Ok Furries, we need to talk. [NSFW] (was forum=28)Follow

It's not my fault you chose to not look up the meaning of the words you were arguing about. I said "oh ok they're the same thing," because I instantly realized that the perceived distinction Anna informed me about was an imaginary definition tacked on by a minority. You created an argument based on what you thought the words meant, and it turns out you were wrong about that. Is it really so difficult to admit such a tiny mistake?

You're just scavenging now.

1. That comment was speculation about why some zoophiles might be defensive. It has no bearing on the difference between bestiality and zoophilia. I included it because talking with you was boring, and I was hoping to spark a discussion with someone else. It is entirely unrelated to our argument. You're still wrong; don't grasp at straws.

2. I had already qualified my statement of no difference with "As far as classifying paraphilia goes, there is no distinction. That is all I care about." I only cared about knowing the differences that might set apart a paraphilia as separate, and this does not. I don't have to give a damn about psychological differences.

Edited, Mar 8th 2009 12:24pm by Allegory

God, I could not have been more clear about the importance of semantics from the beginning.

1. "What's the perceived difference between zoophilia and beastiality by those involved?" Here I am asking about the definitions of words from the very start.

2. "As far as classifying paraphilia goes, there is no distinction. That is all I care about." Here I am once again confirming that I care about the definitions, and whether bestiality is somehow a separate paraphilia from zoophilia.

All of that occurred before you posted.

3. You then said "Except that there is a distinction." in direct response to "As far as classifying paraphilia goes, there is no distinction. That is all I care about." I don't know how you didn't udnerstand you were engaging me in a semantic argument. Classifying depends entirely on how the categories are define, and you were telling me these two terms fit within separate categories when I had thought they belonged in the same one.

4. I then respond to you by quoting the definitions, semantics, of the terms and showing how they do not fit in separate paraphilia categories.

5. I then quote the definitions again.

If you hadn't figured you were arguing semantics with me by now then that's your fault, not mine.

Way to miss the point. Yes paraphilia is psychological, but as I said from the beginning "As far as classifying paraphilia goes, there is no distinction. That is all I care about." Only the psychological elements directly related to classifying paraphilia are important; nothing else related to psychology matters. Classifying paraphilia isn't dependent on motivation. It doesn't matter why someone likes jerking off to horses, only that they do. Any contention you could raise about my speculation on motivation is entirely irrelevant to classifying paraphilia.

I don't click links because you people link to and read some stupid ****.

I just prefer when people don't link to stupid shit. I'm a rebel like that.

Then they can invent a new term, but a minority can't redefine an existing term already in that context, not without stupidly breeding unnecessary confusion. Several people misspelling "the" as "teh" doesn't make "teh" a legitimate alternate spelling. If I chose to define redefine "female" as "a pretty person" since I'm attracted to females and "male" as "an ugly person" since I'm not attracted to males then I'd be creating confusion every time I used those words in the context of describing people.

1. I'll give you that words can go anywhere. "Car" could become a verb describing a new type of dance. But right now bestiality and zoophilia are not where some perceive them to be. People using them to separate the involvement of affection are still using them incorrectly.

2. These words are not ambiguous synonyms. It's not like how "laugh," and "chuckle" can be easily substituted and thus easily evolve their own connotations. Bestiality is an act and zoophilia is a sexual preference. It'd be like mixing up "driving" and "car." I'd like to buy the green driving please. Cars tend to be faster while drivings tend to be slower.



I don't see why it is so hard to accept that some people use words incorrectly.

Edited, Mar 8th 2009 11:26pm by Allegory

Because you are both being unnecessarily concrete and seeming to not acknowledge the realities that language changes, it's political and if a group wants acceptance, it is in their best interest to change the definitions of word. I personally don't care about zoophile needs but really, language changes when culture changes.

The definition of paraphilia has changed alot in the last few editions of the DSM.

Edited, Mar 9th 2009 12:40am by Annabella

So, your implication is that we can't discuss the differences made or people can't redefine language, even among their subgroup, unless there is widespread consensus. Definition changes start small--within small groups and it has to do with vantage point--people in subgroups see things differently.

It doesn't matter if is a minority-- it doesn't make it illegitimate. Your contentions here are difficult to understand, especially given your initial question:




Why ask about how people perceive the difference and then immediately dismiss it because mainstream definitions are different?

You swing between trying to understand people's personal experience and then being dismissive when they don't let society define the language used to describe their behavior.



You dismiss the power and significance of connotative meanings consistently, Allegory and I think this is another one of those times.

Edited, Mar 9th 2009 12:58am by Annabella

I listed several problems with the terms here, and that list is neither exhaustive nor entirely specific.

Allow me to give you an example of changing language which I accept. "Wavedash" is a term used to describe a type of maneuver in the game Super Smash Bros. Melee. It is not known to the greater public, and it is not in any of the most prominent dictionaries. However, it does have several elements which allow me to consider it legitimate.

1. It is widely accepted in the Smash Bros. subculture. Anyone who plays the game competitively would know of this term. It is not the minority of a minority, meaning it is not just limited to a few within the subculture but the entire subculture.

2. It is recognized by organizers within the subculture. People who take on some sort of leadership role by hosting tournaments, gathering game data, or dominate the tournament scene acknowledge this term.

3. The term is original and not duplicated in the same context. "Wavedashing" cannot refer to anything else in the context of smash bros.

4. The word makes grammatical sense. The term is shaped as a gerund and used as a gerund. when used as a verb the term is shaped as a verb such as "to wavedashed" or "he wavedashed."

I ask for two reasons. First, I assumed that there could be a legitimate distinction of which I was not aware; I assumed I was potentially wrong. Second, I was innately curious about what distinction--even if it was incorrect--some might have created, and what their motivations may have been.

It's exactly the same as if I were doing homework with a friend and we arrived at a different answer for the same problem. First I am uncertain if I am correct, maybe he saw/did something I didn't think of. Second, even if he was wrong I'm interested in where he went wrong. You wording of "immediately dismissive" is accurate but gives the connotation that my action was thoughtless or in some way undesirable. If my friend got the answer wrong and I saw why, then I would immediately say "This is what you did wrong." And since my friends aren't insecure and pedantic they would fix their mistake and we would move on.

It needs to be perpetrated in a sensible way for others to accept it. No one in the near future is going to accept me making my own definitions for "driving" and "car" in the way I posted earlier. The words simply don't make enough sense as I have used them.

Would you have any problem with me using driving and car in the way I posted earlier? How is that situation significantly different from bestiality and zoophilia?

And I think you're making a mountain out of a molehill. People make mistakes sometimes. Lots of people use "literally" as an exaggeration rather than to mean "actually." If enough people used it incorrectly, then that usage would probably eventually become correct, but until then can't we just say these people are using the word wrong? That's the kind of situation you're defending Anna. You're telling me I can't tell these people they're using "literally" incorrectly.

Edited, Mar 9th 2009 12:32am by Allegory

Incorrect. "Gamers who play Smash Bros." is (by it's very definition) a subculture. Stating otherwise completely misses the entire point of that definition. Would you say that "MMO players" or even "WoW players" are not a subculture of the population? Either you don't know the definition or are confusing it somehow.


At some point in the future that definition you have provided may be apt, but right now it is an incorrect one. This I believe is the crux of this issue.

Because presently your definition is incorrect.

It may in the future be correct, but currently it is not.

And the audience you are speaking do does not recognize your language, thus it is not an effective communication tool. Therefore it's intent is unfulfilled, ergo it becomes false by context.

Yes I recognize that. It still does not change the definition until it becomes more widely accepted. Otherwise every time Gbaji tried to change the definition of a term we would accept that new definition as a valid usage. We don't because it would needlessly confuse and muddle the entire argumentation process. There is a reason we have generally accepted definitions for thing; we want to have a clean and accurate tool for discussion and dissemination.



Yes. I doubt most do, nor have a real grasp of what it means, or have any interest in learning either.