# Shit like this is why you have no right to whine about people hating you.



## Whitenoise (Sep 21, 2010)

I was killing some time on the main site and happened upon this add. Has anyone else seen this?







...feral erotic?

Seriously?

Everyday I see cryababy furfag trash pissing and moaning about the "_totally unfair_" social stigma attached to the fandom, and how it's all CSI, MTV and big bad 4chan's fault. Legions of fat, filthy manchildren in a perpetual unjustified persecution complex circle jerk crying bacon grease tears over the horrible injustice the fandom has been dealt by a "_clearly ignorant_" public. "_People fear what they don't understand._" seems to be the mantra amongst furfag apologists, but you know what? People understand you just fine. There's nothing the least bit fucking mysterious about furries, you are absolutely a bunch of pathetic porn mongling social retards and you've got no business bitching about people acknowledging it when you do shit like this.

Advertising illustrated animal porn on the largest furry website on the internet? Ya, that'll go a long way in fighting that "_totally not justified_" dogfucker stigma all those mean ignorant hyoomans attached to your precious fandom.

P.S. This is not a rant. I'm not mad, I simply felt that I should point this out, and it's about the furry fandom so it belongs here. Please don't move it.


----------



## SirRob (Sep 21, 2010)

I thought they blamed it on people that had no shame, like the person who made that ad? At least that's what I gathered from my experiences here on FAF.


----------



## Whitenoise (Sep 21, 2010)

SirRob said:


> I thought they blamed it on people that had no shame, like the person who made that ad? At least that's what I gathered from my experiences here on FAF.



FAF is a bastion of relative sanity within the fandom, and I still see the shit I mentioned in the original post all over the place in The Den. That's why this thread belongs here.


----------



## ElizabethAlexandraMary (Sep 21, 2010)

Butthurt asshats can just move to their yerf communities and hide behind supposedly "clean" mpregfurs-style archives.

People are making money off selling porn to each other. I think neither these artists, nor their target audience, will have problems being labelled as whatever abominations the media wants to see in them.
For everyone else, just carry on and walk away.


----------



## Asswings (Sep 21, 2010)

Oh god.

I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

Or wish I had advertising to stick a Rufus Tuftybutt ad up there.


----------



## The DK (Sep 21, 2010)

the first time i saw that ad i lauged and went wtf at the same time. nice rant with the manchildren btw


----------



## Unsilenced (Sep 21, 2010)

Fact: The furry fandom will never be respectable. Get over it.


----------



## ghilliefox (Sep 21, 2010)

i think this fandom is the D&D players of subculture except we wont get to be big corporate CEO fat cats when we hit our 30's


----------



## Plutonium (Sep 21, 2010)

I see the point, people do whine about reactions that do seem to be expected. I don't care though, society can be desensitize to the strangest crap eventually which is one of the reasons we are not puritans anymore. So I never gave a damn what furries flaunted or how people react in modern times because if time has made anything more clear, 50 years from now every deranged fetish probably won't even turn a head in public.

Do I flaunt things, no but that is how I feel about it.


----------



## Gavrill (Sep 21, 2010)

FrancisBlack said:


> words related to topic at hand


 
Haha holy fuck man your avatar, I know where it's from

Anyways, yeah, that ad is terrible. Also, what the hell is up with the Labrador's face?


----------



## Commiecomrade (Sep 21, 2010)

They pick on us for the wrong reason. How many people fuck in a fursuit? Not many. How many look at yiff? Most. If they got it right, I wouldn't complain.


----------



## Shico (Sep 21, 2010)

Commiecomrade said:


> They pick on us for the wrong reason. How many people fuck in a fursuit? Not many. How many look at yiff? Most. If they got it right, I wouldn't complain.


 
YES, thankyou!

I feel the same, I hate the fursuit = sex toy crap, yes the fandom has a sexual side but the fursuits are like not even 20% of the fandom and fursuits are like 2% involved in the fetish side (and I am counting "tame" nippless boobsuits in with the yiffsuits and anatomically correct stuff)


----------



## Slyck (Sep 21, 2010)

This is mainly a fetish fandom, deal with it.


----------



## Icky (Sep 21, 2010)

it worries me that there's a picture of a raven when it says "...and more?", like there's something even worse involving them.


----------



## Trpdwarf (Sep 21, 2010)

You know if I had my way that would be taken down Asap. That kind of shit is not what we need being advertised. One would think there was some quality control going on with what is allowed up there. ;/


----------



## Plutonium (Sep 21, 2010)

How long as it been up? I'm am sure I have seen it around occasionally for at least more than a month while people bitched about the peanut butter banner. Its like someone bitching about the walls in their house being purple while an unnoticed monkey smacks them in the ass with a paddle.


----------



## Glitch (Sep 21, 2010)

The artistic ability is nice, but come on really?
Don't advertise "OH HAI I DO SEXAYYY DRAWINGZ OF DAWGS"

:/


----------



## Kiru-kun (Sep 21, 2010)

this is my first time seeing the Ad, cause I really don't pay attention to the main site much.

I just kinda laughed at first, but then I shook my head, this is why we can't have nice things


----------



## Beta Link (Sep 21, 2010)

This ad is disgusting, and people who look the other way, saying "Oh well, get over it" should feel bad.


----------



## Machine (Sep 21, 2010)

They might as well have advertisements for every fetish now.

Why let dogfuckers be the only ones feeling justified?

Multiply the horror, will you, FA?


----------



## Valnyr (Sep 21, 2010)

You get weirdoes in every fandom. And this one contains the majority. So I'm kinda not suprised by this. But damn this person must be creepy as fuck!


----------



## Unsilenced (Sep 21, 2010)

Ok folks, imagine this: The furry fandom somehow cleans itself up. All the disgusting fetishes (thatmakeuplike90%ofthefandombutthat'sbesidethepoint) are brushed into a corner where nobody will find them. No more feral, no more cub, no more vore, none of it. It's all hidden away. 

What do you think will happen? You think suddenly everyone's gunna be like, "oh hey, furries aren't so bad?" 

No. Why? Because we're still freaks. We will always be freaks. As long as you are in the furry fandom, you are a freak. Any sense of normalcy you may be clinging onto needs to die RIGHT NOW. I mean really, face it. You an adult (or teenager) with, at best, a "strong interest" in cartoon animals. This is not normal! Even the most borderline of furry isn't normal! You. are not.  fucking. NORMAL! GET OVER IT! 

Frankly it doesn't matter whether or not you actually are a basement-dwelling neckbeard who lives with his mother. By being in the furry fandom AND ANNOUNCING THAT YOU ARE, you openly associate yourself with that type of person. Don't pretend like you didn't realize that other furries were raging perverts, you knew exactly what you were signing up for. You are part of a group that, by its very nature, is freakish. 

Don't like being associated with freaks? DON'T TELL PEOPLE YOU'RE A FURRY. It's that fucking simple people. If you announce yourself as a furry, you are going to be mocked and I can't honestly say that we don't deserve it.

PS: Yes, I mad.


----------



## Heimdal (Sep 21, 2010)

I can't say I'm too surprised to see something like that. I feel bad for humanity though.

On a side note, that ad is terrible in more ways than fetish related. It barely grabbed my attention when it was the focal point of Whitenoise's post.


----------



## Fenrari (Sep 21, 2010)

shouldn't it be "furry erotica"?


----------



## Whitenoise (Sep 21, 2010)

Lol at all the nutless furfags giving the thread a shitty rating but lacking the testicular fortitude to actually post in it :V .


----------



## Kiru-kun (Sep 21, 2010)

Unsilenced said:


> Ok folks, imagine this: The furry fandom somehow cleans itself up. All the disgusting fetishes (thatmakeuplike90%ofthefandombutthat'sbesidethepoint) are brushed into a corner where nobody will find them. No more feral, no more cub, no more vore, none of it. It's all hidden away.
> 
> What do you think will happen? You think suddenly everyone's gunna be like, "oh hey, furries aren't so bad?"
> 
> ...





Whoa, Whoa there Kakyion, yes we know that the fandom has its freaks, and by normal moral standards we are no where near normal, but come now, there has to be a line were we go "Ok, that's just a bit far" Freak or not, you know thats true, 'sides, theres no way that we can clean up this fandom unless we start kickin' people out now and turn away people like that guy with the Ad, cause in my opinion, the fandom doesn't need his dog fuckery art.


----------



## Beta Link (Sep 21, 2010)

Unsilenced said:


> Ok folks, imagine this: The furry fandom somehow cleans itself up. All the disgusting fetishes (thatmakeuplike90%ofthefandombutthat'sbesidethepoint) are brushed into a corner where nobody will find them. No more feral, no more cub, no more vore, none of it. It's all hidden away.
> 
> What do you think will happen? You think suddenly everyone's gunna be like, "oh hey, furries aren't so bad?"
> 
> ...


 You seem to be forgetting that the main reason people hate furries so much is the sexual deviancy. Nobody cares if we think anthropomorphic animals are cool; the problem is the weird-ass porn and animal-fucking that's associated with it.


----------



## Heimdal (Sep 21, 2010)

Unsilenced said:


> Frankly it doesn't matter whether or not you actually are a basement-dwelling neckbeard who lives with his mother. By being in the furry fandom AND ANNOUNCING THAT YOU ARE, you openly associate yourself with that type of person. Don't pretend like you didn't realize that other furries were raging perverts, you knew exactly what you were signing up for. You are part of a group that, by its very nature, is freakish.


 
The whole first half of your post was knee-jerkish, and I didn't buy into it. Furries are freaks because they are largely social deviants. With enough effort (collectively) to fit into society, that stigma can get shaken off. (I'm pretty certain that won't happen, but I'd like to see them at least try.)

The part that I quoted, however, pretty much hits the nail on the head. It's well-put, and I just have to acknowledge that.


----------



## Willow (Sep 21, 2010)

Even worse when they try to deny that the fandom has no fetish side to it.


----------



## Lobar (Sep 21, 2010)

Trpdwarf said:


> You know if I had my way that would be taken down Asap. That kind of shit is not what we need being advertised. One would think there was some quality control going on with what is allowed up there. ;/


 
"Dragoneer" is not a name commonly associated with "quality control".


----------



## Klaue (Sep 22, 2010)

Oh shit I know that artist in real life. And you know what? In RL, she is really decent and you would never even imagine her being into that. But she has the weird feeling that a drawing of a realistic dog in a porn pose, genitals being the center point of the thing, was totally acceptable.
Oh, the many flamewars this generated in the past!

My opinion is that the animal fuckers (no one else would be interested in that anyway) can go on if they keep it their buisness, but as soon they say "it's furry", they can fuck off. I wonder if there will once be a day where all the animal fuckers realize that furry != fucking real animals.


----------



## Unsilenced (Sep 22, 2010)

Mandatory reading for everybody on this thread. 

Now. 

http://cdn2.knowyourmeme.com/i/8317/original/1156572225279fb1.png?1250193608


----------



## Valnyr (Sep 22, 2010)

This is making me feel seriously uncomfortable.


----------



## CannonFodder (Sep 22, 2010)

Trpdwarf said:


> You know if I had my way that would be taken down Asap. That kind of shit is not what we need being advertised. One would think there was some quality control going on with what is allowed up there. ;/


 The mainsite's idea of "quality control" is anything less than praise is considered trolling and god forbid you actually bring up a valid point against a person.


Amphion said:


> They might as well have advertisements for every fetish now.
> 
> Why let dogfuckers be the only ones feeling justified?
> 
> Multiply the horror, will you, FA?


 Uhhhh we have _real_ pedos(no not cubfurs, I mean REAL pedos) it's just every time a furry gets arrested for that the fandom pretends it was no big deal.


----------



## Ben (Sep 22, 2010)

Eh, long as it's only viewable to mature audiences, I could care less.



Unsilenced said:


> Mandatory reading for everybody on this thread.
> 
> Now.
> 
> http://cdn2.knowyourmeme.com/i/8317/original/1156572225279fb1.png?1250193608


 
Are you just completely incapable of not expressing yourself through pictures other people made?


----------



## CannonFodder (Sep 22, 2010)

Ben said:


> Eh, long as it's only viewable to mature audiences, I could care less.


 Ben it's an ad, everyone can see the ad.


----------



## CynicalCirno (Sep 22, 2010)

Seriously, Mr.Owner proved that FA is not an image board by deleting all my stuff.
Though, if he lets things like that here
then FA is worse than /b/


----------



## CannonFodder (Sep 22, 2010)

CynicalCirno said:


> Seriously, Mr.Owner proved that FA is not an image board by deleting all my stuff.
> Though, if he lets things like that here
> _then FA is worse than /b/_


 Why do you think furries are on the bottom of the geek hierarchy?


----------



## Volkodav (Sep 22, 2010)

HURRRR U TROLL
TROLL
CLOSE-MINDED TROLL
GRRRRR
yeah, shit is gross. idk why it's even being fucking advertised [along with GDane's work] when I mean. THE FUCKER TRACES BEAST PORN AND IT'S BEING MAIN-SITE ADVERTISED.
this fucking fandom DESERVES the shit it gets from the public and media.



In b4 I get an infraction or banned for being a meanie beanie poop dickhead and close-minded. I don't care, we all know it's fucking true.


----------



## CannonFodder (Sep 22, 2010)

$50 says this thread gets locked and the person locking it mentions something about "artistic license" or "artistic freedom".


----------



## Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs (Sep 22, 2010)

Greed baba. Furries are whores.


----------



## Kiru-kun (Sep 22, 2010)

CannonFodder said:


> $50 says this thread gets locked and the person locking it mentions something about "artistic license" or "artistic freedom".


 

I'll see your 50 internet dollars and raise you 100 :V that it gets locked with the last word being "Grow up people"


----------



## CannonFodder (Sep 22, 2010)

Kiru-kun said:


> I'll see your 50 internet dollars and raise you 100 :V that it gets locked with the last word being "Grow up people"


 Damn, to late to change my bet :V

Also is it just me or are furries at fault for most of the bad media they get?


----------



## Kiru-kun (Sep 22, 2010)

CannonFodder said:


> Damn, to late to change my bet :V
> 
> Also is it just me or are furries at fault for most of the bad media they get?


 

Nah you're right, we are


----------



## CynicalCirno (Sep 22, 2010)

CannonFodder said:


> Why do you think furries are on the bottom of the geek hierarchy?


 
Run from it while you can

..before it captures you!


----------



## CannonFodder (Sep 22, 2010)

CynicalCirno said:


> Run from it while you can
> 
> ..before it captures you!


 *lies on floor*
Cynical it is to late for me, they got me, you need to go on.
*spartan handshake*
Remember no homo, no homo bro
:V


Considering how the furry fandom essentially every six months shoots itself in the foot and causes drama from it's lapse in better judgement, I'm surprised chris hansen hasn't done a tv show called, "to catch a furry".
Five dollars says this is going to turn into a shit storm soon.


----------



## CynicalCirno (Sep 22, 2010)

CannonFodder said:


> *lies on floor*
> Cynical it is to late for me, they got me, you need to go on.
> *spartan handshake*
> Remember no homo, no homo bro
> ...


 
Is it like L4D, where you lie on the ground waiting for people to help you while you shoot with your handgun?
Sound so.

Left 4 Furfag. Get bitten, and turn into your fursona! Now in stores!


----------



## Volkodav (Sep 22, 2010)

Haha furries sure are cool! Wow, they seem like neat, artistic people!

Ohhh nevermind, I just got a face full of realistic dog weiner ads. I take it back


----------



## BlueMoonBear (Sep 22, 2010)

My two dinari...yeah, the Furry Fandom has gotten some bad PR, and something like this isn't going to help matters, should the mainstream folks catch hold of it. Personally, I couldn't give two piles of bear scat what "mainstream" people think, but it does make it harder for those who do.

Having said that...I did find the add a bit...disturbing.


----------



## CannonFodder (Sep 22, 2010)

CynicalCirno said:


> Is it like L4D, where you lie on the ground waiting for people to help you while you shoot with your handgun?
> Sound so.
> 
> Left 4 Furfag. Get bitten, and turn into your fursona! Now in stores!


 Except my fursona is a megalodon, same height...
Oh so I'd be the tank :V


Clayton said:


> Haha furries sure are cool! Wow, they seem like neat, artistic people!
> 
> Ohhh nevermind, I just got a face full of realistic dog weiner ads. I take it back


 That's probably already happened, fa needs some digression when allowing ads and stuff.


----------



## rodox_video (Sep 22, 2010)

Furry is a fetish subculture. You are cordially invited to quit your 1990s funk and DEAL WITH IT. Sexual weirdness is not a bad thing as long as it is _safely practiced_ sexual weirdness.


As for the artist mentioned in the OP, her stuff is creepy, but creepy fantasies are nothing new here. 

It was probably not the best idea to approve the ad given recent events, but the artist is following site rules to a T, so the admins don't care (and probably shouldn't).

Real-life zoophilia is a serious accusation that requires serious evidence to back it up, and as far as I can tell there is no evidence whatsoever that it goes beyond fantasy with this individual. Why freak out over this person when there are actual confirmed practicing zoophiles on FA?

Save the rant for when one of _them_ takes out a banner ad.


----------



## Shico (Sep 22, 2010)

I love parts of the fandom too much to leave it...but I sure do wish that certain parts would just GO AWAY.

I don't care for furry porn, the rest of you can have your porn, just please don't have anything related to dog-fucking, hugely oversized sexual parts, or underage participants...seriously.... the furry porn is odd enough when the participants pictured are manimals proportionate to well endowed human beings, you don't need to toss in boobs 4 times bigger than the persons head and a wang as big as a leg...and feral porn and underage porn is just sick...


----------



## CynicalCirno (Sep 22, 2010)

CannonFodder said:


> Except my fursona is a megalodon, same height...
> Oh so I'd be the tank :V


You're already a tank :V

I would turn into a starfish! My fursona is a starfish! Starfishhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh~

Erotic Starfishhhhhh~~~~~


----------



## Redregon (Sep 22, 2010)

CannonFodder said:


> $50 says this thread gets locked and the person locking it mentions something about "artistic license" or "artistic freedom".


 
don't forget the ever loved "well, if you don't like it, don't look" line.

i'd love to not be able to see that nasty shit but it just doesn't seem to go away... at all... one of the reasons why i avoid browsing the front page because there's all manner of crap that i don't want to see BUT I DON'T HAVE MUCH CHOICE in the matter... unless i just want to isolate myself from discovering new artists i wouldn't have discovered otherwise.


----------



## Gavrill (Sep 22, 2010)

Redregon said:


> don't forget the ever loved "well, if you don't like it, don't look" line.


 
But 'Neer wants you to see a face-full of whatever shit furries come up with to scar you next! Because we're like, a community. Or something.


Dragoneer said:


> People seem to forget that the as are *all* community ads. The community keeps the site afloat, and blocking the ads is only blocking members of the community.


----------



## CynicalCirno (Sep 22, 2010)

Molly said:


> But 'Neer wants you to see a face-full of whatever shit furries come up with to scar you next! Because we're like, a community. Or something.


 
It's a bit like Dragoneer admitted that the community is all porn lovers.
He said that blocking ads is blocking community.
Therefore blocking ads means blocking pornographic ads, meaning blocking pornographic community.
Allowing pornographic art is for a pornographic community.
FA is pornographic.


----------



## Volkodav (Sep 22, 2010)

rodox_video said:


> Why freak out over this person when there are actual confirmed practicing zoophiles on FA?
> 
> Save the rant for when one of _them_ takes out a banner ad.


 
HOH HOH HOH
MMERRRRY CHRISTMAS
that was my loud santa laugh. The funny thing is, there IS someone that is a confirmed, practicing zoo that has an ad up on FA but the admins don't care C:
Personally? The fandom deserves the view it gets from others outside the fandom if it's going  to host ads made by someone who traces actual bestiality porn.



			
				redregon said:
			
		

> don't forget the ever loved "well, if you don't like it, don't look" line.


That quote don't make fuck all sense. How can I not look if I've already seen it?
Someone posts a photo of themselves in a diaper on FA. I say it's gross. They reply with "don't like it? don't look"
Well... you posted it and it showed up on the FA front page, how do I not look? Is there a brain-eraser or something that I don't know of?
How about you take your "adult baby" sick crap and bring it to another site so us normies won't "troll" you


----------



## Gavrill (Sep 22, 2010)

CynicalCirno said:


> FA is pornographic.


 I didn't need some breakdown from you and 'Neer to tell me that :U


----------



## Volkodav (Sep 22, 2010)

Molly said:


> I didn't need some breakdown from you and 'Neer to tell me that :U


 
Yet it was Neer who blew his top when whatsherface made furries look like perverted, sexual BEASTS on the Tyra show. 90% of the ads are porno related.


----------



## Gavrill (Sep 22, 2010)

Clayton said:


> Yet it was Neer who blew his top when whatsherface made furries look like perverted, sexual BEASTS on the Tyra show. 90% of the ads are porno related.


 
And if you block them, that's blocking the _community!_

So 'neer got angry over the truth, basically

Just like the truth about French people


----------



## Volkodav (Sep 22, 2010)

Molly said:


> And if you block them, that's blocking the _community!_
> 
> So 'neer got angry over the truth, basically
> 
> Just like the truth about French people


 Well I'm blocking all the porno ones, leaving the one pins ad, the 'save the tigers' ad, werewolf calender and I think one more up :X
So.. I'm blocking out the gross part of the community, which is fine by me.


----------



## Gavrill (Sep 22, 2010)

Clayton said:


> Well I'm blocking all the porno ones, leaving the one pins ad, the 'save the tigers' ad, werewolf calender and I think one more up :X
> So.. I'm blocking out the gross part of the community, which is fine by me.


 
I'm too lazy to choose which ads to block so I just ignore all of them. 

Plus I dunno if Chrome has an adblock-type-thing.


----------



## CynicalCirno (Sep 22, 2010)

Molly said:


> I didn't need some breakdown from you and 'Neer to tell me that :U


 
Owner of FAGS allows such things.
Well, he may be an utter fan of it.
There are fangirls about anything, it's not that rare to find "unusual" subjects there. Take me for example, I am high on MADs, yiff can't be worse than that!




Clayton said:


> Yet it was Neer who blew his top when whatsherface made furries look like perverted, sexual BEASTS on the Tyra show. 90% of the ads are porno related.


 
Even if they don't contain porn in the ads, it is 90% to lead to either furry porn webcomics, furry porn commisions or furry porn with more fucked up fetisehs.


Molly said:


> And if you block them, that's blocking the _community!_
> 
> So 'neer got angry over the truth, basically
> 
> Just like the truth about French Canadians


 fix'd

Well, french canadians...
You're not really canadians...
You are just french illegal immigrants.



Molly said:


> I'm too lazy to choose which ads to block so I just ignore all of them.
> 
> Plus I dunno if Chrome has an adblock-type-thing.


 
I think Opera has one.

I and my friend explored /b/ without porn! Amazing! Though, /b/ is quite intended for the fucked up or fetishy porn.


----------



## Volkodav (Sep 22, 2010)

Molly said:


> I'm too lazy to choose which ads to block so I just ignore all of them.
> 
> Plus I dunno if Chrome has an adblock-type-thing.


 It does


CynicalCirno said:


> Even if they don't contain porn in the ads, it is 90% to lead to either furry porn webcomics, furry porn commisions or furry porn with more fucked up fetisehs.


yeah same diff.


----------



## Gavrill (Sep 22, 2010)

CynicalCirno said:


> Well, french canadians...
> You're not really canadians...
> You are just french illegal immigrants.


 Screw you men, French Canadians are rad as hell and scream like little girls when playing scary video games.

And they don't get upset over trite things like insulting their culture, because they know they don't have one. Zing.


----------



## Barak (Sep 22, 2010)

Molly said:


> Screw you men, French Canadians are rad as hell and scream like little girls when playing scary video games.
> 
> And they don't get upset over trite things like insulting their culture, because they know they don't have one. Zing.


 

I think i know who is that french Canadian >.>

He is soooo sexeh :V

WAIT.....No culture ? Duuuuuude.......the 24 of june.....That's a gigantic cultural event....were we get drunk and stuff.....


I hate you Molly :V


----------



## Gavrill (Sep 22, 2010)

Barak said:


> I hate you Molly :V


 
But I love you! Let me prove it with rape! :3


----------



## Barak (Sep 22, 2010)

Molly said:


> But I love you! Let me prove it with rape! :3



Awwww....How can you hate that ? D:

*Give Mapply Syrup and Sugar shack*

Don't start me on French Canadian culture >.>


----------



## Gavrill (Sep 22, 2010)

Barak said:


> Awwww....How can you hate that ? D:
> 
> *Give Mapply Syrup and Sugar shack*
> 
> Don't start me on French Canadian culture >.>


French Canadian culture > actual French culture.

I mean shit man, Canadian mounties have diplomatic immunity, and America got our ass handed to us by Canada when we were still a tiny lovable thorn in Britain's side. France could never live up to that.

Edit: Unless they gave me a lifetime supply of wine, then all is forgiven


----------



## TreacleFox (Sep 22, 2010)

You should see the ads on SoFurry.

:V


----------



## Barak (Sep 22, 2010)

Molly said:


> French Canadian culture > actual French culture.
> 
> I mean shit man, Canadian mounties have diplomatic immunity, and America got our ass handed to us by Canada when we were still a tiny lovable thorn in Britain's side. France could never live up to that.
> 
> Edit: Unless they gave me a lifetime supply of wine, then all is forgiven




France don't have sugar shack and your favorite kind of contraband :V


----------



## Gavrill (Sep 22, 2010)

Barak said:


> France don't have sugar shack and your favorite kind of contraband :V


 
And it didn't have moose.

Mm, delicious moosemeat.


----------



## Barak (Sep 22, 2010)

Molly said:


> And it didn't have moose.
> 
> Mm, delicious moosemeat.



Barak, derailling thread, one by one 8)

Also, France don't have the most retarded let's player in the fucking world :V


----------



## ElizabethAlexandraMary (Sep 22, 2010)

hey i hear this thread is about some shit from quebec
what the fuck happened to whitenoise


----------



## Shark_the_raptor (Sep 22, 2010)

I stopped at "bacon".

Mmm.  Bacon.

Fuck, Whitenoise.  Now I'm hungry.

You jerk.

Edit: Furries are dumb.  This is a given.


----------



## Redregon (Sep 22, 2010)

Molly said:


> And if you block them, that's blocking the _community!_
> 
> So 'neer got angry over the truth, basically
> 
> Just like the truth about French people


 
that's okay in the end though... AdBlock FTW! (i know, it's probably potentially penalizing legit and not batshit-insane freaks of revenue... but hey, if you hang out with the freaks, you're going to be called a freak too. deal with it.)

doesn't solve the "browse" problem though.


----------



## CynicalCirno (Sep 22, 2010)

Molly said:


> Screw you men, French Canadians are rad as hell and scream like little girls when playing scary video games.
> 
> And they don't get upset over trite things like insulting their culture, because they know they don't have one. Zing.


 
No culture :V
Cult.... cult... the cult... MEGA AIRMOTO DERAILMENT actually not >:VAV:<

I know a canadian who is not a french canadian.
He doesn't scream like a little girl in scary video games, but screams like little girl always.

They sure are rad, but if their are french canadians they shall speak ENGLISH and not French. The language of canada is ENGLISH, not french.



Molly said:


> But I love you! Let me prove it with rape! :3


 
Lately every person that I know in a bit begins to be a sex manic.
Hey, you make any ads?

>>Francis
Take the ads like a man
Watch them and lick the monitor like me and the others


----------



## Maraxk Montale (Sep 22, 2010)

Okay, here my reaction to that ad. I saw the traditional art and I was like okay, looks good looks good, and then I saw the striped stockings and I was like hmmm, I'm a stockings kind of guy. But then I saw what was wearing the stockings and my smile did a complete 180 into a disgusted frown.

Really people, really? Its bad enough you take pictures of doing that stuff with animals but now you have to draw it as well, and it wouldn't be that bad if the animals weren't just the only subject in the drawing. But just......no.....things like that as ads shouldn't exist. I'm sorry if you feel thats stinting your artistic freedom but please don't advertise it publically.


----------



## Whitenoise (Sep 22, 2010)

CynicalCirno said:


> You're already a tank :V
> 
> I would turn into a starfish! My fursona is a starfish! Starfishhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh~
> 
> Erotic Starfishhhhhh~~~~~


 
Favorite post.



FrancisBlack said:


> hey i hear this thread is about some shit from quebec
> what the fuck happened to whitenoise


 
I had to go to my job and lift heavy objects.

Also stay on topic you fagorts :[ .


----------



## Hakar Kerarmor (Sep 22, 2010)

Whitenoise said:


> Also stay on topic you fagorts :[ .


 
Hey, freedom of speech.

Anyway, I don't think there is one singular reason why 'people' hate* furries,  we (and the morons who say they're not furries they just wank to anthros honestly I'm not a furry I dont wear a fursuit derp derp) just seem to have a need to pretend there is one. And most of the time it's something that you can then waggle your finger at and go "But *I'm* not the one doing that nyar nyar, so its *your* fault people hate furries!".

*: Besides, anyone who honestly claims to _hate_ any group like furries has bigger issues and can't be taken seriously.


----------



## Kellie Gator (Sep 22, 2010)

Unsilenced said:


> Ok folks, imagine this: The furry fandom somehow cleans itself up. All the disgusting fetishes (thatmakeuplike90%ofthefandombutthat'sbesidethepoint) are brushed into a corner where nobody will find them. No more feral, no more cub, no more vore, none of it. It's all hidden away.
> 
> What do you think will happen? You think suddenly everyone's gunna be like, "oh hey, furries aren't so bad?"
> 
> ...


No one gives a toss if we're being associated with "freaks", but most of us still have some sort of moral standard, so having ads that promote bestiality on the FA main site is not really a good idea.



rodox_video said:


> Furry is a fetish subculture. You are cordially invited to quit your 1990s funk and DEAL WITH IT. Sexual weirdness is not a bad thing as long as it is _safely practiced_ sexual weirdness.
> 
> 
> As for the artist mentioned in the OP, her stuff is creepy, but creepy fantasies are nothing new here.
> ...


 Oh hiya Rodox, still protecting dogfuckers I see. :3


----------



## Whitenoise (Sep 22, 2010)

Hakar Kerarmor said:


> Hey, freedom of speech.
> 
> Anyway, I don't think there is one singular reason why 'people' hate* furries,  we (and the morons who say they're not furries they just wank to anthros honestly I'm not a furry I dont wear a fursuit derp derp) just seem to have a need to pretend there is one. And most of the time it's something that you can then waggle your finger at and go "But *I'm* not the one doing that nyar nyar, so its *your* fault people hate furries!".
> 
> *: Besides, anyone who honestly claims to _hate_ any group like furries has bigger issues and can't be taken seriously.


 
Hating people who like cartoon animal people and wear durpy mascot costumes is dumb I agree, but when it comes to dog fuckers and kiddie diddlers hate is the only acceptable response. Any group that willingly harbors degenerates deserves just as much hate as the degenerates themselves. So long as the furry fandom embraces human sewage it deserves every bit of the stigma that comes with it. 

There are plenty of perfectly reasonable justifications for mockery and derision of furfags, but zoos and pedos and the fandom's unwillingness to expel them are responsible for almost all of the sincere hatred and scorn.


----------



## Hakar Kerarmor (Sep 22, 2010)

Whitenoise said:


> Hating people who like cartoon animal people and wear durpy mascot costumes is dumb I agree, but when it comes to dog fuckers and kiddie diddlers hate is the only acceptable response. Any group that willingly harbors degenerates deserves just as much hate as the degenerates themselves. So long as the furry fandom embraces human sewage it deserves every bit of the stigma that comes with it.
> 
> There are plenty of perfectly reasonable justifications for mockery and derision of furfags, but zoos and pedos and the fandom's unwillingness to expel them are responsible for almost all of the sincere hatred and scorn.


 
Can't say that I've harbored and/or embraced any zoos recently.


----------



## Whitenoise (Sep 22, 2010)

Hakar Kerarmor said:


> Can't say that I've harbored and/or embraced any zoos recently.



If you aren't part of the solution you're part of the problem :V .


----------



## Hakar Kerarmor (Sep 22, 2010)

Whitenoise said:


> If you aren't part of the solution you're part of the problem :V .


 
And this is why I long ago stopped caring about people's opinions about furries.


----------



## Whitenoise (Sep 22, 2010)

Also this is pretty interesting :V .

http://forums.furaffinity.net/threads/82428-Adverts-with-erotica-when-mature-filter-is-on


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Sep 22, 2010)

This is exactly why I do not like realism in the art I view.


----------



## Heimdal (Sep 22, 2010)

Hakar Kerarmor said:


> Can't say that I've harbored and/or embraced any zoos recently.


 


			
				Hakar Kerarmor said:
			
		

> something that you can then waggle your finger at and go "But *I'm* not the one doing that nyar nyar, so its *your* fault people hate furries!".



You just mentioned the diffusion trap, and your first response was to fall into it.

Many people hate zoos. Therefor they will hate zoos who are also furries. Zoos can exist within any group, sure, but there are no other groups that harbor them as directly as this fandom. It's literally a reason that leads to hating furries. I could say, "Oh, but people would hate furries anyways." That's probably true, but that doesn't stop it from being a valid reason. Nor does it stop it from being a problem that should be dealt with. It's supporting the problem by letting it persist.


----------



## Unsilenced (Sep 22, 2010)

Most people that hate furries consider being a furry zoophilia to begin with. Just "getting rid of" (impossible in a fandom, btw. You don't get to chose the membership) the people who have actually fucked their dogs will not do anything.


----------



## CannonFodder (Sep 22, 2010)

Unsilenced said:


> Most people that hate furries consider being a furry zoophilia to begin with. Just "getting rid of" (impossible in a fandom, btw. You don't get to chose the membership) the people who have actually fucked their dogs will not do anything.


But it's better than embracing them.


----------



## Heimdal (Sep 22, 2010)

Unsilenced said:


> Most people that hate furries consider being a furry zoophilia to begin with. Just "getting rid of" (impossible in a fandom, btw. You don't get to chose the membership) the people who have actually fucked their dogs will not do anything.


 
No, you can't boot people out of a fandom, but you can boot them out of a community. It's entirely possible that when people call the fandom a "steaming pile", that they could follow up with exceptions. It sits well with people to see a group/community that is diligent to values they respect. That would actually be a very good thing. A known banner to fly under, that declares some kind of stance.. furries could actually declare, "I'm a (type) furry!" And other people will respond, "Oh good." or "could be worse." instead of immediately assuming the worst and following up with mockery. But I'm getting way ahead of myself, because that will never happen... furries are too dumb to care what society thinks, and too inept to agree on how to deal with it.

Useless PR concerns aside... I don't care about the fandom, the zoos and pedos are a blight no matter what.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Sep 22, 2010)

Heimdal said:


> No, you can't boot people out of a fandom, but you can boot them out of a community. It's entirely possible that when people call the fandom a "steaming pile", that they could follow up with exceptions. It sits well with people to see a group/community that is diligent to values they respect. That would actually be a very good thing. A known banner to fly under, that declares some kind of stance.. furries could actually declare, "I'm a (type) furry!" And other people will respond, "Oh good." or "could be worse." instead of immediately assuming the worst and following up with mockery. But I'm getting way ahead of myself, because that will never happen... furries are too dumb to care what society thinks, and too inept to agree on how to deal with it.
> 
> Useless PR concerns aside... I don't care about the fandom, the zoos and pedos are a blight no matter what.



Perhaps communities should be booting them out more? by allowing them it gives off the impression to people that we don't actually care what they do, that we are tolerant. Web site owners may be tolerant but us users certainly are not.


----------



## VoidBat (Sep 22, 2010)

Can't say I'm surprised, this would have happened sooner or later.

Anyone want to invest money in my eye bleach stocks? :V


----------



## Plutonium (Sep 22, 2010)

RandyDarkshade said:


> Perhaps communities should be booting them out more? by allowing them it gives off the impression to people that we don't actually care what they do, that we are tolerant. Web site owners may be tolerant but us users certainly are not.



May work, though history has showed it not going well.

Furries in 1990s : Yiff is sick and is way to close to bestiality, I think we should purge it. I'm going to go watch the lion king like a normal furry.
(Media: Furries are people that like to "yiff" in fursuits and have sex with plush animals)

Furries in 2000s : All these fetishes are sick and deviant, I think we should purge it. If you don't mind i'm going to go look at some normal yiff.
(Media: Furries are people that like to dress up like animals and occasionally yiff in those suits.)

Furries in 2010s : Feral porn is sick and supports bestiality. Now if you don't mind i'm going to go wack off to anthro animal performing S&M while covered in peanut butter.
(Media: Furries are just normal people who all dress up in animal costumes)

Furries in 2020s : Who wants pics of me yiffing my dog?
(Media: Apparently we where wrong all these years, furries are just normal people that like anthropomorphic animals and sometimes dress up)


----------



## Heimdal (Sep 22, 2010)

Plutonium said:


> May work, though history has showed it not going well.
> 
> A furry in 1990s : Yiff is sick and is way to close to bestiality, I think we should purge it. I'm going to go watch the lion king like a normal furry.
> (Other furries: *yiff in fursuits and has sex with plush animals*)
> ...


 
I had to fix it for you.

Frankly, the media has exaggerated and overemphasized things, but it hasn't lied about the fandom. Those things have all happened. And furries, who could speak out about the weird things the media draws attention to, largely choose to just deny it entirely. If you deny something that's already proven to exist, you just look really stupid. That's where the fandom sits.


----------



## Ozriel (Sep 22, 2010)

RandyDarkshade said:


> This is exactly why I do not like realism in the art I view.


 
The fandom is why I do not like porn. :V


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Sep 22, 2010)

Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> The fandom is why I do not like porn. :V



The porn I prefer to view is solo males and solo females, or two together in a romantic scene. hardcore shit doesn't interest me.


----------



## Verin Asper (Sep 22, 2010)

RandyDarkshade said:


> The porn I prefer to view is solo males and solo females, or two together in a romantic scene. hardcore shit doesn't interest me.


 sucks romantic isnt something furs want :V


----------



## Barak (Sep 22, 2010)

CynicalCirno said:


> They sure are rad, but if their are french canadians they shall speak ENGLISH and not French. The language of canada is ENGLISH, not french.



You sir, have just failed. The official language of Canada is french AND english >.>


----------



## Verin Asper (Sep 22, 2010)

Barak said:


> You sir, have just failed. The official language of Canada is french AND english >.>


 no its french now due to them demanding signs to be also in French :V


----------



## PenningtontheSkunk (Sep 22, 2010)

Commiecomrade said:


> They pick on us for the wrong reason. How many people fuck in a fursuit? Not many. How many look at yiff? Most. If they got it right, I wouldn't complain.


 Thank you!

This makes me wonder how many people complain about that exact thing you stated? I think their biased.


----------



## Digitalpotato (Sep 22, 2010)

You know I've never actually seen that ad at all.


----------



## Cahawba (Sep 22, 2010)

It art, it's a fetish, it's the fandom, get over it. 

Honestly furries are some of the least tolerant people I've ever seen.


----------



## Ozriel (Sep 22, 2010)

Cahawba said:


> It art, it's a fetish, it's the fandom, get over it.
> 
> Honestly furries are some of the least tolerant people I've ever seen.


 
Umm...We are people.
We do not have to tolerate anything if we choose to. 

This fandom is not here to be your bitchbox, hug box, support group/Therapists, etc. If you want someone to cry on, hire a therapist or a motivator. :V


----------



## Verin Asper (Sep 22, 2010)

Cahawba said:


> It art, it's a fetish, it's the fandom, get over it.
> 
> Honestly furries are some of the least tolerant people I've ever seen.


 When will idiot furfags get it that those who are furries, are PEOPLE, sorry if the people in this fandom are now less tolerable than the past folks


----------



## rodox_video (Sep 22, 2010)

Kellie Gator said:


> Oh hiya Rodox, still protecting dogfuckers I see. :3


 
what


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Sep 22, 2010)

Cahawba said:


> It art, it's a fetish, it's the fandom, get over it.
> 
> Honestly furries are some of the least tolerant people I've ever seen.



Aww diddums. :v



Digitalpotato said:


> You know I've never actually seen that ad at all.



Oh it is there, I have just this minute seen it.


----------



## Beta Link (Sep 23, 2010)

Cahawba said:


> Honestly furries are some of the least tolerant people I've ever seen.


 I can't even _begin_ to comprehend the stupidity of this comment.


----------



## Kellie Gator (Sep 23, 2010)

rodox_video said:


> what


You know what I'm talking about, foo'. (NSFW)


----------



## rodox_video (Sep 23, 2010)

How in the balls does that pic make Zaush an animal abuser?

There have been many lessons learned from the previous zoophile-related incidents, but none of them involve freaking out and pointing fingers every time someone draws a CRIMSON MISSILE.


----------



## Cahawba (Sep 23, 2010)

Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> Umm...We are people.
> We do not have to tolerate anything if we choose to.
> 
> This  fandom is not here to be your bitchbox, hug box, support  group/Therapists, etc. If you want someone to cry on, hire a therapist  or a motivator. :V


Do you really have to be so pleasant? 

I wasn't personally attacking you. 



Beta Link said:


> I can't even _begin_ to comprehend the stupidity of this comment.


Prove it.


----------



## Heimdal (Sep 23, 2010)

rodox_video said:


> How in the balls does that pic make Zaush an animal abuser?
> 
> There have been many lessons learned from the previous zoophile-related incidents, but none of them involve freaking out and pointing fingers every time someone draws a CRIMSON MISSILE.


 
He could be? We don't know either way. From seeing that, and all the comments under it, all I can tell is that he likes that sort of stuff and there's almost nothing but support behind it.

If there's a lesson mankind has learned thousands of years ago that furries have conveniently forgotten, it's that art and drawings are capable of tremendous impact on society and people. Just as you can stab a person with a knife, it's possible for a drawing to 'inspire' the downtrodden to stab themselves.


----------



## Cahawba (Sep 23, 2010)

So why don't you people have just as much of a problem with cub porn?

I think it's because you guys are all worried that real zoophilia will make you look bad, and has nothing to do with moral conviction.  Which is why I hate it when furries act all holy than thou about it.


----------



## Ozriel (Sep 23, 2010)

Cahawba said:


> So why don't you people have just as much of a problem with cub porn?



Actually, furries have the same problem with cub porn just like Zoophillia. Almost every furry in the fandom has a problem with Cub porn because of what the subject matter is. That said, something to discuss on a later note. 



> I think it's because you guys are all worried that real zoophilia will make you look bad, and has nothing to do with moral conviction.  Which is why I hate it when furries act all holy than thou about it.


 
Like you?

The same reason why most furries detest cub porn: what the subject represents. To most it isn't PR.



Cahawba said:


> Do you really have to be so pleasant?
> 
> I wasn't personally attacking you.


 
I do not sugar-coat for scrubs. :V


----------



## Heimdal (Sep 23, 2010)

Cahawba said:


> So why don't you people have just as much of a problem with cub porn?
> 
> I think it's because you guys are all worried that real zoophilia will make you look bad, and has nothing to do with moral conviction.  Which is why I hate it when furries act all holy than thou about it.


 
I hate it when I accidentally drink spoiled milk. I just hate it! Sorry that I have not discussed that in this thread either.

We're well aware that furries look bad. There aren't any reasons left except moral conviction. Doesn't matter anyways. If I did something for myself, and it also benefits the community, you'd be extremely petty to bitch at me over 'intentions'.


----------



## Hakar Kerarmor (Sep 23, 2010)

Heimdal said:


> Many people hate zoos. Therefor they will hate zoos who are also furries. Zoos can exist within any group, sure, but there are no other groups that harbor them as directly as this fandom. It's literally a reason that leads to hating furries. I could say, "Oh, but people would hate furries anyways." That's probably true, but that doesn't stop it from being a valid reason. Nor does it stop it from being a problem that should be dealt with. It's supporting the problem by letting it persist.


 
I actually agree for 99% with you.


----------



## Kellie Gator (Sep 23, 2010)

rodox_video said:


> How in the balls does that pic make Zaush an animal abuser?
> 
> There have been many lessons learned from the previous zoophile-related incidents, but none of them involve freaking out and pointing fingers every time someone draws a CRIMSON MISSILE.


 Because "feral" art is nothing but a poor excuse for some furfags to draw doggy porn without being labeled as the creepy zoophile motherfuckers that they are.


----------



## Beta Link (Sep 23, 2010)

Cahawba said:


> Prove it.


 lolwut

Furries allow zoophiles, pedophiles, Nazifurs (yeah), and a plethora of other deviants, sexual and otherwise, into the fandom with open arms. How in the fuck are furries intolerant?

Or do you mean us in particular? Do you mean we in particular, here on FAF are intolerant? Yeah, we are. We're intolerant of dogfuckers and kiddie-diddlers. The line has to be drawn _somewhere_, goddamn it.


----------



## Redregon (Sep 23, 2010)

Beta Link said:


> lolwut
> 
> Furries allow zoophiles, pedophiles, Nazifurs (yeah), and a plethora of other deviants, sexual and otherwise, into the fandom with open arms. How in the fuck are furries intolerant?


 
you're generalizing here. honestly? if i could have my way, the pedophiles and beastialists would be kicked from this fandom so fucking hard their nuts would burn up from re-entry.

so, pleased to not be generalizing... especially with such bs.


----------



## Beta Link (Sep 23, 2010)

Redregon said:


> you're generalizing here. honestly? if i could have my way, the pedophiles and beastialists would be kicked from this fandom so fucking hard their nuts would burn up from re-entry.
> 
> so, pleased to not be generalizing... especially with such bs.


Perhaps I did generalize and exaggerate a bit. But the very fact that these kinds of people still exist in the fandom should indicate that there aren't nearly enough sensible people in the fandom. Believe me, I want these sick fucks out just as bad as you do, but it seems too many people just don't care enough, or look the other way and ignore it.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Sep 23, 2010)

Redregon said:


> you're generalizing here. honestly? if i could have my way, the pedophiles and beastialists would be kicked from this fandom so fucking hard their nuts would burn up from re-entry.
> 
> so, pleased to not be generalizing... especially with such bs.



One small issue. Even if you had your way you still couldn't kick someone out of the fandom. People can only be kicked off of sites. Beta is right though, if we were all so intolerant we;d be shouting at the admins more than we currently are, showing the admins we the users do not want such people on the site. But do we?

No, we don't, we tolerate them being here.


----------



## Heliophobic (Sep 23, 2010)

Everyone else stole the words right out of my mouth. But I shall reiterate this dumb thread.

This is why we can't have nice things!


----------



## Geek (Sep 23, 2010)

Some people don't understand the difference between cartoons and real porn.


----------



## Verin Asper (Sep 23, 2010)

RandyDarkshade said:


> One small issue. Even if you had your way you still couldn't kick someone out of the fandom. People can only be kicked off of sites. Beta is right though, if we were all so intolerant we;d be shouting at the admins more than we currently are, showing the admins we the users do not want such people on the site. But do we?
> 
> No, we don't, we tolerate them being here.


 actually we tried, we were then told "be tolerant of them"

lets look at one person obviously being tolerated by every fucker on FA: Betawolf
as much as we want them gone, we cant do anything as even up to the admin levels he is being tolerated


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Sep 23, 2010)

Crysix Fousen said:


> actually we tried, we were then told "be tolerant of them"
> 
> lets look at one person obviously being tolerated by every fucker on FA: Betawolf
> as much as we want them gone, we cant do anything as even up to the admin levels he is being tolerated



I don't think the admins will ban someone without due cause. I mean another way to look at it is, what they do in their own lives away from FA is nothing to do with the site, so long as no laws/site rules are broken. 

Not saying they should stay, just pointing out another perspective I see the situation from. Personally, like most of us, I'd rather they were not on the site.


----------



## Plutonium (Sep 23, 2010)

I agree with a lot in said so far, the molestation of animals or kids is quite appalling but a majority of those into regular yiff or feral are not into that (Cub furs... ?). I have read FAF for long time and have been wanting to rant about this for a long time on the issue of ferals.

_If your a fur *not* into yiff at least a little than all 10 of you can stop reading now, your not being hypocritical if you hate it all, feel free to continue complaining. _

Furs into typical bi pedal anthro yiff calling those that like feral out as being dog fuckers, your yiff is viewed as bestiality though the eyes of "normal" people. You show a picture of Krystal being screwed to someone "normal" and you sometimes will have cops following you home in some states in the US and other countries to see if you screw an animal (if your not arrested for having bestiality porn). As for the  the trolls bashing furs for being zoos? See the stuff on ED calling yiff bestiality, do you see them posting "ferals" in demotivational posters or their articles. No? I don't either, I see "anthro" furs.

Even though you try mental gymnastics to convince yourself your better than feral furs you are just as attracted to an animal as much as feral furs. "but im into the human side" - why are you looking at yiff and not Xtube! Why are you not just cutting out the animal side your not attracted too and looking at normal people screwing? 

Its because yiff drawing/consuming furries have an attraction to animals *and* humans and smashed that into a harmless fetish, some only took the intelligent in their liking (ferals), some like the bi pedal poster as well, a some like both. If anyone into yiffyness was deprived of it and sexual release for month than shown a regular animal mating video they would probably have an erection before they could complain about it logically. 

I have heard confessions from furries for 7-8 years and that is my belief, a lot had the same or similar story, a lot found the fandom through finding yiff online. A lot found yiff while searching the internet for ANIMAL PORN before discovering a more humane fantasy and easier to accept outlet for their zoophilia. This is not the stories of only feral furs, this is furs only into big breasted anthro foxes in their adult years.

Do you consider that its because its cartoon porn and you have toonphila? If you are why are you in a fandom obsessing over those animal characters when they are tons of human characters? This is not 1925.

Ferals portrayed in art are intelligent and are fantasy if not THEN its zoo.
Bi pedal furry characters are intelligent and are fantasy if not THEN its zoo.

A fur into the "normal" stuff is just as likely to be diddling animals as feral furs, which is not likely.


----------



## foxmusk (Sep 23, 2010)

i can't imagine a dog would lay like that for a picture, especially wearing stockings. our dogs do that thing where they walk around with the foot up when you put a sock on them.


----------



## rodox_video (Sep 24, 2010)

Kellie Gator said:


> Because "feral" art is nothing but a poor excuse for some furfags to draw doggy porn without being labeled as the creepy zoophile motherfuckers that they are.


 
If that's what you think, you've picked an awfully lightweight example to get upset over. The picture involves characters that are, well.. people. They may not be physically anthropomorphized(much), but they are mentally anthropomorphized. 

Actual zoophilia involves creatures that lack self-awareness, animals that aren't even close to being able to grasp the concept of human sexuality (or much of anything else, really). 

The creatures in that stupid picture think, talk, feel, reason, the whole nine yards. They are mentally human or close enough to it for the differences not to matter. And that's all that matters in the end, because the whole damn thing is fantasy. 

If you're scraping around looking for zoophilic hints, then sure, it's closer to zoophilia than a pornographic image depicting humanoids or humans. Even then though, it's still firmly on the "consenting adults" side of the bordering line. It's more Mr. Ed than Mr. Hands, if you get my drift.

It's also gleefully tacky thrown-together spank material involving two one-dimensional side characters from what is certainly the worst if not one of the worst kid's movies of the year, but that's neither here nor there.


----------



## Zaraphayx (Sep 24, 2010)

While I agree that the more extreme fetishes in the fandom 'ruin it for everyone', expecting furries to 'fix it' by expelling them is naive as fuck.

There isn't any cohesive leadership or means to expel a group of people from furrydom arbitrarily. The best thing you can reasonably do is actively harass the sick fucks, which arguably justifies their persecution complex. (And people DO do this to baby-furs/zoophiles on furry art websites already)

It's kind of a hopeless situation; like inviting the entire class to your party and watching in terror as they smash your furniture, torture your cat, and have sex on your parent's bed while you're completely powerless to stop them because it's already been set in motion.

Frankly it'd require more effort than it's worth to make this fandom anything resembling mainstream or respectable to outsiders, you're better off trying to distinguish yourself on your own merits than making furry your identity. (PS:you should be doing this already you hopeless losers :V)


----------



## Heimdal (Sep 24, 2010)

rodox_video said:


> The creatures in that stupid picture think, talk, feel, reason, the whole nine yards. They are mentally human or close enough to it for the differences not to matter. And that's all that matters in the end, because the whole damn thing is fantasy.


 
That's only true if the image depicts them in that manner. Adding "oh, but that character is actually intelligent and self-aware," as an after-thought is.. well, that's a pretty flimsy excuse. If you can't see any effort to display thoughtful characteristics, then that's not what the artist was aiming for; simple animal is all that's there.



			
				Plutonium said:
			
		

> Even though you try mental gymnastics to convince yourself your better  than feral furs you are just as attracted to an animal as much as feral  furs. "but im into the human side" - why are you looking at yiff and not  Xtube! Why are you not just cutting out the animal side your not  attracted too and looking at normal people screwing?
> 
> Its because yiff drawing/consuming furries have an attraction to animals *and*  humans and smashed that into a harmless fetish, some only took the  intelligent in their liking (ferals), some like the bi pedal poster as  well, a some like both. If anyone into yiffyness was deprived of it and  sexual release for month than shown a regular animal mating video they  would probably have an erection before they could complain about it  logically



There's a difference between a feral interest and an exotic interest. These people probably do look at the human porn. Animal characteristics can translate to "cute and/or different", which is the same scenario as people who are attracted to sci-fi aliens (Tali or Garrus from Mass Effect!); the difference is superficial, and the interest comes from their being humanoid.

The point where they're into different sexual organs is a very creepy step. It's way too significant for me to ever brush off as just being an equal step in a different direction.

Of course, I don't know what's going on in other people's heads. Maybe many are attracted straight to the "animal" in bipedal furries. I'm not, but my interest in yiff stuff is severely minimal anyways. I acknowledge Plutonium's decent argument.


----------



## Shico (Sep 24, 2010)

Plutonium said:


> _If your a fur *not* into yiff at least a little than all 10 of you can stop reading now, your not being hypocritical if you hate it all, feel free to continue complaining. _


 
I hate yiff. I hate porn. 
I am one of the few furries who is a furry for 100% family friendly reasons.
My mature filter over at FA is ON I tried having it off once...that lasted not even half a day >.< you guys are SICK. I can tolerate the fact yiff exists and just not look at it...But the cub and feral stuff takes things too far. 

(......why the fuck am I associating myself wih you people)


----------



## Xipoid (Sep 24, 2010)

Shico said:


> (......why the fuck am I associating myself wih you people)


 
why indeed


----------



## Shico (Sep 24, 2010)

Xipoid said:


> why indeed



I think I will go back to being otaku...

Oh wait, anime fans are just as porny...only they have tentical rape and 300 year old half naked vampires that look like 11 year old girls....

I am screwed no matter who I hang out with :/


----------



## Xipoid (Sep 24, 2010)

Shico said:


> I think I will go back to being otaku...
> 
> Oh wait, anime fans are just as porny...only they have tentical rape and 300 year old half naked vampires that look like 11 year old girls....
> 
> I am screwed no matter who I hang out with :/


 
Just do whatever makes you happy, and be smart about it. Don't care too much about what other people think unless they are paying you. Yes, I do realize this mentality can be the core of the reasons for this thread.


----------



## Shred Uhh Sore Us (Sep 24, 2010)

Whitenoise said:


> Legions of fat, filthy manchildren in a perpetual unjustified persecution complex circle jerk crying bacon grease tears over the horrible injustice the fandom has been dealt by a "_clearly ignorant_" public.


 
This is the greatest sentence anyone has ever posted on this site the internet, ever. I about lost it xD


----------



## Plutonium (Sep 24, 2010)

Shico said:


> I think I will go back to being otaku...
> 
> Oh wait, anime fans are just as porny...only they have tentical rape and 300 year old half naked vampires that look like 11 year old girls....
> 
> I am screwed no matter who I hang out with :/


 
You're around humans, your going to always be around it in either literally or in spirit. If you had the ability to read minds (or if anyone else did) everywhere you went, you would probably start screaming and never stop.


----------



## Redregon (Sep 24, 2010)

Shico said:


> Oh wait, anime fans are just as porny...only they have tentical rape and 300 year old half naked vampires that look like 11 year old girls.../


 
yeah, they're not fooling anyone. well, except themselves.


----------



## Verin Asper (Sep 24, 2010)

Shico said:


> I think I will go back to being otaku...
> 
> Oh wait, anime fans are just as porny...only they have tentical rape and 300 year old half naked vampires that look like 11 year old girls....
> 
> I am screwed no matter who I hang out with :/


 You are better off hanging out with anime, at least with them they dont bitch in their fandom and somehow manage to completely seperate themselves between their groups.


----------



## Plutonium (Sep 24, 2010)

Crysix Fousen said:


> You are better off hanging out with anime, at least with them they dont bitch in their fandom and somehow manage to completely seperate themselves between their groups.


 
If they are a fandom they probably break down into these groups like every other fandom.


----------



## Taralack (Sep 24, 2010)

Shit like this is why I have adblock.


----------



## foxmusk (Sep 24, 2010)

Shico said:


> I think I will go back to being otaku...
> 
> Oh wait, anime fans are just as porny...only they have tentical rape and 300 year old half naked vampires that look like 11 year old girls....
> 
> I am screwed no matter who I hang out with :/


 
cry a little fucking more :V  the world is about sex nowadays. why? it sells. people like it.


----------



## Mentova (Sep 24, 2010)

Clearly the solution is to kill all furries.


----------



## Hakar Kerarmor (Sep 25, 2010)

Heckler & Koch said:


> Clearly the solution is to kill all furries.


 
Why stop there?


----------



## Mentova (Sep 25, 2010)

Hakar Kerarmor said:


> Why stop there?


 Because furries are the problem. Killing them is the solution.


----------



## Klaue (Sep 25, 2010)

I just thought I throw that in here


----------



## Mentova (Sep 25, 2010)

Creepy.


----------



## Cahawba (Sep 25, 2010)

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that some non-anthro artwork is the hottest shit on the web.  

If you don't like it, don't look at it.  It's just as much "furry" as anything else in the fandom.


----------



## Mentova (Sep 25, 2010)

Cahawba said:


> I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that some non-anthro artwork is the hottest shit on the web.
> 
> If you don't like it, don't look at it.  It's just as much "furry" as anything else in the fandom.


 I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that actual human beings are the hottest shit on the web, and in real life. Cause they are real.


----------



## CynicalCirno (Sep 25, 2010)

Cahawba said:


> I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that some non-anthro artwork is the hottest shit on the web.
> 
> If you don't like it, don't look at it.  It's just as much "furry" as anything else in the fandom.


When people push ads about dog fucking, I want to look away, but it's still there.
Furries won't look away, it's FA, you know.

Hey, let's all ban that person for zoophila and supporting it!


----------



## Beta Link (Sep 25, 2010)

Cahawba said:


> I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that some *non-anthro* artwork is the hottest shit on the web.
> 
> If you don't like it, don't look at it.  It's just as much "furry" as anything else in *the fandom*.


I dunno about anyone else, but the last time I checked, the Furry Fandom was centered entirely around anthropomorphic animals.

Also, I tend not to look at stuff I don't like. But when people shove their shit down other peoples' throats like with this ad here, it's kind of difficult to just not look.


----------



## Kellie Gator (Sep 25, 2010)

rodox_video said:


> If that's what you think, you've picked an awfully lightweight example to get upset over. The picture involves characters that are, well.. people. They may not be physically anthropomorphized(much), but they are mentally anthropomorphized.
> 
> Actual zoophilia involves creatures that lack self-awareness, animals that aren't even close to being able to grasp the concept of human sexuality (or much of anything else, really).
> 
> ...


They could sing opera and it still wouldn't fucking matter, they still look like real dogs and anyone who faps to drawings that look like real dogs are no different than people who fap to real dogs. Is it really that hard to understand?



Klaue said:


> I just thought I throw that in here


With fuck awful art like that, I'd say both are "f**king wrong" (was the person who drew that 12 or something?).


----------



## Klaue (Sep 25, 2010)

eh, I don't think so. http://www.collectedcurios.com/


----------



## Carenath (Sep 25, 2010)

Whitenoise said:


> Hating people who like cartoon animal people and wear durpy mascot costumes is dumb I agree, but when it comes to dog fuckers and kiddie diddlers hate is the only acceptable response. Any group that willingly harbors degenerates deserves just as much hate as the degenerates themselves. So long as the furry fandom embraces human sewage it deserves every bit of the stigma that comes with it.
> 
> There are plenty of perfectly reasonable justifications for mockery and derision of furfags, but zoos and pedos and the fandom's unwillingness to expel them are responsible for almost all of the sincere hatred and scorn.


 Hate is an acceptable response for an ignorant mob. Pity and medical help is what they need. But then.. we are a society of NIMBYs that would rather sweep problems under the rug in the veiled guise of 'doing something' because we only ever care about ourselves in the long run.

What irks me about, your otherwise perfectly valid point, is the assumption that "the furry fandom" willingly harbours and protects zoophiles and paedophiles.
First it relies on the automatic association that related artwork constitutes evidence of a real life paraphilia and for some individuals evidence that the accused are practising it in real life.
Second, it is being used largely as an excuse by people in your position, to expunge artwork you don't like from a site you choose to reside on as a member.
Third, it overlooks the fact that we have banned people from this community after evidence of their illegal activities have come to light.

Your otherwise valid point is full of holes and does not hold up to any measure of scrutiny. In short, if you tried to bring the people you feel meet one of the aforementioned harboured individuals to a court over it, you wouldn't have a snowballs.

Also, the presence (or absence) of zoophiles and paedofiles in "the furry fandom" as a whole is largely irrelevent to how we're seen by outsiders. Furries are seen automatically by outsiders as closet animal fuckers. You want to change that? You eliminate all aspects of porn from the fandom.

Trust furries to turn a rant about 'feral porn' into an argument about bestiality. If I didn't know better I'd say you were obsessed with it to a very unhealthy degree.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Sep 25, 2010)

Carenath said:


> Hate is an acceptable response for an ignorant mob. Pity and medical help is what they need. But then.. we are a society of NIMBYs that would rather sweep problems under the rug in the veiled guise of 'doing something' because we only ever care about ourselves in the long run.
> 
> What irks me about, your otherwise perfectly valid point, is the assumption that "the furry fandom" willingly harbours and protects zoophiles and paedophiles.
> First it relies on the automatic association that related artwork constitutes evidence of a real life paraphilia and for some individuals evidence that the accused are practising it in real life.
> ...



Agreed. I have seen people accuse others of being either a peadophile or zoophile purely on what they have seen the artist drawn, for example the food banner on the main site where many instantly assumed the artist had some sort of weird food fetish, which wasn't the case at all. There are themes I'd have my character/sona drawn in but would never dream of doing it irl, such as bondage, hate that yet I'd have my sona drawn participating in it. 

People shouldn't judge someone based purely on a picture they have seen drawn. Things are not always what they seem.


----------



## rodox_video (Sep 25, 2010)

Kellie Gator said:


> They could sing opera and it still wouldn't fucking matter, they still look like real dogs and anyone who faps to drawings that look like real dogs are no different than people who fap to real dogs. Is it really that hard to understand?


 
If those characters look like real dogs to you, then I think you need your vision examined. There is a difference. 

There is a BIG difference between fantasizing about something and actually doing it. Someone could draw all the non-anthro porn in the goddamn world and never dream of actually doing anything to a real dog. Someone could draw nothing but vanilla humanoid furry porn and be screwing a real animal the whole time. 

I've seen cases that match both of these scenarios. There is not a 100% correlation between drawing something and actually doing it. It's the cub porn argument all the fuck over again. 

One or two non-anthro porn pics in and of themselves are not a bombshell. It's evidence so shaky it shouldn't even count as evidence. Look instead for shit like this. Look for people* who leave fucked-up comments on submissions that they assume nobody is ever going to click on.

I know that there have been a lot of cases where someone has drawn fucked-up shit and turned out to be doing said fucked-up shit. I also know that there have been far more cases where someone has drawn fucked-up shit that they would never actually do. You can't go on drawings alone, there has to be something else. And there is no shortage of cases where there IS something else.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Sep 25, 2010)

rodox_video said:


> If those characters look like real dogs to you, then I think you need your vision examined. There is a difference.



If you are referring to the ad, they look like depictions of real ani9mals to me.



> There is a BIG difference between fantasizing about something and actually doing it. Someone could draw all the non-anthro porn in the goddamn world and never dream of actually doing anything to a real dog. Someone could draw nothing but vanilla humanoid furry porn and be screwing a real animal the whole time.



As I said before, things are not always what they seem.



> I've seen cases that match both of these scenarios. There is not a 100% correlation between drawing something and actually doing it. It's the cub porn argument all the fuck over again.



Agreed, drawing =/= doing.


----------



## Mentova (Sep 25, 2010)

Hey guys I heard you like beastiality?


----------



## Carenath (Sep 25, 2010)

Kellie Gator said:


> Because "anthro" art is nothing but a poor excuse for some furfags to draw doggy porn without being labeled as the creepy zoophile motherfuckers that they are.


 Fixed it for you 



RandyDarkshade said:


> I don't think the admins will ban someone without due cause. I mean another way to look at it is, what they do in their own lives away from FA is nothing to do with the site, so long as no laws/site rules are broken.
> 
> Not saying they should stay, just pointing out another perspective I see the situation from. Personally, like most of us, I'd rather they were not on the site.


Tolerance!= Acceptance.
This is largely how we see it.


----------



## rodox_video (Sep 25, 2010)

RandyDarkshade said:


> If you are referring to the ad, they look like depictions of real ani9mals to me.


Oddly enough, I wasn't.

The person behind the ad in the OP is creepy and somewhat suspect, not JUST because of what she draws but because of a YouTube full of fuckin' dogs. But even then, it's not exactly a smoking gun. I'm not seeing how there's much that can be done right now other than be careful and observant.


----------



## Hakar Kerarmor (Sep 26, 2010)

Heckler & Koch said:


> Because furries are the problem. Killing them is the solution.


 
But... but... Khorne demands skulls...
Everyone's skulls... nyuh...


----------



## Hakar Kerarmor (Sep 26, 2010)

Carenath said:


> Trust furries to turn a rant about 'feral porn' into an argument about bestiality. If I didn't know better I'd say you were obsessed with it to a very unhealthy degree.



I think they just like the idea of being persecuted.
Furries don't have a persecution complex, they have a martyr complex.


----------



## Plutonium (Sep 26, 2010)

I did just looked at the artist in that ad, I don't think that is feral. This is feral(SFW), clear human emotion and intelligence. This (NSFW at all) is really just a non morphic at all, non intelligent, 100% dog looking dog, hence just being erotic animal art.

Perhaps feral furs are the ones who should be outraged on what has been passed off as feral in this situation? I don't care though, really don't, it would be the same hypocrisy. I also agree with the post Carenath has made in above too.


----------



## DoeADeer (Sep 26, 2010)

I agree that... feral erotic... yeah. that's plain bestiality.

Anthropomorphic animals =/= animals. You crazy peoples. :U

I'm in it because anthro is interesting to me. I'm a normal person outside of the internet. I have aspirations of going to college and owning my own home, and becoming a linguist even. I have many different interests. I'm not really interested in sexual things. Heck, I'm a church-going girl. (Lol sue me, trolls.)
I hate blanket statements. I'm so dangerously normal outside the internet, it kills me. No one at school or anywhere else views me as a freak.
*Sigh* Why must an art style be turned into a dramatic sexual joke? Humankind kills me. Just kills me. I swear.


----------



## Mentova (Sep 26, 2010)

DoeADeer said:


> I agree that... feral erotic... yeah. that's plain bestiality.
> 
> Anthropomorphic animals =/= animals. You crazy peoples. :U
> 
> ...



Have fun with everything thinking you're a gigantic pervert. I at least use it to my advantage to annoy people.


----------



## Cahawba (Sep 26, 2010)

Beta Link said:


> I dunno about anyone else, but the last time I checked, the Furry Fandom was centered entirely around anthropomorphic animals.
> 
> Also, I tend not to look at stuff I don't like. But when people shove their shit down other peoples' throats like with this ad here, it's kind of difficult to just not look.


Where did you check on that info?  Give me a link. 

Also, the only thing the ad did was mention it.  Do you get pissed of when people mention lolicon?  Do you get pissed off when an atheist talks about evolution, or when a Muslim talks about his religion?  Do you mindlessly close your ears when the other political party is talking?  

I believe that's called *intolerance.*


----------



## Klaue (Sep 26, 2010)

Cahawba said:


> I believe that's called *intolerance.*


Last time I checked, it was called "not giving a damn fuck"


----------



## Cahawba (Sep 26, 2010)

Klaue said:


> Last time I checked, it was called "not giving a damn fuck"


Fail.


----------



## Plutonium (Sep 26, 2010)

DoeADeer said:


> I agree that... feral erotic... yeah. that's plain bestiality.
> 
> Anthropomorphic animals =/= animals. You crazy peoples. :U


 
and if I put wings on my house its an airplane.


----------



## DoeADeer (Sep 26, 2010)

*sigh*
I'm tired of posting here. lol. too much work. *goes about business*


----------



## Ozriel (Sep 26, 2010)

Cahawba said:


> I believe that's called *intolerance.*


 
So being intolerant of Zoophiles and people into bestiality is bad?

I am sorry, I can't accept not tolerate those type of people. And it is fine to know where your buck stops and what you can and cannot tolerate or accept. 
The most of the fandom itself has a history of being enablers by turning a blind eye. When people challenge negative behavior within the fandom, people like you go on a preachy tangent of how we shouldn't be intolerant of his/her life choice and how we are bad people for not accepting them.


The furry fandom is not a Cult, support group, therapists, hug box, etc...etc.
It is a fandom surrounding people's interest for liking anthro animals. If you want acceptance, find a support group.


----------



## Carenath (Sep 26, 2010)

Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> So being intolerant of Zoophiles and people into bestiality is bad?
> 
> I am sorry, I can't accept not tolerate those type of people. And it is fine to know where your buck stops and what you can and cannot tolerate or accept.
> The most of the fandom itself has a history of being enablers by turning a blind eye. When people challenge negative behavior within the fandom, people like you go on a preachy tangent of how we shouldn't be intolerant of his/her life choice and how we are bad people for not accepting them.
> ...


 Again... Acceptance != Tolerance. 
Acceptance implies you like and agree, Tolerance implies apathy.

You neither tolerate, nor accept the presence of these individuals in the fandom as a whole. What Cahawba is talking about, is *intolerance*, the act of being unable to deal with the reality of people or content you don't like being present or accepted by members of the furry fandom. He never said you should accept, like and agree with or even support them. Furry *is not* a support group/religion/lifestyle.

Please for the love of English use the right terms in the right context. You're neither accepting or tolerant of those individuals. You can be tolerant of something while still strongly disliking it. But you do *not* have to accept it.


----------



## Mentova (Sep 26, 2010)

Carenath said:


> Again... Acceptance != Tolerance.
> Acceptance implies you like and agree, Tolerance implies apathy.
> 
> You neither tolerate, nor accept the presence of these individuals in the fandom as a whole. What Cahawba is talking about, is *intolerance*, the act of being unable to deal with the reality of people or content you don't like being present or accepted by members of the furry fandom. He never said you should accept, like and agree with or even support them. Furry *is not* a support group/religion/lifestyle.
> ...



There is no reason to tolerate zoophiles at all. It is absolutely disgusting, harmful to the animal, and if someone wants to fuck a dog they need therapy.


----------



## Ben (Sep 26, 2010)

Zoophilia is defined as having an attraction to animals. Bestiality is defined as acting on it.
Come on Heckler, I figured you'd know this after hanging around on the forum long enough.


----------



## Carenath (Sep 26, 2010)

Heckler & Koch said:


> There is no reason to tolerate zoophiles at all. It is absolutely disgusting, harmful to the animal, and if someone wants to fuck a dog they need therapy.


 Hello Captain Obvious.


----------



## Mentova (Sep 26, 2010)

Ben said:


> Zoophilia is defined as having an attraction to animals. Bestiality is defined as acting on it.
> Come on Heckler, I figured you'd know this after hanging around on the forum long enough.


 That doesn't mean it isn't messed up.


----------



## Beta Link (Sep 26, 2010)

Cahawba said:


> Where did you check on that info?  Give me a link.


The furry fandom has _always_ been about anthropomorphic animals. Saying it's about animals in general is like saying the Star Trek fandom encompasses all science-fiction.
But, to satisfy your need for links, here's some well-known pages:
http://en.wikifur.com/wiki/Furry_fandom
http://www.anthrocon.org/about-furry



> Also, the only thing the ad did was mention it.  Do you get pissed of when people mention lolicon?  Do you get pissed off when an atheist talks about evolution, or when a Muslim talks about his religion?  Do you mindlessly close your ears when the other political party is talking?
> 
> I believe that's called *intolerance.*


No, I don't. But it's an advertisement. There's a difference between mentioning and advertising. Not to mention, there's a big difference between somebody's religious or political viewpoints, and zoophilia. Also, did I ever say that _wasn't_ intolerance? Yeah, I'm intolerant of zoophiles. Does that _really_ make me a bad person?  Somebody who is honestly sexually attracted to animals is not right in the head, and needs desperate psychological help. We can't continue to feed these peoples' insanity. Like I said before, the line has to be drawn somewhere.


----------



## Kellie Gator (Sep 26, 2010)

Klaue said:


> eh, I don't think so. http://www.collectedcurios.com/


I dunno what the fuck you tried to prove, but the artist still sucks and I stand by that, the whole quasi-animu bullshit is fucking old.



rodox_video said:


> One or two non-anthro porn pics in and of themselves are not a bombshell. It's evidence so shaky it shouldn't even count as evidence. Look instead for shit like this. Look for people* who leave fucked-up comments on submissions that they assume nobody is ever going to click on.


If you're trying to win an argument, you should try posting links that work.



Plutonium said:


> I did just looked at the artist in that ad, I don't think that is feral. This is feral(SFW), clear human emotion and intelligence. This (NSFW at all) is really just a non morphic at all, non intelligent, 100% dog looking dog, hence just being erotic animal art.


I don't get it. Sure, one of them looks more cartoony but other than that they're both the same thing, really.


----------



## Heimdal (Sep 26, 2010)

RandyDarkshade said:


> People shouldn't judge someone based purely on a picture they have seen drawn. Things are not always what they seem.


 
I can't agree. If you don't want people to think about your art then you should never have drawn it. I wish every artist knew this, because *they should!* (Sometimes artists draw something sick _because_ it bothers people, but that's easy to notice.)



			
				Carenath said:
			
		

> First it relies on the automatic association that related artwork  constitutes evidence of a real life paraphilia and for some individuals  evidence that the accused are practising it in real life.


That's exactly what it does, and it's not a hole in any argument. Actually, use of the term "feral erotic" does that by itself; the follow up of actual art of that nature promotes it to an actual concern.



> Second, it is being used largely as an excuse by people in your  position, to expunge artwork you don't like from a site you choose to  reside on as a member.


Personal accusation. True but irrelevant, it debunks nothing.



> Third, it overlooks the fact that we have banned people from this  community after evidence of their illegal activities have come to light.


That's great, but feral erotic is still advertised on FA. This is a mixed message at best.

I agree that help is what people with such problems need, moreso than hate, but a more direct control and discouragement of 'feral erotic art' is strong solution either way. I saw a link to some image of wolves getting it on, and the comments were almost nothing but fan support of such an image. None of them could be into bestiality at all, but that doesn't change the presentation of pure support for it. You want to help someone, the first step is going to be removing them from whatever encourages their problem. Clear control and discouragement of that kind of art can do that, and if it's done effectively enough the outside world may take notice of such a stance.


----------



## Mentova (Sep 26, 2010)

I always wondered, would a furry art site do well if it disallowed porn and other various fucked up things in the fandom? Would it be popular at all or just left in the dust to further prove that the furry fandom is mostly a porn based fetish community and not an an actual community for liking anthro animals.


----------



## Kellie Gator (Sep 26, 2010)

Heckler & Koch said:


> I always wondered, would a furry art site do well if it disallowed porn and other various fucked up things in the fandom? Would it be popular at all or just left in the dust to further prove that the furry fandom is mostly a porn based fetish community and not an an actual community for liking anthro animals.


 Seeing as nobody I know even seems to acknowledge the existence of ArtSpots, I'd say no.


----------



## Aleu (Sep 26, 2010)

Heimdal said:


> I can't agree. If you don't want people to think about your art then you should never have drawn it. I wish every artist knew this, because *they should!* (Sometimes artists draw something sick _because_ it bothers people, but that's easy to notice.)


 I dont think you understand Randy's statement at all.


----------



## Dr. Durr (Sep 26, 2010)

DoeADeer said:


> *sigh*
> I'm tired of posting here. lol. too much work. *goes about business*



Now we need that "RAGEQUIT" sound from those TF2 servers.


----------



## LizardKing (Sep 26, 2010)

Oh hey, the "This" button is back.

Clickety click.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Sep 26, 2010)

LizardKing said:


> Oh hey, the "This" button is back.
> 
> Clickety click.


 
It's been back a week or so now.


----------



## Aleu (Sep 26, 2010)

RandyDarkshade said:


> It's been back a week or so now.


 there's a limit on how many times you can "This" things


----------



## LizardKing (Sep 26, 2010)

RandyDarkshade said:


> It's been back a week or so now.


 
What a coincidence, I've been on holiday for a week or so.


----------



## SnowFox (Sep 26, 2010)

LizardKing said:


> What a coincidence, I've been on holiday for a week or so.


 
Where did you go? was it nice?


----------



## Carenath (Sep 26, 2010)

Heimdal said:


> I can't agree. If you don't want people to think about your art then you should never have drawn it. I wish every artist knew this, because *they should!* (Sometimes artists draw something sick _because_ it bothers people, but that's easy to notice.)


Yes, because we should definately do what the morally self-righteous tell us to and curtail what artists choose to produce. I'm sorry buddy, we don't live in 1984.



Heimdal said:


> That's exactly what it does, and it's not a hole in any argument. Actually, use of the term "feral erotic" does that by itself; the follow up of actual art of that nature promotes it to an actual concern.


Uh, look up Logical Fallacies, specifically, _*cum hoc ergo propter hoc*_. TL;DR Correlation does not imply Causation.



Heimdal said:


> Personal accusation. True but irrelevant, it debunks nothing.


Actually it serves to highlight the bias in the original argument, which itself undermines his position.



Heimdal said:


> That's great, but feral erotic is still advertised on FA. This is a mixed message at best.


You might see it that way, because you're of the same position as Whitenoise. You're making arguments based on your own personal opinions and not logic.



Heimdal said:


> *I agree that help is what people with such problems need, moreso than hate*, but a more direct control and discouragement of 'feral erotic art' is strong solution either way. I saw a link to some image of wolves getting it on, and the comments were almost nothing but fan support of such an image. None of them could be into bestiality at all, but that doesn't change the presentation of pure support for it. You want to help someone, the first step is going to be removing them from whatever encourages their problem. Clear control and discouragement of that kind of art can do that, and if it's done effectively enough the outside world may take notice of such a stance.


 At least this we can agree on, but you've ignored one of my statements. So answer me honestly.
Do you think, that if we ousted every single feral artist, accused zoo and paedo from every furry site and made them pariahs in the community, that the outside world would treat furry any differently than they do already and 'legitimise' the fandom?



Kellie Gator said:


> Seeing as nobody I know even seems to acknowledge the existence of ArtSpots, I'd say no.


 I've never even heard of it.


----------



## Toxic.Vixen (Sep 26, 2010)

No furry is in any place to judge another furfag....
lol
You can not deny that the furry fandom is a fetish.
Not -everything- in the fandom is sexual, but the good majority of it is.

Let the perverts enjoy their porn.
If you don't like it...DONT CLICK IT
Just common sense really.
If you're on FA enough to see that ad, then then fact is you're just as bad as the people jerking off to animal sex lol


----------



## Icky (Sep 26, 2010)

Toxic.Vixen said:


> If you're on FA enough to see that ad, then then fact is you're just as bad as the people jerking off to animal sex lol


 
I'm sorry, I don't think I understood this part of your post correctly. Did you just say that a normal FA user is just as bad as someone who jerks off to animal sex? I'm sure nobody here would actually be dumb enough to think that.


----------



## Toxic.Vixen (Sep 26, 2010)

There might be a small percentage of furfags who are so bland that they have no interest in any strange fetishes. Sure.
But for the most of us, if you're not here to look up Ferals fucking, you're here to look up Inflation...
Or Babyfurs
Or Vore
Or Macros Crushing People
Or Stinky Feet-paws
Or Scat
Or Fatties
Or Skunk Spraying
Or Latex furs
Or Horse cock
-____-;;
I could keep going, but I think you get the point.

Most of the fandom is made up of socially awkward Internet perverts.
In my experience most people on FA just as jaded as feral sex fanatics and look at shit just as sick

I just don't think someone in the furry fandom is on any grounds to judge someone for their fetishes 
lol


----------



## rodox_video (Sep 26, 2010)

Kellie Gator said:


> If you're trying to win an argument, you should try posting links that work.


 
Both of those submissions were flushed in the last 12 hours or less. The zoos are getting a LOT sharper.

And gee, I filed a trouble ticket against that first link too, a trouble ticket nearly a week old that has yet to receive a reply. I usually cap shit a lot more, but all of those submissions are months old.

It's OK, because there's caps of some of Mobianfox's more revealing comments here. This motherfucker has a LOT to hide.

It REALLY doesn't help that (from what I've heard) FA's system is so primitive and broken that deleted comments and submissions are literally permanently purged from the system.


----------



## Plutonium (Sep 26, 2010)

People don't win debates with reason, you win them with rhetoric

Some think its icky but go on their way or at most show a little concern but accept reasonable explanations and move on. Other people are pissy about feral to a moral guardian extent because they are afraid of their own internal attraction to animals much the same way some priests complain about underwear ads being pornographic and then get caught a week later taking it in the ass. They are afraid of it being around because they are probably going to fap to it and its going to shatter their poor little ego's they have built to feel better than other furries. Why is getting more hate than cub porn for god sakes, its because it hits closer to these people insecurities.


----------



## Icky (Sep 26, 2010)

Toxic.Vixen said:


> There might be a small percentage of furfags who are so bland that they have no interest in any strange fetishes. Sure.
> But for the most of us, if you're not here to look up Ferals fucking, you're here to look up
> 
> [blah blah fetishes blah]
> ...


And now you're saying that furries that don't have any fucked-up fetishes are bland? 

Wow.


----------



## Toxic.Vixen (Sep 26, 2010)

Icky said:


> And now you're saying that furries that don't have any fucked-up fetishes are bland?
> 
> Wow.



Yup. I think sane people people in general are pretty bland. Not going to lie...
n.n

Doesn't change the fact that most of the shit on FA is disturbing.
And since the artist in question is only DRAWING animal sex...and not PARTAKING in animal sex... I just don't see what the big deal is.
-____-;;

If you don't like it, don't look at it.
Stop crying lol


----------



## Plutonium (Sep 26, 2010)

The fandom needs to break into more subcultures at this point, it does not mean we stop being furries if we fit into a new fandom, it just means people participate in 2 or more of these subcultures with out any of them having to worry about the deviancy of the other corrupting their precious image to the gods (normal people) because those "bad" things are now associated with other groups. Plushies have effectively been doing this for awhile which is why you don't see much bitching about fursuit/plush sex anymore, its now all in its own new proto subcultures which people just have not noticed exists yet.


----------



## rodox_video (Sep 26, 2010)

guys can we please stop calling it a fandom when subculture is an infinitely more appropriate word

seriously just because some fatbeard made that mistake in the 1990s doesn't mean you all have to keep repeating it until the end of time


----------



## Aleu (Sep 26, 2010)

rodox_video said:


> guys can we please stop calling it a fandom when subculture is an infinitely more appropriate word
> 
> seriously just because some fatbeard made that mistake in the 1990s doesn't mean you all have to keep repeating it until the end of time


 but it IS a fandom :/


----------



## Plutonium (Sep 26, 2010)

AleutheWolf said:


> but it IS a fandom :/


 
Subculture does fit better, fandom implies just being fans of something with some mild customs here and there, a subculture has a full on style and culture which we do even if some are just regular old fans.


----------



## cpam (Sep 26, 2010)

Carenath said:


> Again... Acceptance != Tolerance.
> Acceptance implies you like and agree, Tolerance implies apathy.


 
You might infer that 'tolerance' implies apathy, but it doesn't mean that at all.  'Tolerance' means 'to tolerate', which means 'to permit or allow, so as not to hinder or prohibit'.  (Taken from Webster's.)  Which is not quite as strong a term as 'acceptance', but pretty darn close.  It's a kind of passive acceptance ("well, sure, of course") as opposed to an active ("Absolutely!") or an apathetic one (eh, who cares").


----------



## Aleu (Sep 26, 2010)

cpam said:


> You might infer that 'tolerance' implies apathy, but it doesn't mean that at all.  'Tolerance' means 'to tolerate', which means 'to permit or allow, so as not to hinder or prohibit'.  (Taken from Webster's.)  Which is not quite as strong a term as 'acceptance', but pretty darn close.  It's a kind of passive acceptance ("well, sure, of course") as opposed to an active ("Absolutely!") or an apathetic one (eh, who cares").


 You can tolerate something but not agree with it. It's more related to apathy than accepting.


----------



## cpam (Sep 26, 2010)

Carenath said:


> [Originally Posted by Kellie Gator
> "Seeing as nobody I know even seems to acknowledge the existence of ArtSpots, I'd say no."]
> 
> I've never even heard of it.



http://www.artspots.com/



Toxic.Vixen said:


> You can not deny that the furry fandom is a fetish.



I can.

People use it AS a fetish and bring their fetishes TO it, but that does not make the fandom itself a fetish.



Plutonium said:


> Subculture does fit better, fandom implies just being fans of something with some mild customs here and there, a subculture has a full on style and culture which we do even if some are just regular old fans.


 
In which case I much prefer 'fandom' (especially given its roots) since the 'subculture' aspect doesn't really interest or involve me very much.

That of itself suggests that Furry is a dual personality, most likely a result of the fandom and the lifestylers merging -- not quite successfully -- over the past decade or so.



AleutheWolf said:


> You can tolerate something but not agree with it. It's more related to apathy than accepting.


 
'Not agreeing with something' is a far stronger reaction than being apathetic or not caring about something.


----------



## Aleu (Sep 26, 2010)

cpam said:


> 'Not agreeing with something' is a far stronger reaction than being apathetic or not caring about something.


 there's action and thought
You can think on something and not act on it which would be the same as not really caring either way.


----------



## Alstor (Sep 26, 2010)

cpam said:


> I can.
> 
> People use it AS a fetish and bring their fetishes TO it, but that does not make the fandom itself a fetish.


 A good definition of "fetish" is an "excessive or irrational devotion to some activity."

In the furry fandom, people devote themselves to anthropomorphic animals to some degree.

Furry isn't a paraphernalia all the time, but it's a fetish.


----------



## Aleu (Sep 26, 2010)

Alstor said:


> A good definition of "fetish" is an "excessive or irrational devotion to some activity."
> 
> In the furry fandom, people devote themselves to anthropomorphic animals to some degree.
> 
> Furry isn't a paraphernalia all the time, but it's a fetish.


I guess I have a supernatural fetish because I draw those all the time.


----------



## Carenath (Sep 26, 2010)

cpam said:


> You might infer that 'tolerance' implies apathy, but it doesn't mean that at all.  'Tolerance' means 'to tolerate', which means 'to permit or allow, so as not to hinder or prohibit'.  (Taken from Webster's.)  Which is not quite as strong a term as 'acceptance', but pretty darn close.  It's a kind of passive acceptance ("well, sure, of course") as opposed to an active ("Absolutely!") or an apathetic one (eh, who cares").


 
Tolerance (noun): the ability or willingness to tolerate the existence of opinions or behaviour that one *dislikes or disagrees* with.
Tolerate (verb): allow the existence, occurrence, or practice of (something that one *dislikes or disagrees* with) without interference.

Acceptance (noun): *agreement* with or belief in an idea or explanation.

Taken from the Oxford English Dictionary. There is a distinct difference between tolerating something, and accepting something.

Also.. learn to use the edit button, there's no need to make 4 posts in a row.


----------



## cpam (Sep 26, 2010)

AleutheWolf said:


> there's action and thought



And there is also active and passive voice.



AleutheWolf said:


> You can think on something and not act on it which would be the same as not really caring either way.


 
Yes, but neither is the same as not liking something.  'Not liking' is an active phrase; "I don't like this", "I am not liking this", "I will never like this".  Apathy is passive; it doesn't require liking or not liking; it simply doesn't care.


----------



## cpam (Sep 26, 2010)

Alstor said:


> A good definition of "fetish" is an "excessive or irrational devotion to some activity."
> 
> In the furry fandom, people devote themselves to anthropomorphic animals to some degree.
> 
> Furry isn't a paraphernalia all the time, but it's a fetish.


 
I think that's an overstatement.  My dictionary defines fetish as 'any object of unreasoning devotion'.  Both Irrational and Unreasoning are the key words here; if anybody devotes themselves to anthropomorphic animals to a point of irrational or unreasonable degree, _then _they would be making a fetish of it.  But that does not describe the actions of the fandom itself, as either a generalization or as an entire body; just the irrational and unreasoning few.


----------



## cpam (Sep 26, 2010)

Carenath said:


> Tolerance (noun): the ability or willingness to tolerate the existence of opinions or behaviour that one *dislikes or disagrees* with.
> Tolerate (verb): allow the existence, occurrence, or practice of (something that one *dislikes or disagrees* with) without interference.
> 
> Acceptance (noun): *agreement* with or belief in an idea or explanation.
> ...


 
I think it's well understood that tolerance is still an act of passive and even conditional acceptance.  You may not agree with a particular stance or line of argument or belief, but if you tolerate it, than you're accepting it even if only for the sake of avoiding a violent disagreement.


----------



## Cahawba (Sep 26, 2010)

Beta Link said:


> The furry fandom has _always_ been about anthropomorphic animals. Saying it's about animals in general is like saying the Star Trek fandom encompasses all science-fiction.
> But, to satisfy your need for links, here's some well-known pages:
> http://en.wikifur.com/wiki/Furry_fandom
> http://www.anthrocon.org/about-furry


Well at least you realize that furry and bestiality (for the love of god spell it right people) are in the same sex boat.


> No, I don't. But it's an advertisement.  There's a difference between mentioning and advertising.


The advertisement mentions feral artwork.  Your point is invalid.



> Not to mention, there's a big difference between somebody's religious or political viewpoints, and zoophilia.


 Religion and politics are sociological institutions.  Zoophilia is a sociological taboo.  Both sociological institutions moderate folkways, mores, and taboos.  Your point is again invalid.  



> Also, did I ever say that _wasn't_ [intolerant]? Yeah, I'm intolerant of zoophiles. Does that _really_ make me a bad person?


Are homophobes _really_ bad people?  Were the nazis _really_ wrong in mindlessly killing all the jews?  Was Nero _really_ such a terrible ruler for using Christians as gore shows?

Yes, yes you are a bad person. 



> Somebody who is honestly sexually attracted to animals is not right in the head, and needs desperate psychological help. We can't continue to feed these peoples' insanity. Like I said before, the line has to be drawn somewhere.


That line has been drawn for a long time.  In fact, it's only been recently that we've been allowed to talk with this stuff without the risk of death.  Why?

Because of people who insist on drawing a line without looking at the facts, just like you.



cpam said:


> I think that's an overstatement.  My dictionary  defines fetish as 'any object of unreasoning devotion'.


I would very much like to know what dictionary you are using.  Fetish is a French word derived from the Latan factÄ«cius, meaning artificial or spontaneous.


----------



## Willow (Sep 26, 2010)

I've seen fetish defined several ways, one of the most basic being more or less an attraction to or high reverence for an/a object or body part. 

Just like philia doesn't always refer to a sexual attraction, but rather an unnatural attraction to something, though it's usually used in a sexual sense.


----------



## Heimdal (Sep 26, 2010)

Carenath said:


> Yes, because we should definately do what the morally self-righteous tell us to and curtail what artists choose to produce. I'm sorry buddy, we don't live in 1984.



Nothing an artist creates is beyond criticism or is automatically good and acceptable. Despite what furries believe.



> Uh, look up Logical Fallacies, specifically, _*cum hoc ergo propter hoc*_. TL;DR Correlation does not imply Causation.



"Feral erotic" is a paraphilia. I don't know if it leads to actually humping the pooch, but the kind of attraction is the same. There is a relationship there. Good enough.



> Do you think, that if we ousted every single feral artist, accused zoo and paedo from every furry site and made them pariahs in the community, that the outside world would treat furry any differently than they do already and 'legitimise' the fandom?



If that were possible, then yes, probably. Why not? It's irrational to assume the outside world is just stupid and ignorant. You have to consider the ad the OP mentions, the weird fetishes, and the tendency to shut away from society.. maybe furries are hated based on exactly what people see?
What could the counter to this be? Furries have tried _nothing_ to fix this and haven't moved up the social ladder, therefor it's impossible..?



> You're making arguments based on your own personal opinions and not logic.



 When logic is defending dog penises, I'm done.


----------



## Willow (Sep 27, 2010)

Heimdal said:


> When logic is defending dog penises, I'm done.


 In any debate, logic is a good weapon. Though poor logic is about as good as a broken sword or an ammo-less gun. 
Trying to defend dog penises with logic is like taking a giant rubber mallet into battle.


----------



## Carenath (Sep 27, 2010)

cpam said:


> I think it's well understood that tolerance is still an act of passive and even conditional acceptance.  You may not agree with a particular stance or line of argument or belief, but if you tolerate it, than you're accepting it even if only for the sake of avoiding a violent disagreement.


 You're missing the point. You keep trying to equate tolerance to acceptance, while missing the important differences. You could have pointed out, what I'm about to, that tolerance is also expressed as grudgingly accepting. That in tolerating unpleasent and unlikable elements of the fandom, does not mean you like it or agree with it. You might 'conditionally _accept_' it but you don't *accept* it.



Heimdal said:


> Nothing an artist creates is beyond criticism or is automatically good and acceptable. Despite what furries believe.


I never argued that it was, I simply pointed out that we do not live in a fascist dictatorship that picks and chooses what art should be allowed and what should be expunged based purely on the views of the moral self-righteous 'thought police'. Weither artwork is acceptable to you and I, is entirely irrelevant to weither or not it is permitted to exist. There is a lot of 'art', "feral erotic" included that I dislike, but I will never impose my morality on anyone else. I prefer to live and let live, I'm apathetic to anything that does not cause physical harm to an innocent. Especially when it doesn't involve me. 



Heimdal said:


> "Feral erotic" is a paraphilia. I don't know if it leads to actually humping the pooch, but the kind of attraction is the same. There is a relationship there. Good enough.


First, this is another logical fallacy, repeating myself: Correlation does not imply Causation.
"Anthro erotic" is a paraphilia. I'm reasonably sure that most of the people that I know, who enjoy that kind of pornographic artwork, consisting of half *animal* characters, don't go humping their dogs.



Heimdal said:


> If that were possible, then yes, probably. Why not? It's irrational to assume the outside world is just stupid and ignorant. You have to consider the ad the OP mentions, the weird fetishes, and the tendency to shut away from society.. maybe furries are hated based on exactly what people see?
> What could the counter to this be? Furries have tried _nothing_ to fix this and haven't moved up the social ladder, therefor it's impossible..?


Then you're delusional, these are not the sole reasons (indeed not even the main reasons) why furries 'get picked on' by some outsiders.
The ad is one thing, but there's also the adverts for the likes of Bad Dragon, a company that makes dildos that look strikingly similar to real horses and dogs alongside the obvious fictional designs based of dragons, gryphons, werewolves etc.
Humans have all manner of weird fetishes, they just stick to their own like-minded communities and i'm pretty sure outsiders see them as equally strange and fair game to 'make fun of'. No point in singling out furry as being anyway different to any other group of people in this regard.
And furry is not much different from any other group that doesn't feel 'normal' or 'included' in mainstream society.

What sets furry so strikingly apart, and encourages the trolls to go after us? Furries get off on half *animal* characters, nothing more. Furries take things too fucking seriously sometimes, so when people rip the piss, they get all hissy about it instead of taking it in their stride. Furries are the embodyment of that boy in the class that couldn't take a joke, so everyone would rip on him, knowing he would throw a fit. Scaling it back.. it's simple psychology. Furries want to change how people see them? They just need to man up and stop acting like children every time someone says something they don't agree with. Kicking out the unacceptable members of the community is a good thing, but it's not enough to change how a minority of people look at us.



Heimdal said:


> When logic is defending dog penises, I'm done.


 There's a difference between defending people's rights to produce artwork we don't like, because I believe in the 1st Ammendment, and defending people who have been proven to abuse animals. I've said it before, if someone gives me hard evidence that a person is abusing animals, I will deal with them. I have no tolerance for animal abusers.


----------



## Redregon (Sep 27, 2010)

wow, there seem to be a lot of apologists defending the sick-fuckery here... 

personally, i couldn't give a rats ass about the fandom. i just want to get rid of the sick shit off THIS site. hell, let the pedo's go to inkbunny... it's run by pedos anyway so they'd be among like minded individuals anyway. 

and suggesting that i'm somehow immature or working up over nothing because i dislike and am open about that dislike regarding sick shit is basically insulting. suggesting i have to turn the other cheek? what are we, a religion? are we trying to better ourselves? no... it's just a hobby. but when that hobby includes things like finding sexual gratification in fantasies about fucking animals or children, there is something very wrong with that person... not with me.

basically, i'm not going to be some spineless pussy about the shit i disagree with. saying i'm somehow taking the fandom too seriously is a dismissive joke to pretend to sound morally superior... but hey, if sick shit were banned from this site the mods would have to (*GASP*) actually do their fucking jobs and be the "meanie" which i've noticed they are loathe to do.

so... who's really the spineless one here?


----------



## Plutonium (Sep 27, 2010)

Redregon said:


> wow, there seem to be a lot of apologists defending the sick-fuckery here...
> 
> personally, i couldn't give a rats ass about the fandom. i just want to get rid of the sick shit off THIS site. hell, let the pedo's go to inkbunny... it's run by pedos anyway so they'd be among like minded individuals anyway.
> 
> ...


 
Finding it sick would be no problem, when your a dogmatic moral guarding about it and accusing people that they are probably pedos because they don't agree with your every word (your last post in that other topic) then one has to assume you probably are guilt ridden and have no self control to not masturbate to cub porn like the people you keep accusing of doing so because they simply disagree with you and your quest to purge and ban everything that tempts you.


----------



## Ferdie (Sep 27, 2010)

I'm new to the community and feeling very scared.

What craziness did I walk into?


----------



## Plutonium (Sep 27, 2010)

Ferdie said:


> I'm new to the community and feeling very scared.
> 
> What craziness did I walk into?


 
FAF is a not place to start out new to it all, this is like lvl 9 of a very messed up video game. The rest of the fandom, the main site, other sites are little better places to start off in I recommend.


----------



## Redregon (Sep 27, 2010)

Plutonium said:


> Finding it sick would be no problem, when your a dogmatic moral guarding about it and accusing people that they are probably pedos because they don't agree with your every word (your last post in that other topic) then one has to assume you probably are guilt ridden and have no self control to not masturbate to cub porn like the people you keep accusing of doing so because they simply disagree with you and your quest to purge and ban everything that tempts you.


 
oh wow, this is the most pathetic attempt at an ad hominem i've ever seen. points for effort but it's still a failure.

but hey, keep trying. i sure could use a good laugh and retarded shit tend to really make my belly hurt with the lulz.


----------



## Plutonium (Sep 27, 2010)

Redregon said:


> oh wow, this is the most pathetic attempt at an ad hominem i've ever seen. points for effort but it's still a failure.
> 
> but hey, keep trying. i sure could use a good laugh and retarded shit tend to really make my belly hurt with the lulz.


 
Being a reasonable person who is not familiar with the advanced use of logical fallacies, I wont be as good as you; I don't really consider it an insult. Lets switch to calmer debating.

Would you consider yourself a supporter of steroid use that has killed many young men and seriously damaged them?


----------



## Redregon (Sep 27, 2010)

Plutonium said:


> Would you consider yourself a supporter of steroid use that has killed many young men and seriously damaged them?


 
no. that shit's dangerous and can fuck you up.


----------



## Plutonium (Sep 27, 2010)

Redregon said:


> no. that shit's dangerous and can fuck you up.


 
I agree its awful

You do seem to like big furries though http://www.furaffinity.net/favorites/redregon/. I imagine you would think it is insane for someone to accuse you of supporting these drugs but liking and looking at buff pictures could be seen that way, even if they got that way naturally in there fictional universe (like ferals being intelligent, cubs not being harmed by sex in fiction) it would be impossible or at least is very very rare in RL to do that with out drugs and someone could reason that people like buff furries or men is supporting that drug in RL and even ignore reason that they could get that way naturally.

You like buff from the looks of it, but you don't support the harm and damaged it can do in RL I imagine even if the person did not use steroids, a person can be really deformed later in life much like someone who was very over weight and have similar heart problems. If you met a real buff guy maybe you would not even like it much because it's just fantasy. A lot find it gross too but are they trying to ban it because of some implied harm it does?

You see what point this post is going after right...


----------



## Redregon (Sep 27, 2010)

Plutonium said:


> I agree its awful
> 
> You do seem to like big furries though http://www.furaffinity.net/favorites/redregon/. I imagine you would think it is insane for someone to accuse you of supporting these drugs but liking and looking at buff pictures could be seen that way, even if they got that way naturally in there fictional universe (like ferals being intelligent, cubs not being harmed by sex in fiction) it would be impossible or at least is very very rare in RL to do that with out drugs and someone could reason that people like buff furries or men is supporting that drug in RL and even ignore reason that they could get that way naturally.
> 
> ...


 
oh, right... because the only way for someone to get big muscles is to use steroids. 9_9 

you know, the only thing that this little exchange is proving is that you're being a retard... right?


----------



## Plutonium (Sep 27, 2010)

Redregon said:


> oh, right... because the only way for someone to get big muscles is to use steroids. 9_9
> 
> you know, the only thing that this little exchange is proving is that you're being a retard... right?




Redregon, you're an illogical imbecile that is to oblivious to taste his own medicine. I'm putting you on block and pretending you just don't exist, kinda like Cuba.


----------



## Gavrill (Sep 27, 2010)

Just kill each other and get it over with.


----------



## Plutonium (Sep 27, 2010)

Molly said:


> Just kill each other and get it over with.


 
Already ignoring him, I don't like being called names.



Alstor said:


> A good definition of "fetish" is an "excessive or irrational devotion to some activity."
> 
> In the furry fandom, people devote themselves to anthropomorphic animals to some degree.
> 
> Furry isn't a paraphernalia all the time, but it's a fetish.



Fetish does sound right but it should probably be a separate "furry fetish" instead of what the fandom is. I see clean artists all the time who are not into it that way.


----------



## Gavrill (Sep 27, 2010)

Plutonium said:


> Already ignoring him, I don't like being called names.


 I didn't ignore half the known world.

I killed the shit out of it.


----------



## Redregon (Sep 27, 2010)

Plutonium said:


> Already ignoring him, I don't like being called names.


 
hey, i just calls em as i see em.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Sep 27, 2010)

> Already ignoring him, I don't like being called names.


You don't like being called names, yet you were quick to fire a name back at him.

And why the hell can't I quote anyone?


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Sep 27, 2010)

Redregon said:


> hey, i just calls em as i see em.



Petty name calling isn't nice though. When people do it to me I always feel like just ending a debate, Im not the type of person to ignore people.


----------



## Redregon (Sep 27, 2010)

RandyDarkshade said:


> Petty name calling isn't nice though. When people do it to me I always feel like just ending a debate, Im not the type of person to ignore people.


 
well, i'm not you though


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Sep 27, 2010)

Redregon said:


> well, i'm not you though



I can't hold a grudge either, if someone pisses me off on here, by the next day I'd have forgot about it.


----------



## Toxic.Vixen (Sep 27, 2010)

Redregon said:


> it's just a hobby. but when that hobby includes things like finding sexual gratification in fantasies about fucking animals or children, there is something very wrong with that person... not with me.



You make it sound like these people are ACTUALLY fucking animals and children. There is an insignificantly small percentage of people in the fandom who would go as far as to have REAL intercourse with a child or an animal.
The pictures aren't hurting anyone.
People who are fucked in the head and commit rape are going to rape with or without drawn pornography.

But somehow I doubt the owner of the ad in question is a serial dog rapist -____-
He's a furfag, just like you and just like me.

No one wakes up one day and decides "I'm going to jerk off to dog cock from now on"
No one picks their fetishes.
So don't criminalize someone for harmless pictures.



Redregon said:


> basically, i'm not going to be some spineless pussy about the shit i disagree with. saying i'm somehow taking the fandom too seriously is a dismissive joke to pretend to sound morally superior... but hey, if sick shit were banned from this site the mods would have to (*GASP*) actually do their fucking jobs and be the "meanie" which i've noticed they are loathe to do.
> 
> so... who's really the spineless one here?



Tolerating people [especially people with obvious mental problems] is not spineless.

If they are not hurting you.
If they are not hurting animals/children.
Then stfu and cry in your own corner, because the people enjoying their porn don't want to hear about it.


----------



## Dass (Sep 27, 2010)

*NOTE; the following is only here to preserve this post. This no longer reflects the author's opinion.*

Oh, look, it's something like the 4179th version of this thread.

I'm not about to sit here, lie through my teeth, and say it's not sexual. What I am going to say is that the people who blast this for being sexual are fucking hypocrites. What is the most popular advertising tactic in the world? Hot women wearing very little clothing. What are most songs on the radio presently about? Sex and/or hot women. What is something that shows up in a few episodes of almost every TV show? Sex. I don't think we actually care any more or less about it than average, people just notice it because they've been conditioned to think of what I just mentioned as typical. There's no reason to single us out beyond the fact that we aren't all denying it.
I think I'm in denial over how hypersexual most people here are and that I'm probably one of them. HELP!
Since I'm late to the party, I'm almost entirely certain that someone else has already made a point of this, but I can't be arsed to find out.


----------



## Redregon (Sep 28, 2010)

Toxic.Vixen said:


> You make it sound like these people are ACTUALLY fucking animals and children..



learn to read then.



Toxic.Vixen said:


> Tolerating people [especially people with obvious mental problems] is not spineless.



so, we should all be happy fluffy hugboxes then? 

no. i will not tolerate someone or something i find disgusting. if you want to think that i'm some horrible person because of that that's fine by me... i really don't give a shit about you or your opinion of me to be completely honest. 

and if a person has mental issues, why should we pretend they don't by doing the "oh, it's going to be allright" route when really we should be saying "dude, you're sick. you need to get help."


----------



## Ozriel (Sep 28, 2010)

Dass said:


> Oh, look, it's something like the 4179th version of this thread.
> 
> I'm not about to sit here, lie through my teeth, and say it's not sexual. What I am going to say is that the people who blast this for being sexual are fucking hypocrites. What is the most popular advertising tactic in the world? Hot women wearing very little clothing. What are most songs on the radio presently about? Sex and/or hot women. What is something that shows up in a few episodes of almost every TV show? Sex. I don't think we actually care any more or less about it than average, people just notice it because they've been conditioned to think of what I just mentioned as typical. There's no reason to single us out beyond the fact that we aren't all denying it.
> I think I'm in denial over how hypersexual most people here are and that I'm probably one of them. HELP!
> Since I'm late to the party, I'm almost entirely certain that someone else has already made a point of this, but I can't be arsed to find out.



So hypersexualizing house pet drawings is okay to make money?
Makes sense. :V



Redregon said:


> learn to read then.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
It's better to be an asshat than an enabler in the fandom.

People need to learn that it is okay to have standards. Not tolerating or accepting certain things does not make you a bad person.


----------



## Leafblower29 (Sep 28, 2010)

I don't mind if people immediately hate me for being furry (I can see why) so it really doesn't bother me. Usually they end up being cool with me.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Sep 28, 2010)

Redregon said:


> so, we should all be happy fluffy hugboxes then?


I'm not a hugbox, I'm a fuckin' iron maiden! >


----------



## Morroke (Sep 28, 2010)

Plutonium said:


> FAF is a not place to start out new to it all, this is like lvl 9 of a very messed up video game. The rest of the fandom, the main site, other sites are little better places to start off in I recommend.


 
Agreed, start on the main site with the mature filter off so you can feel more welcome in the furry community.


----------



## Charrio (Sep 28, 2010)

Lol I have seen this ad on the page more and more, i bet he has been given or bought more ad time thanks to the hits this thread had given his site, lol


----------



## Ziggywolf (Sep 28, 2010)

Judas christ, and people ask me why I drink


----------



## Toxic.Vixen (Sep 28, 2010)

Redregon said:


> learn to read then.


I never said no one has ever raped children or animals. Durp.
But the poster of the Feral Erotic ad in question isn't.
Nor are the people buying the art.
So no reason to start QQing



Redregon said:


> so, we should all be happy fluffy hugboxes then?
> 
> no. i will not tolerate someone or something i find disgusting. if you want to think that i'm some horrible person because of that that's fine by me... i really don't give a shit about you or your opinion of me to be completely honest.
> 
> and if a person has mental issues, why should we pretend they don't by doing the "oh, it's going to be allright" route when really we should be saying "dude, you're sick. you need to get help."


It's your life darling.
If you want to live it judging people based on issues they are powerless to control, that's your business.
But keep that to yourself.

These people are not hurting anyone by drawing dog porn.
They don't deserve to be insulted or harassed because of their fetishes.
Like I said, no one picks their fetishes.
No one just decides one day for their cock to only get hard when thinking about four legged animals...

Fetishes, especially extreme ones, are usually the result of traumatic mental scaring.
It's really unfair to criminalize people who are just trying to cope.

That's whats so inspiring about the furry fandom.
No matter how socially inept you are.
No matter how depraved you are.
No matter how perverted you are.
You'll always find friends.

Live and let live.


----------



## Willow (Sep 28, 2010)

Toxic.Vixen said:


> Fetishes, especially extreme ones, are usually the result of traumatic mental scaring.


 I had a traumatic experience with children so now it's my fetish :V


----------



## Toxic.Vixen (Sep 28, 2010)

Willow said:


> I had a traumatic experience with children so now it's my fetish :V


 lol
you're missing the point again
I'm not going to let you drag me offtopic this time
n.n


----------



## Verin Asper (Sep 28, 2010)

Toxic.Vixen said:


> lol
> you're missing the point again
> I'm not going to let you drag me offtopic this time
> n.n


 like how you ran from that topic :V


Toxic.Vixen said:


> That's whats so inspiring about the furry fandom.
> No matter how socially inept you are.
> No matter how depraved you are.
> No matter how perverted you are.
> You'll always find friends.


and to finish that incomplete quote
"Till you open your mouth and no one WANTS to hear about what you are into."


----------



## Redregon (Sep 28, 2010)

Toxic.Vixen said:


> It's your life darling.
> If you want to live it judging people based on issues they are powerless to control, that's your business.
> But keep that to yourself.



No.



Toxic.Vixen said:


> These people are not hurting anyone by drawing dog porn.
> They don't deserve to be insulted or harassed because of their fetishes.



no, you're wrong. they deserve to be ridiculed and mocked until they get psychological help. remember, furry isn't some grand hugbox, it's just a hobby. read that again... it is just a hobby.

and remember, we're not talking about merely fetishes, we're talking about shit like beastialit, child pornography and other deviant shit... fetishes like bondage or other things where it's safe, sane and consensual do not factor into this thread discussion.



Toxic.Vixen said:


> Like I said, no one picks their fetishes.
> No one just decides one day for their cock to only get hard when thinking about four legged animals...
> 
> Fetishes, especially extreme ones, are usually the result of traumatic mental scaring.
> It's really unfair to criminalize people who are just trying to cope.



tough noogums. they can't handle people being critical about them and their interests? maybe they should keep that shit to themselves instead of plastering it all over the damn internet. it's idiotic to suggest that people that don't show any tact or discretion about blabbering about their sickness should be given that courtesy by people that feel strongly against the shit they do. that's what's called a double-standard. 



Toxic.Vixen said:


> That's whats so inspiring about the furry fandom.
> No matter how socially inept you are.
> No matter how depraved you are.
> No matter how perverted you are.
> You'll always find friends.



HAhahah, oh wow, looks like we've got ourselves another Fur-gin on our hands here. don't worry kiddo... that naive idealism will either fade or be ripped apart someday. trust me, it's going to happen or you're going to go batty.


----------



## Carenath (Sep 28, 2010)

Redregon said:


> so, we should all be happy fluffy hugboxes then?
> 
> no. i will not tolerate someone or something i find disgusting. if you want to think that i'm some horrible person because of that that's fine by me... i really don't give a shit about you or your opinion of me to be completely honest.
> 
> and if a person has mental issues, why should we pretend they don't by doing the "oh, it's going to be allright" route when really we should be saying "dude, you're sick. you need to get help."


 No. Tolerance != Hugbox.

If you don't like the fact, that we afford our users with virtually unfettered freedom of expression, you are free to leave at any time.

If that was all you were doing, and were civil about it, you'd garner more support. But to be blunt, you'd probably prefer those people were rounded up and shot.


----------



## Toxic.Vixen (Sep 28, 2010)

Redregon said:


> No.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I'm sorry you've had such a bad experience in the fandom =(

But I think it's really sweet how accepting furries are!
There were so many fucked up people I met when I went to furry dinners and parties.
But no matter how weird or how messed up they were, they still could at least say they had a few furry friends in life.
I'm not a kid, and I'm not naive because I've seen the kind of love and acceptance the furry fandom has to offer first hand.
[So please try not to resort to petty insults already -___-]

Who are you to say what people are and aren't allowed to put on the Internet?
Now if we were talking about PHOTOGRAPHIC bestiality porn, it would be a completely different story. Same with photographic child porn.
That kind of shit is evidence of really fucked up crimes, that can't be justified.

But we're talking about a drawing!
No one is suffering.
Nothing bad has happened.
And if someone is fucked up enough to rape an animal/child, they're going to do it with or without porn.

These people don't need psychological help.
They also don't need to be harassed by other, overly-righteous furfags who probably have done/thought of/jerked off to sick shit just the same.
It's really pointless.
Your crying isn't going to somehow reverse their mental defects. So just relax.
No animals were harmed in the drawings of these pictures n.n


----------



## Willow (Sep 28, 2010)

Carenath said:


> No. Tolerance != Hugbox.


 There's a point though, where tolerating people's dirty little secrets crosses over into asspatting. 

More or less when the subject openly talks about it all the time, and no one stops to think that they really need to stop talking about it.


----------



## Verin Asper (Sep 28, 2010)

Carenath said:


> No. Tolerance != Hugbox.
> 
> If you don't like the fact, that we afford our users with virtually unfettered freedom of expression, you are free to leave at any time.
> 
> If that was all you were doing, and were civil about it, you'd garner more support. But to be blunt, you'd probably prefer those people were rounded up and shot.


 yea....but the problem is those furs are seeking ACCEPTANCE, not being tolerated, and there is a time to talk about what you are into and a time when you shouldnt.


----------



## Verin Asper (Sep 28, 2010)

Toxic.Vixen said:


> I'm sorry you've had such a bad experience in the fandom =(
> 
> But I think it's really sweet how accepting furries are!
> There were so many fucked up people I met when I went to furry dinners and parties.
> ...


 please tell that whole Drawing thing to the United Kingdom, they deemed ALL forms as illegal
Then again by your sad definition I'm not a furry so who am I to tell furs what to do.


----------



## Toxic.Vixen (Sep 28, 2010)

Crysix Fousen said:


> please tell that whole Drawing thing to the United Kingdom, they deemed ALL forms as illegal
> Then again by your sad definition I'm not a furry so who am I to tell furs what to do.


 
Wow o_o;;

I don't even...
You're a furfag if you're part of the fandom and never once did I say otherwise...
[You're on FAF, so I have always assumed you're part of the fandom, thus a furry]


I don't live in the UK. FA servers are not based in the UK. 
The UKs laws matter about as much to this argument, and to me, as the laws in Pakistani. 
Just because they stone women to death for showing off their hair, doesn't mean we - in civilized, free countries - should.
Nor should we harass people for DRAWING something.
Freedom of Expression =3


----------



## Carenath (Sep 28, 2010)

Willow said:


> There's a point though, where tolerating people's dirty little secrets crosses over into asspatting.
> 
> More or less when the subject openly talks about it all the time, and no one stops to think that they really need to stop talking about it.


 Yes.. I'll grant you that, but a basic modicum of tolerance for people who are into stuff you don't like or find repugnant is a good thing to have, knowing when to voice your criticisms and knowing when to walk away.
Some people are also, just thickheaded and won't understand valid criticisms and evidence in your favour and prefer to respond with "Troll" and "NO U" instead of countering your points.



Crysix Fousen said:


> yea....but the problem is those furs are seeking ACCEPTANCE, not being tolerated, and there is a time to talk about what you are into and a time when you shouldnt.


 There is this, certainly, and then they call the lack of acceptance "intolerance", make references to gay people etc.


----------



## Toxic.Vixen (Sep 28, 2010)

Willow said:


> Seriously, can we just ban you. It's pretty obvious that you're baiting people.



Why does acceptance of peoples ambitions[regardless of how strange they may seem] 'bait' you?
Why is it that it makes you so mad?
O___o

It's the Internet ffs
Relax and let the people enjoy themselves.
They aren't hurting you, no reason to hurt them.


----------



## Willow (Sep 28, 2010)

Carenath said:


> Yes.. I'll grant you that, but a basic modicum of tolerance for people who are into stuff you don't like or find repugnant is a good thing to have, knowing when to voice your criticisms and knowing when to walk away.
> Some people are also, just thickheaded and won't understand valid criticisms and evidence in your favour and prefer to respond with "Troll" and "NO U" instead of countering your points.


 Then again, some people are being neither tolerant or intolerant. They could just really care less about your shit and piss fetish and would rather you not talk about it.


----------



## Redregon (Sep 28, 2010)

Toxic.Vixen said:


> I'm sorry you've had such a bad experience in the fandom =(



heheh, nice generalization. frankly, i fucking love the fandom despite it's sick members. it's fun, rather care free and there are a lot of really groovy people here. i've been in the fandom for going on 12 years now and if i really didn't like it, i'd just walk away from it. nice attempt at reading into what i've said... doesn't say anything about me though it does say a lot about you. hmm... i think i'm with Willow in that it seems you're just trying to bait people... either that or you're just really, really naive bordering on idiocy.



Toxic.Vixen said:


> But I think it's really sweet how accepting furries are!
> There were so many fucked up people I met when I went to furry dinners and parties.
> But no matter how weird or how messed up they were, they still could at least say they had a few furry friends in life.
> I'm not a kid, and I'm not naive because I've seen the kind of love and acceptance the furry fandom has to offer first hand.
> [So please try not to resort to petty insults already -___-]



see, that one is easy to understand. furries are generally composed of people that were the social outcasts and geeks. given that, it isn't a stretch to understand why so many of them are loathe to speak their minds about shit that churns their stomach... because if you ostracize ANYONE, you're no better than those mean bullies that stole their lunch money in high school... furries: the people that are typically social doormats because they're afraid of being stepped on. (irony much?)



Toxic.Vixen said:


> Who are you to say what people are and aren't allowed to put on the Internet?
> Now if we were talking about PHOTOGRAPHIC bestiality porn, it would be a completely different story. Same with photographic child porn.
> That kind of shit is evidence of really fucked up crimes, that can't be justified.
> 
> ...



which is more the reason to wash our hands of the whole thing lest people think that we're all a little bit like they are. i mean, easy way to explain that... no matter how enlightened people claim to be in the united states, anti-muslim stentiment is RIFE and many muslims are in fear because of a small group. it's not right, but it is as it is. don't like it? vacate the human species. unless there's some worldwide shift in behavior or consciousness, it's going to always be that way no matter how much you may not like it. my point? well, how bout this adage... you will be judged based on the company you keep. our company (in the fandom) include some very, very sick people that should be getting help for their issues instead of cowering behind the site owner like pussies pretending that nothing's wrong.



Toxic.Vixen said:


> These people don't need psychological help.



yes they do. 



Toxic.Vixen said:


> They also don't need to be harassed by other, overly-righteous furfags who probably have done/thought of/jerked off to sick shit just the same.



yeah... they actually do... of nobody points out their sickness they'll keep on with the assumtion that they aren't sick.

nice use of "Furfag" though... it gets me... right here... you've utterly wounded me i'm dying of the barb. please, stop for all that is good and holy that single word is my kryptonite and i am bleeding out here. oh wait, is it really right for me to use sarcasm? i mean, you strike me as the retarded idealist that takes everything they hear and read as SRS BZNS!!! but hey, what can i expect from a loser lolita that probably has very little tread on the tire. (hey, to the mods... if i am infracted for this, you better infract her since she did start it... is that childish? maybe... but the rules are the rules and you know it.)



Toxic.Vixen said:


> It's really pointless.
> Your crying isn't going to somehow reverse their mental defects. So just relax.
> No animals were harmed in the drawings of these pictures n.n


 
maybe so, but that doesn't mean that people should stop telling sick people they're sick. they don't like it? well, maybe they should get help. until then, there will always be people that will call them sick. trufax.


----------



## Attaman (Sep 28, 2010)

Dass said:


> I'm not about to sit here, lie through my teeth, and say it's not sexual.


Oh good, for a moment I thought-


Dass said:


> There's no reason to single us out beyond the fact that we aren't all denying it.


 ... Fuck. 

You do realize the standard Furry response to _anything_ said by a non-fandom member that associates any level of sexual activity to the fandom is "EBUL TROLL GTFO CLEAN FANDOM TERE IS NO PORN WE CLEAN U ONLY MISLED TROLL GTFO MODS MODS COPYRIGHT VIOLATION HARASSMENT HATE CRIME!"  Fuck, I've had people in the fandom tell me that those who look at Furry Porn aren't _true furries_.  Yes, some furfags said that anyone who looks at any furry porn isn't a furry:  Do you have any idea, if we followed that logic, how many members of FA wouldn't be furries?



Dass said:


> What I am going to say is that the people who blast this for being sexual are fucking hypocrites.


  Go to DakkaDakka, and tell me how much Warhammer (40K) / Tabletop Gaming Porn you find in either the galleries or topics, or subjects on fetishes for that matter.

I blast furry not for having smut:  If I said "look online for how much Warhammer (40K) / Tabletop Gaming Porn you can find", you'd probably find a shit-ton.  The difference is that:
1)  Said "shit ton" pales in comparison to the other amount of works submitted, as in less than 25% (less than 10%, less than 5%, and I'd bank for pretty much any system other than FATAL it's less than 1%).
2)  It's kept separate from general conversation. "Hi, how're you?  You play WH?  Cool.  What armies?  Nice, I play [x]."  Not "Hi, how're you?  Furry too?  Where's your F-List?  Haha, watersports, likewise.  Wanna RP?  I have an AIM."



Dass said:


> What is the most popular advertising tactic in the world? Hot women wearing very little clothing.


I thought violence and machismo came close.



Dass said:


> What is something that shows up in a few episodes of almost every TV show? Sex.


What TV shows are you watching that with some editing can turn a season into a porno?  And, more importantly, are the actors hot / what's the show's name?



Dass said:


> Since I'm late to the party, I'm almost entirely certain that someone else has already made a point of this, but I can't be arsed to find out.


  "Other fandoms have sex", yes.  However, this argument is shit, considering the only other fandom that immediately springs to mind with a comparable amount of porn-to-other-content ratio is Anime, and furries _love_ to rag on anime as being hypersexualized, that's not a good shift of focus.  It also doesn't solve the porn problem.



Toxic.Vixen said:


> It's your life darling.
> If you want to live it judging people based on issues they are powerless to control, that's your business.
> But keep that to yourself.


  Er, they can control it.  They're paying for commissions of feral animal boners.  Even if you say they can't control their likes, they _can_ control whether they want to put down those $50 for Fido Dick.



Toxic.Vixen said:


> These people are not hurting anyone by drawing dog porn.
> They don't deserve to be insulted or harassed because of their fetishes.


  Why do I have a hunch that this topic would be different if it was a chat on scat?  That if we had a topic on twogirlsonecup, and someone was seriously arguing how that was hot, you'd be telling them to shut up and seek help?



Toxic.Vixen said:


> Fetishes, especially extreme ones, are usually the result of traumatic mental scaring.


  What type of mental scarring leaves you seeking dog dick?  Wouldn't that just make whatever issues you have _worse_, not better?  



Toxic.Vixen said:


> That's whats so inspiring about the furry fandom.
> No matter how socially inept you are.
> No matter how depraved you are.
> No matter how perverted you are.
> You'll always find friends.


  ... I don't think "inspiring" was the word you were looking for.  At all.  Maybe "disturbing," or "horrifying."  Not "inspiring," though, unless you have a dream of making it to the top selling zeta toys and / or feral porn.


----------



## ToxicZombie (Sep 28, 2010)

I still don't see the issue here. Most people don't even know what a furry is, and people who do already know about the porn. At worst, outsiders probably consider furrydom on par with being a weeaboo. To me, the biggest problem with furries is that too many people can't accept that they're freaks. Deny it all you want, but people like you and me are freaks. We'll always be freaks, and that's okay. Do you honestly want to be deemed acceptable by a society that considers people like Justin Bieber normal? Yeah, didn't think so.


----------



## Willow (Sep 28, 2010)

ToxicZombie said:


> I still don't see the issue here. Most people don't even know what a furry is, and people who do already know about the porn. At worst, outsiders probably consider furrydom on par with being a weeaboo. To me, the biggest problem with furries is that too many people can't accept that they're freaks. Deny it all you want, but people like you and me are freaks. We'll always be freaks, and that's okay. Do you honestly want to be deemed acceptable by a society that considers people like Justin Bieber normal? Yeah, didn't think so.


 I'm sorry, but that's way too broad of a statement. Saying that people who are only fans of art and nothing more freaks is like saying people who watch a few anime shows
weeaboos. Saying people who like anthro cartoon animals and such are freaks is a bit of a stretch, seeing as how they've been around since the 1920's possibly earlier. Also, more people know what a furry is as opposed to a weeaboo.


----------



## Dass (Sep 28, 2010)

Attaman, alright, touchÃ©, don't even agree with myself anymore, point aborted. Now allow me to raise a completely different one!

All walks of life are going to have a few sexually fixated deviants in them, we seem to attract more than usual because we're at best loosely organized and fewer than normal of us seem to be quick on the "you're a freak" trigger. I like that about us, some don't, but it's futile to whine about it because it's probably not changing.


----------



## Verin Asper (Sep 28, 2010)

Carenath said:


> There is this, certainly, and then they call the lack of acceptance "intolerance", make references to gay people etc.


 us black folks are still waiting for those gays to stop comparing themselves to us you know :V


----------



## ToxicZombie (Sep 29, 2010)

Willow said:


> I'm sorry, but that's way too broad of a statement. Saying that people who are only fans of art and nothing more freaks is like saying people who watch a few anime shows
> weeaboos. Saying people who like anthro cartoon animals and such are freaks is a bit of a stretch, seeing as how they've been around since the 1920's possibly earlier. Also, more people know what a furry is as opposed to a weeaboo.



First of all, no they don't. The CSI episode was a long, long fucking time ago. The anime boom has eclipsed any exposure furries might've gotten from that.

Secondly, I'm using freak affectionately here. My point is that, as long as you're part of a subculture that's outside the social norm, you'll never be seen as one of the cool kids.  It's better to embrace being a freak than pretend to be cool when you're not, is all I'm saying.


----------



## Verin Asper (Sep 29, 2010)

ToxicZombie said:


> First of all, no they don't. The CSI episode was a long, long fucking time ago. The anime boom has eclipsed any exposure furries might've gotten from that.
> 
> Secondly, I'm using freak affectionately here. My point is that, as long as you're part of a subculture that's outside the social norm, you'll never be seen as one of the cool kids.  It's better to embrace being a freak than pretend to be cool when you're not, is all I'm saying.


its better to be your self than a freak or a cool kid anyway as the easily targeted folks are the cool kids and the freaks.
Do you ever see those being themselves in a sane way get picked on...or was it always the cool kids or the freaks.


----------



## Willow (Sep 29, 2010)

ToxicZombie said:


> *First of all, no they don't. The CSI episode was a long, long fucking time ago. The anime boom has eclipsed any exposure furries might've gotten from that.
> *
> Secondly, I'm using freak affectionately here. My point is that, as long as you're part of a subculture that's outside the social norm, you'll never be seen as one of the cool kids.  It's better to embrace being a freak than pretend to be cool when you're not, is all I'm saying.


..what?

Everyone has a different social norm. Those cool kids are probably the same ones that losing your virginity early is cool too..eheheh.


----------



## ToxicZombie (Sep 29, 2010)

Willow said:


> ..what?
> 
> Everyone has a different social norm. Those cool kids are probably the same ones that losing your virginity early is cool too..eheheh.



The extent of the media exposure that furries (the subculture, not just cartoon animals) have gotten is a long-forgotten episode of CSI. Compare that with the insane amount of exposure that anime has gotten in the years since that episode aired.


----------



## Verin Asper (Sep 29, 2010)

ToxicZombie said:


> The extent of the media exposure that furries (the subculture, not just cartoon animals) have gotten is a long-forgotten episode of CSI. Compare that with the insane amount of exposure that anime has gotten in the years since that episode aired.


 too bad there always something else as the newest thing for us is the ChewFox incident.


----------



## ToxicZombie (Sep 29, 2010)

Crysix Fousen said:


> too bad there always something else as the newest thing for us is the ChewFox incident.



EDIT: Nvm, I read up on it. Yeah, nobody watches Tyra so I wouldn't worry about that.


----------



## Verin Asper (Sep 29, 2010)

ToxicZombie said:


> The what?


 You are new so I'll simply state this
ChewFox a user on FA wen't on the Tyra Banks show, the episode was about what folks did in bed. ChewFox was about wearing a fursuit while having sex.
On their FA journal they stated they were gonna represent the furry fandom.
Shitstorm big enough to cause FA to crash
ChewFox gets banned twice, first time was on impulse, the second time was due to happily flaunting about how they crashed FA over the incident showing they wasnt sorry for what they did.
Chewfox created a second notch to fursuiters on the bad PR.


----------



## ToxicZombie (Sep 29, 2010)

Crysix Fousen said:


> You are new so I'll simply state this
> ChewFox a user on FA wen't on the Tyra Banks show, the episode was about what folks did in bed. ChewFox was about wearing a fursuit while having sex.
> On their FA journal they stated they were gonna represent the furry fandom.
> Shitstorm big enough to cause FA to crash
> ...



Except the only people who watch Tyra are fat, bitchy housewives who finger their rotten twats to Fabio novels. If somebody went on that show claiming to represent the metal community, and did it while wearing inverted crosses covered in goat's blood and punctuating every sentence with "Hail Satan!", it wouldn't make a lick of difference.

It goes back to what I said earlier; furries want to be deviants, but at the same time, they don't want to be outside their precious social comfort zone. They want to be able to go up the cool kids and say "Hey, I'm just like you guys... except for the whole 'whacking it to cartoons animals' thing." Sorry kids, but it doesn't work that way.


----------



## Verin Asper (Sep 29, 2010)

ToxicZombie said:


> Except the only people who watch Tyra are fat, bitchy housewives who finger their rotten twats to Fabio novels. If somebody went on that show claiming to represent the metal community, and did it while wearing inverted crosses covered in goat's blood and punctuating every sentence with "Hail Satan!", it wouldn't make a lick of difference.
> 
> It goes back to what I said earlier; furries want to be deviants, but at the same time, they don't want to be outside their precious social comfort zone. They want to be able to go up the cool kids and say "Hey, I'm just like you guys... except for the whole 'whacking it to cartoons animals' thing." Sorry kids, but it doesn't work that way.


 and I simply pointed out "furs arent deviants as you think they are." Most of us in truth no where NEAR being deviants.

and by the way you can be a cool kid and watch anime its called "keeping shit seperate" something it seems this generation of furs not being able to do.


----------



## ToxicZombie (Sep 29, 2010)

Crysix Fousen said:


> and I simply pointed out "furs arent deviants as you think they are." Most of us in truth no where NEAR being deviants.



_Deviant:_

adj.
Differing from a norm or from the accepted standards of a society.

n.
One that differs from a norm, especially a person whose behavior and attitudes differ from accepted social standards.


----------



## rodox_video (Sep 29, 2010)

I will never understand the Chewfox incident. There was nothing hateful or dangerous about that woman. She went out of her way to tell the truth and she was crucified for not sugarcoating it.


----------



## Verin Asper (Sep 29, 2010)

ToxicZombie said:


> _Deviant:_
> 
> adj.
> Differing from a norm or from the accepted standards of a society.
> ...


 Wait.....when did EACH SOCIETY got together and all agree on whats normal and social standards. :V
note, there is no such thing as normal cause of each society being different.


----------



## Verin Asper (Sep 29, 2010)

rodox_video said:


> I will never understand the Chewfox incident. There was nothing hateful or dangerous about that woman. She went out of her way to tell the truth and she was crucified for not sugarcoating it.


 she was stoned for making it that ALL furs did that, not that she and a few did that.


----------



## ToxicZombie (Sep 29, 2010)

Crysix Fousen said:


> Wait.....when did EACH SOCIETY got together and all agree on whats normal and social standards. :V
> note, there is no such thing as normal cause of each society being different.



Don't give me this "normal is relative" bullshit again. Different cultures have different standards, sure, but to my knowledge no culture considers fucking in animal suits and fapping to Lion King porn acceptable. You want to be different, you have to face the stigma like everyone else. Nobody is gonna pat you on the ass and say "It's okay, you're special."


----------



## Fay V (Sep 29, 2010)

ToxicZombie said:


> Don't give me this "normal is relative" bullshit again. Different cultures have different standards, sure, but to my knowledge no culture considers fucking in animal suits and fapping to Lion King porn acceptable. You want to be different, you have to face the stigma like everyone else. Nobody is gonna pat you on the ass and say "It's okay, you're special."


 
Romans fucked in animal suits, women dressed as leopards and things and would have big orgies for Dionysus. Romans also fucked animals, and kids. I don't find it acceptable. I just dislike universal statements.


----------



## ToxicZombie (Sep 29, 2010)

Fay V said:


> Romans fucked in animal suits, women dressed as leopards and things and would have big orgies for Dionysus. Romans also fucked animals, and kids. I don't find it acceptable. I just dislike universal statements.



You're not helping your case there, sweetie.


----------



## Fay V (Sep 29, 2010)

ToxicZombie said:


> You're not helping your case there, sweetie.


 What case? I don't actually recall making an argument in the thread besides mentioning that I don't find pedophilia and bestiality acceptable right there. Saying others did it does not mean I support it, it means I should find better means to defend my ideas than easily broken universals. Here's one for instance. If one were to accept cultural relativism they should also note that cultures do not defend actions which they feel harm those with moral value. 
Aztecs sacrificed others to the gods, but they also believed that those sacrificed 1. literally kept the sun rising everyday and 2. allowed them into the highest level of heaven. Romans don't demonstrate that they had any moral faculty for animals. ect...
Hey lookit that, a better way to deal with moral relativism...


----------



## Heimdal (Sep 29, 2010)

ToxicZombie said:


> If somebody went on that show claiming to represent the metal community, and did it while wearing inverted crosses covered in goat's blood and punctuating every sentence with "Hail Satan!", it wouldn't make a lick of difference.


 
That'd be awesome! Metalheads want that kind of publicity! They'd be holding the horns at the TV screen!


Anyways... Tolerance = hugbox.
When a part of the fandom is called a "hugbox" it's due to them rallying against all criticism. They all support the freedom of each other whether it's out of apathy (live and let live) or acceptance, but they collectively protect themselves from a fundamental social building block - criticism. They all take the "tolerance approach" anyways; you talk to some weirdo one-on-one about a particularly sick fetish they're into and they will say, _"I'm not into this, but I can tolerate the right of others to be."_ They all do that! Tolerance is their default stance, until you present links and other evidence that shows they're into it themselves. In this whole scenario, it always seems like the only difference between tolerance and acceptance is a vain attempt to save face.
Frankly, that's a large part why the tolerance stance is so worthless for this topic. I never know when it's bullshit or not.


----------



## rodox_video (Sep 29, 2010)

Crysix Fousen said:


> she was stoned for making it that ALL furs did that, not that she and a few did that.


 
I suppose, but honestly that is kind of ridiculous. The idea of so many people buying/constructing elaborate costumes that cost about as much as a beat-up Hyundai and fucking in them is kind of far-fetched. Those things are hell on their wearers under normal circumstances; the idea of someone actually fucking in them is almost impressive. And honestly, who has any business giving a fuck whether you do it or not? Consenting adults, closed doors, etc.

Fursuit sex is this generation's Dirty Sanchez. You talk about it, you make jokes about it, you use it as a general gross-out card, but the instant you actually DO it the magic is ruined.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Sep 29, 2010)

Carenath said:


> No. Tolerance != Hugbox.
> 
> If you don't like the fact, that we afford our users with virtually unfettered freedom of expression, you are free to leave at any time.
> 
> If that was all you were doing, and were civil about it, you'd garner more support. But to be blunt, you'd probably prefer those people were rounded up and shot.



So, more or less, the staff members WANT us to be shunned by the rest of society.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Sep 29, 2010)

Redregon said:


> heheh, nice generalization. frankly, i fucking love the fandom despite it's sick members. it's fun, rather care free and there are a lot of really groovy people here. i've been in the fandom for going on 12 years now and if i really didn't like it, i'd just walk away from it. nice attempt at reading into what i've said... doesn't say anything about me though it does say a lot about you. hmm... i think i'm with Willow in that it seems you're just trying to bait people... either that or you're just really, really naive bordering on idiocy.



I have met much more nice folk in the fandom than sicko's. I think this is why I remain in the fandom.




> see, that one is easy to understand. furries are generally composed of people that were the social outcasts and geeks. given that, it isn't a stretch to understand why so many of them are loathe to speak their minds about shit that churns their stomach... because if you ostracize ANYONE, you're no better than those mean bullies that stole their lunch money in high school... furries: the people that are typically social doormats because they're afraid of being stepped on. (irony much?)



I wasn't really a social outcast or geek, I had more friends when I was in school than I do now, mainly because most of my old school buddies moved on and did their own thing after high school. I now feel very old because I am sitting here remembering what I used to do as a kid.



> yeah... they actually do... of nobody points out their sickness they'll keep on with the assumtion that they aren't sick.



I don't bother pointing out someones sickness. It just seems a futile effort because they wont change and nothing ever gets done about it.




> nice use of "Furfag" though... it gets me... right here... you've utterly wounded me i'm dying of the barb. please, stop for all that is good and holy that single word is my kryptonite and i am bleeding out here. oh wait, is it really right for me to use sarcasm? i mean, you strike me as the retarded idealist that takes everything they hear and read as SRS BZNS!!! but hey, what can i expect from a loser lolita that probably has very little tread on the tire. (hey, to the mods... if i am infracted for this, you better infract her since she did start it... is that childish? maybe... but the rules are the rules and you know it.)



I learned a long time ago not to take everything that is said on a  forum seriously.


----------



## cpam (Sep 29, 2010)

Carenath said:


> You're missing the point. You keep trying to equate tolerance to acceptance, while missing the important differences. You could have pointed out, what I'm about to, that tolerance is also expressed as grudgingly accepting. That in tolerating unpleasent and unlikable elements of the fandom, does not mean you like it or agree with it. You might 'conditionally _accept_' it but you don't *accept* it.
> 
> I haven't missed the point at all.  You've simply said what I said, using different words, in that tolerance is a grudging acceptance.  But it is still an acceptance even if it is not a fully embraceable one, in the sense that you have not rejected, banned or denied the thing that you are tolerating.


----------



## Redregon (Sep 29, 2010)

RandyDarkshade said:


> I have met much more nice folk in the fandom than sicko's. I think this is why I remain in the fandom.



yeah, and i will admit that the sickos are not in the majority (thank the gods) but they are there. smearing their shit all over the place and when you call them on it they go "don't like? don't look." 

kinda hard not to look when going to the front page or browsing for art... 

"hmm... i'm kinda in the 'mood' for some nice big-cat anthros to oogle... *click* hmm... nice... next... hmm, wait OHGODMYEYES WTF is that shit!!! D:"


----------



## Ferdie (Sep 29, 2010)

I realize I'm new (and not yet jaded) but maybe it's time to start a new group. Call it PG-Furs or something like that. 

No cub, vore, yiff porn. Automatic expulsion if it's found you fuck in a fursuit or have sex (or fantasize having sex) with animals.  

Just a noob opinion.


----------



## Jude (Sep 29, 2010)

Ferdie said:


> I realize I'm new (and not yet jaded) but maybe it's time to start a new group. Call it PG-Furs or something like that.
> 
> No cub, vore, yiff porn. Automatic expulsion if it's found you fuck in a fursuit or have sex (or fantasize having sex) with animals.
> 
> Just a noob opinion.


 
There are a few groups on the main site that are just like that.


----------



## Ozriel (Sep 29, 2010)

cpam said:


> Carenath said:
> 
> 
> > You're missing the point. You keep trying to equate tolerance to acceptance, while missing the important differences. You could have pointed out, what I'm about to, that tolerance is also expressed as grudgingly accepting. That in tolerating unpleasent and unlikable elements of the fandom, does not mean you like it or agree with it. You might 'conditionally _accept_' it but you don't *accept* it.
> ...


----------



## Toxic.Vixen (Sep 29, 2010)

Attaman said:


> Why do I have a hunch that this topic would be different if it was a chat on scat?  That if we had a topic on twogirlsonecup, and someone was seriously arguing how that was hot, you'd be telling them to shut up and seek help?


No I would not.
scat is probably the worst thing I can imagine...
But I still understand and tolerate people who are into it.
x___x
Nor do I feel I should harass them. They have it bad enough as is lol

These people are well aware the things they like are fucked up.
You're not doing them a favor by reminding them.
They're not going to magically change because you flamed them XP




Attaman said:


> What type of mental scarring leaves you seeking dog dick?  Wouldn't that just make whatever issues you have _worse_, not better?


Clearly you are very ignorant on the subject.
The mind is a complex thing.
I suggest you read up on the psychology behind fetishes before making posting such a ridiculous statement 


Attaman said:


> ... I don't think "inspiring" was the word you were looking for.  At all.  Maybe "disturbing," or "horrifying."  Not "inspiring," though, unless you have a dream of making it to the top selling zeta toys and / or feral porn.


Why are other peoples fetishes "horrifying" to you?
You're not forced to look at it.
You click and view on your own accord.
No one is asking you to like it.
Just let the people who do like it live their lives how they please.


----------



## Willow (Sep 29, 2010)

Toxic.Vixen said:


> Clearly you are very ignorant on the subject.
> The mind is a complex thing.
> I suggest you read up on the psychology behind fetishes before making posting such a ridiculous statement


 Every time I see you post, my IQ drops a good 10 points. 

You stated earlier that fetishes are the result of trauma. Not only that, but it's somewhat backwards. I think the only exception to that is pedophilia.


----------



## Icky (Sep 29, 2010)

Oh, god, Toxic.Vixen is back.


----------



## Toxic.Vixen (Sep 29, 2010)

Willow said:


> Every time I see you post, my IQ drops a good 10 points.
> 
> You stated earlier that fetishes are the result of trauma. Not only that, but it's somewhat backwards. I think the only exception to that is pedophilia.


The feeling is mutual.

As far how fetishes come about; each person it's different.
Fetishes can start in many different ways n.n
I thought that was common knowledge.
For someone who usually makes one-liner posts, you should know I don't need to spell out every stupid detail to make a point.


----------



## Willow (Sep 29, 2010)

Toxic.Vixen said:


> As far how fetishes as started; each person it's different.


 Umm okay that's all well and good but, most common fetishes aren't fueled by trauma, it's usually the opposite effect, with the exception of pedophilia in some cases. 
If anyone should be reading up on psychology, it sounds like you should be.


----------



## Heimdal (Sep 29, 2010)

Toxic.Vixen said:


> These people are well aware the things they like are fucked up.
> You're not doing them a favor by reminding them.
> They're not going to magically change because you flamed them XP



It's better to try and fail than to do nothing at all. It's a common saying for a reason. Besides, they are only aware that what they liked was fucked up because someone told them it was. Apathy is actually a horrible response for everything.. it does nobody any good. It's lazy too.



> Clearly you are very ignorant on the subject.
> The mind is a complex thing.
> I suggest you read up on the psychology behind fetishes before making posting such a ridiculous statement



It seemed like he was interpreting the problem like it is an addiction. You don't cure an addiction, you only remove the person from what they are addicted to. That may not be the case with fetishes, but it would probably still work. As well, psychology is a pseudo-science, not an actual science, so calling an idea ridiculous is a stretch. Doubt and low probability is better, cuz he could still be right.


----------



## Toxic.Vixen (Sep 30, 2010)

Willow said:


> Umm okay that's all well and good but, most common fetishes aren't fueled by trauma, it's usually the opposite effect, with the exception of pedophilia in some cases.
> If anyone should be reading up on psychology, it sounds like you should be.


I'm not going to argue with you, since you clearly don't know what you're talking about.
Or are attempting to Troll me
Cuz, I mean... you'd have be an idiot to continue insisting that you perfectly understand the minds of everyone with a extreme fetishes.
n.n



Heimdal said:


> It's better to try and fail than to do nothing at all. It's a common saying for a reason. Besides, they are only aware that what they liked was fucked up because someone told them it was. Apathy is actually a horrible response for everything.. it does nobody any good. It's lazy too.


I am sure that the majority of people on FA[especially the ones making a profit on commissions - like the owner of the ad in question] already fully comprehend they are a sick fuck.
You are not accomplishing anything by harassing them and insulting them lol



Some people need to be reminded that we are on the Internet.
On a furry art site of all things...
Everyone knows this is pretty bottom of the barrel shit. 
You go to FA with full knowledge of this.
So please do not cry when you see something that disturbes you. You KNEW it was going to happen.
*If you have a weak constitution, I suggest you turn on your filer settings*!
These people have as much right to post their pictures as you do.
You are not better then them for having a different taste in what you jack off too.


----------



## Fay V (Sep 30, 2010)

Didn't this all start due to an ad...which you can not turn off, and shows up whether you have the filter on or not?


----------



## Toxic.Vixen (Sep 30, 2010)

Fay V said:


> Didn't this all start due to an ad...which you can not turn off, and shows up whether you have the filter on or not?


 
According to a admin in [THIS] thread, they are filtered.


----------



## Heimdal (Sep 30, 2010)

Toxic.Vixen said:


> Some people need to be reminded that we are on the Internet.
> On a furry art site of all things...
> Everyone knows this is pretty bottom of the barrel shit.
> You go to FA with full knowledge of this.
> ...


 
I forgot. The internet is a happy place where nobody insults anything.


----------



## Toxic.Vixen (Sep 30, 2010)

Heimdal said:


> I forgot. The internet is a happy place where nobody insults anything.


 
That's not what I said at all
ffs
-____-;;

If it bothers you
DONT CLICK IT
It's really that easy
No reason to cry about it


----------



## Ferdie (Sep 30, 2010)

Ferdie said:


> I realize I'm new (and not yet jaded) but maybe it's time to start a new group. Call it PG-Furs or something like that.
> 
> No cub, vore, yiff porn. Automatic expulsion if it's found you fuck in a fursuit or have sex (or fantasize having sex) with animals.
> 
> Just a noob opinion.






DrumFur said:


> There are a few groups on the main site that are just like that.



Could you kindly direct me to some of them?


----------



## FancySkunk (Sep 30, 2010)

Ferdie said:


> Could you kindly direct me to some of them?


I see this one quite a bit: http://www.furaffinity.net/user/notyiffy


----------



## Gavrill (Sep 30, 2010)

Toxic.Vixen said:


> I'm not going to argue with you, since you clearly don't know what you're talking about.
> Or are attempting to Troll me
> Cuz, I mean... you'd have be an idiot to continue insisting that you perfectly understand the minds of everyone with a extreme fetishes.
> n.n


Someone who disagrees with you isn't a troll. And NO ONE understands extreme fetishes, even professional psychologists. That's why that make a SWAG. (Scientific Wild-Ass Guess.) It's just something that person is.
But for the love of god, they can keep it to themselves.




Toxic.Vixen said:


> I am sure that the majority of people on FA[especially the ones making a profit on commissions - like the owner of the ad in question] already fully comprehend they are a sick fuck.
> You are not accomplishing anything by harassing them and insulting them lol


Whoa whoa whoa. The people who draw it aren't always in the wrong. Money is money, you think people give a fuck how they get it as long as it's not illegal?





Toxic.Vixen said:


> Some people need to be reminded that we are on the Internet.
> On a furry art site of all things...
> Everyone knows this is pretty bottom of the barrel shit.
> You go to FA with full knowledge of this.
> ...


 Oh yes, I'm going to filter out all my delicious lesbian porn and amazing art that happens to have nipples just to avoid your fucked up fetishes.

Yeah, no.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Sep 30, 2010)

Toxic.Vixen said:


> According to a admin in [THIS] thread, they are filtered.



Filters only work if the up loaders tag the pictures properly. There are also thumbnails that show part of or the full picture so we see it through thumbnails too. saying that we don't have to look at it is a void argument, sometimes we get to see it without a choice. 

You do the better impression of a troll, IO mean one minute you are saying "fetishes are a result of trauma" Then I read more and you change what you said to saying something a long the lines of "Fetishes result from many reasons". You are not able to hold an argument without changing what you say as you go along to suit your side of the argument. Either that or you have a worse memory than I do.



Molly said:


> Oh yes, I'm going to filter out all my  delicious lesbian porn and amazing art that happens to have nipples just  to avoid your fucked up fetishes.
> 
> Yeah, no.



Agreed, I'm not turning my filter on either. People should tag properly and make a warning thumbnail if it is about an extreme fetish.


----------



## Willow (Sep 30, 2010)

Toxic.Vixen said:


> According to a admin in [THIS] thread, they are filtered.


 They're filtered if you have your filter on herpadurp

But in that thread, they had their filter on but it still showed up. Which probably means there was a bug in the system.


----------



## Ozriel (Sep 30, 2010)

Willow said:


> They're filtered if you have your filter on herpadurp
> 
> But in that thread, they had their filter on but it still showed up. Which probably means there was a bug in the system.


 
Which happens.
Sometimes a picture or an advertisement may glitch and can be seen with those that have their filters on. 

I have my filter on when I browse FA anyway. The porn here does not interest me.
I think the gaia trolls had a hand in porn burnout.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Sep 30, 2010)

Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> Which happens.
> Sometimes a picture or an advertisement may glitch and can be seen with those that have their filters on.
> 
> I have my filter on when I browse FA anyway. The porn here does not interest me.
> I think the gaia trolls had a hand in porn burnout.


Gaia trolls?


----------



## Ozriel (Sep 30, 2010)

Kit H. Ruppell said:


> Gaia trolls?


 
Gaiaonline trolls had a habit of posting grotesque porn on certain days in the forums.
It desensitized me after a while of ducking and dodging "Goatsee day" and "spam forum with reels of 2girls1cup" day.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Sep 30, 2010)

Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> Which happens.
> Sometimes a picture or an advertisement may glitch and can be seen with those that have their filters on.
> 
> I have my filter on when I browse FA anyway. The porn here does not interest me.
> I think the gaia trolls had a hand in porn burnout.



I've been more interested in clean stuff this year. Probably because I have burned myself out with porn. It just bores me now, same stuff different picture.


----------



## Verin Asper (Sep 30, 2010)

ToxicZombie said:


> Don't give me this "normal is relative" bullshit again. Different cultures have different standards, sure, but to my knowledge no culture considers fucking in animal suits and fapping to Lion King porn acceptable. You want to be different, you have to face the stigma like everyone else. Nobody is gonna pat you on the ass and say "It's okay, you're special."


 sorry people are patting asses and saying you are special, please go on sofurry which is probably the polar opposite of FAF and look at the ass patting.


----------



## Ben (Sep 30, 2010)

Kit H. Ruppell said:


> So, more or less, the staff members WANT us to be shunned by the rest of society.


 
Furry is not a sexuality, a race or a gender. If you really don't want to be "shunned from society", then just don't participate in the fandom. If you really want to, you or anyone else can splinter off and shy away from the "furry" label if you don't like the negative connotations it carries, but even then I'm pretty sure people would still laugh at you for caring so much about how people you've never met view you.

Also, despite how that other thread about furries went, Toxic.Vixen is actually being a lot smarter here than most of you, considering this thread is a representation of the never-ending "furry is not a hugbox" rhetoric that powers this forum. 

The truth of the matter is, furry is pretty much a refuge for social misfits, and the people who exploit their wallets by tricking them into thinking they need lots of art of their vain fursona. While liking cartoon animals might be part of who you are, no one told any of you that you had to form part of your identity around it. No one has to be a part of the furry fandom to like anthropomorphic animals, but you guys choose to be here anyway, despite your outrage and disgust. 

The fact of the matter is, the whole tolerance thing is the backbone of the fandom. So unless you guys want to become professional psychologists and help out some of the people here, I'd suggest shipping out and putting your time towards other things, or realize that you're not as different from the people you're ridiculing as you think. Not to imply you all have deep underlying fetishes, but that it wouldn't be unreasonable to think that some of you have social anxieties common amongst stereotypical furfags.

If not, then great, but god, anything to disrupt the bullshit "furry is not a hugbox" rhetoric that's constantly spewed.


----------



## Redregon (Sep 30, 2010)

Ben said:


> Furry is not a sexuality, a race or a gender. If you really don't want to be "shunned from society", then just don't participate in the fandom. If you really want to, you or anyone else can splinter off and shy away from the "furry" label if you don't like the negative connotations it carries, but even then I'm pretty sure people would still laugh at you for caring so much about how people you've never met view you.
> 
> Also, despite how that other thread about furries went, Toxic.Vixen is actually being a lot smarter here than most of you, considering this thread is a representation of the never-ending "furry is not a hugbox" rhetoric that powers this forum.
> 
> ...


 
so, to translate... deal with it or gtfo... am i getting this right?

didn't know you had the gall to say that kinda stuff.

besides, the nasty shit that people rail against wasn't in the fandom when it began and it in itself is not a part OF furry but a splinter of a subgroup of PEOPLE in furry. if anyone has the right to tell anyone to get the fuck out of the fandom it's the people that aren't into that kind of sick shit.


----------



## Willow (Sep 30, 2010)

Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> Which happens.
> Sometimes a picture or an advertisement may glitch and can be seen with those that have their filters on.
> 
> I have my filter on when I browse FA anyway. The porn here does not interest me.
> I think the gaia trolls had a hand in porn burnout.


I don't know exactly how advertising works, if it's the user's responsibility to label it with the appropriate rating or not, or if the admins actually do that. Though it's quite possible because I once had an advertisement for a user's portfolio and there was some porn in it.


----------



## Heimdal (Sep 30, 2010)

Ben said:


> If not, then great, but god, anything to disrupt the bullshit "furry is not a hugbox" rhetoric that's constantly spewed.



"Furry is not a hugbox" is at least a solid statement. "Deal with it or gtfo" is an excuse anybody can use for any purpose they want.

Lets combine the two: "Furry is not a hugbox, so deal with it or gtfo."
There. Now we're right.

I still don't get all the effort put into maintaining the furry status quo? It's bottom of the social ladder already. If you're not trying to make things better, than your standards would have to be abysmally low.


----------



## Trpdwarf (Sep 30, 2010)

Ben said:


> Furry is not a sexuality, a race or a gender. If you really don't want to be "shunned from society", then just don't participate in the fandom. If you really want to, you or anyone else can splinter off and shy away from the "furry" label if you don't like the negative connotations it carries, but even then I'm pretty sure people would still laugh at you for caring so much about how people you've never met view you.
> 
> Also, despite how that other thread about furries went, Toxic.Vixen is actually being a lot smarter here than most of you, considering this thread is a representation of the never-ending "furry is not a hugbox" rhetoric that powers this forum.
> 
> ...



That's a pretty shitty way of looking at things Ben. If you don't like how it is just don't associate? That's silly. There are two intelligent things you can do and one not so intelligent thing you can do when it comes to not liking how things are. One: You can choose to associate not with those people push what you don't like, and lead by example or 2: you can choose to try to instigate positive change.

The not so intelligent thing to do is to throw your hands up and go "Oh well, it's a fetish fandom, we are full of misfits, if you don't like it leave". What does that do? It does nothing, it just feeds into this bull shit idea that some some idiot newfurs brought in about "Bawww lets accept and tolerate everyone". If you choose to be more choosy about who you "Accept" and tolerate what is to be tolerated, you can set up a standard for real change, along with going out and doing something about it.

No one in my area liked the way furs are viewed. We certainly didn't like how "anti-fun" the area is. But one of the things we did when we wanted to start building up some actual respect so we can have more fun was to moderate our own group, kick the people out who won't straighten up, and work on good events so people can see that we are no different than anyone else. We have done charity work, we hospital visits with sick children being set up, and we do random events that put all sorts of smiles on the faces of people. We get people all the time who come up and ask about the costumes, about the tails, about the group, and they walk away with something really nice to put up right next to what they see on television or perhaps what they see online.

Most of the places we go to, the people look forward to having us back. They have a whole transformed way of looking at us even though by television and by internet they are exposed with this other side.

When we didn't like it this is on FAF, when we didn't like it when people like EL and StW, tried using this as a place to push a pro-dog fucking agenda we said No U. Guess where they are not? Not on FA anymore, that's for sure. 

That said I cannot share your view that mentioned person is intelligent. She exhibits what I tend to call "Verde" syndrome. I've said enough.

If you don't like how something is, you can change it. It's better to try than to do nothing all.

EDIT: Did you know early on people didn't like how we had little to no filters when it came to porn and on porn? It was people giving a shit and caring that let to many early furry sites actually putting up filters instead of making it so that everything is "18 or older".

It was people giving a shit that led to better convention standards and behavior control.


----------



## Redregon (Sep 30, 2010)

Ben said:


> The fact of the matter is, the whole tolerance thing is the backbone of the fandom.


 
forgot to address this one too... basically, no. no it is not. the "backbone" of furry is an interest in anthropomorphic animals. that's where it begins and that's where it ends.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Sep 30, 2010)

Redregon said:


> forgot to address this one too... basically, no. no it is not. the "backbone" of furry is an interest in anthropomorphic animals. that's where it begins and that's where it ends.



It is because he says it is, I suppose. Like the time he rushed to the heroic rescue when some pro-cub porn fanatic freaked out on all of us, and got what he had coming to him! But NO...WE are the problem, those who make some kind of effort to fit in with others!


----------



## Ben (Sep 30, 2010)

Alright, apparently I wasn't very clear.

Right now, furry is one of the biggest refuge groups for people in the world that you can easily join. Did you grow up with Disney movies and talking-animal cartoons? Sure, everyone did! Do you like animals? Why of course, you'd be terrible not to. Are you lonely or socially awkward? Yes! Then furry is the perfect place for you.

The point I was making was that, if you don't like it, you might as well leave-- Or, help the misfits that make up the majority of the fandom, not give them lots of hugs and kisses and make them feel loved because there's no use in trying. Perhaps if there were community support groups that helped people with their problems (instead of something silly like an "anti-drama" club which only ends up defeating its purpose), then "acceptance" for the furry fandom in society would be easier to find. Because let's face it, zoo and cub porn will always be allowed on this site as long as it's legal. So while my suggestions don't lead to ostracizing people who have these bizarre fetishes, it would definitely put us in a better light if there was an emphasis on giving legitamite help to people who need it, rather than bitching about other furries and constantly stirring up drama. After all, positive reinforcement trumps the negative when it comes to public view. If we're all just a bunch of cynical, self-loathing jerks, then where are we ever going to get?

After all, if this really is a community, then we should reach out and help those in need. Be a diplomat and aide those who need help. A good laugh is definitely one of the best things in the world, and my words shouldn't be mistaken for "be serious all the time", but it's always good to know when to stop, and be respectful to those less fortunate.

That's all.


----------



## Toxic.Vixen (Sep 30, 2010)

Molly said:


> Someone who disagrees with you isn't a troll.


well aware of that lol
Poster in questions keeps replying to me with derailing comments and personal attacks.
So you can understand why I'd accuse them of trolling...



Molly said:


> And NO ONE understands extreme fetishes, even professional psychologists. That's why that make a SWAG. (Scientific Wild-Ass Guess.) It's just something that person is.
> But for the love of god, they can keep it to themselves.


FA is a art website that is made so people can post and share anything they want to. Not just the things YOU like. As long as it doesn't break FA's rules, they have not done anything wrong.
Now if this guy was on the street trying to sell prints of his dog cock then it would be a different story lol
*But this is the Internet ffs...*

I am a morbidly curious person, and I have read a lot stuff written by people who are into sick shit[Not being derogatory, there is just no other word to describe it] and many of them can specifically recall something that happened in their life that triggered the fetish. 
But that's just my experience on it.
The human mind is such a complex thing.
So obviously scientists and doctors can't fully understand the complexity of fetishes. Everyone is different.




Molly said:


> Whoa whoa whoa. The people who draw it aren't always in the wrong. Money is money, you think people give a fuck how they get it as long as it's not illegal?


Errrrr I guess they could just be commission whores, but considering the ad specifically targets feral pics, I assumed it was a specialty of theirs lol



RandyDarkshade said:


> You do the better impression of a troll, IO mean one minute you are saying "fetishes are a result of trauma" Then I read more and you change what you said to saying something a long the lines of "Fetishes result from many reasons". You are not able to hold an argument without changing what you say as you go along to suit your side of the argument. Either that or you have a worse memory than I do.


This is absolutely ridiculous.
The only real argument both you and 'Willow' think you have against me is that I didn't over-use words like 'MOST/MAJORITY/SOME/FEW'
I didn't once say 'every single person on this entire planet with a fetish got it from trauma' okay? I thought you people were intelligent enough to understand that a person doesn't not need to spell out every aspect of their debate to make a point.
My posts are long-winded enough without having to meticulously explain each detail for you two.

So please try to stay on topic and focus on the factual points I've made if you're going to participate. n.n





> Agreed, I'm not turning my filter on either. People should tag properly and make a warning thumbnail if it is about an extreme fetish.


The artist in question puts thumbnails on their picture with FERAL in big letters.
And there is no dog cock in his ad.
So as far as I can tell there is no reason to be crying over it ;;






Trpdwarf said:


> That's a pretty shitty way of looking at things Ben. If you don't like how it is just don't associate? That's silly. There are two intelligent things you can do and one not so intelligent thing you can do when it comes to not liking how things are. One: You can choose to associate not with those people push what you don't like, and lead by example or 2: you can choose to try to instigate positive change.
> 
> The not so intelligent thing to do is to throw your hands up and go "Oh well, it's a fetish fandom, we are full of misfits, if you don't like it leave". What does that do? It does nothing, it just feeds into this bull shit idea that some some idiot newfurs brought in about "Bawww lets accept and tolerate everyone". If you choose to be more choosy about who you "Accept" and tolerate what is to be tolerated, you can set up a standard for real change, along with going out and doing something about it.
> 
> ...


 wow
did you even read what you posted? 
o.o
I don't even think a _Mormon_ could have composed a more sickeningly-righteous speech.

Judging and alienating furs who don't fit into *YOUR* standards of right and wrong is really sad. 
Furries are bottom of the barrel, and always going to be.
No matter how many kids you hug and how much money you piss away to charity.
You act like you're somehow better then everyone else. And that's really misguided.
You're just the same. You have your problems and issues and so does everyone else.
[We are all humans after-all...no matter how hard some may try to deny that XP]
Some peoples issues happen translate into liking dog cock.
They can't control that lol

They do not deserve to be disrespected just because you can not look past something as insignificant as their porn preference.

Now I'm not saying you have to be friends!!!
You aren't forced to look at their art, you aren't forced to buy it, and you aren't forced to like it.
They don't try and flaunt their fetish in your face.
[And if they do, they are in the wrong. Also, since there is no dog cock in the ad in question the artist did not impose upon you.]
So don't impose your values and beliefs onto others who really...don't give a fuck...
You have no right to tell them they aren't a furry. That they aren't allowed to be in the Fandom. Can't post pictures, and can't commission art.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Sep 30, 2010)

Toxic.Vixen said:


> FA is a art website that is made so people can post and share anything they want to. Not just the things YOU like. As long as it doesn't break FA's rules, they have not done anything wrong.
> Now if this guy was on the street trying to sell prints of his dog cock then it would be a different story lol
> *But this is the Internet ffs...*



We are not saying they can't share it. We are saying they should be more considerate to those who do not wish to see it.



> Errrrr I guess they could just be commission whores, but considering the ad specifically targets feral pics, I assumed it was a specialty of theirs lol


I agree with you here, the advert in question does target a specific fetish to commission. though there are artists who will draw what ever asked to draw for the money. Though many artists do have standards and wont draw anything to erm.....to erm.....extreme?




> This is absolutely ridiculous.
> The only real argument both you and 'Willow' think you have against me is that I didn't over-use words like 'MOST/MAJORITY/SOME/FEW'
> I didn't once say 'every single person on this entire planet with a fetish got it from trauma' okay? I thought you people were intelligent enough to understand that a person doesn't not need to spell out every aspect of their debate to make a point.
> My posts are long-winded enough without having to meticulously explain each detail for you two.


If you can't word your replies properly then it is not our fault that we get the wrong end of the stick, that is your own fault for choosing the wrong words and being too bone lazy to explain. I mean seriously if you say "Fetishes are triggered from a traumatic event" wtf do you expect us to think? You should have said "Some fetishes are triggered by a traumatic event in that persons life" Over used words or not, correct choice of words is essential if you want people to understand what you mean.



> So please try to stay on topic and focus on the factual points I've made if you're going to participate. n.n


I wasn't far off topic.  And no back-seat modding mister! >:[






> The artist in question puts thumbnails on their picture with FERAL in big letters.
> And there is no dog cock in his ad.
> So as far as I can tell there is no reason to be crying over it ;;


This artist may put a warning thumbnail in place, but not all artists on FA do.



> Judging and alienating furs who don't fit into *YOUR* standards of right and wrong is really sad.
> Furries are bottom of the barrel, and always going to be.
> No matter how many kids you hug and how much money you piss away to charity.
> You act like you're somehow better then everyone else. And that's really misguided.
> ...



My problems and issues don't include fucking fido or my neighbours child. :v The problem is, even if such extreme art is art, it reflects on RL things that happen probably on a daily basis. This art reflects fetishes of people who are currently behind bars for committing it irl. This is probably why both these extreme fetishes are frowned upon the most out of every other fetish.



> They do not deserve to be disrespected just because you can not look past something as insignificant as their porn preference.



Yes they do, they not only make the fandom look extremely bad, but they make innocent users like me, dwarf and many others also look like sick fucks.



> Now I'm not saying you have to be friends!!!
> You aren't forced to look at their art, you aren't forced to buy it, and you aren't forced to like it.
> They don't try and flaunt their fetish in your face.
> [And  if they do, they are in the wrong. Also, since there is no dog cock in  the ad in question the artist did not impose upon you.]
> ...



Yes we do, because their actions also reflect on the innocent members aswell.


----------



## GingerM (Sep 30, 2010)

RandyDarkshade said:


> We are not saying they can't share it. We are saying they should be more considerate to those who do not wish to see it.


 
It occurs to me to wonder how exactly they are supposed to share considerately? Either they submit it or not, and if accepted, it's up and visible. What did you have in mind, other than them not sharing it at all?


----------



## Heimdal (Sep 30, 2010)

Toxic.Vixen said:


> Furries are bottom of the barrel, and always going to be.



If everyone had that attitude then yes. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy.



> No matter how many kids you hug and how much money you piss away to charity.
> You act like you're somehow better then everyone else. And that's really misguided.
> You're just the same. You have your problems and issues and so does everyone else.
> [We are all humans after-all...no matter how hard some may try to deny that XP]
> ...


Absolutely ridiculous. People are capable of making a difference, because that is exactly how changes are made. Being lazy is not being realistic, it's just lazy. Frankly, if he is doing so much then he is definitely better than all the people who are doing nothing. We are all human, and we all have problems, but that's not an excuse to wallow in them. Some people take action and fix them. Maybe we should promote that?

Why defend the "bottom of the barrel" anyways? There's nothing to defend.



> _What Ben said._



That makes a lot more sense. It's just that a lot of the problem areas  are filled with people who defend and justify what they do down to the  teeth. You can't help anybody who doesn't want help.
Unfortunately, their issues reflect on other people - other furries who don't want to see that stuff, don't want to be accused of looking at that stuff, and wish they weren't associated with those people. What do you do with a roommate who makes a disgusting mess, creeps out everyone you know, and refuses to make an effort to be better? You kick them out. (You _at least_ criticize them, but even that's being a bit of a pussy.)


----------



## footfoe (Oct 1, 2010)

HOLY WALL OF TEXT!


----------



## RobinFox (Oct 1, 2010)

Wow, are you guys listening to yourselves?! This is some of this intorrerant, illogical, and just plain offensive stuff I've seen in the fandom. First off, your guys' entire argument relies on accepted truths: 1. That other people's fetishes reflect on people's view of you in the fandom, and 2. Somehow their fetish is less legitimate than yours, and that it's something "to be fixed." If exculsion because of a fetish is acceptable, even considered progress, I want no part in it.

First off, your statement that peoples fetishes somehow make people think everyone is into it is stupid. It's like saying everyone thinks we all have the same fetish. It just isn't logical. Next, you talk about how their fetish shouldn't be reflected on other innocent members, and you make multiple refrences to offering people help, fixing the fandom (which you relate to the fetish as a problem), make a baseless assumption that all these kinks are reflected in real life, and finally that godawful roomate analogy. Being creepy isn't a grounds to be excluded, and just because someone has a different 
fetish than you, doesn't make them broken. No one should have to conform to your moral standard, or your idea of the fandom.

People have fetishes, and as long as they don't shove them in your face, and use appropriate tagging, they should be allowed to post artwork of it, at least as long as you extend the same curtisy for your own fetishes, right? My big problem with your argument is that you guys put these fetishes as inferior to others, when in reality, they really aren't. The only thing more I can possibly say is I am sure glad you aren't running the fandom, progress does not equal exclusion or censorship, nor should it.


----------



## Heimdal (Oct 1, 2010)

RobinFox said:


> Wow, are you guys listening to yourselves?! This is some of this intorrerant, illogical, and just plain offensive stuff I've seen in the fandom. First off, your guys' entire argument relies on accepted truths: 1. That other people's fetishes reflect on people's view of you in the fandom, and 2. Somehow their fetish is less legitimate than yours, and that it's something "to be fixed." If exculsion because of a fetish is acceptable, even considered progress, I want no part in it.
> 
> First off, your statement that peoples fetishes somehow make people think everyone is into it is stupid. It's like saying everyone thinks we all have the same fetish. It just isn't logical. Next, you talk about how their fetish shouldn't be reflected on other innocent members, and you make multiple refrences to offering people help, fixing the fandom (which you relate to the fetish as a problem), make a baseless assumption that all these kinks are reflected in real life, and finally that godawful roomate analogy. Being creepy isn't a grounds to be excluded, and just because someone has a different
> fetish than you, doesn't make them broken. No one should have to conform to your moral standard, or your idea of the fandom.
> ...


 
Your argument relies on feral dog cocks being on par with whatever we're into, as well as the assumption that we're into totally freaky stuff as well. Did you realize that's what we were talking about? I sorta hope you didn't.
I don't expect people to conform to my moral standards, I expect people to *have* standards (moral or no). I expect people to consider the world around them, and take responsibility for their actions (instead of just _allowing_ their problems to exist.) This is pretty minimal. It is pathetic when it is not reached. Progress is not achieved by lowering your standards to the point where everything is 'okay'; if everything is okay, there is no reason not to produce crap.. and crap is exactly what will be produced.

We're arguing over the freedom to display drawings of dog cocks! ..Really!? At least masochism takes some guts! This is not on par with any other fetishes. What kind of judgment is that?

Lastly, being creepy _is_ grounds to be excluded. It always has been. You  know very well that people are leery of creepers. Unless you were raised  in a cave.


----------



## Ozriel (Oct 1, 2010)

Congrats cannon, successful thread is successful. :V

ITT: Furries with standards are horrible and are trolls. :V


----------



## Trpdwarf (Oct 1, 2010)

Toxic.Vixen said:


> wow
> did you even read what you posted?
> o.o
> I don't even think a _Mormon_ could have composed a more sickeningly-righteous speech.
> ...



That's right I'm a gigantic self-righteous bitch because I choose to take upon myself as many others do to try to clean up the mess that other people are leaving behind. Messes that true self-righteous gits leave behind. Such as people like you. Yep, totally full of myself here because I"m sitting here looking at the history and realizing something just isn't right about this. Before I take any steps forward let me be the first to point out darling, I'm not making any real arguments against the porn. It would be really super duper nice if you could stop raging one moment to realize that few people are denying the porn aspect and that people like myself specifically are not arguing too much with it.

It's not like I'm saying it's not there because it is. It's not like I'm saying it's not part of us because that would be denying a part of humanity which is unavoidable. I'm not saying that everyone who has a fetish needs help. Although it is true that from fetish's can come behaviors that need fixing. If you look at zoo porn and then decide that "Well real bestiality isn't that bad" you need help or at least a good talking to. If you look at cub porn and start to find children hot....you need help. Before you say anything about those as "Hypothetical" I know of real situations where it went like that.

When you have an infantile fetish, and start requiring people at your local fur-meet to literally cater to your fetish, and baby you, and rub your belly, and shit like that...you need help. When you are so fucked in the head, that the moment someone asks you to try to be more appropriate with your fetish that you go off the deepened and think everyone is persecuting you, you need help. People who mix their identities with their fetish's are big behavior problems within the fandom. THEY NEED HELP....comprehend?

There are people who go out of their way in this fandom to take shit that should have been private to begin with and flaunt it in other people's faces. Then they want full immunity from any consequences at all. If you want to sit there and tell me that I should not judge you for what you fap off to, don't shove it my face. Also don't tell me that I should just deal with it when your interests starting fucking up my own. You don't come to a fur-meet and try to force people to cater to your fetish. You don't yap off your sexual kinks the moment you meet a fur. You certainly don't go into public places showing off your porn. You don't demand "Acceptance" for what you fap to. You treat it in a way so that it can be tolerated, there is a difference. So sorry if I am intelligent enough to realize that if we don't put any standards down at all, we truly will become the bottom of the barrel.

Want people to look past people's porn preferences? How about having some standards and stop standing up for people who pretty much shit all people's interests in the fandom for change? Don't want people to shit all over people's porn preferences. How about the porn dogs stop shitting all over the fandom? Stop trying to turn it into your personal cum-dumpsters and going ape-shit the moment people remind you that the fandom is about anthropomorphic animals. The sex and fetish and porn thing? That's just a branch.

Which gets back to you. The only reason you are raging is because you are into the porn and pissed off that it can't be the core. You want the fandom to be the bottom of the barrel. You want it to be a fetish fandom. So you throw up your hands and accuse other people of being self-righteous when you are the one who has no consideration for the whole of the fandom.

Lol and we are the self-righteous ones. It's not like our desire to have a well balanced fandom where people can privately enjoy the porn and publicly enjoy the conventions impacts the porn dog's fapping time, yet in reverse it sure isn't the same.

EDIT: The too long didn't want to read version:
If you want people to stop shitting on your porn interests stop taking a gigantic dump on the fandom and crying persecution. If you want us to hands off your porn stop trying to fuck us up in the PR world. It's not that hard. A little common decency, self respect and standards goes a loooong way.


----------



## Redregon (Oct 1, 2010)

Ben said:


> Alright, apparently I wasn't very clear.
> 
> Right now, furry is one of the biggest refuge groups for people in the world that you can easily join. Did you grow up with Disney movies and talking-animal cartoons? Sure, everyone did! Do you like animals? Why of course, you'd be terrible not to. Are you lonely or socially awkward? Yes! Then furry is the perfect place for you.


 
Stop... you're completely missing the point. Furry is only a hobby. it is not this grand and special little thing that makes people happy or sad or whatever, it is ONLY a god-damn hobby. 

what you're suggesting about how furry is some sort of refuge or special thing has absolutely NOTHING to do with furry, it has EVERYTHING to do with the PEOPLE's ATTITUDES in furry. and people's attitudes vary. 

don't like it? tough shit, deal with it or find somewhere else.

i'm not going to bother with the rest since you're completely missing the point of the fandom.


----------



## Aegis (Oct 1, 2010)

Everyone sees the fandom from a different view.
If you don't like their aspect(s), then piss off. 
There is no gain from all of it.
You get nothing.


----------



## Ben (Oct 1, 2010)

Redregon said:


> Stop... you're completely missing the point. Furry is only a hobby. it is not this grand and special little thing that makes people happy or sad or whatever, it is ONLY a god-damn hobby.
> 
> what you're suggesting about how furry is some sort of refuge or special thing has absolutely NOTHING to do with furry, it has EVERYTHING to do with the PEOPLE's ATTITUDES in furry. and people's attitudes vary.
> 
> ...



You just seem to be arguing semantics at this point, because like it or not, a substantial amount of furries, if not the majority, are social outcasts, or have a very insubstantial social life. I'm not saying "this is furry", I'm saying "this is what furry is to either a large minority or the majority, and it would make us look a hell of a lot better if we tried helping those people instead of constantly making fun of them." Because ripping on them constantly and being self-hating nerds isn't going to get anyone anywhere.


----------



## Heimdal (Oct 1, 2010)

Ben said:


> You just seem to be arguing semantics at this point, because like it or not, a substantial amount of furries, if not the majority, are social outcasts, or have a very insubstantial social life. I'm not saying "this is furry", I'm saying "this is what furry is to either a large minority or the majority, and it would make us look a hell of a lot better if we tried helping those people instead of constantly making fun of them." Because ripping on them constantly and being self-hating nerds isn't going to get anyone anywhere.


 
Everyone in the fandom tries to help one-another. It's just that an overwhelming majority think that _"you're perfect just the way you are"_ is helping. I'm not so confrontational on a personal level, but even tactful advice gets flooded over with comments of _"don't listen to him, he's a naysayer!" _When furries all argue that "_good enough_" is a worthy goal, and they interpret any advice that requires change to be an _attack on their way of life_, it's just a stupid mess.
Harsh criticism is very motivational; even if the people hate it, they will eventually/hopefully recognize it's value and be thankful (though the criticism might seem close-minded, it's often actually the person denying it that is.) It's harsh criticism that has made the more significant positive changes on me, and to a lot of others I've seen. It's the same in social life as it is in art, and I've seen it fuel great changes in both.


----------



## jeff (Oct 1, 2010)

I think harsh criticism just invites people to look elsewhere for those people you're talking about.
I wonder how much, if any, effect it has on most people because as Ben described they're typically social outcasts in reality. If reality beats someone down, chances are they're looking for a place to emotionally vent and receive support.
So, support is okay as long as it isn't a gigantic blowjob.

Harsh criticism may work for you, but often here it turns into some kind of self-sustaining reason to be an annoying retard. Just a harsh annoying retard. I mean, part of being a social outcast is being passive aggressive about how much your life sucks. When that's masked over a culture of overall negative (but constructive) criticism about someone else, its often mistaken for legitimately helping people or its knowingly used as an excuse by some, but it just ends up being a lot of projecting and aimless aggression.

and i dont like when that happens


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Oct 1, 2010)

GingerM said:


> It occurs to me to wonder how exactly they are supposed to share considerately? Either they submit it or not, and if accepted, it's up and visible. What did you have in mind, other than them not sharing it at all?



Ok so you clearly have not been following wtf we have been saying, what is the point in replying to me when you clearly have not been following what I have said in previous posts?

That aside as I have said more than once in this thread, artists who draw more extreme stuff should put in a warning thumbnail stating what it is, like vore, feral, cub etc etc. I am well aware some artists do, however there are still many who don't which allows us to see what we don't want to see and not have much of a choice. I am pretty certain it would not take long to make a warning thumbnail, probably a few minutes for an average artist. And the best thing is they could use the same thumb more than once (depending on theme).


In all honesty it doesn't bother me to see some weird shit on faf, hell I have seen far worse irl. However I choose to side with those on here who don't like seeing it because I don't see why they should if they don't want to. It is a simple issue to fix, like I said, all artists should make a thumbnail warning of what extreme it is. Perhaps it should be made a rule? Just a suggestion.


----------



## Ben (Oct 1, 2010)

Shartblaster said:


> I think harsh criticism just invites people to look elsewhere for those people you're talking about.
> I wonder how much, if any, effect it has on most people because as Ben described they're typically social outcasts in reality. If reality beats someone down, chances are they're looking for a place to emotionally vent and receive support.
> So, support is okay as long as it isn't a gigantic blowjob.
> 
> ...


 
Yeah, this occurred to me. I can see a lot of people being really aggressive with their advice and jumping to conclusions, before throwing their arms up and saying "Well, I tried!" when the person writes them off as a moron. Of course, you would probably need to use something like Skype to really help people here, since a large idea of furry is roleplaying, and as such, furries will have a tendency to be what they want you to see them as. Talking to people through voice has a much better chance of extracting raw honesty.


----------



## Trpdwarf (Oct 1, 2010)

Shartblaster said:


> I think harsh criticism just invites people to look elsewhere for those people you're talking about.
> I wonder how much, if any, effect it has on most people because as Ben described they're typically social outcasts in reality. If reality beats someone down, chances are they're looking for a place to emotionally vent and receive support.
> So, support is okay as long as it isn't a gigantic blowjob.
> 
> ...


 
Harsh criticism doesn't have to translate into beating someone down verbally.


----------



## jeff (Oct 1, 2010)

Trpdwarf said:


> Harsh criticism doesn't have to translate into beating someone down.


 
I know, that was generally what I was saying. It can work (and it can simply be harsh criticism), but a lot of times (anecdotally speaking) it turns into a lot of untowards aggression as it develops into a go-to response from a culture. It turns into that culture of sadism almost exclusively on popculture forums. I've never seen it happen elsewhere.


----------



## Trpdwarf (Oct 1, 2010)

Shartblaster said:


> I know, that was generally what I was saying. It can work (and it can simply be harsh criticism), but a lot of times (anecdotally speaking) it turns into a lot of untowards aggression as it develops into a response from a culture. It turns into that culture of sadism almost exclusively on popculture forums. I've never seen it happen elsewhere.


 
It is more than a "Can" it often does. But there are people who mistake "Harsh Criticism" as a excuse to be a bully. It's when the latter happens that you get a lot of aggression coming from the people you try to "Help". It's similar to how someone made a thread about "Blatant honestly"...and a lot of people use that an excuse to be tactless.

If I'm sitting here with a fur, that has issues. He needs help. He does not understand why it's not appropriate to expect to be babied at the fur-meet. Now most of his online friends including the ones in that guild, are all "Well it's okay they just don't understand you" or "They are not real furries because real furries stick up for each other and are tolerating and accepting".

Chances are some people at the meet might have spoke him to him before. They didn't get through. I did. I was pretty fucking harsh about it. The reason HE can't get any friends is because HE is the problem. He needed to slapped around a bit and understand that regardless of what all his online buddies say, he's acting in a way that isn't appropriate. It seems very harsh to just go out and say that but then you explain why. Why is it the other cub fur has friends? Well it's because he doesn't behave like Mr. Friendless. He doesn't flaunt being a cub. He doesn't require people to cater to his fetish in public. This is something that Mr. Friendless needs to learn from.

If HE wants friends he needs to learn to create a division between his real self and his fetish. He had a very hard time understanding that. It was nothing but harsh straight to the point points that got through his head. He's spent his life being a social outcast, either people beat him down and leave, or they build him up only to watch him get beat down again.

Harsh Criticism beats a person down partially by addressing quickly the problems. Then you work with it from there. Or that's how it is to me. Some people don't need that. Some people you can beat around the bush and perhaps be a lot "Nicer" and they'll get the point. But again, part of the reason it can be very difficult to reach these "Social outcasts" in the fandom is because they are surrounded by people setting them up to fail. Giving them false hopes, and false ideas that in the real world just don't cut it.

Real friends don't just sit there and tell you your problems are okay when they create very real problems in the real world. Real friends or people who really care seek to help you really improve so that you don't just improve your standing in the group. Then again the furry fandom isn't exactly your to go to place for learning how to be better socially. It just so happens because we have enough of them coming in that some of us take it upon ourselves to try to help people. With some people you have to be a little harsh. It might not work for you, but I've seen people do complete 180's after having people get harsh with them and then work on helping to improve them.


----------



## jeff (Oct 1, 2010)

I'm not disagreeing, since I'm mostly talking from the perspective of forums since I very rarely communicate on the internet save for forums.


----------



## Willow (Oct 1, 2010)

Ben said:


> Yeah, this occurred to me. I can see a lot of people being really aggressive with their advice and jumping to conclusions, before throwing their arms up and saying "Well, I tried!" when the person writes them off as a moron. Of course, you would probably need to use something like Skype to really help people here, since a large idea of furry is roleplaying, and as such, furries will have a tendency to be what they want you to see them as. Talking to people through voice has a much better chance of extracting raw honesty.


 Then again, you can hide yourself in a chatroom too, it's just a matter of stamina. 
And is it really aggressive advice? Or just blunt honesty and such.


----------



## Carenath (Oct 1, 2010)

Kit H. Ruppell said:


> So, more or less, the staff members WANT us to be shunned by the rest of society.


If you really believe that.. you're too young to be on these forums.


----------



## GingerM (Oct 1, 2010)

RandyDarkshade said:


> Ok so you clearly have not been following wtf we have been saying, what is the point in replying to me when you clearly have not been following what I have said in previous posts?
> 
> That aside as I have said more than once in this thread, artists who draw more extreme stuff should put in a warning thumbnail stating what it is, like vore, feral, cub etc etc. I am well aware some artists do, however there are still many who don't which allows us to see what we don't want to see and not have much of a choice. I am pretty certain it would not take long to make a warning thumbnail, probably a few minutes for an average artist. And the best thing is they could use the same thumb more than once (depending on theme).
> 
> ...


 
* re-reads Randy's contributions *

Well, pooh... I do need remedial reading, apparently. Either that, or I need to not try to absorb an entire thread in one sitting. My apologies; you did say. And warning thumbs I can definitely get behind.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Oct 1, 2010)

Carenath said:


> If you really believe that.. you're too young to be on these forums.



sometimes I think the same and I am much older than most on these forums. The staff are fully aware of the issues many users dislike, yet do nothing about it.


----------



## Toxic.Vixen (Oct 1, 2010)

Trpdwarf said:


> tldr


Most of your point is moot cuz I'm not trying to justify freaks who go OUT IN PUBLIC REAL SPACE and flaunt their disgusting issues. I never once said that, so don't accuse me of such. Infact, I clearly stated people shouldn't be doing that shit...


Toxic.Vixen said:


> You aren't forced to look at their art, you aren't forced to buy it, and you aren't forced to like it.
> They don't try and flaunt their fetish in your face.
> [*And if they do, they are in the wrong.* Also, since there is no dog cock in the ad in question the artist did not impose upon you.]



How can you not see how righteous your post is? lol
You're telling me that people who do not share your tastes in porn should be exiled from the Fandom and forbidden from 'tainting' your reputation as a furry.
You're telling me that you are somehow better then them.
I don't know who you think you're fooling...

Everyone here has issues. Otherwise you wouldn't be here lol
As a furry you really have no place to be passing judgment.

But lets just for a second say it wasn't completely hypocritical to judge people based on something as insignificant as porn...
And lets say you and other equally as righteous furs [i'm sure Willow will sign up] go through with your ridiculous plan to alienate all those who don't fit into your ideals of a 'good' furry...
What do you honestly think that will accomplish?
You think you're going to somehow 'cleanse' the fandom of all it's dirty thoughts?
You think furs are going to abandoned their favorite past-time so YOU can feel better about calling yourself a furfag? Or that they're going to magically renounce their deep-seeded fetishes?
R-O-F-L

And you say I'm the naive one?


----------



## Gavrill (Oct 1, 2010)

It's official, Toxic.Vixen is the new Lei-Lani.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Oct 1, 2010)

Toxic.Vixen said:


> How can you not see how righteous your post is? lol
> You're telling me that people who do not share your tastes in porn should be exiled from the Fandom and forbidden from 'tainting' your reputation as a furry.
> You're telling me that you are somehow better then them.
> I don't know who you think you're fooling...



Yes because it is absolutely fine for people with fucked up fetishes like fuck the fido, or fuck the neighbours kid to make innocent people in the fandom look bad too. :v Because, ya know, we "have" to respect these kind of people. :v 



> Everyone here has issues. Otherwise you wouldn't be here lol
> As a furry you really have no place to be passing judgment.



Hypocrite. One breath you are saying don't pass judgment and in another you are passing judgment on furries yourself by saying "All furries here have issues derp"




> But lets just for a second say it wasn't completely hypocritical to judge people based on something as insignificant as porn...
> And lets say you and other equally as righteous furs [i'm sure Willow will sign up] go through with your ridiculous plan to alienate all those who don't fit into your ideals of a 'good' furry...
> What do you honestly think that will accomplish?
> You think you're going to somehow 'cleanse' the fandom of all it's dirty thoughts?
> ...



No one will be able to cleanse the fandom completely, but I do not see why dogfuckers and pedo's should be allowed to be amongst us not only making the fandom look bad as a whole, but making innocent members look bad aswell. Quite frankly I do not wish to be lebeled as something I'm not because of some sick assholes.


----------



## Willow (Oct 1, 2010)

Molly said:


> It's official, Toxic.Vixen is the new Lei-Lani.


 She should really stop. She's not getting anywhere with any of this.


----------



## Gavrill (Oct 1, 2010)

Willow said:


> She should really stop. She's not getting anywhere with any of this.


 
I'm not referring to her arguments, I meant her posting style (you know, throwing in random smilies and stuff). It's mildly irritating when in a debate.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Oct 1, 2010)

Molly said:


> It's official, Toxic.Vixen is the new Lei-Lani.



That name rings a bell.



Molly said:


> I'm not referring to her arguments, I meant her posting style (you know, throwing in random smilies and stuff). It's mildly irritating when in a debate.



Her debate is sinking in quicksand.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Oct 1, 2010)

Carenath said:


> If you really believe that.. you're too young to be on these forums.


 
Ouuuuuchhhh.
Saaaaaad faaaaace.....you're soooo mean! 
You'll find I don't bruise so easily as the average furfag.


----------



## Trpdwarf (Oct 2, 2010)

Toxic.Vixen said:


> Most of your point is moot cuz I'm not trying to justify freaks who go OUT IN PUBLIC REAL SPACE and flaunt their disgusting issues. I never once said that, so don't accuse me of such. Infact, I clearly stated people shouldn't be doing that shit...
> 
> 
> How can you not see how righteous your post is? lol
> ...


 
So who is the rest of this directed towards? It's moot if it's in response to me. ;/
Your questions have no merits on anything I have said. Don't try to pin me into something by making me counter someone else's argument, okay sweetie?


----------



## Kiru-kun (Oct 2, 2010)

Toxic.Vixen said:


> Most of your point is moot cuz I'm not trying to justify freaks who go OUT IN PUBLIC REAL SPACE and flaunt their disgusting issues. I never once said that, so don't accuse me of such. Infact, I clearly stated people shouldn't be doing that shit...
> 
> 
> How can you not see how righteous your post is? lol
> ...



Ok, I've been trying to stay out of this, but you Sir or Madam are... just... Blargh, no where, in this, babbling, incoherent, waste of bandwidth did you make any point, that hadn't been shut down before.

Please, for the sake of my sanity, stop, posting


----------



## Ozriel (Oct 2, 2010)

Kiru-kun said:


> Ok, I've been trying to stay out of this, but you Sir or Madam are... just... Blargh, no where, in this, babbling, incoherent, waste of bandwidth did you make any point, that hadn't been shut down before.
> 
> Please, for the sake of my sanity, stop, posting


 
It's like talking to a born-again Christian Zealot.
No matter what you say or do, it will not get through at all. 

She/he/it/whatever will not stop posting. :V


----------



## Kiru-kun (Oct 2, 2010)

Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> It's like talking to a born-again Christian Zealot.
> No matter what you say or do, it will not get through at all.
> 
> She/he/it/whatever will not stop posting. :V


 
Its just that I've never seen someone be so Gad damn wrong, and just... Wait, I have seen this before... only once, on the main site, she rivals the guy who tried to justify his fetish, Oh god, I'm having flashbacks.. I need to go find some Tylenol...


----------



## Toxic.Vixen (Oct 2, 2010)

Kiru-kun said:


> Ok, I've been trying to stay out of this, but you Sir or Madam are... just... Blargh, no where, in this, babbling, incoherent, waste of bandwidth did you make any point, that hadn't been shut down before.
> 
> Please, for the sake of my sanity, stop, posting


No one has addressed the points I've made, actually.
Most people arguing with me are trying to derail the topic and avoid the issue at hand.

In case you all have forgotten, the issue is about someone on FA[a furry art/porn site] posting a completely clean and direct AD to their page where they specialize in DRAWN feral porn. People like Trpdwarf think that unless they fit into their ideals of what's right to enjoy and whats wrong, these people somehow don't 'deserve' to be furries, and everyone should shun them so that the fandom may be 'cleansed' That's ridiculous! Not everyone into extreme/alternative things are mentally ill...
They're not all criminals or disgusting, socially retarded, shut-in pedo-monsters...
[LOL -- although obviously some are =x I've met a few monsters at some meet-ups... Let's not lie]

They are normal people!! They are just like you or me. I would be totally shocked if a furry could seriously look me in the eye and tell me 'I have absolutely no strange fetishes. No kinks or alternative interests. I've never thought of anything that popular society would cringe at..." and not burst into laughter...

And then of course theres this, which is a completely valid point no one addressed that I don't want to retype again:



> But lets just for a second say it wasn't completely hypocritical to judge people based on something as insignificant as porn...
> And lets say you and other equally as righteous furs [i'm sure Willow will sign up] go through with your ridiculous plan to alienate all those who don't fit into your ideals of a 'good' furry...
> What do you honestly think that will accomplish?
> You think you're going to somehow 'cleanse' the fandom of all it's dirty thoughts?
> ...



All I'm saying [which is the point that you've all clearly missed, and have no real retort to address] is that this is the fucking Internet. You have no right to say who gets to post what on the Internet. You also have no right to say what defines a furry, and who is allowed to call themselves a furry. The people posting perfectly acceptable DRAWN art on FA do not deserve to be harassed by close-minded people who do not enjoy the sames tastes. If it has not violated law or FA's rules...
They have done NOTHING wrong!!
No one is saying you have to give them hugs and add them to your watch list.
No one is saying you have to be happy about it.
But ffs don't act like an elitists and go on rants about how they're the bane of the fandom and claim they're making _you_ look bad.
Because to the people who enjoy -INSERTFETISHYOUDISLIKEHERE-, you just look like a big cry baby.

And for the record, I'm not just defending peoples right to post Feral porn. I would be happy to see it banned from FA, actually.
[It's not my personal taste, and some people don't use thumbnails right >_<;;]
But I'm defending everyones FREEDOM to indulge in whatever pleases them, so long as no one is hurt in the process.
[And I don't know about you guys, but I'm in no way HURT by being exposed to pixels on my screen.]
EVERYONE deserves that freedom. Even you. So please do not try and take that RIGHT away from people who are decent and your only issue with them is that they have different tastes then you.


If someone can make an actual retort without personally attacking me, I would be rather impressed.
Why are people on FAF are so angry?  About porn of all things...
It's like you forget we're posting this on a website notorious for its porn lol


----------



## Ozriel (Oct 2, 2010)

Kiru-kun said:


> Its just that I've never seen someone be so Gad damn wrong, and just... Wait, I have seen this before... only once, on the main site, she rivals the guy who tried to justify his fetish, Oh god, I'm having flashbacks.. I need to go find some Tylenol...


 
Nyquil works better :V



> But lets just for a second say it wasn't completely hypocritical to judge people based on something as insignificant as porn...
> And lets say you and other equally as righteous furs [i'm sure Willow will sign up] go through with your ridiculous plan to alienate all those who don't fit into your ideals of a 'good' furry...
> What do you honestly think that will accomplish?
> You think you're going to somehow 'cleanse' the fandom of all it's dirty thoughts?
> ...



Stop going Off-topic. 
Respond to people's comments and stop pussy-footing.

Meanwhile, Back to Cata-Beta.


----------



## Trpdwarf (Oct 2, 2010)

Good god Toxic, stop putting words into my mouth. Seriously. I get the feeling you are not even attempting to do more than lightly skim what I have to say. EDIT: Then again that's what you've been doing to everyone.

Stop flame baiting people, and stop accusing people of not responding to your posts. People have multiple times responded to your points, it's not their fault if their responses are not things you want to hear. Just because it's not what you want to hear does not mean they are not responding.

In turn I'd expect YOU to start responding to people's points instead of ignoring what they say and making half attempts to turn the subject away so you don't have to respond. You are really toeing the line of flame-baiting. Stop that now.

By Toxic.Vixen





> You also have no right to say what defines a furry, and who is allowed to call themselves a furry.


 If we have no right to say what defines a furry you have no right to say what defines the fandom so just deal with it when we define what is furry. 

What makes you think you can turn around and hypocrite yourself going "wahhh you all can't define what the furry is" and then go "Waahhh, this is a fetish fandom!"

Cry some girl. It's making this much more amusing. You are now acting like a fully fledged butt-hurt furry stereotype.


----------



## Kiru-kun (Oct 2, 2010)

Toxic... people here on FaF aren't angry, we just don't tolerate stupid shit, and right now, you're like a gas station men's room, full of it, please... just stop

I've sat here, for 15 pages, wondering when you were going to just stop being pants-on-head retarded, but it seems that day will never come, you dance, duck, and weave, place words, and work your way through questions, and then try and come off as the victim of those "Mean ol' FaF  furfagses!"  you simply, just, can not, win in this, just, stop, and, leave





Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> Meanwhile, Back to Cata-Beta.




Damn you and your Beta access! My lappy's broken... not even Regular WoW for me *sad Jerboa*


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Oct 2, 2010)

Toxic.Vixen said:


> No one has addressed the points I've made, actually.
> Most people arguing with me are trying to derail the topic and avoid the issue at hand.
> 
> In case you all have forgotten, the issue is about someone on FA[a furry art/porn site] posting a completely clean and direct AD to their page where they specialize in DRAWN feral porn. People like Trpdwarf think that unless they fit into their ideals of what's right to enjoy and whats wrong, these people somehow don't 'deserve' to be furries, and everyone should shun them so that the fandom may be 'cleansed' That's ridiculous! Not everyone into extreme/alternative things are mentally ill...
> ...



Actually, many people have responded to your stupidity and your stupid points, you are just choosing to ignore everywhere. All you are doing is flame baiting people.


----------



## Ozriel (Oct 2, 2010)

Kiru-kun said:


> Damn you and your Beta access! My lappy's broken... not even Regular WoW for me *sad Jerboa*


 
I just got it a couple of days ago.
Too many bugs and glitches in the new areas.


----------



## Kiru-kun (Oct 2, 2010)

Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> I just got it a couple of days ago.
> Too many bugs and glitches in the new areas.


 
Do me a favor, test shadow priests for me


/re-rails topic


----------



## slydude851 (Oct 2, 2010)

In a way, you are correct.  The CSI and all the other negative publicity is what the regular person looks at in regards to the fandom.  Once they actually look into it more, they discover the pornographic aspect of it which then draws even more hellfire.  

There is one thing we can do, we can tell those people that the CSI episode and all that is partly incorrect (just in the dressing up and having sex part) because it is.  We don't (at least to the extent that I'm aware of) dress up and have sex.  But, there is the pornographic aspect of it which exists to be true and that is what those defensive furries go crazy over.

In my opinion, people go crazy over both parts of it, usually at the same time, but in truth, we really don't have any room to complain when it comes to the porn part.  But with the dressing up and having sex part is incorrect and _that_ is what we should go crazy about.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Oct 2, 2010)

slydude851 said:


> In a way, you are correct.  The CSI and all the other negative publicity is what the regular person looks at in regards to the fandom.  Once they actually look into it more, they discover the pornographic aspect of it which then draws even more hellfire.
> 
> There is one thing we can do, we can tell those people that the CSI episode and all that is partly incorrect (just in the dressing up and having sex part) because it is.  We don't (at least to the extent that I'm aware of) dress up and have sex.  But, there is the pornographic aspect of it which exists to be true and that is what those defensive furries go crazy over.
> 
> In my opinion, people go crazy over both parts of it, usually at the same time, but in truth, we really don't have any room to complain when it comes to the porn part.  But with the dressing up and having sex part is incorrect and _that_ is what we should go crazy about.



I have actually seen video footage on a free porn hosting site of people in fursuits jacking off and other things. Having sex in fursuits isn't actually a lie. The best way to phrase it is: "Some people have sex in fursuits, but most don't" or something to this affect.


----------



## Ozriel (Oct 2, 2010)

Kiru-kun said:


> Do me a favor, test shadow priests for me
> 
> 
> /re-rails topic


 
Making another pre-made char copy.

B-O-T


----------



## Carenath (Oct 2, 2010)

Kit H. Ruppell said:


> You'll find I don't bruise so easily as the average furfag.


Except this isn't about weither you bruise easily or not, since you fail to grasp subtle jabs, I'll spell it out nice and obvious:
If you really believe that prior statement, "So, more or less, the staff members WANT us to be shunned by the rest of society.", then you must not be old enough to have a degree of common sense (infers a lack of intelligence).

Your statement implies that FA Staff are your babysitters that we have some requirement to censor what our users can post and by extension, weed out members that (in your opinion) cause "us to be shunned by the rest of society".

Your statement is wrong for many reasons:
1. We are not your mothers or babysitters.
2. We like the 1st Ammendment.
3. You're not obliged to use FA, if you feel that being here taints how outsiders see you...
4. You would probably whine and bitch if we censored something you like, that others disliked.
5. People would shun you for what they see in your gallery 

In a nutshell, you're acting like a 12 year old, grow up.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Oct 2, 2010)

I'm not obliged to use this clusterfuck of a site, but I'm certainly not leaving any time soon. Sorry to give you the bad news


----------



## Carenath (Oct 2, 2010)

Kit H. Ruppell said:


> I'm not obliged to use this clusterfuck of a site, but I'm certainly not leaving any time soon. Sorry to give you the bad news


 That's not bad news, Im not telling anyone to just leave, I'm only pointing out the obvious, that everyone can leave if they want


----------



## cpam (Oct 3, 2010)

RobinFox said:


> Wow, are you guys listening to yourselves?! This is some of this intorrerant, illogical, and just plain offensive stuff I've seen in the fandom. First off, your guys' entire argument relies on accepted truths: 1. That other people's fetishes reflect on people's view of you in the fandom, and 2. Somehow their fetish is less legitimate than yours, and that it's something "to be fixed." If exculsion because of a fetish is acceptable, even considered progress, I want no part in it.
> 
> First off, your statement that peoples fetishes somehow make people think everyone is into it is stupid. It's like saying everyone thinks we all have the same fetish. It just isn't logical. Next, you talk about how their fetish shouldn't be reflected on other innocent members, and you make multiple refrences to offering people help, fixing the fandom (which you relate to the fetish as a problem), make a baseless assumption that all these kinks are reflected in real life, and finally that godawful roomate analogy. Being creepy isn't a grounds to be excluded, and just because someone has a different
> fetish than you, doesn't make them broken. No one should have to conform to your moral standard, or your idea of the fandom.
> ...


 
Frankly, I wonder why anyone would feel that the inclusion of any fetish would somehow be important in a fandom where fetish was never a primary concern to begin with.  The only concern in furry fandom was that of furry art and stories; the addition of fetish was something that crept in later and has long since got out of control; nowadays it seems (to judge by the conversation here) like the emphasis has shifted (and not for the better) and that fetish is the only thing that matters and needs to be defended to the death.

Sounds to me like the fandom is badly in need of a movement to return to its roots.


----------



## Beta Link (Oct 3, 2010)

cpam said:


> Sounds to me like the fandom is badly in need of a movement to return to its roots.


Too bad the last time something like that happened, it was the Burned Furs. :/


----------



## cpam (Oct 3, 2010)

Toxic.Vixen said:


> All I'm saying [which is the point that you've all clearly missed, and have no real retort to address] is that this is the fucking Internet. You have no right to say who gets to post what on the Internet.



Of course we do.   We all participate here and we all have a say, even if that voice is articulated by 'voting with our feet'; that is, by not rewarding such posts with a response or gracing an objectionable site with our patronage.  



Toxic.Vixen said:


> You also have no right to say what defines a furry, and who is allowed to call themselves a furry.



Absolutely we do.  To wit, I adhere to the original meanings of the term: an anthropomophic critter, stories or art about anthropomorphic critters, people who create or enjoy stories and art about anthropomorphic critters.  If it doesn't fall within those parameters, it's not furry; if it works against those parameters or the interests of the general fandom, then it's not furry.  And as I've been around here some twenty years of better, I feel that I have as much right, or better, than most latecomers to say so.



Toxic.Vixen said:


> EVERYONE deserves that freedom. Even you. So please do not try and take that RIGHT away from people who are decent and your only issue with them is that they have different tastes then you.



Frankly, to paraphrase one Supreme Court jurist, that right ends where it connects with my nose.  Or with the collective nose of the fandom.  This really is more than just a matter of different tastes; it's a matter of people exhibiting art that doesn't reflect the best interests of the fandom, that doesn't really reflect the fandom but instead acts as a release for those with questionable interests who use the site entirely for those specific interests, and, by doing so, do so in a way that reflects poorly upon us as a whole.

Although I will grant you the larger problem isn't so much with the posters of objectionable art, but with FA for not incorporating a standards policy and vigorously maintaining it, thereby allowing it to be in its current state.


----------



## cpam (Oct 3, 2010)

Carenath said:


> We like the 1st Ammendment.



The first amendment doesn't mean that a site can't implement stringent standards and then enforce them as needed.  If you decide to make FA a strictly G rated site (not saying that it needs to be, this is strictly an example only), you would be entirely be within your rights to enforce that rule, regardless of whatever hue and cry emerges from the fandom.  There's no censorship involved, as anyone who really wants to post harder material can go elsewhere or even create their own websites; you're not denying anybody an outlet so long as there are other outlets in existence.  (The notion of censorship where the First Amendment is concerned relates to political speech anyway.)  It really comes down to what you want the site to be... and it becomes all too apparent what the site wants to be.

Allowing every- and anybody to do whatever they want is not only directionless and generally harmful to the overall rep of the fandom (yes, it has one, and it used to be better than what it has now), but is also a general act of laziness on the part of the Admins -- "Dude, I just don't want to deal with it!"  (Although, to be fair, I can see how daunting a task it would be to enforce any posting rules given the huge number of participating contributors on FA and the huge size of the archives.)


----------



## cpam (Oct 3, 2010)

Beta Link said:


> Too bad the last time something like that happened, it was the Burned Furs. :/


 
The Burned Furs were a problem even unto themselves.  A return to the roots doesn't need to be reactionary or self-destructive.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Oct 3, 2010)

cpam said:


> The first amendment doesn't mean that a site can't implement stringent standards and then enforce them as needed. If you decide to make FA a strictly G rated site (not saying that it needs to be, this is strictly an example only), you would be entirely be within your rights to enforce that rule, regardless of whatever hue and cry emerges from the fandom. There's no censorship involved, as anyone who really wants to post harder material can go elsewhere or even create their own websites; you're not denying anybody an outlet so long as there are other outlets in existence. (The notion of censorship where the First Amendment is concerned relates to political speech anyway.) It really comes down to what you want the site to be... and it becomes all too apparent what the site wants to be.
> 
> Allowing every- and anybody to do whatever they want is not only directionless and generally harmful to the overall rep of the fandom (yes, it has one, and it used to be better than what it has now), but is also a general act of laziness on the part of the Admins -- "Dude, I just don't want to deal with it!" (Although, to be fair, I can see how daunting a task it would be to enforce any posting rules given the huge number of participating contributors on FA and the huge size of the archives.)


 
Everyone can do whatever the fuck they want, man! The first link, man. The first link!
Actually, the problem is the really loud fetishists that can't take any criticism and FREAK OUT when someone voices any kind of negative opinion on their work. What do you expect? The nail that sticks out gets hammered, and the other nails are not to blame!


----------



## Beta Link (Oct 3, 2010)

cpam said:


> The Burned Furs were a problem even unto themselves.  A return to the roots doesn't need to be reactionary or self-destructive.


Oh, I never said it needed to be. What I meant is that the Burned Furs are a perfect example of how something like that can go horribly, horribly wrong.


----------



## Mentova (Oct 3, 2010)

Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> I just got it a couple of days ago.
> Too many bugs and glitches in the new areas.


 I've been in for awhile. :smug:

What beta server do you guys play on?

(lolofftopic)


----------



## Carenath (Oct 3, 2010)

cpam said:


> The first amendment doesn't mean that a site can't implement stringent standards and then enforce them as needed.  If you decide to make FA a strictly G rated site (not saying that it needs to be, this is strictly an example only), you would be entirely be within your rights to enforce that rule, regardless of whatever hue and cry emerges from the fandom.  There's no censorship involved, as anyone who really wants to post harder material can go elsewhere or even create their own websites; you're not denying anybody an outlet so long as there are other outlets in existence.  (The notion of censorship where the First Amendment is concerned relates to political speech anyway.)  It really comes down to what you want the site to be... and it becomes all too apparent what the site wants to be.
> 
> Allowing every- and anybody to do whatever they want is not only directionless and generally harmful to the overall rep of the fandom (yes, it has one, and it used to be better than what it has now), but is also a general act of laziness on the part of the Admins -- "Dude, I just don't want to deal with it!"  (Although, to be fair, I can see how daunting a task it would be to enforce any posting rules given the huge number of participating contributors on FA and the huge size of the archives.)


 But that's precisely the point, we _choose_ to provide the members of this site, the maximum amount of freedom possible under the law where FA is hosted and operated. We have a mimimum of restrictions, largely to prevent 'junk' submissions and violations of copyright, and I believe this to be a very good thing. We are not the morality police and I abhor any one group imposing their morality on others.


----------



## Ozriel (Oct 3, 2010)

Heckler & Koch said:


> I've been in for awhile. :smug:
> 
> What beta server do you guys play on?
> 
> (lolofftopic)


 
Lost Isles.


----------



## Mentova (Oct 3, 2010)

Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> Lost Isles.


 So am I, awesome. :V


----------



## cpam (Oct 3, 2010)

Carenath said:


> But that's precisely the point, we _choose_ to provide the members of this site, the maximum amount of freedom possible under the law where FA is hosted and operated. We have a mimimum of restrictions, largely to prevent 'junk' submissions and violations of copyright, and I believe this to be a very good thing. We are not the morality police and I abhor any one group imposing their morality on others.



I don't know that you've succeeded at preventing 'junk' submissions, but maybe there's a different definition of 'junk' at play.

I don't understand how a _general _application of morality, such as accepted and applied throughout general society on a day-to-day basis, is considered the act of _one _group imposing their morality over others.  Aren't we really just having one group's _lack _of moral standards being imposed on FA instead?  Is it more important that there be no hint of morality at all?  Why is setting up a code of standards considered to be acting as 'morality policing' when it's simply a matter of setting parameters?  (That would extend from something as simple as "no humans -- this is a furry art site" or "no files larger than 600K" to something like "nudity okay, but no depictions of sex".  Note, I'm not saying these specific rules are needed at FA; these are just examples of parameters for the purpose of argument.)  There are things accepted on FA that I don't see as being acceptable even on cable TV; I wonder if some of them are even acceptable in cheap specialty porn magazines hidden behind the counters of a run-down adult bookshop.  Whatever FA thinks its displaying with its 'openness', it's far less the openness of an academic or artistic nature and far more the openness of a cheap slut.  _That's_ the image of furry fandom that FA tends to project... and to protect.

A _lack _of standards is not a suitable replacement for having _some _standards.


----------



## Trpdwarf (Oct 4, 2010)

cpam said:


> I don't know that you've succeeded at preventing 'junk' submissions, but maybe there's a different definition of 'junk' at play.
> 
> I don't understand how a _general _application of morality, such as accepted and applied throughout general society on a day-to-day basis, is considered the act of _one _group imposing their morality over others.  Aren't we really just having one group's _lack _of moral standards being imposed on FA instead?  Is it more important that there be no hint of morality at all?  Why is setting up a code of standards considered to be acting as 'morality policing' when it's simply a matter of setting parameters?  (That would extend from something as simple as "no humans -- this is a furry art site" or "no files larger than 600K" to something like "nudity okay, but no depictions of sex".  Note, I'm not saying these specific rules are needed at FA; these are just examples of parameters for the purpose of argument.)  There are things accepted on FA that I don't see as being acceptable even on cable TV; I wonder if some of them are even acceptable in cheap specialty porn magazines hidden behind the counters of a run-down adult bookshop.  Whatever FA thinks its displaying with its 'openness', it's far less the openness of an academic or artistic nature and far more the openness of a cheap slut.  _That's_ the image of furry fandom that FA tends to project... and to protect.
> 
> A _lack _of standards is not a suitable replacement for having _some _standards.



I completely comprehend and sympathize with what you are saying. However it could have been achieved in far less words. At least the last part.

This is the imagine that FA shows the rest of the world:
_
"It's not okay to talk about boning your dog but you can draw a picture of it of in great detail."_


----------



## Mentova (Oct 4, 2010)

Trpdwarf said:


> I completely comprehend and sympathize with what you are saying. However it could have been achieved in far less words. At least the last part.
> 
> This is the imagine that FA shows the rest of the world:
> _
> "It's not okay to talk about boning your dog but you can draw a picture of it of in great detail."_


 Which is wrong, and something needs to be done about it.


----------



## Trpdwarf (Oct 4, 2010)

Heckler & Koch said:


> Which is wrong, and something needs to be done about it.


 
I agree but unfortunately those of us who would like to see something done can't do anything because at the end of the day it's up to the person in charge, which is not us moderators like myself and Carenath. It would be very nice for people on FA and FAF to remember that.


----------



## Mentova (Oct 4, 2010)

Trpdwarf said:


> I agree but unfortunately those of us who would like to see something done can't do anything because at the end of the day it's up to the person in charge, which is not us moderators like myself and Carenath. It would be very nice for people on FA and FAF to remember that.


 Alas, it is an issue that we have to live with for now. =[


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Oct 4, 2010)

Ya know, if people are willing to upload that shit for the world and his wife to see, they should expect to get shit for it from some users.


----------



## Mentova (Oct 4, 2010)

RandyDarkshade said:


> Ya know, if people are willing to upload that shit for the world and his wife to see, they should expect to get shit for it from some users.


 But to them the furry fandom is about accepting everyone for everything, so they'd assume the opposite.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Oct 4, 2010)

Heckler & Koch said:


> But to them the furry fandom is about accepting everyone for everything, so they'd assume the opposite.



It would still be their fault for assuming everyone in this fandom are accepting.


----------



## Mentova (Oct 4, 2010)

RandyDarkshade said:


> It would still be there fault for assuming everyone in this fandom are accepting.


 It is their fault, but they don't get it, and there are enough people who also believe what they think to back them up.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Oct 4, 2010)

RandyDarkshade said:


> It would still be their fault for assuming everyone in this fandom is obligated to be totally accepting.


 
Fixed


----------



## Redregon (Oct 4, 2010)

Ben said:


> You just seem to be arguing semantics at this point, because like it or not, a substantial amount of furries, if not the majority, are social outcasts, or have a very insubstantial social life. I'm not saying "this is furry", I'm saying "this is what furry is to either a large minority or the majority, and it would make us look a hell of a lot better if we tried helping those people instead of constantly making fun of them." Because ripping on them constantly and being self-hating nerds isn't going to get anyone anywhere.



interesting... so i'm a self hating nerd now? and how is stating the base core of what furry is semantics in the context of this argument?

i go away for a weekend and this is what i come back to. shit, i'm glad i've adblocked the ads on FA now... if this is an example of the people that Neer hires to work here, i'm sorry Neer, but consider this a sort of boycott. you're okay but i really don't think that your staff is chosen well.


----------



## Redregon (Oct 4, 2010)

cpam said:


> The Burned Furs were a problem even unto themselves.  A return to the roots doesn't need to be reactionary or self-destructive.


 
if anything, the burned furs were more the drama llamas they were because they railed against all forms of sexuality afaik. yes, furry in itself isn't a sexual thing but when you toss in humans like all us here, you're going to get it to become somewhat sexualized. now, how far will that go? that's up to the person but that does not mean that people should be excused when they cower behind the whole "but it's furry" when they're actually defending something completely different like pedophilia or beastiality. yeah, there are pedo's and zoo-freaks in the fandom but they do NOT define the fandom.


----------



## GingerM (Oct 4, 2010)

Heckler & Koch said:


> Which is wrong, and something needs to be done about it.


 
How so? The admins and owners of the site have said what their stance is on the subject. Whether you or I or anyone else agree with it is irrelevant; it's their site. Those who disagree with that policy are free to pool funds and set up another site with rules they find more acceptable.

More practically, what do you suggest be done about it that would both address your concerns and remain within the policies stated by Carenath?

For the record, I do not have a problem with Carenath _et al._'s policy. If someone posts something I don't want to see on FA, I don't look at it. Though I thought Randy had a good suggestion, and one that works quite well over on Hentai Foundry; an "Icky Stuff" thumbnail. HF also has a preferences system, where you can select what categories of images you want to see - loli, shota (think cub), and so on. Anything that falls into one of those unchecked categories means you see the "Icky Stuff" thumb instead of the posted image thumb. I don't know how much work it would take to implement such a thing here, but if the admins & owners wanted to, might that be a suitable compromise?


----------



## Mentova (Oct 4, 2010)

GingerM said:


> How so? The admins and owners of the site have said what their stance is on the subject. Whether you or I or anyone else agree with it is irrelevant; it's their site. Those who disagree with that policy are free to pool funds and set up another site with rules they find more acceptable.
> 
> More practically, what do you suggest be done about it that would both address your concerns and remain within the policies stated by Carenath?
> 
> For the record, I do not have a problem with Carenath _et al._'s policy. If someone posts something I don't want to see on FA, I don't look at it. Though I thought Randy had a good suggestion, and one that works quite well over on Hentai Foundry; an "Icky Stuff" thumbnail. HF also has a preferences system, where you can select what categories of images you want to see - loli, shota (think cub), and so on. Anything that falls into one of those unchecked categories means you see the "Icky Stuff" thumb instead of the posted image thumb. I don't know how much work it would take to implement such a thing here, but if the admins & owners wanted to, might that be a suitable compromise?



Just because I don't run the site doesn't mean I can't disagree with it's policies.

I think that having beastiality and pedophilia (I don't remember if "cub art" is banned or not) hosted on your site is morally wrong and disgusting and it should be banned. The "If you don't want to see it then don't look at it" excuse is a cop out and ignores the moral (and legal) issues because you don't want to make someone cry and make them feel that they arn't accepted anymore, which only fuels the shithole that the furry fandom is in now.

Banning that shit would be a good first step to cleaning the furry fandom up.


----------



## GingerM (Oct 4, 2010)

Heckler & Koch said:


> Just because I don't run the site doesn't mean I can't disagree with it's policies.



Mm - I mis-spoke a bit, I think. Perhaps I should have said "Those who disagree with that policy to the point of finding it unacceptable are free..." I assure you there are policies on FA with which I disagree, but not to the point of needing to leave.



Heckler & Koch said:


> I think that having beastiality and pedophilia (I don't remember if "cub art" is banned or not) hosted on your site is morally wrong and disgusting and it should be banned. The "If you don't want to see it then don't look at it" excuse is a cop out and ignores the moral (and legal) issues because you don't want to make someone cry and make them feel that they arn't accepted anymore, which only fuels the shithole that the furry fandom is in now.



On the other hand, there are those who enjoy bestiality art - I'll be upfront and say I'm one of them. I have a particular preference for horses, to be precise. I think from that statement it's apparent I have no issue with the morality of this fetish/fantasy. So the question I have for you is this: why does your morality trump mine? Why do you get to say that my tastes should be banned, but (so far as I can determine), I'm at fault for speaking up in favour of my tastes? Cub happens to be a fetish I do NOT care for, because I do view it as thinly-disguised pedophilia. That said, to the best of my knowledge, cub is not considered in law to be child pornography, though I imagine that depends on one's jurisdiction, because the characters portrayed are nonhuman. So if it's not illegal - and again, that probably depends on where one lives - why should your tastes and preferences trump those of others? Particularly given that the hosts of FA and FAF have stated that they are trying for minimal restrictions on content?



Heckler & Koch said:


> Banning that shit would be a good first step to cleaning the furry fandom up.



I suggested one possible solution as advanced by Randy earlier in this thread, but you didn't address it. I'd be interested in your thoughts on it.


----------



## Carenath (Oct 4, 2010)

Heckler & Koch said:


> Just because I don't run the site doesn't mean I can't disagree with it's policies.
> 
> I think that having beastiality and pedophilia (I don't remember if "cub art" is banned or not) hosted on your site is morally wrong and disgusting and it should be banned. The "If you don't want to see it then don't look at it" excuse is a cop out and ignores the moral (and legal) issues because you don't want to make someone cry and make them feel that they arn't accepted anymore, which only fuels the shithole that the furry fandom is in now.
> 
> Banning that shit would be a good first step to cleaning the furry fandom up.


 For the record, submissions of real bestiality and paedophilia are not permitted, drawings are a different case, and, so long as they remain legal, they will remain permitted.
I don't personally give a shit (meaning I'm not stating this as an administration perspective) about the moral issues, morality is like religion, personal, and not to be forced on others.

Two, FA != 'the fandom'. You would have to campaign for a ban across all 'furry sites', and that would make SoFurry, VCL and Inkbunny your next targets, good luck with that, because it's unlikely to happen.


----------



## GingerM (Oct 4, 2010)

Further to my last - I should point out that I am not at all familiar with the legal issues surrounding cub porn. I have no background in law, nor do I live in the United States. Therefore any opinion I may have on the legality of it would be shakey at best, which is why I'm not addressing it other than to note that it will likely vary from one country to the next, and possibly one state/province/county/other sub-national division to the next.


----------



## Mentova (Oct 4, 2010)

GingerM said:


> Mm - I mis-spoke a bit, I think. Perhaps I should have said "Those who disagree with that policy to the point of finding it unacceptable are free..." I assure you there are policies on FA with which I disagree, but not to the point of needing to leave.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You're disgusting.



Carenath said:


> For the record, submissions of real bestiality and paedophilia are not permitted, drawings are a different case, and, so long as they remain legal, they will remain permitted.
> I don't personally give a shit (meaning I'm not stating this as an administration perspective) about the moral issues, morality is like religion, personal, and not to be forced on others.
> 
> Two, FA != 'the fandom'. You would have to campaign for a ban across all 'furry sites', and that would make SoFurry, VCL and Inkbunny your next targets, good luck with that, because it's unlikely to happen.



I'd say that drawings are only a step below an actual photo of the act but then that starts up that argument and there is enough angry rantings going on here. And my response to your idea of morals would only start up even more angry ranting.

Let's just agree to disagree? :V


----------



## GingerM (Oct 4, 2010)

Carenath said:


> For the record, submissions of real bestiality and paedophilia are not permitted, drawings are a different case, and, so long as they remain legal, they will remain permitted.
> I don't personally give a shit (meaning I'm not stating this as an administration perspective) about the moral issues, morality is like religion, personal, and not to be forced on others.
> 
> Two, FA != 'the fandom'. You would have to campaign for a ban across all 'furry sites', and that would make SoFurry, VCL and Inkbunny your next targets, good luck with that, because it's unlikely to happen.



Hm... I think I'll take that as a subtle hint that I've made my point and not to continue driving this particular nail.


----------



## Mentova (Oct 4, 2010)

GingerM said:


> Hm... I think I'll take that as a subtle hint that I've made my point and not to continue driving this particular nail.


 I don't see how any of that was directed at you as a subtle hint.


----------



## Willow (Oct 4, 2010)

I refuse to read any of this


----------



## Mentova (Oct 4, 2010)

Willow said:


> I refuse to read any of this


 Don't, it will make your brain hurt.


----------



## Machine (Oct 4, 2010)

First time on FAF in about a month and a two-page topic becomes a sixteen-paged mass of brain damage.

It's just one of those days, I guess.


----------



## cpam (Oct 5, 2010)

Carenath said:


> For the record, submissions of real bestiality and paedophilia are not permitted, drawings are a different case, and, so long as they remain legal, they will remain permitted.


 
Actually, while I don't really know about bestiality drawings, I do know that pedophilia drawings are just as illegal in the US as photos, as per the PROTECT Act of 2003.  A conviction has already been made under this law in 2005 (US v Whorley), upheld by the US Court of Appeals in 2008; a further appeal to the Supreme Court was denied without comment earlier this year.


----------



## cpam (Oct 5, 2010)

Carenath said:


> Two, FA != 'the fandom'.



I think that's being a bit disingenuous.  FA is currently the largest and most prominent furry archive and online social community.  That pretty much makes it _de facto_ 'the fandom' for all intents and purposes.  Because of this, it presents the fandom in general in a very public face to the world at large.  Therefore, anything that shows up on FA represents the whole of us, whether we like it or not... and while I might turn on my filters, close my eyes and pretend that the really objectionable material isn't really there, it doesn't really cease to exist and casual browsers and newcomers are going to witness it first hand without knowing about the filters (which are only useful if the artists actually bother to appropriately tag their works) and come away with a terrible first impression of us.  And it's always the first impression that remains with us always...


----------



## cpam (Oct 5, 2010)

GingerM said:


> The admins and owners of the site have said what their stance is on the subject. Whether you or I or anyone else agree with it is irrelevant; it's their site.



This much is true.

Which is why I hinted elsewhere that the site suggests the owners real interests, rather than any idealistic academic or artistic freedom.  Better they should just come right out and say 'this is a porn site' rather than confuse the matter by pretending it's a furry art archive without restriction.


----------

