# Am I the only one that doesn't care?



## CyberFoxx (Nov 6, 2006)

No, really, am I the only person that doesn't really give a frak about this? Sure, at the beginning before the drama really kicked in, I did give my opinion, but after that, I just stopped caring.

Guess with all the crap that's going on in the world, this is just a very tiny thing in comparison. Not sure what else to say, just because I just don't care anymore...

Oh yeah, this isn't a rant BTW, it is a valid question. If you do, or do not care, please post a reply. And if you feel like it, say why as well. But keep it short! I will not have drama in my thread. ^_^


----------



## Zelinko (Nov 6, 2006)

CyberFoxx said:
			
		

> No, really, am I the only person that doesn't really give a frak about this? Sure, at the beginning before the drama really kicked in, I did give my opinion, but after that, I just stopped caring.
> 
> Guess with all the crap that's going on in the world, this is just a very tiny thing in comparison. Not sure what else to say, just because I just don't care anymore...
> 
> Oh yeah, this isn't a rant BTW, it is a valid question. If you do, or do not care, please post a reply. And if you feel like it, say why as well. But keep it short! I will not have drama in my thread. ^_^



I agree with you!

 I'm just trying to start the healing... and the first step is calming them down


----------



## DragonKid (Nov 6, 2006)

I agree with you. I don't really care about this whole thing in general.


----------



## Whirlaxis (Nov 6, 2006)

i dont care, never did care, and never will care

i know for a fact that if i got involved, it would come back to bite me in the ass after the next drama incident


----------



## Landis (Nov 6, 2006)

Same here. I have a opinion in the matter but wouldnt really have lost any sleep no matter what the admins would have said.


----------



## WolfeByte (Nov 6, 2006)

I care only to the point of how much stupidity is evident in all this.  I have to keep reminding myself not to care everytime someone says something completely, utterly stupid, that goes completely unchallenged in the face of everyone else spouting their little piece of stupidity right along with it.  

And I care to the point that everytime someone makes some impassioned plea about cub porn being the very same thing as actual, real child porn, it's like a slap to the face of every child who has ever actually been abused.  

"Oh, I know that your momma's boyfriend made you bleed sweety, but see this pictue?  It's just as bad as what was done to you, so I've gotta put a stop too it..."  

So sad, so weak.  People suck.  

But hey, I know I can't cure stupidity, or even put up a decent, effective opposition too it, so not much point in even trying.  Let them fight, and maybe once the smoke clears a few reasonable folks might have survived.


----------



## Selunca (Nov 6, 2006)

...frankly, I dislike pedophila, but I can't bring myself to care about what a bunch of furries upload on to a website.

If my clients so choose to look around this website, thats their beef not mine. I link to to my gallery, no FA itself.


----------



## hammond_j_hippo (Nov 6, 2006)

I really don't care either.  I can't understand why so many people got their panties in a twist over the whole deal.


----------



## Hyenaworks (Nov 6, 2006)

Apathy, keep it up.


----------



## Summercat (Nov 6, 2006)

It isn't Apathy, Hyena, but a lack of seeing of how is this an issue that effects them.



They don't understand either side's viewpoint, and don't want to get involved in drama defending a viewpoint that isn't their own.

If you don't respect that, then you force people to choose a side. And that's never good.


----------



## fangluva (Nov 6, 2006)

It's not that I don't care is just that I won't complain either way.
They can do whatever they want with the site because it's theirs.


----------



## blackdragoon (Nov 6, 2006)

i am very apathetic about this stupid nonsense.
translation = i don't give a d4mn!


----------



## Vekke (Nov 6, 2006)

I don't really care as long as they aren't being hypocritical. I think disallowing pedo art but allowing rape and bestiality was really hypocritical. I dislike all three of those sentiments, but really, I can't bring myself to care _that much_ about lines on a paper. I just avoid it, is all. Like someone said . . . worry about people actually _acting_ on it. Worry about the child porn already out there. 

I mean, when some dude goes out and starts banging little children in fursuits, maybe then there's cause for concern

but when you have a mental issue like that, furry-child drawings are just not the whole story

And nobody _has_ to link clients to FA. There are so many other porfolio-appropriate sites. :|

edit 'cuz html>bbcode but nobody understands that.


----------



## tundra_arctic_wolf (Nov 6, 2006)

At first I did care, but then I realized after a while that I just didn't care one way or another.


----------



## WelcomeTheCollapse (Nov 7, 2006)

Right now, I have so much apathy that I can't believe I'm taking the time to write this.


----------



## Woofle (Nov 7, 2006)

I made a poll/thread about it that was locked :

It asked "do you care" ? When i last saw , 90% of the votes were "no"


----------



## tigermist (Nov 7, 2006)

I dont even know how most of this started. One thing is for sure I dont care much anymore, its all just to dramatic and to many hard feeling are coming up. Not to mention artist packing up and leaving...they'll be back I have no doubt.


----------



## Summercat (Nov 7, 2006)

tigermist said:
			
		

> I dont even know how most of this started. One thing is for sure I dont care much anymore, its all just to dramatic and to many hard feeling are coming up. Not to mention artist packing up and leaving...they'll be back I have no doubt.



Some have left. Most will be back in three months.


----------



## KCat (Nov 7, 2006)

I was gonna write how apathetic I am, but I just don't care to...


----------



## Summercat (Nov 7, 2006)

KCat said:
			
		

> I was gonna write how apathetic I am, but I just don't care to...


----------



## Rhainor (Nov 7, 2006)

As I said in another thread, I will be filtering out the kiddie/cub pr0n once the filters are up and running so...no, I don't really care either.


----------



## Selunca (Nov 7, 2006)

Exsactly. Mature art is unveiwable by those who don't have an account. I assume that this massive fliter will be the same way, so clients won't be able to see it unless they sign up for an account.

So. I'm just going to sit back and wait for the filters so I can ban all the pedophiles artwork, and then continue on my way.


----------



## DarkMeW (Nov 7, 2006)

You'd be surprised at my capacity of not caring about people or things. Which by no means implies that I absolve the situation or the people involved. I don't give absolution or forgiveness to those that don't deserve it. 

In this situation it simply means I won't host my artwork on a site that publicly (or privately for that matter) endorses pedophiliac artwork. It doesn't matter if they change the site name, add filters, or whatever other little scrap they throw. I will simply find another place for a gallery. If FA continues or dies out, like some of the doom sayers are spouting, it doesn't matter. 

There are still people here that I do care about. I don't believe in lumping every one in the same boat. For the most part there is only a handful of people on FA that I've almost written off to the point that their existence means nothing to me. So yes, it can be said that I don't care. On the same token, I don't forgive. If people want absolution for what they have done then they should look to whatever God they believe in, for I have none to give.


----------



## Maverynthia (Nov 7, 2006)

I don't like underage art, so give me my filter and I'll be happy...


----------



## Bokracroc (Nov 8, 2006)

I barely saw any anyway. Even during the drama, I didn't see any.


----------



## Taralack (Nov 8, 2006)

Same here. 

I frankly don't give a flying fuck about this issue - my view is, you don't like it, don't click Full View. And there is always the Back button, or the little x at the top right corner of the window.

The thing I don't understand is why some artists have their fur all ruffled up and then say "I'M LEAVING BAI". What's the big deal? If maybe someone could explain that.. lol.


----------



## Bokracroc (Nov 8, 2006)

Toraneko said:
			
		

> The thing I don't understand is why some artists have their fur all ruffled up and then say "I'M LEAVING BAI". What's the big deal? If maybe someone could explain that.. lol.


The rare glimpse of Cub was interupting their flaming fapping session?
[size=x-small]I'm so gonna get shot for this aren't I?[/size]



> or the little x at the top right corner of the window.


Unless they're using a Mac :wink:


----------



## imnohbody (Nov 8, 2006)

Bokracroc said:
			
		

> Toraneko said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Who cares about those heathens? :twisted:




[size=xx-small]([impression type="Foghorn Leghorn"]It's a joke, son! A joke![/impression])[/size]


----------



## Sersokhi (Nov 8, 2006)

I could give a shit less, but I'm not really expressing that opinion by blantly stating it. So obviously I may care enough to have my opinion read. 
IMO, it doesn't mean shit. Oh well, don't like, don't look at it. 
Deviant art could probably be busted for having pornography on their site but everyone still associates with it's shittery. Top favs there are always provacative and naked. I have seen more tits and ass on Deviantart than anywhere else on teh web and I randomly google porn. x.x


----------



## furryskibum (Nov 8, 2006)

I care about the people out there who commit murder, rape, and pedophilic crimes, and wish to see them burn.

I care nothing for scribbles on paper or a screen.  Better for an outlet to be creative than criminal.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Nov 8, 2006)

Myspace is a haven for real pedophiles who really want to go out and sexually assault children. Myspace has a policy against this, but the site is so large it's hard to enforce. Yet, many people still have a myspace account. People love to network, people want community. The thing is are there tools and ways to get away from this. The answer is yes.


----------



## DarkMeW (Nov 8, 2006)

Arshes Nei said:
			
		

> Myspace is a haven for real pedophiles who really want to go out and sexually assault children. Myspace has a policy against this, but the site is so large it's hard to enforce. Yet, many people still have a myspace account. People love to network, people want community. The thing is are there tools and ways to get away from this. The answer is yes.



What? I fail to recall any instance where Myspace publicly endorsed pedo art. Also they actively seek out anyone that tries to use the site to commit crimes against children, much like Dragoneer is saying he'll  do. Also any one posting pedo art would be deleted as soon as they found out about it. It's only similarity in the policies is going after people who are intending on committing a crime when they become aware of it. The only thing you seem to be saying is Myspace is large and hard to enforce and for some reason that's a yes.... So I go back on my first question... What? lol.


----------



## Torvus (Nov 8, 2006)

_There are bad people (people who don't follow my own standards) in the world, so I think I'm going to leave this Earth by committing sucide.  Nevermind my best friends, they're probably bad people too.  I'm the only good person and I probablly shouldn't be here._  *logs out of life.

They raised the issue, lost, and leave in a huff because they didn't get their way.  _It's them or us!_ they say, so be it.  They want to be all pure and without blemish, yet they draw macro dragon furries splooging on eachother while jacking off every chance they get.  I say forget them.  By leaving they make the problem worse...  when 'clean' artists leave it makes more room for the 'dirty' ones.  It's like the 1980 Olympic boycot, if you don't participate, that makes it more likely your enemy will win.  This isn't apathy, this is anger.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Nov 8, 2006)

DarkMeW said:
			
		

> Arshes Nei said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Failed.

What does the artwork have to do with those individuals that want to actually commit that crime? Nothing. We are talking about the fact Myspace has real pedophiles and it's a crime for them to have children younger than a certain age on their site. Sorry if I didn't make that point clear. A policy is just a "flag" or if you're jaded like me, a farce. The fact Dragoneer is willing to get real of real pedophiles who would stalk younger members on that site for that pleasure is a good thing.

Just like every other social networking place, you cannot control who adds you to their watchlist, but you can have tools to filter, and block people off your "personal space"

People are looking at the wrong thing to blame in other words. Removing artwork doesn't mean the real pedos left, you just want to give an "appearance" they're not around. It was all good and dandy if they added you to their watchlist gave you comments filled your furry pride with being a "good artist" but there are some that still want to rape kids. Just as long as you didn't know right? 

A domain name made things safer for kids?

Even then, those that may draw this stuff and the site allowing it aren't necessarily pedophiles since there are many reasons someone draws something. Sometimes people do it to be controversial, not because they want to have sex with kids. Some do it because they want a detachment from real sex, real humans, and actually not because they're attracted to a real child's body. 

Is this a sensitive subject matter? Absolutely. But so are depictions of acts that hit too close to home for other victims. 

Now if you don't like the fact you don't want the art as the JC Penny's catalog for real pedophiles, ok fine. However, whether or not the art was here or not doesn't change the way pedophiles think.


----------



## DarkMeW (Nov 9, 2006)

Arshes Nei said:
			
		

> DarkMeW said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



 ok. At no point did I say that the people doing the art are committing a crime. The legislation on that is quite clear. That how ever does not mean the art doesn't relate to the action, but only as a portrayal of the action. Pedophilia is defined as "the act or * fantasy * on the part of an adult of engaging in sexual activity with a child or children." Most cub art still bases it's self on human anatomy and maturity, in fact creating a recognizable child figure is the purpose of it. So the fact it has ears and a tail is meaningless, it is still a drawing of a child and meant to be related as such. Just like any art there are still degrees that the art can convey that, part of with depends on the viewer. 

No one can change the fact that there are people that pray on actual children. Are you saying that the fact that they do exist else where that this some how means that people shouldn't be against pedo art?



> Just like every other social networking place, you cannot control who adds you to their watchlist, but you can have tools to filter, and block people off your "personal space"



Not following you point here other then you can't know what every one is thinking and a thing about filters. 



> People are looking at the wrong thing to blame in other words. Removing artwork doesn't mean the real pedos left, you just want to give an "appearance" they're not around. It was all good and dandy if they added you to their watchlist gave you comments filled your furry pride with being a "good artist" but there are some that still want to rape kids. Just as long as you didn't know right?



First off I don't have furry pride since I'm not a furry, but I have regular old human pride. LET THE CONSPIRACY THEORIES COMMENCE, MWAHAHAHAHA!

Anyway, not allowing pedo artwork on FA wasn't about the theory that it would magically clean up the world. Most places don't allow it because they know there has to be limits and pedo art isn't just another sexual fetish. It's something that is meant to be recognized as a child being sexually abused. That is why they follow human anatomy and maturity in the artwork. It's against a lot of people's very instincts, not just a matter of morals. It cut deeper then anything, because it uses people's instinct to protect children against a horrible act. For the site to publicly and rather drama filled decision to endorse such art work in all it's forms hit these people hard. It's no wonder they either choose not to relate with the site or not have their artwork attached to such a site. Before this not that many people even knew there was pedo art on the site, when it was against the policy. 




> Even then, those that may draw this stuff and the site allowing it aren't necessarily pedophiles since there are many reasons someone draws something. Sometimes people do it to be controversial, not because they want to have sex with kids. Some do it because they want a detachment from real sex, real humans, and actually not because they're attracted to a real child's body.



Again never said they were pedophiles, as in people that are committing sexual acts on children, I have only stated that it's pedo art (which is short for pedophilia art.) Which is the correct term for it. The fact is it still is meant to convey in people sexual assault on children which is to most one of the most horrible act that can be conveyed. An endorsement of this was to a lot of people a betrayal. SO they either don't want to be on the site or don't want their artwork to be associated with it. That is perfectly reasonable. Some people here just want the chance to filter it out, but that doesn't mean that it is the same for everyone. Just that what people thought as something they didn't have to worry about or not part of a community was mishandled and put in. So even if it still has parts of the community they thought it was, it's still not that community any longer.




> Now if you don't like the fact you don't want the art as the JC Penny's catalog for real pedophiles, ok fine. However, whether or not the art was here or not doesn't change the way pedophiles think.



I'd like for you to point out the time I said anything of the sort Arsh. I know for a fact I didn't. It's sounds like I'm listening in on someone else's conversation here. 

I hope you don't mind I nicked named you Arsh. I think it sound cool.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Nov 9, 2006)

DarkMeW said:
			
		

> First off I don't have furry pride since I'm not a furry, but I have regular old human pride. LET THE CONSPIRACY THEORIES COMMENCE, MWAHAHAHAHA!
> 
> Anyway, not allowing pedo artwork on FA wasn't about the theory that it would magically clean up the world. Most places don't allow it because they know there has to be limits and pedo art isn't just another sexual fetish. It's something that is meant to be recognized as a child being sexually abused. That is why they follow human anatomy and maturity in the artwork. It's against a lot of people's very instincts, not just a matter of morals. It cut deeper then anything, because it uses people's instinct to protect children against a horrible act. For the site to publicly and rather drama filled decision to endorse such art work in all it's forms hit these people hard. It's no wonder they either choose not to relate with the site or not have their artwork attached to such a site. Before this not that many people even knew there was pedo art on the site, when it was against the policy.
> 
> ...



Furry or human it's still irrelevant though, people didn't care because they got the watch list and networking and lots of "Friends" I mean I see people boasting about their watchlist all the time in their journals. WHO CARES. You DON'T know who the hell is the person behind the screen who watched you. It didn't matter then. No one cared about people's morals, they cared about pageview counters and hits. It's all meaningless in the end.

Ok, pedo art... I asked so many times for people to give a clear definition on it. Each time this request was ignored, or they couldn't argue it properly. What they saw as Pedo art, wasn't necessarily "pedo" to someone else. Some cut the line at sexuality, some cut the line at nudity. Some were nitpicking the nudity, some were nitpicking what was sexually developed. Some said minors, which got mixed with under 18, some said pre-pubescent. I looked back at a lot of stuff that's in art that deals with children's sexuality but I thought nothing of it until someone else cried "Moral Outrage". It's funny because I looked back at the stuff I have and realized what they're bitching about can cover the art I've collected and enjoyed for technical artistic merits. 

There is a scene in the Evangelion movies where Shinji was looking at a comatose Asuka, he went off and masturbated and ejaculated in his hand. These characters are 14, but if you read up on when you're considered done growing sexually and maturity, they say it's at 18. *shrugs*

A policy that wasn't exactly clear and left room for grey areas was still going to cause bickering. I at least tried and wanted to help out with a better TOS but I learned to live I won't always like the decisions places make. It's their site, and neither FA or I hold any obligation to each other. If I leave I leave, no big deal, if FA shuts down it shuts down, not a big deal either. Internet is a big place. Sounds cold? Well been on so long, it kinda doesn't matter. People I found through here, I can get their contact info and find them elsewhere.

I also find it interesting that the instincts to protect children from a horrible act, constitutes that all children are innocent. I've brought up statistics that almost *half* of these molestations were actually committed by *other children*. The scary ones are put on TV because its a ratings grab. A lot of molestations are from other family members, people that children trust. You can argue all day about how instincts kick in, which is fine. It's a great instinct to protect the young, but we're also supposed to be rational and thoughtful human beings which separates us from most of the other animals. 

Also I've stated again, TOS had *nothing* about the *physical* abuse of children either. So I guess sex > violence once again. So much for _protecting the kids_ instinct.....

People do get off on seeing people abused phyiscally too D:

I don't mind that you referred to me as Arsh btw, most people do that or other variants.


----------



## Dragoneer (Nov 9, 2006)

Arshes Nei said:
			
		

> Also I've stated again, TOS had *nothing* about the *physical* abuse of children either. So I guess sex > violence once again. So much for _protecting the kids_ instinct...


This is the Lolita argument over and over, which has been debated into the ground over the past fifty years.

Having done a buttload of research into this, I suggest people research the history of the novel Lolita (which, yes, has to do with "loli"). It was published in 1955, and is a protected book under the rights of free speech and artistic creativity.

There is much history surrounding the past of this book -- which incurred the same accusations and drama. History repeats itself, and knowing how to apply the lessons of the past to the current present is an invaluable weapon.

And the TOS, yeah... there's really nothing in there about child abuse. Or spousal abuse. Or cookiee baking.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Nov 9, 2006)

Dragoneer said:
			
		

> And the TOS, yeah... there's really nothing in there about child abuse. Or spousal abuse. Or cookiee baking.



Well didn't you know, when you turn into an adult somehow you've automatically sinned, and there's some odd part of our society that thinks you had something to do with the attack you did. Kids are just completely and wholly innocent. 

This is coming from someone who doesn't hate kids at all, I am usually designated as a babysitter for people's kids because somehow I get along with them very well. When I was at the homeless shelter, many misbehaving kids because they come from messed up homes were left with me, even I can get the worst kid to smile and stop crying even if for a little bit, so they can be a kid again. But, kids gain experience too, they do wrong. It's just our duty as an adult not to worry about art, it's our duty to do our best teaching them right from wrong and letting them know they're loved.


----------



## Dragoneer (Nov 9, 2006)

Arshes Nei said:
			
		

> Kids are just completely and wholly innocent.


I wasn't. I used to beat frogs to death with baseball bats when I was seven.

. . .

Don't anybody act surprised. =P I was born weird, grew up weird and I'll die wearing a party hat.

. . .

WHAT? I was seven. I didn't know better.


----------



## Wolfblade (Nov 9, 2006)

:O

*reports you to Froggy Agenda Protectors.


----------



## imnohbody (Nov 9, 2006)

Dragoneer said:
			
		

> And the TOS, yeah... there's really nothing in there about [...] cookiee baking.



Obviously because of not knowing about Vinci's cooking. :twisted:


----------



## Master_Oki_Akai (Nov 10, 2006)

Dragoneer said:
			
		

> Arshes Nei said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Here in Michigan, a teacher has been sent to prison for abusing two students.  Here's the problem.

Neither the police nor the prosecution interviewed anybody aside from the children, parents, and that teacher.  After putting the guy away, some investigators came back and started interviewing staff and other students.  And according to them, what the teacher was being accused of doing, could NEVER have happened!

On top of that, the one kid changes his story every time he's enterviewed, he then dragged a second kid into the mess who had NO idea what was going on.  The court was relying more on the idea that a kid is too scared to tell the truth or that repeated questioning can change a child's memory, more than the idea that "hey, these kids are lying!"  Cuz the teacher was cool, he didn't even KNOW the boys and the other teachers liked him too.  His alibi and reputation were completely ignored for the testimony of a mentaly disturbed (previously abused) little boy who, according to all the evidence collected, is lying his ass off.

But the teacher is still in jail.  So don't tell me children are innocent angels or people who are worth protecting.  They're like any other  group of people, a couple winners and a whole lot of losers.
And you think these anti-abortion people give a shit about your kids? just wait untul they're actually born, you won't hear a PEEP out of those jerks until they're old enough to vote.  But I digress


----------



## Lt_Havoc (Nov 10, 2006)

Ya know man, I dont know where you get that stuff from, but life, human life, is always important and needs to be protected, ecspecially the lifes of children, then they cant protect themselfs. I would really like to say something about the faulty US Law and judigecal sytem but I wont. 

Children are a product of thier parents and the society surrounding them, that they lie, is something totally normal, we humans need to lie, otherwise we could not live together and have relashionships etc. So, you have to ask why these kids lie. My guess is, they never knew what would happend in the first place wehn they would pull this stuff. Maybe they didnt liked the teacher, maybe they have problems with thier parents, whatver it is, they lied. 

Still, that dosent makes them to bad persons per-se, maybe they didnt know better cuzÂ´ thier parents dont do the job of rasing them? I would think so. If they would be propely educated and risen by the parents, the kids wouldnt lie. 

So, better think about all this, beforeyou make statments like that.

BTW: who made this to an "Important Topic"?


----------



## Master_Oki_Akai (Nov 10, 2006)

Lt.Havoc said:
			
		

> Ya know man, I dont know where you get that stuff from, but life, human life, is always important and needs to be protected, ecspecially the lifes of children, then they cant protect themselfs. I would really like to say something about the faulty US Law and judigecal sytem but I wont.
> 
> Children are a product of thier parents and the society surrounding them, that they lie, is something totally normal, we humans need to lie, otherwise we could not live together and have relashionships etc. So, you have to ask why these kids lie. My guess is, they never knew what would happend in the first place wehn they would pull this stuff. Maybe they didnt liked the teacher, maybe they have problems with thier parents, whatver it is, they lied.
> 
> ...


Ook so lets say you got three people, one who's 6 and one who's 16 and one who's 26.
They all grew up in the same unfortunate circustances you seem to be holding out for.Â Â And all of them went columbine on their local school.Â Â 
Do you honestly think that all 3 of them are going to go to court and be let released because "it's not their fault, they didn't know any better!Â Â It's they're parents fault for not teaching them right!"

Well now that certainly does have some truth to it, if you want an explanation of WHY or HOW a person got screwed up, their parents or the lack thereof will certainly play a part.Â Â But are you going to send the parents to jail for multiple murder? No. Especially if they're dead or lost already anyway.Â Â 

This is why we have the concept like "tried as an adult".Â Â But here's a few other things that have happened in the REAL world worth considering.

There was a kidÂ Â (i believe Virginia) who stole a car in high school, he got busted.Â Â 18 months (the forgiveness period you can go to get an offence removed from your record, which is bullshit too but...) later he did it again, he was still in high school at that time.Â Â 18 months later he turned 18 and took another car.Â Â That time he was tried as an adult and put away for a long time.Â Â Go ahead and blame the parents if you want but they didn't steal cars.Â Â The kid stole cars, and from the beginning was setermined to cause trouble.Â Â Now you can be as idealistic as you want but I'm not going to protect or forgive a dedicated criminal simply on the basis of principal.

And here recently, a father put a gun to his sons (about 4th or 5th grade the article said) football coach for not giving his son enough field time.Â Â Now this guy didn't suddenly GET screwed up, he was ALWAYS screwed up and picked this point to make it public.Â Â Now he's A: really screwed up his kid his family and futureÂ Â B: made it so his son will likely NEVER play football again.
Now, lets say a few years later that kid goes and does the same thing?Â Â YOu think he should be let off because his dad screwed him up?Â Â No.Â Â 

Regardless of age, people are held to be accountable for their crimes.Â Â YOu can explain away that the parents are responsible for how screwed up the kids are and I would tend to agree, but it's still the people who commit the acts of social disorder that bear the responsbility to pay for their crimes.Â Â I knew too many kids in school who were perfectly aware that they were kids and thought of themselves as immune to the law and tok that opportunity to commit whatever crime they wanted.

Protect the good decent kids and do your best as parents to raise your kid to the best of your ability.Â Â But if your kid is a bad kid out to do bad things, ya gotta cut em lose.Â Â Your parents SHOULD (but don't always for various reasons) do the best they can to raise you, but wether or not you live or die or become a good or bad person is up to you.

I would certainly agree that there is MORE than a few problems with the judicial system in this country, but I would also argue that the american parenting system is equally or even more screwed up than that.

But don't give me that crap about sanctity of human life.  Tell it to the crusaders.  Tell it to the colonists that founded this country, tell it to the assholes who crashed their planes into the world trade center.  and tell it to the people threatening the world at large with biological weapons and nuclear strikes.  And tell it to the "good honest christians" out there looking to string people up by the tits for voting pro-choice.


----------



## Lt_Havoc (Nov 10, 2006)

Well, I agree with you at some points, but not all. Here, if a kid that is under 16, does a crime, thie parents are also held resposlible for that, more or less, they need to pay the coused damaged etc. The 16 years old will go into youth jail or gets tons of workhours, depending on the crimes they did. Problem of that is, that most learn to become real criminals in jail first. There is a own rule in jail, own society, own state, so they becom part of this and carry it later outside of prison. 

Well, so, what do you want to do? Put a 6 year old in jial, while it lies or steals? Ok, at least, show him how jial looks like and confront them with real criminasl, its done in somce schools with kids that dont behave. It works wonders wehn a 34old 2m thug shouts at these little buggers why he came here and what he does wehn he would ever seem them in there. 

Still, its siad and its in any law system in the western world, that kids cant be made fully resposible for thier crimes, at least if they are not teens. You are fully resposible with 18, but in many countries you are adult with 21 first. Point is, what want you to do with these 6-12 years old if they commit crimes? 

Well, intresting that you dont agree life should be preserved. We live now and we should learn from out errors and mistakes. Only while the crusaders, colonists and Nazis and Soviets of this world killed millions of people and said that thier life is worthless, do we have to do it the same? Do we have to stick to out pattern of behavoir? I dont think so. 

Well, also intresting you mention nukes and bio weapons: germany has non of them, no nukes, no bio weapons, no gas, but everyone else has. Well, about the islamic radicas: if I meet one, I tell them my point. 

Yes, IÂ´m a fucking idealist and humanist, I dont just see bad people and bad things in this world. One day, we will have learned, until then, I will defend my belifes.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Nov 10, 2006)

Lt.Havoc said:
			
		

> Still, that dosent makes them to bad persons per-se, maybe they didnt know better cuzÂ´ thier parents dont do the job of rasing them? I would think so. If they would be propely educated and risen by the parents, the kids wouldnt lie.
> 
> So, better think about all this, beforeyou make statments like that.
> 
> BTW: who made this to an "Important Topic"?



Children can grow up with behavioral problems that have nothing to do with the parents as well. As a parent you do your best job to raise a child but the thing is you need to remember, children are still *individuals* they don't know any better in some cases, but there is also those that do know better and shrug off the consequences.

Not everyone should be a parent or better yet have the personality or temperament to deal with their child, but who am I to say who is qualified?

Also where do you draw the line about "they didn't know any better"?

At what age does that excuse count anymore?

Just because a child inherits your genetics it doesn't mean they gain your personality even though they may have some in the traits. 

If it really was about protecting the kids, Micheal Jackson would be in prison. I don't care if he's famous, I don't care if you think the mother of the parents is a stark raving bitch. People had an opportunity to do the right thing with him, and yet again... _they look the other way_...


----------



## Master_Oki_Akai (Nov 10, 2006)

And I agree with your points to a point, but you missed one of my intents during my last statement.  And that's more because I didn't explain it far enough.

Actually yes, I do agree that showing kids what jail is like if they don't shape up is a good idea.  If it works, it works, and it works.

Now, I'm not going to say that children should not be forgiven or attempted to be reformed, but I know that both children and adults can be reformed or at least made to repent and lead better lives.  But some people, regardless of age or bacjground, are BOUND and DETERMINED to do bad things.

Our shildren are our future, and some futures are better than others.  SOme are mre desireable than others.  And the natural human thing to do is embrace the future we want and do our best to prevent the ones we don't.  Some peoples lives are worth more than others, I do believe that.  However, I do contend that the only way to KNOW where one person stands against another is in hindsight after they're already dead.  As long as a person lives they have the opportunity to improve themselves and prove their worth.  If they CHOSE to.  If they CHOSE NOT to, then cut them lose and move on.

Now I didn't say anything about the germans or soviets or anything like that.  The people I mentioned were people who took great steps in war and murder in the name of what's "good" and "right" and "human" and "ideal".  My point being that those words are not justifications for committing attrocities, but if you study history, you'd know that those ideas have killed more people over the coarse of human history than any other factor (aside from time of coarse).

I'm not going to change your beliefs or ideals, we need idealists in this country to provide extremes in things, to see things that more realistic people can't or won't accept.  Idealists are one voice of hope and progress in human society, but as I already said, they're also capable of being dangerous people like anyone else.

We have a clinic here called Planned arenthood.  There's an old lady and here groupd of goons who sit outside it day in and day out with banners, harrassing and accosting any passerby of being an evil monster, egging their cars and assaulting them on foot, all inthe name of God's goodness.  We even had a guy come to the campus with a banner that said "obey God or perish". And he accosted anyone who dared talk to him on an intellectual level. 

Defend your beliefes with tooth and nail, history will decide wether yo're a visionary or a fool, not us.

And I don't know who moved this to IMPORTANT either...


----------



## Lt_Havoc (Nov 10, 2006)

Well, I yeah, that are some mood points Arshes. Every kid is diffrent and one kid is not as like the other. If you place 2 kids in the same age and compare them, you will see that they are no equally tall, equally build,are equally smart and equally mature. So, you have to judge from case to case diffrently. 

About the Jackson thing: I know, I would have hi, thrown in jail too, but famouse people dont go in jail, at least not in the USA. They get a horde of Star Lawyers and all this shit and turn everything like they want it and if thats not working, money will pay you out of it. If he wasnt a famous or rich man, he would have landen in jail. 

I guess that all this is really difficult and I dont think that there is a real answer. I still think that children need more and better protection then adults, how far that has to go and where it has to end, needs to be decided from case to case.


----------



## Master_Oki_Akai (Nov 10, 2006)

Lt.Havoc said:
			
		

> Well, I yeah, that are some mood points Arshes. Every kid is diffrent and one kid is not as like the other. If you place 2 kids in the same age and compare them, you will see that they are no equally tall, equally build,are equally smart and equally mature. So, you have to judge from case to case diffrently.
> 
> About the Jackson thing: I know, I would have hi, thrown in jail too, but famouse people dont go in jail, at least not in the USA. They get a horde of Star Lawyers and all this shit and turn everything like they want it and if thats not working, money will pay you out of it. If he wasnt a famous or rich man, he would have landen in jail.
> 
> I guess that all this is really difficult and I dont think that there is a real answer. I still think that children need more and better protection then adults, how far that has to go and where it has to end, needs to be decided from case to case.



Can't argue that point.
Children DO need better protection than adults (relatively) because they are not capable of survivng on their own AS WELL as an adult.  Better believe that children are capable of surviving on thier own in harsh conditions same as adults can.  It's one of the things that makes humans so strong.

But there IS  alimit, and where that limit is does need to be carried out in a case by case basis, but that can't happen in this country as it currently stands (cite the previous examples for proof), but I will concede that that is no excuse to not try.

Make no mistake, there is an answer, it's just not likely one that A: all people at LARGE would agree on (nor do they need to)  B: is not capable of being reached at our current stage of social or technological development.  But I firmly believe that every question has an answer, provided the question is asked correctly.


----------



## DarkMeW (Nov 12, 2006)

Sorry I'm in the middle of packing for a move and working 11 hour overtime graveyard shifts, so I won't have much time to reply back. So if I've trailed off at all it's because lack of sleep. 



			
				Arshes Nei said:
			
		

> Furry or human it's still irrelevant though, people didn't care because they got the watch list and networking and lots of "Friends" I mean I see people boasting about their watchlist all the time in their journals. WHO CARES. You DON'T know who the hell is the person behind the screen who watched you. It didn't matter then. No one cared about people's morals, they cared about pageview counters and hits. It's all meaningless in the end.



Thatâ€™s seems like a mis-relation to say just because someone likes the fact people watch them means they didnâ€™t care about that personâ€™s morals. Unless they have stated their morals when they started to watch them, how exactly are they suppose to know anything about that person? How much you â€˜careâ€™ about someoneâ€™s morals (or that person at all) depends on how much youâ€™ve observed or interacted with them. So itâ€™s not that they donâ€™t care itâ€™s just the fact they donâ€™t know much else then there is another person on their watch list. 

To relate this to a real life situation , when Iâ€™ve had gallery showings people would come up to me and say that they liked my artwork. Only a few people started up a conversation. Later I told my friend that a lot of people said they liked my art. Does that mean I donâ€™t care about peopleâ€™s morals? No. When you meet someone in passing there is little more to it then being polite. Not caring and simple not knowing is two different things. So unless a person gains your interest there less chance of you getting to know them enough to make a moral judgement. 




> Ok, pedo art... I asked so many times for people to give a clear definition on it. Each time this request was ignored, or they couldn't argue it properly. What they saw as Pedo art, wasn't necessarily "pedo" to someone else. Some cut the line at sexuality, some cut the line at nudity. Some were nitpicking the nudity, some were nitpicking what was sexually developed. Some said minors, which got mixed with under 18, some said pre-pubescent. I looked back at a lot of stuff that's in art that deals with children's sexuality but I thought nothing of it until someone else cried "Moral Outrage". It's funny because I looked back at the stuff I have and realized what they're bitching about can cover the art I've collected and enjoyed for technical artistic merits.



Part of the problem that lyes in defining Pedo art is that often it needs a case by case determination. Even so, it does rely on certain criteria to be pedophiliac art. First off the image itâ€™s self would have to be obviously sexual, as in the image can be looked upon by the average person and be determined that a sexual act is being committed upon the subject. 

Secondly, the subject of the sexual act must be defined as a child (imaginary child, in this case anthropomorphized.) Modern society â€œsocialâ€ definition of a child is anyone under the age of 15. The way that this determined is, even though for a person to be legally an adult is still 18 it is common that children from 14 and up are often held accountable for their action as young adults. Between 14-16 however is a grey area, meaning that the time when a child steps into being a young adult. 15 is just a middle ground that takes in account that development is occurring (becoming an adult, in other words a young adult.) Some people though would place young adult at 16, 15 is a personal judgement. This is also the age that most children have already been in puberty for long enough to effect them physically as well as mentally. Since they are socially a young adult they no longer fall under the category of a child. Since anthro is still based on human anatomy and development the definition between young adult and child still apply. 

One of the things people donâ€™t understand when they classify something as Pedo art is there must a sexual act. Often Iâ€™ve run across people protesting pictures of suggestive sexuality claiming theyâ€™re pedo. Since there is no act being portrayed, defining it as pedo art relies soley on the person that created it. So unless that person blantantly states itâ€™s a sexual fantasy artwork you could hardly say it was pedo. 

Now I know from a previous talk with you Arsh that you might bring up, what if they look like a kid but are actually an adult. For real life a model release would do but for created works that doesnâ€™t apply. From itâ€™s very nature an illustration, painting, drawing is relying on recognition. If itâ€™s drawn as a immature person, that again a average person would look upon and determine they are 15 years or younger, it would be up to the artist provide the argument for it being an adult (explanation, story, whatever it my be.) 



> There is a scene in the Evangelion movies where Shinji was looking at a comatose Asuka, he went off and masturbated and ejaculated in his hand. These characters are 14, but if you read up on when you're considered done growing sexually and maturity, they say it's at 18. *shrugs*



I didnâ€™t know that, well thatâ€™s disgusting. That isnâ€™t even a minor part of the whole story and there is a major difference in drawing a child being sexually molested and a minuscule part of a large story line. Still it would be enough for the censors to cut that part out of the tv series, btw.



> A policy that wasn't exactly clear and left room for grey areas was still going to cause bickering. I at least tried and wanted to help out with a better TOS but I learned to live I won't always like the decisions places make. It's their site, and neither FA or I hold any obligation to each other. If I leave I leave, no big deal, if FA shuts down it shuts down, not a big deal either. Internet is a big place. Sounds cold? Well been on so long, it kinda doesn't matter. People I found through here, I can get their contact info and find them elsewhere.



True enough, however the bickering could have been kept to a minimum if the situation was handled differently, and more assertively. Now thereâ€™s no point in dwelling in what might have been. One of my points was that people move on and not every parting or disagreement means an end. 




> I also find it interesting that the instincts to protect children from a horrible act, constitutes that all children are innocent. I've brought up statistics that almost *half* of these molestations were actually committed by *other children*. The scary ones are put on TV because its a ratings grab. A lot of molestations are from other family members, people that children trust. You can argue all day about how instincts kick in, which is fine. It's a great instinct to protect the young, but we're also supposed to be rational and thoughtful human beings which separates us from most of the other animals.
> 
> Also I've stated again, TOS had *nothing* about the *physical* abuse of children either. So I guess sex > violence once again. So much for _protecting the kids_ instinct.....
> 
> People do get off on seeing people abused phyiscally too D:



It doesnâ€™t really mean they have to be innocent. People still have an instinct to protect children if they go bad. Itâ€™s just stronger of an instinct when they were close to that child for a long time, or a close family member. Family will often protect a child even though they have done atrocious acts. Itâ€™s (in my opinion) the darker part of that instinct mixed in with denial and lack of responsibility. 

Violence has always been more acceptable then sex. In many ways violence is taught to children almost as a social necessity. Children can be naturally violent by themselves; in contrast sexuality has to develop and is damaging to their development if forced on them. Seeing violence can be more easily understood or talked about to a child, but when a child sees or is acted on sexually their minds canâ€™t cope. Itâ€™s seen as an almost abstract concept to them. Often it causes part of them just to shut down. Itâ€™s part of a wired in coping system that favors survival to mental heath. Of course this is a far cry from the Pedo art topic and is not to say physical abuse canâ€™t have a similar effect on a child. 

Fun fact, over half of the people in my advance psychology class was sexually abused before the age of 12. Weeeeeee I love the world *goes off to throw up in a bucket*


----------



## rayvenredfield (Nov 12, 2006)

never cared from the start actually, mainly because the stuff was here before it was brought into question wether FA should allow it or not. 

I voted and posted my opinions, and that was that, now I'd rather get on with my life and let sleeping dogs lie


----------



## Arshes Nei (Nov 12, 2006)

DarkMeW said:
			
		

> Violence has always been more acceptable then sex. In many ways violence is taught to children almost as a social necessity. Children can be naturally violent by themselves; in contrast sexuality has to develop and is damaging to their development if forced on them. Seeing violence can be more easily understood or talked about to a child, but when a child sees or is acted on sexually their minds canâ€™t cope. Itâ€™s seen as an almost abstract concept to them. Often it causes part of them just to shut down. Itâ€™s part of a wired in coping system that favors survival to mental heath. Of course this is a far cry from the Pedo art topic and is not to say physical abuse canâ€™t have a similar effect on a child.



That's actually NOT true at all. A lot of phyiscal abuse that a child receives also turns into sexual behavior problems too. Rape is not an act about sex, it's more of an act about violence. To say that children don't have an idea bout sex is actually very irresponsible to say. They do. They gain sexual awareness at a young age. That's why a lot of the sexual crimes are committed by other children. 

Many people who were physically abused takes it out on a sexual level later. This is actually why I get frustrated that people say "Well violence is more acceptable" that's just wishy washy look the other way tactics. Sex is an aggressive act and often has acts of dominance. People who were physically abused have problems with intimacy so then you add in sex, it becomes a problem.

So yes I see physical abuse just as wrong as sexual. There is NO excuse to look the other way or try to say one is ok over the other. NONE.


----------

