By what authority do you claim to be able to deny certain people to be a part of the fandom? Nobody has that right. Whether a person is a furry is a private matter that a person can only decide for their own self.
As the author of the article, I never claimed any such authority. I have zero desire to repeat the whole sorry "Burned Furs" fiasco. It simply is not possible to kick anyone out. Even if there were to be created a "Furry Inc.", it still would be impossible as "fur", and "furry" are common words. You can't trademark them, and IP wouldn't offer any recourse as a result. However, I never relinquished my right to either free association or free speech when I decided to join up. I didn't like "zoos" before I bacame a Fur; I still don't like them now that I am a Fur, and I certainly won't give them the acceptance, legitimacy, and cover they crave just because they also refer to themselves as "Furries". I certainly won't associate with them knowingly. AFAIC, let them go elsewhere for that; I will never accept them. Furthermore, it is well within my right of free speech to state just who is responsible for giving all Furs the reputation of "Skunk-F***ers".
There is a connection between the zoophile community and the furry community, whether people like to acknowledge it or not. Many (if not most) zoophiles feel the same connection to animals that furries do. It's no surprise that some zoos would be interested in furry.
if (! strcmp(what_you_smoking(), "Crack"))
printf("I thought so...");
else get_a_clue_run("now");
"zoophiles feel the same connection to animals that furries do." Connection to animals, really bad choice of words there :-D. Seriously, what Furs like includes anthropomorphic animal characters and/or stories with animal heros. Concern for actual animals is optional. Indeed, I know quite a few Furs who aren't one little bit interested in animal rights, and some who are as vigorously opposed to my work with the "Free the Dolphins" activists as any outsider. Indeed, one of these local Furs actually works within the dolphin abusement park industry. However, he is also one helluvan artist, and does outstanding work depicting anthropomorphic characters. We have an understanding: he won't defend the industry to me, and I won't criticize it to him. We stick strictly to all things Furry. Indeed, since concern for real animals is optional, the GD "zoos" got in all too easily. If a "zoo" also has a legitimate interest in Furry, then he's welcome so long as he sticks to Furry business. His zoophilia is a whole 'nother issue, and the vast majority of Furs would prefer not to hear about it. Furthermore, if this hypothetical "zoo" really cared about Fur-dom, he would gladly not do anything to harm Furdom. It would not be necessary to tell him to keep it separate from Furry.
The argument that zoophilia is wrong rests entirely on the idea that animals cannot consent. This is a faulty argument based on incorrect assumptions.
It also rests on the fact that these practices inflict injury and pain on the victim animal. And don't kid yourself about that. Compare the "equipment" of even the largest breed of dogs to that of the human male. The human member does not fit unless forced, causing definite injuries and pain. If it is clearly wrong to inflict torment on the dog by beating it, it is also wrong to inflict pain on it by fuxxoring it. Finally, you are quite correct: animals can not consent. They can't consent to being ripped open just so some perv can get his rocks off. That makes this behavior just plain wrong. That's why I would report any such activity to the proper authorities, and I wouldn't care whether or not the perp called himself "Furry".
And if you have ever seen a dog hump a human's leg you should know that they are capable of making their own advances (or did you think they were doing that for another reason?).
How wonderfully convenient! This is by no means a solicitation for sex. Dogs also use these humping motions in order to assert dominance within the pack. A male with higher pack status is the "humper"; the male of lower status, the "humpee". When someone comes to call, all ol' Rover is doing is "putting the visitor in his place", as an intruder into Rover's "pack". This is one of those things that "zoos" deliberately misinterpret to serve their own agendas.
No one is arguing that cases of actual human/animal rape (such astying up or drugging an animal) are okay.
Again, a convenient limitation. (Indeed, there are lots of "zoos" who do indeed do that.) However, how is it really all that different if the animal is psychologically manipulated? Not too long ago, some @55-hole trolling the forums at the Microsoft Eradication Society posted a link to one of these zoophile "How To" sites. This one involving mares. Part of that conditioning involved sensory deprivation. This is identical to the techniques used to "break" prisoners of war, and/or to create "Manchurian Candidates". How is that any better than tying-up and/or drugging? All I see, once again, is self-justification.
Also, arguing that zoos should keep a low profile simply to suit your needs is selfish. It's basically saying "life would be easier for me if you keep quiet." Granted, I don't know why a zoo would want to tell people, but nobody should be able to say that they can't. That is their own decision.
You are quite right: it is selfish. And my life would be soooooooo much easier if people didn't say: "EWWWWWWWW!!!! You're one of those Skunk-F***ers!" Whenever I get asked about Fur-dom, or where I got that desktop wallpaper or what it means, etc. Of course, that's just me. No one else in all of Fur-dom minds in the slightest if they are known as, well, you know, now do they? </sarcasm>
As the author of the article, I never claimed any such authority. I have zero desire to repeat the whole sorry "Burned Furs" fiasco. It simply is not possible to kick anyone out. Even if there were to be created a "Furry Inc.", it still would be impossible as "fur", and "furry" are common words. You can't trademark them, and IP wouldn't offer any recourse as a result. However, I never relinquished my right to either free association or free speech when I decided to join up. I didn't like "zoos" before I bacame a Fur; I still don't like them now that I am a Fur, and I certainly won't give them the acceptance, legitimacy, and cover they crave just because they also refer to themselves as "Furries". I certainly won't associate with them knowingly. AFAIC, let them go elsewhere for that; I will never accept them. Furthermore, it is well within my right of free speech to state just who is responsible for giving all Furs the reputation of "Skunk-F***ers".
if (! strcmp(what_you_smoking(), "Crack"))
printf("I thought so...");
else get_a_clue_run("now");
"zoophiles feel the same connection to animals that furries do." Connection to animals, really bad choice of words there :-D. Seriously, what Furs like includes anthropomorphic animal characters and/or stories with animal heros. Concern for actual animals is optional. Indeed, I know quite a few Furs who aren't one little bit interested in animal rights, and some who are as vigorously opposed to my work with the "Free the Dolphins" activists as any outsider. Indeed, one of these local Furs actually works within the dolphin abusement park industry. However, he is also one helluvan artist, and does outstanding work depicting anthropomorphic characters. We have an understanding: he won't defend the industry to me, and I won't criticize it to him. We stick strictly to all things Furry. Indeed, since concern for real animals is optional, the GD "zoos" got in all too easily. If a "zoo" also has a legitimate interest in Furry, then he's welcome so long as he sticks to Furry business. His zoophilia is a whole 'nother issue, and the vast majority of Furs would prefer not to hear about it. Furthermore, if this hypothetical "zoo" really cared about Fur-dom, he would gladly not do anything to harm Furdom. It would not be necessary to tell him to keep it separate from Furry.
It also rests on the fact that these practices inflict injury and pain on the victim animal. And don't kid yourself about that. Compare the "equipment" of even the largest breed of dogs to that of the human male. The human member does not fit unless forced, causing definite injuries and pain. If it is clearly wrong to inflict torment on the dog by beating it, it is also wrong to inflict pain on it by fuxxoring it. Finally, you are quite correct: animals can not consent. They can't consent to being ripped open just so some perv can get his rocks off. That makes this behavior just plain wrong. That's why I would report any such activity to the proper authorities, and I wouldn't care whether or not the perp called himself "Furry".
How wonderfully convenient! This is by no means a solicitation for sex. Dogs also use these humping motions in order to assert dominance within the pack. A male with higher pack status is the "humper"; the male of lower status, the "humpee". When someone comes to call, all ol' Rover is doing is "putting the visitor in his place", as an intruder into Rover's "pack". This is one of those things that "zoos" deliberately misinterpret to serve their own agendas.
Again, a convenient limitation. (Indeed, there are lots of "zoos" who do indeed do that.) However, how is it really all that different if the animal is psychologically manipulated? Not too long ago, some @55-hole trolling the forums at the Microsoft Eradication Society posted a link to one of these zoophile "How To" sites. This one involving mares. Part of that conditioning involved sensory deprivation. This is identical to the techniques used to "break" prisoners of war, and/or to create "Manchurian Candidates". How is that any better than tying-up and/or drugging? All I see, once again, is self-justification.
You are quite right: it is selfish. And my life would be soooooooo much easier if people didn't say: "EWWWWWWWW!!!! You're one of those Skunk-F***ers!" Whenever I get asked about Fur-dom, or where I got that desktop wallpaper or what it means, etc. Of course, that's just me. No one else in all of Fur-dom minds in the slightest if they are known as, well, you know, now do they? </sarcasm>