerous times in an attempt to evade from the Kiwi Farms from following him. His user ID is 1151126945201053696 and you can follow his moves here.

Twitter / Account Suspended

From breaking news and entertainment to sports and politics, get the full story with all the live commentary.

twitter.com

If @AnonymousDoggo8 gets suspended or if he deactivates his account, he has an alt account under @ARandomFur1 (user ID:1140073327186329600)

A Random Fur (@ARandomFur1) on Twitter

Here's one of Chris's latest tweets.

Twitter / Account Suspended

From breaking news and entertainment to sports and politics, get the full story with all the live commentary.

twitter.com

 

[Consenticles]

I think you're onto something.
The fact that an animal or at least dogs have that 'love you unconditionally' thing it really comes off similar to that pedo thing where they think the kid is coming onto them.

Dogs have inadvertently been bred to have Williams Syndrome, which is a rare little disorder that makes a person happy all the fucking time. It's why, even after you leave for 5 seconds to take the trash out and come back inside, Spot looks at you and greets you like it's Christmas morning and you are the present. Dogs are unique in the way that there's a real genuine partnership with humans. Their ancestors found us so appealing that the pure instinct to love unconditionally has been bred into them.

If you have ever met a person with William's Syndrome (which is pretty rare), there's almost a glowy, floaty, happiness them. It's because they have abnormally high amounts of oxytocin constantly being released in their bodies. Couples with the higher potential for learning disorders, it can make a person seem immune to the world crashing around them.

So when these fuckers are looking at "signs" for consent, citing a dog's body language or some shit, they are taking advantage of a creature with an unstable flow of happy hormones. The animal can't speak to say anything, nor can it tell anyone later about what it went through. Would it be okay to fuck a person with William's Syndrome, who cannot speak, cannot fight back - because they love you and can't help it - and cannot communicate in your same language?

 

[n33gr]

Dogs have inadvertently been bred to have Williams Syndrome, which is a rare little disorder that makes a person happy all the fucking time. It's why, even after you leave for 5 seconds to take the trash out and come back inside, Spot looks at you and greets you like it's Christmas morning and you are the present. Dogs are unique in the way that there's a real genuine partnership with humans. Their ancestors found us so appealing that the pure instinct to love unconditionally has been bred into them.

If you have ever met a person with William's Syndrome (which is pretty rare), there's almost a glowy, floaty, happiness them. It's because they have abnormally high amounts of oxytocin constantly being released in their bodies. Couples with the higher potential for learning disorders, it can make a person seem immune to the world crashing around them.

So when these fuckers are looking at "signs" for consent, citing a dog's body language or some shit, they are taking advantage of a creature with an unstable flow of happy hormones. The animal can't speak to say anything, nor can it tell anyone later about what it went through. Would it be okay to fuck a person with William's Syndrome, who cannot speak, cannot fight back - because they love you and can't help it - and cannot communicate in your same language?

Today, as I was using the self checkout to pay for my groceries, I heard a young lady who worked for the store express her excitement of it being closing time. She giddily expressed how she was ready to "do a happy dance" to celebrate.

It was there, a loaf of bread in hand, that I recalled what this term means to a zoo and furthermore, I realized how fucking scarred I am from this shit.

And so, as I scanned a can of beans and some new Gillettes, I began to think this awful, nightmarish chaff over when suddenly, I had a thought;

These mutants quite clearly don't understand the concept of consent, and assume it is given based on tail wagging or whatever, regardless of what science tells us about canine behavior and emotions, as well as that of other animals. Even then, they scrape together any excuse to justify their abusive actions. With this in mind, and combined with their lack of empathy and general understanding of things due to being so socially inept, as well as their generally sadistic ways, I have to the conclusion that zoophiles not only do not understand consent, they don't care for it.

They're so lost in dewbauchery and sadness that even if an animal expressed thorough negative reaction to sexual advances, zoos are simply pushed to abuse more. They're natural abusers. Rapists. That's what turns them on. You know damn well that these pricks will push, force and hurt to have their climax. The resistance just makes it all the more sexy for them. Just like how a rapist will claim their victims were asking for it via revealing clothing, or how they enjoyed because they orgasmed or were wet, a zoophile will claim it based off of spasms, tail wagging and the lack of biting.

Deep down, they know it's wrong. If they were in a courtroom they wouldn't make any attempt to escape jail time because they know they have no argument. And besides, in their minds, they've already won; they've physically and mentally damaged a living being and they got off from it, they think they're alpha. It's their fetish. That's all that matters. They just wish they didn't have to be in that courtroom in the first place.

Sometimes I feel like you guys are the only godamn people with common sense on this planet, this is shit never crosses Aluzky's, ZoosexualAlly's, Sly's, Flehmen's, Diplo's, truestboi's, or any zoocunt's minds while they envision themselves as Ben Shapiro bitches that only argue with teh facts.
I'll ask, has any kiwi made a twitter to debate these users? The "don't talk to cows" rule of this site isn't made very clear, but it'd be entertaining to see these cumbrains have a mental block and cry "bigot" halfway through the debate, then hit block. I've seen so much of Aluzky's shit, I fully guarantee he'll just ignore what was said and be like "OK BUT UHHH IF U DONT HAVE CITATIONS FUCK OFF SWEATY, I ONLY ARGUE WITH F A C T S HERE"

 

[Great Dane]

Sometimes I feel like you guys are the only godamn people with common sense on this planet, this is shit never crosses Aluzky's, ZoosexualAlly's, Sly's, Flehmen's, Diplo's, truestboi's, or any zoocunt's minds while they envision themselves as Ben Shapiro bitches that only argue with teh facts.
I'll ask, has any kiwi made a twitter to debate these users? The "don't talk to cows" rule of this site isn't made very clear, but it'd be entertaining to see these cumbrains have a mental block and cry "bigot" halfway through the debate, then hit block. I've seen so much of Aluzky's shit, I fully guarantee he'll just ignore what was said and be like "OK BUT UHHH IF U DONT HAVE CITATIONS FUCK OFF SWEATY, I ONLY ARGUE WITH F A C T S HERE"

You'd be wasting your own time trying to debate them. If you end up getting a bit hostile during the argument, the zoophiles will likely mass report your tweets until your account gets suspended.

 

[sprinklegobbler]

excuse me what

 

[HeraldofNurgle]

Yes it's pointless to debate a zoo, because they are so deeply into their delusions that they will refuse to see reason.

Also wow. Is that zoo openly admitting to breaking into people's yards and fucking their dogs? If I lived near them I'd keep a shotgun ready and loaded at all times.

 

[Great Dane]

excuse me what

We might get to see a zoophile schism in the future.

Twitter / Account Suspended

From breaking news and entertainment to sports and politics, get the full story with all the live commentary.

twitter.com

Aluζky on Twitter

“@SlyTheCoyote1 @Zooptoon Are you aware that majority of zoosexuals first sexual acts where with the family dog, behind the care taker/owner back? This is what studies shows. By your own admission/logic, almost every zoosexual who has been active is a fence hopper. Is that how you want it to be?”

twitter.com

Twitter / Account Suspended

From breaking news and entertainment to sports and politics, get the full story with all the live commentary.

twitter.com

Twitter / Account Suspended

From breaking news and entertainment to sports and politics, get the full story with all the live commentary.

twitter.com

 

[Gallifrey]

Spoiler: Da fuq did I just read?

Edit: Started to say the site really needs a "... the fuck?" reaction, but then I realized that'd be like, nine-tenths of the posts in this thread anyway.

 

[Meowthkip]

The fact that these dudes feel the need to argue the definition of "fence hopping" should be deterrent enough from wanting to argue with these morons.

 

[Gallifrey]

The fact that they have all the time in the world to argue about the ethics of fucking an animal without its owner's consent but aren't the least bit excited that - finally! Maybe we can at least cut down on the number of animals that live solely to be food! .... tells you all you need to know about them and my opinion of them.

Spoiler: In case you didn't know, I'll take victories in animal welfare where I can get them

 

[n33gr]

https://twitter.com/Volf896/status/1155530953915359232
https://web.archive.org/save/https://twitter.com/Volf896/status/1155530953915359232

When ZoopToon confronts him, he then links him this page in favor of bestiality (Aluzky supports this paper too) https://www.researchgate.net/public...een_zoophilia_zoosexuality_and_bestiality/amp
https://web.archive.org/web/2019080...een_zoophilia_zoosexuality_and_bestiality/amp

I ain't reading this shit, I only skimmed it, and I guess it's talking about how bestiality and zoophilia somehow isn't the same thing. Can a kiwi give a summary or debunk it?

 

[Gallifrey]

Can a kiwi give a summary or debunk it?

Research papers have these great things called abstracts.

[...The] term Zoophilia has been used to describe horrific cases of human animal sexual abuse ... Elements of empathy and attachment are often described by zoophiles as components of their interspecific relationships. This has lead to a distinction being made in the literature between zoophilia and zoosexuality ... It is considered [in this paper, for the sake of exploration and to build a model] that zoophilia is an attachment based relationship, zoosexuality is a sexual orientation and that bestiality occurs in people whose sexual orientation may be predominately directed to other humans. ... This model is descriptive, does not indicate causation and is not judgemental. ... It is suggested that this [model] may assist in providing deeper psychological understanding of human-animal sexual interactions. This in turn would lead to clearer legal interpretation, judgements and outcomes for those individuals involved, thereby engendering positive influences for both human and animal welfare.

Considering it was all a hypothesis and formation of a tool to test said hypothesis, there's no substantive conclusion implied by the paper - only the assumption that if tools existed for psychometry then perhaps a conclusion could be reached that would be a more positive overall outcome (and, subsequently, an attempt to create such a tool). It will take years to go from that paper's basic premise to actually getting conclusions from the paper's work. The tool has to be used and data collected and collated and studied.

In other words, he cited a paper with no substantive conclusions. [Edit: If you're an idiot, this means he cited a paper which doesn't support any argument strongly enough to count as proof for that argument.]

---

Edit: For those that tuned out, the assumptions upon which that psychometry model are built on define the terms as the following. It's in the quote up there but I'll repeat it.

* Zoophilia is an attachment based relationship
* Zoosexuality is a sexual orientation
* Bestiality occurs in people whose sexual orientation may be predominately directed to other humans

There is something to be said for the growing consensus that zoosexuality is steadily being considered and looking potentially real. That in itself wouldn't make acts of interspecies sex morally right by itself, only validate that the sexual attraction is real. Having worked with such people I can spoil the ending for you: It probably is, at least in some cases.

Defining zoophilia as attachment based sort of drifts the conversation away from paraphilia into "genuine sexuality u guise", which is a dangerous assumption. By definition, non-procreative disconnected sexual proclivities are paraphilias; generally this means anything not directly connected to sexual characteristics or functions of potential mates. The argument being made implicitly is that, as the fixation is on reproductive organs (just non-compatible ones, biologically) - and as the fixation is on potential mates (just generally non-viable ones, biologically) - this therefore qualifies as a valid sexuality.

Did you know that pedophilia is a paraphilia because the partner is non-viable, reproductively, and therefore it's assumed that the sexual inclinations have some sort of short-circuit/misdirect? (At least people who claim to be into teenagers could, theoretically, reproduce; here, I refer to pre-pubescent attractions.) The larger implications of something like this going through should bother people.

It's not just a slippery slope; it builds a foundation that can't be disambiguated other than to say "but kids aren't animals, damnit!" - a fact which anyone with a cursory read of biological taxonomy can clearly and succinctly dispute.

 

[HeraldofNurgle]

If they can only find one article 'supporting' their cause but there are literally hundreds of articles on the flip side documenting how much torment is being done to animals, then they don't have much of an argument to stand on.

 

[Great Dane]

More arguing from the zoophiles.

Zoophile_freak on Twitter

“@alu_ky @SlyTheCoyote1 @Zooptoon Umm... @alu_ky you seem like a good person and all, but I think fence hopping is kind of wrong, or whatever your doing that may or may not be considered fence hopping.”

twitter.com

Twitter / Account Suspended

From breaking news and entertainment to sports and politics, get the full story with all the live commentary.

twitter.com

 

[Gallifrey]

If they can only find one article 'supporting' their cause but there are literally hundreds of articles on the flip side documenting how much torment is being done to animals, then they don't have much of an argument to stand on.

History would suggest otherwise. Racism, sexism, and nationalism all have in common that they claimed to be scientifically moral, with countless studies supporting them. Once the assumptions of superiority were dropped, the studies were found to be conducted in racist, sexist, and nationalist terms.

You're going to have a really hard time making the case if there's a persecution complex in place, and I'm at least clear-headed enough to state that my view on morality may not withstand the test of time. Whether I like what that means or not.

Wubba lubba dub dub.

 

[ES 195]

History would suggest otherwise. Racism, sexism, and nationalism all have in common that they claimed to be scientifically moral, with countless studies supporting them. Once the assumptions of superiority were dropped, the studies were found to be conducted in racist, sexist, and nationalist terms.

You're going to have a really hard time making the case if there's a persecution complex in place, and I'm at least clear-headed enough to state that my view on morality may not withstand the test of time. Whether I like what that means or not.

Wubba lubba dub dub.

Weren't the older studies done without the scientific method? Or at least going into the testing the supposition was "why is ___ good?" and not "Is __ good?". Admittedly I feel those three choices are bad examples cause there are ways to spin it and even some circumstances where those things are good or useful. I don't think whataboutism or whatever similar situation your trying to infer is a good comparison. I can at least say it's good that you're trying to keep a level head and not just jump at the dog fuckers out of pure outrage.

But let's be real here, there's no way fucking animals is good even if the animal itself could speak whatever language and consent.

 

[Papa Adolfo's Take'n'Bake]

View attachment 873827
https://twitter.com/Volf896/status/1155530953915359232
https://web.archive.org/save/https://twitter.com/Volf896/status/1155530953915359232

When ZoopToon confronts him, he then links him this page in favor of bestiality (Aluzky supports this paper too) https://www.researchgate.net/public...een_zoophilia_zoosexuality_and_bestiality/amp
https://web.archive.org/web/2019080...een_zoophilia_zoosexuality_and_bestiality/amp

I ain't reading this shit, I only skimmed it, and I guess it's talking about how bestiality and zoophilia somehow isn't the same thing. Can a kiwi give a summary or debunk it?

>the two authors of the first one are white girls

 

[n33gr]

Does Aluzky support incest? Being the libshit that he is I think he would.

https://web.archive.org/save/https://twitter.com/alu_ky/status/1150923797459087360

Aluζky on Twitter

“@EndeyYt @AVigilantArtist @Zooptoon @ZoosexualAlly @denimchickennug @hempmilky @Lm20324158 @Gage3009 Children are immature and sex with them is harmful. A minority of child abusers do fuck their kids. And I have no problems with parents having informed consensual sex with their ADULT...

twitter.com