This video here was linked to me. I'd like to go over it and some of the major/interesting parts, pointing out the dishonesty and just down right bad faith arguments.

His first counter to "you kill, we fuck", he states "we need meat for a balanced diet so we don't fucking die" and "zoophile partners suffer years of abuse blah blah". This is a dishonest counter, as it avoids the main reason this is brought up.
The latter will be covered later.

It's a poor attempt at avoiding the fact that the agriculture industry horrifically abuses animals in factory farming. The problem for me isn't eating meat, it's the fact that the conditions are absurdly inhumane. Their entire existence in these conditions is nothing but torture.

"Circle of life baby" is a shit argument, in short. Should we be deriving our morals and values from the animal kingdom now?
"Interspecies sex is animal abuse", still waiting on someone to tell me why letting a dog fuck me is animal abuse. It's been four weeks. Soon™??

"In the terms of our current definitions, zoophilia is not a sexuality" and also tries to compare it to kinks/fetishes. All three of these have a different definition. I'm sorry, but I really suck at nuance so go look up kink/fetish. Sexuality though, here is a legit definition:

"Sexuality is experienced and expressed in thoughts, fantasies, desires, beliefs, attitudes, values, behaviors, practices, roles an relationships. While sexuality can include all of these dimensions, not all of them are always experienced or expressed"

Make of that what you will

"You disgust me an most reasonable citizens." Irrelevant. Disgust doesn't determine if an action is right or wrong, an "reasonable people" is subjective. What's reasonable for one person might be unreasonable for another. Also implying that you're unreasonable if you support this

"Final argument: But Twitter supports it" Who is trying to say "I should have a relationship with my dog because Twitter says it's okay"? This is laughably irrelevant.

Nice job in taking some basic arguments and then doing a terrible job of arguing against them, lol.

"'Zoophiles and their entire community are punching bags for amusement and laughter at how disgusting they are' of course they are!"
Hey thanks for openly admitting you're an ignorant bigot, that makes this much easier. We'll make a mental note of this for later too.

"An anti is normal people against zoophiles". Did you do any research into this, or did you just kinda guess? "Anti" is typically someone who is rabidly against something and refuses to change their opinion regardless of facts. Example: The two talking in the video.

Constantly says "their points are always refuted". He only went over 3 basic arguments in a laughably poor, dishonest fashion. If people are "constantly" refuting these, you should've put those in the video. I dunno why you'd make this claim without evidence (jk we all know why).

Wintergreen and Truestboi drama, this is before I joined and I'm not gonna touch this. My opinion is biased anyways, as I love both of these people. However, I'm also not going to trust a word this dude says as he's already shown he's dishonest with the three "counter arguments".

"Hearing they're proud of their awful actions makes this all the more baffling". They're only "awful" because you refuse to even attempt to understand the topics. You've already written it off as abuse.

Remember the mental note we made moments ago? It's relevant now.

You agreed that the zoophile community is nothing but a punching bag to laugh at and harass. To you, a YouTuber, this is free content. If you were to flip, your community would fracture. You're okay with compromising morals if it means more popularity and easy content.

Nice job at saying zoophiles harass others while leaving out that zoos are harassed far more on a daily basis. Any kind of harassment from either side isn't okay, but we can only be told "you're fucking disgusting, just be normal" so many times before it gets to us one day.

Ad hom, ad hom, more ad homs.... "They try so hard to back up their bullshit opinions". Again, if our arguments are so weak and bullshit, why didn't you cover this? Instead, all you did was showcase baby's first attempt at counter arguments earlier on.

"In conclusion, zoophile community is made up of whiny, disgusting, hypocritical, dumbasses with nothing but each other to try an screw normal people over who can't help but not like the terrible actions of their entire community"

What fucking nonsense. Still, I'll address it.

At what point did you prove ANY this, fucking lol. I've been watching and listening, unfortunately, and this was never shown. You made three bad arguments and then covered some drama, most likely dishonestly. Every community has drama, welcome to communities, I guess?

"Zoophiles are bad right? We can all unanimously agree there". Nope, you're bad at this. God fuck why do I have to waste time on this.
Zoosadism is indeed bad. No zoophile is ever going to defend animal torture. In short, Scorch is already being dishonest (or lazy, either works.)

When you're "educating" people in a video, you can't partly explain what someone did an then just say "go look it up for yourself". The Kero situation was settled. Kero was groomed by SnakeThing from a young age, he had moments of clarity where he knew what he was doing was wrong

Those moments would pass, and he'd fall back into his behavior. The people involved in actually researching this feel as though they failed him as a community, and they should have been able to stop this. If you're interested in this, here's a source: https://zoo.wtf/s1e2-5-zoosadism-update/

Holy shit they're being so entirely fucking dishonest. Oh god, stop. There is no "interesting moral argument" in attempting to forcefully combine zoophilia with zoosadism. It's a brilliant way to prove you're either uneducated or acting in bad faith. I'm betting on the latter.

"Most people know that the act of bestiality is dangerous to the animal -- can't consent -- it's painful an leads to immune system defects and infections". No? "Can't consent" is nonsense, but "immune system defects"? Please, please show me a source. I'd love to read it. Thanks.

Saying fancy words and throwing in "most people know" doesn't make your statement any less full of shit.
"Both parties cause willing harm to the animal", literally wrong. Zoophiles do not want to harm the creature they see as their mate. Fucking hell.

"In the grand moral hierarchy, it's a case of the pot calling the kettle black". What?... If you put the video on 2x speed, she's practically Ben Shapiro: trying to sound like you know what you're talking about, but you really don't and you're just talking really fast.

Overall, this is a great video to watch if you want to analyze someone arguing in bad faith. They make arguments that sound good, but then quickly fall apart if you scrutinize them. You'd quickly notice all the legit points that were "conveniently/accidentally" left out.

They make bad attempts to persuade you. "Everyone knows", "reasonable people", "common sense". These are fallacies, it's trying to get you to go along with the flow. Or we try to use fancy language such as "grand moral hierarchy" to try and make it sound like they know their shit

I can't stress enough, do not ever let people like Scorchie get away with their bullshit. Do not allow them to lump animal torturers in with zoophiles as if we're one in the same, as if we're both "causing harm to an animal". This is REALLY important.

One of the main reasons they want to do this is because if they successfully fool the majority of people into thinking these are the same, it'd be the only legit argument against zoophilia.

It'd be even harder to push for acceptance if the these two things are intertwined, as "zoophilia" would make people think about bloody torture. It'd give credence to their "zoophiles abuse the animal" argument, which currently just falls apart.