>>992 they should be killed on sight

>>992 Public castration isn't a big enough punishment for them.

>>992 i try to cheer them up so they can be zoohappyists

>>992 Not a fan. >>1079 LOL

>>992 Pretty much the only thing that will earn you a ban here. No zoosadism. Also fuck oregon

>>992 Rotten cesspool, they deserve to be shot and killed like wild animals.

No actual zoo supports or likes zoosadists. They're sick people

>>1123 based

Very glad to see everyone agrees here All the bad things should happen to zoosadists who have acted on their desires

>>992 the problem is a lot of idiots don;t know how to differenciate between zoos and sadists - even so-called "zoos". a lot of normie simp zoos think fucking a dog in the ass is sadism just because they don;t like it. sadism is like actual gore shit and killing. jeffery dahmer stuff

>>4682 >a lot of normie simp zoos think fucking a dog in the ass is sadism just because they don;t like it If it hurts the dog then yes, it's sadism. I don't know how anyone could even argue otherwise. Except if they're jewish.

>>4787 just because you are a homophobic loser piece of trash that doesn't like getting your dick dirty doesn't mean anal sex is sadism. you are just using the new buzzword you learned on twit-tard and think it applies to everything that you don't like.

>>4791 Just because you have an assfucking fetish doesn't mean that your dog is down with it. Reality is homophobic, it seems. The fact that your kneejerk response is to be concerned about the social status of your shit-encrusted dick and not your dog's wellbeing means that you should go take a toaster bath.

>>4791 I've seen a handful of videos of humping a dog ass where the dog was clearly uncomfortable. That's sadism, even if you ignore it.

>>5337 No it is not, and you are a childish simp with no concept of how to read a dog's emotions that's never even fucked anything in the ass because the poopy makes you scared. Go back to jerking on your mom's chihuahua, your only virgin experience.

>>992 I hate zoosadists a lot, especially pet owners who mistreat their pets, shouting at them, pulling hard their leash

>>992 the honest answer is that the people who are zoos and speak up about it loud are a large minority. a lot of people deeply dislike zoosadist. on the other hand, you have people who wouldn't respond to a thread like this. all of those people are the zoosadist. of course its more immoral, but most zoophiles think what they're doing isn't immoral. zoosadist fill a convenient role where they're a large subgroup of another group that's hated but not liked by the "okay and normal" zoos, so they can be used as the "bad ones" and the other ones are the good ones. of course we're despicable, i just dont really care

>>1097 /thread Really. Zoosadism is vile. In fact the name itself is too soft as it parallels "normal sadism" which is more of a kink between willing people. Zoosadists are animal abusers and murderers. And yes, a normal person might say that zoophillia in general is animal abuse, but that can be logically argued against without contradictions, when it comes to animal abuse and murderer the closest one can argue is that "animals are property like any other object", which is not really true or consistent as there are such things as animal rights and animal abuse laws and the like. Life is full of shades of gray, but that kind of thing is just straight up black, the way I see it.

This is what i think ;)

>>11693 nah bro really said "kobe"

Also go fuck yourselves you disgusting fucking niggers. Like bro imagine being so fucking mentally ill that you have the urge to go and fuck literal animals? Is getting no bitches/men what drives you? It's fucking incredible. All of you need to be placed in an asylum.

>>11696 lol

>>11696 If I wanted to fuck a woman I would go to the local whore house and pay $200 to get my dick wet inside of some disgusting human pussy. Also don't call women bitches, it's an insult to compare our beloved canine bitches to those foul creatures (women). Shame on you.

>>11688 the fuck are you yapping about? who's despicable? personally zoophilia I think is perfectly fine, been around animals my whole life and it's abundantly clear to me that animals can say "yes" or "no", it's just not with their mouths. zoosadists see that "no" and they keep going anyways. that's the difference. and by the way fuck zoosadists. I love animals, I don't want to harm them. I want to have sex with animals because I love them, not because I have some sick power fantasy like zoosadists. the issue with legalizing zoophilia is that there's no easy way to prove after the fact that something was consensual or not - but for me personally, I think it's pretty easy to judge somebody based on how they treat their animals in day-to-day life. I don't trust people that scream at their animals.

>>992 my view is they need to stay tf off this board and go back to their cesspool of 8chan.moe/zoocore/ do not drag zooPHILES into it

>>11941 >8chan.moe/zoocore/ aint that board banned from posting? no place on 8chan for em

>>11930 If you want to stay in your echo chamber, fine; it's not like anyone is going to convince you otherwise. Most people on this Earth would (rightfully) stone you if they had the chance. It's hilarious that you weirdos think it's worth separating yourselves from Zoosadists/Pedophiles. Just because your shep isn't screaming in agony doesn't mean it likes having sex with you. I think it's funny you'd think out of everything on this planet, all the other dogs in my country, my dog wants to have sex with me and me only. Would you have sex with a Gorilla? a Bear? a Rhino? you wouldn't because you know you'd be horrifically brutalized.

>>11950 I think you're missing the big difference between someone who likes animals "a bit more" than normal, and one that makes animals suffer for their own twisted enjoyment. You're also missing the fact that animals can feel pleasure as well. An animal trying to find relief because they're in heat and their owner happens to be an "animal enthusiast" is one thing. A completely different thing is a weird psycho that grabs a knife and cuts a bunny in half to use it as a fleshlight. The thing with children is different because although I'm not denying they may feel curiosity and pleasure, their mind or body, are definitely not ready for such things, and people that engage with them tend to just be twisted people searching for their own twisted pleasure, that sometimes are lead from trauma too. A lot of pedos are, because they got traumatized from sexual abuse on their childhood. I'm not trying to defend them but you can clearly see the difference between someone that just "likes" animals and someone that is repeating a cycle of trauma. You're tying to compare mentally damaged people to simple weirdos.

>>11952 Think about how many people in the world own animals, now think about how many of them have sex with their animals. Hardly any. There's no evidence to say that animals can consent. You're just using it as an excuse to rationalize sex with animals (no surprise considering were we are). Think about this: if you knew an animal didn't want to have sex with you, would you stop? I doubt most people here care about consent. It's the same logic pedophiles use when talking about children, so how are you any different? You could say "those people who fiddle with kids are twisted" and I could say the exact same about zoos; It's a blanket statement. Doesn't mean you're not as fucked up as them. Just because there's a difference, doesn't make it any less disgusting. I'm not here to shit on your personal beliefs, or get into the nitty gritty, but don't you see how your argument falls through lol? Also most of you zoos would use bunnies as fleshlights regardless, may as well kill them afterwards, much more "humane"

>>11954 coping zoosadist. neck yourself

>>11954 lol I'm not even a zoo, but cheers

>>11954 >think about how many of them have sex with their animals Zoophilia has been affected by culture and religion, but even then some cultures still see zoophilia as something relatively normal. Look at the coast of Colombia, known by having sex with donkeys pretty regularly. >There's no evidence to say that animals can consent [...] would you stop? In my life I've had a bunch of dogs. Back when I was a teen I experimented with two different females by fingering them. One didn't like it, she clearly showed uncomfort when I tried to do so by squirming and growling, and wasn't because she didn't like me or anything, that dog loved me but she simply wasn't comfortable with that. I never tried anything else with her. Then I had another dog that was pretty comfortable with fingering, even humped my hand and got pretty into it. She went as far as letting me finger her anus though she definitely prefered her vagina being fingered. I sadly don't have any recordings of that since it's far back, but you can find probably find animals consenting if you lurk deep enough. >I doubt most people here care about consent Not denying that there are zoos that don't really care about consent and comfort of the animals, but I'm retty sure those are often called to "neck themselves" and that stuff, and I'm pretty sure most of this forum actually cares about those matters despite having a bunch of "rotten apples" here and there. >Doesn't mean you're not as fucked up as them Not saying that being a zoophile can't be lead from fucked up experiences, but at least from what I've read here people normally get into this thing from curiosity and because they heard other people doing it, not from straight abuse like most pedos. I'm also pretty sure there's a big difference between an adult animal that could easily hurt you if you did something that they don't like, and a mere defenseless kid. >most of you zoos would use bunnies as fleshlights Those animals are too small for any human-animal intercourse so I doubt that would be possible to accomplish without brutally hurting the animal. Therefore, I doubt a sane zoophile would engage in said action. >may as well kill them afterwards to cite a fellow animal enthusiast: coping zoosadist neck yourself

>>11968 to correct myself, you don't even have to "lurk deep enough". You can find plenty of videos here of animals clearly enjoying their time. But if you want to look for an animal specifically replying to verbal commands, you might need to get into other places because I doubt it's as common to verbally train them commands. An example is shown in >>1275 though.

>>11982 my guy, no one comes to these fringe spaces by accident and nobody is buying the “i’m-just-here-to-troll” schtick. get a job.