# Force out pedos and dogfuckers once and for all, dammit



## Gryphoneer (Aug 2, 2012)

It's high time the fandom goes proactive and conclusively chases away all those cub freaks and zoophiliacs.

No subculture attains mainstream acceptance with tolerance margins wider than the Grand Canyon. 

I don't think anyone really minds if goths run around in full make-up anymore besides some fundies in Shitstain, Alabama. Just as little does anyone mind if they fuck in full costume. Yet if one asks common Joe on the street about furries, the first thing he associates it with is fursuiters looking for kid sex.

This strong association must be broken if the fandom wishes to survive. The first, and probably most important, step is to track down these dangerous deviants and kick 'em out to let the public know that we're actually as moral an ethical as everybody else and therefore naturally pursue a zero-tolerance policy against these sickos.

So stop whining about a lack of acceptance, grab some e-torches and -pitchforks and fucking do something for it.


----------



## burakki (Aug 2, 2012)

Gryphoneer said:


> It's high time the fandom goes proactive and conclusively chases away all those cub freaks and zoophiliacs.
> 
> No subculture attains mainstream acceptance with tolerance margins wider than the Grand Canyon.
> 
> ...



There's always going to be those bad eggs that spoil the rest of them. Unfortunately, there's really not much you can do about it really, except blacklist/shun these people.

While i'm aware of the headline and caption, there's no text, so i'm really unsure to assume that this pedo is really a fursuiter or not.

Putting them out to the public wouldn't really enhance our image either. This fandom's already received enough negative attention over the years, so all you could really hope to shed light on the better side is just to cover the more positive aspects like the cons and such, and hope the media isn't looking for a spin :/.


----------



## Kaiser (Aug 2, 2012)

I have the same opinion as burakki. 

But something in the title made me laugh, I got to admit it, in it says the word "pedos," I dont know what it means in english, but in spanish it meas "farts." So "Force out ____"


----------



## Fallowfox (Aug 2, 2012)

Let the police take care of criminals.


----------



## Gryphoneer (Aug 2, 2012)

burakki said:


> There's always going to be those bad eggs that spoil the rest of them.


Are there pedophiles and dogfuckers in other fandoms?

Most probably, but they aren't exactly swept under the rug or even actively covered up for nebulous "image" reasons, in stark contrast to the state this side of the border.

At the moment we convey the impression that we're good with those people and you can imagine how that affects the public image.


----------



## burakki (Aug 2, 2012)

Kaiser said:


> I have the same opinion as burakki.
> 
> But something in the title made me laugh, I got to admit it, in it says the word "pedos," I dont know what it means in english, but in spanish it meas "farts." So "Force out ____"




pedos is short for the word pedophile, which as you know is someone who wants to prey on and fuck innocent children. It's a shame, really.



Gryphoneer said:


> Are there pedophiles and dogfuckers in other fandoms?
> 
> Most probably, but they aren't exactly swept under the rug or even actively covered up for nebulous "image" reasons, in stark contrast to the state this side of the border.
> 
> At the moment we convey the impression that we're good with those people and you can imagine how that affects the public image.



Edit:

What i meant to say was, there are those that exist in any kind of group that could portray a negative image for the rest of the group. It's not fair to say that there are many more pedophiles in the furry community just because of this one guy here. Tell me know, are there any other articles, stories, etc where a so called pedophile has done something and was also a furry? Because i haven't really seen any.

And one more thing, there are pedos in all aspects of life, so there's a pretty damn high possibility that these fucked-up people could be bronies, or anything else. I don't think pedos would soley exist as furries. This person here is a one of a kind.


----------



## Fallowfox (Aug 2, 2012)

Gryphoneer said:


> Are there pedophiles and dogfuckers in other fandoms?
> 
> Most probably, but they aren't exactly swept under the rug or even actively covered up for nebulous "image" reasons, in stark contrast to the state this side of the border.
> 
> At the moment* we convey the impression that we're good with those people* and you can imagine how that affects the public image.



We do?


----------



## triage (Aug 2, 2012)

there are a lot of legal, moral, and health reasons why pedophilia and bestiality are negative traits

"because it makes a niche internet subculture look bad" is near the bottom of that list


----------



## BRN (Aug 2, 2012)

Frankly, the idea that a non-practicing zoophile or pedophile uses furry smut in place of the real thing doesn't strike me as a threat.

If they're practicing, then the law has a place to act. If they aren't, you certainly don't.


----------



## Fallowfox (Aug 2, 2012)

If you know or suspect someone's guilty of a crime report them to the police, regardless of whether they're part of the fandom. 

That's pretty much all you can do.


----------



## Gryphoneer (Aug 2, 2012)

Fallowfox said:


> Let the police take care of criminals.


You fail to take into consideration the fact that in modern times deviants use all available opportunities for anonymity of the web and evidence for prosecution is hard to come by.

That's why site owners shouldn't neglect their duty to cooperate with the authorities like it was so often the case in the past.


----------



## Yago (Aug 2, 2012)

Gryphoneer said:


> It's high time the fandom goes proactive and conclusively chases away all those cub freaks and zoophiliacs.
> 
> No subculture attains *mainstream acceptance* with tolerance margins wider than the Grand Canyon.
> 
> ...




I don't particularly see why we should care about being mainstream. I hardly doubt the fandom is going to have problems surviving. 

Unless you can forcibly change one's interests, I don't see how you can actually kick them out of a fandom.


----------



## BRN (Aug 2, 2012)

Gryphoneer said:


> You fail to take into consideration the fact that in modern times deviants use all available opportunities for anonymity of the web and evidence for prosecution is hard to come by.
> 
> That's why site owners shouldn't neglect their duty to cooperate with the authorities like it was so often the case in the past.



You fail to realise that site-owners are legally obliged to co-operate with the authorities.

So if you know of any criminals, report them. Moral criminality, however, is not warrant, and there are no such things as thought-crimes.


----------



## Aetius (Aug 2, 2012)

The furry fandom has been a sinking ship since the whole "lets accept anyone" idea has been accepted by a large amount of furries.

Plus, the fandom is too damn decentralized to make any attempt to crush such an idea.


----------



## Fallowfox (Aug 2, 2012)

Gryphoneer said:


> You fail to take into consideration the fact that in modern times deviants use all available opportunities for anonymity of the web and evidence for prosecution is hard to come by.
> 
> That's why site owners shouldn't neglect their duty to cooperate with the authorities like it was so often the case in the past.



Doesn't the website already ban people for this stuff? I don't know if they additionally report them to the police or not.
Edit: according to SIX they already do.


----------



## Gryphoneer (Aug 2, 2012)

Yago said:


> I don't particularly see why we should care about being mainstream.


If you want to live like an open Satanist in the deepest pocket of the Bible Belt, okay, but don't think everybody wants.



> I don't see how you can actually kick them out of a fandom.


Chase 'em away from major sites, cons and online convos, simple as that.


----------



## Unsilenced (Aug 2, 2012)

popcorn.gif

What exactly do you plan to do/expect others to do? Should we all just as a fandom run around ranting about pedophiles all the time? Should we go on witch hunts? Those sound kind of fun.


Like some people have already said, if a crime has been committed you should report it. If not, there's not really a lot to be done except cause dramaz, and despite possibly being what our fandom is best at after ruining childhoods, dramaz probably won't solve anything. Probably. 

Not that that's ever stopped us before.


----------



## BRN (Aug 2, 2012)

Fallowfox said:


> Doesn't the website already ban people for this stuff? I don't know if they additionally report them to the police or not.
> Edit: according to SIX they already do.


Admissions of bestiality earn you an automatic permanent ban, yes.

Since that's true, I wonder what on earth Gryphon would have the fandom do.


----------



## burakki (Aug 2, 2012)

Gryphoneer said:


> If you want to live like an open Satanist in the deepest pocket of the Bible Belt, okay, but don't think everybody wants.
> 
> 
> Chase 'em away from major sites, cons and online convos, simple as that.



You do know that these people can just simply come back through a different username, email, or IP right? You can never completely get rid of these people, unless they're locked away like Fallowfox claimed.


----------



## BRN (Aug 2, 2012)

burakki said:


> You do know that these people can just simply come back through a different username, email, or IP right? You can never completely get rid of these people, unless they're locked away like Fallowfox claimed.



Both these statements are also true, and I'm left wondering _on what grounds_ could a non-practicing pedophile or zoophile be locked up.


----------



## Gryphoneer (Aug 2, 2012)

SIX said:


> You fail to realise that site-owners are legally obliged to co-operate with the authorities.


Seems like not everybody got that memo.


----------



## Butters Shikkon (Aug 2, 2012)

*reads OP* 

Gaston? I thought you fell to your demise? 

Honestly, I've never thought I'd see this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xCENkwPiuU0 actually happen, even in cyberspace.


----------



## Streetcircus (Aug 2, 2012)

Gryphoneer is correct. The fandom is full of people who openly admit to wanting to have sex with animals, and people who horde cub porn. FurAffinity is really the only well-known community that tries to behave with any tact.

I can name several active members on SoFurry who are well-known zoophiles and no one can say anything to them because they are protected by the mods, who are the type to accept anything no matter what.

That is the problem. The solution is to confront people who express interest in children and animals. That is what FurAffinity does that no other furry site does. When someone indicates an interest in having sex with animals, they are quickly met with several responses completely rejecting that behavior. It works.


----------



## BRN (Aug 2, 2012)

http://www.klisoura.com/ot_furrysurvey.php/
http://puu.sh/O1yu - 16% of the fandom identify as zoophiles

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1778686
http://puu.sh/O1AR - 10-15% of control group members identify as zoophiles

Zoophilia is really a non-issue for the fandom.


----------



## Gryphoneer (Aug 2, 2012)

Forget neglect, how about downright collusion?

E.: If I were worried about how my site affects its fandom's image I wouldn't hush things up but move heaven and earth to rectify things, just sayin'.



SIX said:


> http://www.klisoura.com/ot_furrysurvey.php/
> http://puu.sh/O1yu - 16% of the fandom identify as zoophiles
> 
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1778686
> ...


"Identify themselves" are the magic words.

Such studies are everything but sound.


----------



## BRN (Aug 2, 2012)

Gryphoneer said:


> Forget neglect, how about downright collusion?


 Again, he was outed as a zoophile. Philias as thought-crimes - don't exist. There's no evidence in there to suggest a collusion to hide from law.

 Indeed, after being "outed" to a "sheriff" you'd think he wouldn't have much time to send leisurely notes on the internet had he been found to be practicing.


----------



## Streetcircus (Aug 2, 2012)

SIX said:


> http://www.klisoura.com/ot_furrysurvey.php/
> http://puu.sh/O1yu - 16% of the fandom identify as zoophiles
> 
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1778686
> ...



20% are zoophiles, and 100% of them are accepted as a normal part of the fandom by other members. That's condoning.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Aug 2, 2012)

Streetcircus said:


> 20% are zoophiles, and 100% of them are accepted as a normal part of the fandom by other members. That's condoning.


No matter what they actually do to other beings to satiate their desires, at that. I have spoken to a furry who has pulled this shit when a genuine sick fuck was mutilating mice and fucking horses and got caught. All he had to say to me was 'you're a piece of shit'.

EDIT: And then there's Ebon Lupus, who hopefully has died alone after having his dick bitten off and becoming infected.


----------



## BRN (Aug 2, 2012)

Gryphoneer said:


> "Identify themselves" are the magic words.
> 
> Such studies are everything but sound.


And there's the point when you actively deny statistical evidence without substance to do so.

I've made my points succinctly, and I'm done with this thread.


----------



## Fallowfox (Aug 2, 2012)

Gryphoneer said:


> Forget neglect, how about downright collusion?
> 
> E.: If I were worried about how my site affects its fandom's image I wouldn't hush things up but move heaven and earth to rectify things, just sayin'.
> 
> ...



On the note of the amount of furries and the public who anonymous identify as zoophiles, what grounds do we have to say these studies are unsound? They're anonymous and provide no reward or punishment for admission hence, so why should their findings be considered inaccurate?


----------



## Saiko (Aug 2, 2012)

Streetcircus said:


> 20% are zoophiles,


No, 16.86%. Never round precise results to the nearest ten. It skews the figures and undermines your credibility.



> and 100% of them are accepted as a normal part of the fandom by other members.


The same goes for absolute and generalized statements.


----------



## Elim Garak (Aug 2, 2012)

SIX said:


> http://www.klisoura.com/ot_furrysurvey.php/
> http://puu.sh/O1yu - 16% of the fandom identify as zoophiles
> 
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1778686
> ...


The thing is, Zoophiles aren't really open in RL or most fandoms but with furries they are pretty fucking open about it and the only thing OP is worried about is not the ethics but rather the view of the mainstream on furries, since the bad apples get outed and put in the light and most people don't research themselves and thus ending up seeing us all as those people due the media and other reportings about us.

I don't really care much about people who want to get fucked by a horse or whatever as long they don't hurt the damn animals(I am also surprised in how many countries this is legal). 
Pedos however will always end up hurting the child physically or mentally. So they should be taken care of.
I don't really care what the mainstream think about us furries, I mean seriously, the fandom has a different meaning for every one. For some it is a fetish. lifestyle, hobby or whatever. If you get in trouble with people harrasing you about it, then you shouldn't flaunt it around. I hate furfags on TF2 getting angry because someone comments negatively on their furry porn spray in a regular server.


----------



## Yago (Aug 2, 2012)

Gryphoneer said:


> *If you want to live like an open Satanist in the deepest pocket of the Bible Belt, okay, but don't think everybody wants.
> 
> *
> Chase 'em away from major sites, cons and online convos, simple as that.



I'm confused what any of the bold part has to do with anything.


----------



## Commie Bat (Aug 2, 2012)

Gryphoneer said:


> It's high time the fandom goes proactive and conclusively chases away all those cub freaks and zoophiliacs.
> So stop whining about a lack of acceptance, grab some e-torches and -pitchforks and fucking do something for it.



We did; all sixteen of  us got banned from our forums.  This is one of the primary reasons why I'm here, that and I know English.


----------



## Gryphoneer (Aug 2, 2012)

SIX said:


> And there's the point when you actively deny statistical evidence without substance to do so.


Oh come on, it's proven that surveys where the data points solely come from the research set making statements about themselves are simply not conclusive, the subjects state that what they think is most acceptable.

That's why right extremist parties constantly surprise the survey institutes after elections, fascists simply don't state what they're going to really vote during telephone surveys. It's common sense, really.

Your sources are bullshit.


----------



## Saiko (Aug 2, 2012)

Gryphoneer said:


> it's proven that surveys where the data points solely come from the research set making statements about themselves are simply not conclusive, the subjects state that what they think is most acceptable.


*citation needed*


----------



## Streetcircus (Aug 2, 2012)

Saiko said:


> No, 16.86%. Never round precise results to the nearest ten. It skews the figures and undermines your credibility.
> 
> 
> The same goes for absolute and generalized statements.



Note that I quoted the actual percentages, which weren't imperative to the point I was making. The point is that if you do not protest someone's behavior, then you are condoning it. The amount of zoophiles are irrelevant if they are accepted by other furries. If we do not react to them with the appropriate disgust, then what's wrong with us? That is what makes the stereotypes accurate.


----------



## Fallowfox (Aug 2, 2012)

Streetcircus said:


> Note that I quoted the actual percentages, which weren't imperative to the point I was making. The point is that* if you do not protest someone's behavior, then you are condoning it.* The amount of zoophiles are irrelevant if they are accepted by other furries. If we do not react to them with the appropriate disgust, then what's wrong with us? That is what makes the stereotypes accurate.



Erm...nope. I'm not out protesting against violence in homs, but I'm not saying it's a-okay. There's additionally a lot of horrible stuff I don't even know about. You're asserting a black and white fallacy. 

In reference to zoophiles I'm disgusted if they commit a crime or otherwise harm a living creature, I frankly don't care about whatever strange thoughts they have when they're masturbating.



Gryphoneer said:


> Oh come on, it's proven that surveys where the  data points solely come from the research set making statements about  themselves are simply not conclusive, the subjects state that what they  think is most acceptable.
> 
> That's why right extremist parties constantly surprise the survey  institutes after elections, fascists simply don't state what they're  going to really vote during telephone surveys. It's common sense,  really.
> 
> Your sources are bullshit.



That's why there's a control group, to ascertain any pollution of results in reference to a normal group of people. Control groups account for outside influences to contextualise results.


----------



## Streetcircus (Aug 2, 2012)

Fallowfox said:


> Erm...nope. I'm not out protesting against violence in homs, but I'm not saying it's a-okay. There's additionally a lot of horrible stuff I don't even know about. You're asserting a black and white fallacy.
> 
> In reference to zoophiles I'm disgusted if they commit a crime or otherwise harm a living creature, I frankly don't care about whatever strange thoughts they have when they're masturbating.



You don't have to physically protest anything. If you support laws against violence, then you are protesting in that way. Right now, you are voting against any action being taken against admitted zoophiles. That's why people hate furries.

Also, if you don't care that people are not only masturbating to the idea, but also creating imagery, openly discussion it, and indulging in it every way possible just short of actually committing a crime, then I believe you are guilty of abetting negative stereotypes of the fandom.


----------



## Saiko (Aug 2, 2012)

Streetcircus said:


> The point is that if you do not protest someone's behavior, then you are condoning it.


This is another absolute and oftentimes a very dangerous one in particular. Indeed this is the same mindset that plagues religion and has blackened its reputation. It doesn't take into account the fact that there are degrees, gray areas. For example, zoophilic acts are illegal and expressions of intent to do so should be protested at the very least because of that illegality. However, zoophilic fantasies, particularly when satiated with simply browsing artwork, are not illegal and do not pose any threat until/if they develop into intent. If there is no illegal intent, we have no right to protest. This does not mean you condone the act.


----------



## Fallowfox (Aug 2, 2012)

Streetcircus said:


> You don't have to physically protest anything. If you support laws against violence, then you are protesting in that way. Right now, you are voting against any action being taken against admitted zoophiles. That's why people hate furries.
> 
> Also, if you don't care that people are not only masturbating to the idea, but also creating imagery, openly discussion it, and indulging in it every way possible just short of actually committing a crime, then I believe you are guilty of abetting negative stereotypes of the fandom.



Right now I don't care if someone's a zoophile because they draw crude imagery, only if they actually harm a creature, which I find abhorrent. Why should this attitude inspire hate?

In addition I don't seek to manipulate or care about stereotypes; stereotypes are by their very nature reflective of hatred and futility. I'll have no part in distorting my own attitudes in the vague hope of achieving a shift in such stereotypes; that's why I don't care if the stereotypical art student is a pothead, or if the stereotypical brit is a posh-sod or chav, these stereotypes do not reflect reality and I'd be a fool to engage with them.


----------



## Streetcircus (Aug 2, 2012)

Saiko said:


> This is another absolute and oftentimes a very dangerous one in particular. Indeed this is the same mindset that plagues religion and has blackened its reputation. It doesn't take into account the fact that there are degrees, gray areas. For example, zoophilic acts are illegal and expressions of intent to do so should be protested at the very least because of that illegality. However, zoophilic fantasies, particularly when satiated with simply browsing artwork, are not illegal and do not pose any threat until/if they develop into intent. If there is no illegal intent, we have no right to protest. This does not mean you condone the act.



While there are varying degrees of offense, I believe there should also be varying degrees of protest. The actual crime should be handled by authorities, expression of intent should be cause for intervention or banning, and any interest at all should be met with visible disapproval from other members.


----------



## Elim Garak (Aug 2, 2012)

Saiko said:


> This is another absolute and oftentimes a very dangerous one in particular. Indeed this is the same mindset that plagues religion and has blackened its reputation. It doesn't take into account the fact that there are degrees, gray areas. For example, zoophilic acts are illegal and expressions of intent to do so should be protested at the very least because of that illegality. However, zoophilic fantasies, particularly when satiated with simply browsing artwork, are not illegal and do not pose any threat until/if they develop into intent. If there is no illegal intent, we have no right to protest. This does not mean you condone the act.


Zoophilia in art is legal, Pedophilia in art is illegal in most places(However not many have been sued). Zoophilia itself is legal in lots of place, pedophilia is banned in every developed country.
More US states allow you to get plowed by a horse than to get married to someone from the same gender. 
http://www.motherjones.com/rights-stuff/2010/05/map-bestiality-animal-sex-legal
It is legal in my country and some other EU states such as Germany.
Not that I support it but legally these things are harder to define as illegal, depends on the state the websites have their server in. However drawn zoophilia is OK by law. The thing is, if they would make allow a law around zoophillia art is that furries could be defined as such as them being majorly animalistic and in a lot of cases anatomically correct in the pants. It also does not help that Bad Dragon and Zeta et al sell dog cock dildos.

Edit:


> Right now I don't care if someone's a zoophile because they draw crude imagery, only if they actually harm a creature, which I find abhorrent. Why should this attitude inspire hate?


Same here, but can we really define someone who takes a horse shlong up their rectum someone who harm creatures...since I am pretty sure the horse wouldn't mind but the person on the receiving end would have their bottom broken such as Mr Hands. However if you force an animal or if you penetrate an animal it is different.


----------



## Saiko (Aug 2, 2012)

Streetcircus said:


> any interest at all should be met with visible disapproval from other members.


This is that black/white philosophy again, the presumption that something is bad in all instances. Allow me to pull a more extreme example that is in a similar place - the killing of a human being. Like zoophilia, it is illegal in cases and legal in others. The malicious taking of a life is illegal because it violates the right to live. The taking of a life in necessity and self-defense is not illegal. This is because, by disregarding his victim's right, he has surrendered his own claim to the same right. 

Not punishing the man who killed in defense has no bearing on the criminal act. Supporting self-defense laws does not mean you blanketly support killing. It means you specifically support killing in self-defense. Similarly, ignoring a fantasy does not mean ignoring the act and certainly does not mean supporting this act. It means that you specifically don't care if they are simply enjoying a fantasy in a harmless manner. Protesting against the illegal act is separate from this.

Furthermore, you base your course of action, blanket disapproval by all against all, on my stance's furthering the public's negative opinions of the fandom. I believe the fact that this thread exists at all shows that the negative stereotype of furries being either partakers of or supporters of zoophilic acts is false. This fallacy is a result of ignorance. However, you say that we should take a blanket stance because of this fallacy. By extension you propose allowing ignorance to shape our action rather than dispelling the ignorance. Bending to the ignorant only communicates that they are correct and thus only promotes continued ignorance.


----------



## Gryphoneer (Aug 2, 2012)

Saiko said:


> *citation needed*


BOOM



Elim Garak said:


> It is legal in my country and some other EU states such as Germany.


Dunno about these other unnamed EU states (though I reckon that statement is dubious, too), but here it's just as illegal as it always had been. It's just not regulated by an own paragraph anymore but by parts of the animal protection act and if it's not your own animals it's criminal property damage, too. Furthermore, the dissemination of pornographic material of that kind is illegal.

But this is a matter more fundamental than individual state law, it's a matter of ethical and moral integrity.


----------



## Elim Garak (Aug 2, 2012)

Gryphoneer said:


> BOOM
> 
> 
> Dunno about these other unnamed EU states (though I reckon that statement is dubious, too), but here it's just as illegal as it always had been. It's just not regulated by an own paragraph anymore but by parts of the animal protection act and if it's not your own animals it's criminal property damage, too. Furthermore, the dissemination of pornographic material of that kind is illegal.
> ...


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoophilia_and_the_law
With EU I mean Europe in general. :V
Belgium, Germany, Sweden, Hungary, Denmark, Finland are countries where the act is legal.
However making or distributing porn of it might not be legal, however ownership is no problem.
However like I stated before, it is up the court to see what is animal abuse, if you anally rape your small dog yeah I can see that as animal abuse...but getting humped by an animal? I don't think you can class that as animal abuse really.
Like I said, I morally don't approve of it but I don't see the act of taking an animal penis up the ass as abuse. You could argue stallion semen collection for breeding is animal abuse as well then. Stallions don't seem to mind though.


----------



## BRN (Aug 2, 2012)

Gryphoneer said:


> BOOM



Permit me to briefly re-enter this thread to say that you're posting a link as citation to a claim about psychology, and yet said citation features _no citations._
Permit me also to point out that both linked reports were asking _anonymously_.




> Dunno about these other unnamed EU states (though I reckon that statement is dubious, too), but here it's just as illegal as it always had been.


Did you just reject a statement off-hand, again? It's legal in Germany, the Netherlands, and other parts of Europe. But what were you trying to prove in the first-place by rejecting a true claim that was a composite of a completely different point?



> But this is a matter more fundamental than individual state law, it's a matter of ethical and moral integrity.


  Allow me to point out the quote in your signature. Ethical and moral integrity are matters of opinion. And it may well be some people's opinion that the only action that engenders ethical and moral integrity is to utterly refute your original claim of manhunting being a sound solution to anything. An explanation? View Saiko's post.


----------



## Gryphoneer (Aug 2, 2012)

SIX said:


> Permit me to briefly re-enter this thread to say that you're posting a link as citation to a claim about psychology, and yet said citation features _no citations._
> Permit me also to point out that both linked reports were asking _anonymously_.


Well, then permit me to point out your blatant myopia, as the necessary citations are included in the article about social desirability bias. Had you just followed the intralinks...

And well, it's just not factually correct it's legal here or elsewhere in the EU zone as I showed the legal framework is more complex than that. But I guess I can chalk that up to confirmation bias, eh?


----------



## Elim Garak (Aug 2, 2012)

Gryphoneer said:


> Well, then permit me to point out your blatant myopia, as the necessary citations are included in the article about social desirability bias. Had you just followed the intralinks...
> 
> And well, it's just not factually correct it's legal here or elsewhere in the EU zone as I showed the legal framework is more complex than that. But I guess I can chalk that up to confirmation bias, eh?



Did I just not link a whole page on it? Could you please link me to lawsuits that found a person guilty of zoophilia in Germany? You seem to love making statements without any citations..


----------



## Saiko (Aug 2, 2012)

Gryphoneer said:


> BOOM





> A way of assessing the validity of self-report measures is to compare the results of the self-report with another self-report on the same topic.


Though I am having difficulty finding a different survey that includes both furry and zoophilia, I can expand the data to include past iterations of the same survey.
2008: 18.39%
2009: 13.85%
2010: 13.56%
2011: 13.31%
2012: 16.86%

You will notice that in both this set of data and the set presented in SIX's general-population study, the  internal deviations are roughly 5%. Secondly, in the furry survey a rate of 13% occurred consistently and repeatedly, a rate that falls well within the figures presented for the general population. Though there are two deviations, those two deviations still do not fall significantly far from both furry and general figures. Indeed it is rather surprising that the figures for the fandom appear to be so close to the general population's considering the inherent nature of a fandom oriented around animals.


----------



## Ozriel (Aug 2, 2012)

Screwing your pooch is okay. Morals are for fags.


----------



## Sly-Wolf (Aug 2, 2012)

The fandom will always survive regardless of public opinion


----------



## BRN (Aug 2, 2012)

Gryphoneer said:


> Well, then permit me to point out your blatant myopia, as the necessary citations are included in the article about social desirability bias. Had you just followed the intralinks...


The burden of proof was yours. I'm not expected to find your proof for you.

This is the basics of discussion, Gryphon.

'Social desirability bias' is a wikipedia page. That is _not a citation_.

 Do better. You might well want to respond to some of the other posts here that clearly refute your points, aswell, instead of wasting my time with semantics.


----------



## Trpdwarf (Aug 2, 2012)

Ozriel said:


> Screwing your pooch is okay. Morals are for fags.



One bark means yes, and two barks me oh yes :V

That said this again? Personally I am of the mindset that both groups need to uh...well just leave and stop existing in our community. That's not going to happen. The only realistic way to tackle problems like these people to is over time clamp down on the Temple of Tolerance & Acceptance that deviant groups have put up as their walls and promote throughout the fandom as a way to get away with sick stuff and or hide...or gain grounds for acceptance. That's all I have to say.

Don't like? Then don't promote it by choosing to speak out against it when necessary. Don't be afraid to say "Hey that's fucked up, that's wrong...are we clear on this?".


----------



## Ozriel (Aug 2, 2012)

Trpdwarf said:


> One bark means yes, and two barks me oh yes :V
> 
> That said this again? Personally I am of the mindset that both groups need to uh...well just leave and stop existing in our community. That's not going to happen. The only realistic way to tackle problems like these people to is over time clamp down on the Temple of Tolerance & Acceptance that deviant groups have put up as their walls and promote throughout the fandom as a way to get away with sick stuff and or hide...or gain grounds for acceptance. That's all I have to say.



Take down the Theoretical Temple of Acceptance with theoretical Molotov cocktails. That'll learn ya!


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Aug 2, 2012)

I haven't seen one of these threads in a long time.

Wonder when we'll get some mainsite people coming in to give their perspective.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Aug 2, 2012)

Ozriel said:


> Screwing your pooch is okay. Morals are for fags.


I have seen SEVERAL accounts on FA describing anyone who has a problem with someone pounding their pet in the ass as 'moralfags'. These types *should *be driven out of the community.


----------



## Streetcircus (Aug 2, 2012)

Saiko said:


> This is that black/white philosophy again, the presumption that something is bad in all instances. Allow me to pull a more extreme example that is in a similar place - the killing of a human being. Like zoophilia, it is illegal in cases and legal in others. The malicious taking of a life is illegal because it violates the right to live. The taking of a life in necessity and self-defense is not illegal. This is because, by disregarding his victim's right, he has surrendered his own claim to the same right.
> 
> 
> Not punishing the man who killed in defense has no bearing on the criminal act. Supporting self-defense laws does not mean you blanketly support killing. It means you specifically support killing in self-defense. Similarly, ignoring a fantasy does not mean ignoring the act and certainly does not mean supporting this act. It means that you specifically don't care if they are simply enjoying a fantasy in a harmless manner. Protesting against the illegal act is separate from this.
> ...



I don't see the parallel between a fucked up delusion and something that either happens or it doesn't. It doesn't take a damaged psyche to kill in self defense, or even fantasize about death. The delusion is the issue, and it is only encouraged by turning a blind eye to it.


----------



## CannonFodder (Aug 2, 2012)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> I haven't seen one of these threads in a long time.
> 
> Wonder when we'll get some mainsite people coming in to give their perspective.


I'm surprised they haven't already actually.
Last time they all "magically" appeared when someone started kicking the daylights out of them.


Kit H. Ruppell said:


> I have seen SEVERAL accounts on FA  describing anyone who has a problem with someone pounding their pet in  the ass as 'moralfags'. These types *should *be driven out of the community.


Someone should make "moralfag pride" just to troll the people who use that terminology as a insult.


----------



## Onnes (Aug 2, 2012)

Heh, people seem to be forgetting that to the outside world, most furry porn looks like the product of at least zoophilia. Good luck separating pornography as a whole from the fandom.


----------



## Butters Shikkon (Aug 2, 2012)

CannonFodder said:


> I'm surprised they haven't already actually.
> Last time they all "magically" appeared when someone started kicking the daylights out of them.
> 
> Someone should make "moralfag pride" just to troll the people who use that terminology as a insult.



Shit's been too nice, for too long. I'm gonna make a dogfucker thread... >:v

Also, I think 'scruplefag' has a nice ring to it. It's longer but classy.


----------



## CannonFodder (Aug 2, 2012)

Onnes said:


> Heh, people seem to be forgetting that to the outside world, most furry porn looks like the product of at least zoophilia. Good luck separating pornography as a whole from the fandom.


It's not that it's impossible, it's that the current status quo and the mentality of "judge not your fellow fur" makes it damn difficult cause, any attempt at bettering the fandom is seen as a personal attack.
You'd have to get rid of the hugbox first.


----------



## Judge Spear (Aug 2, 2012)

You know what? OP is right! >:V


----------



## Ozriel (Aug 2, 2012)

Kit H. Ruppell said:


> I have seen SEVERAL accounts on FA describing anyone who has a problem with someone pounding their pet in the ass as 'moralfags'. These types *should *be driven out of the community.



Indeed. 
Nowadays, people like that are "Hush-hush" lest they end up with a lynch mob at their doorsteps. One admitting to the act is rare.
Not saying that you should start a virtual hanging tree, but still....


----------



## Fallowfox (Aug 2, 2012)

I'm struggling to see why people are obsessing with the furrydom's image this much; it's been statistically shown the furrydom has no greater tendency towards zoophilia than the general population, so just *tell people that* if they're trying to make negative stereotypes of the furrydom based on zoophilia, rather than ranting about how it's the furries' faults for being so tollerant of zoophiles that they have no more in their ranks than anybody else. 

Of course people don't make negative stereotypes because they're true, but to make it easier to insult other groups _regardless_ of their actual nature.


----------



## Onnes (Aug 2, 2012)

CannonFodder said:


> It's not that it's impossible, it's that the current status quo and the mentality of "judge not your fellow fur" makes it damn difficult cause, any attempt at bettering the fandom is seen as a personal attack.
> You'd have to get rid of the hugbox first.



Let's suppose you could cut out pornography. Since it isn't like this involves a minor fraction of people, what would you be left with? Two furry fandoms, one with and one without porn. Do you think anyone not involved with one of them is going to appreciate the separation?

(It is also very amusing to see Kit 'this' that post.)


----------



## Unsilenced (Aug 2, 2012)

Onnes said:


> Heh, people seem to be forgetting that to the outside world, most furry porn looks like the product of at least zoophilia. Good luck separating pornography as a whole from the fandom.



This is also true. 

"Yeah, I like porn that involves people with fur and tails getting plowed by anatomically correct dog dicks, but boy do I hate zoophiles!" 

It kind of comes off sounding like a closeted anti-gay senator, only the closet has no door. 

It's not that furries can't/shouldn't take a stand against acts of bestiality/animal abuse, but turning it into a huge moral crusade in order to improve our public image is just never going to work.


----------



## Ozriel (Aug 2, 2012)

Unsilenced said:


> This is also true.
> 
> "Yeah, I like porn that involves people with fur and tails getting plowed by anatomically correct dog dicks, but boy do I hate zoophiles!"
> 
> ...



Burned furs, anyone?


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Aug 2, 2012)

Onnes said:


> (It is also very amusing to see Kit 'this' that post.)


I am pleased to be able to entertain you!


----------



## Aleu (Aug 2, 2012)

Already been said before. As long as they don't go out and kidnap/rape animals/children then I give so little fucks it'd make a panda look like a nympho. Same thing regarding drawing. Thoughts don't harm. Actions do.


----------



## Saiko (Aug 2, 2012)

Streetcircus said:


> I don't see the parallel between a fucked up delusion and something that either happens or it doesn't. It doesn't take a damaged psyche to kill in self defense, or even fantasize about death. The delusion is the issue, and it is only encouraged by turning a blind eye to it.


And it generally doesn't take a damaged or deluded psyche to have a fetish either.


----------



## Butters Shikkon (Aug 2, 2012)

Aleu said:


> Thoughts don't harm. Actions do.



What about poor Dr. Xavier? Think of the shit he must have to deal with, oh wait...

Also, (not to derail) but I "awww'd" and lol'd at the panda line, how are they still around? XD


----------



## softi (Aug 2, 2012)

too much rabble-rousing, not enough problem solving

EDIT: After raising the issue several times, I still have yet to receive an answer from FurAffinity staff as to why their official IRC channel is hosted on FurNet (irc.furnet.org).  The FurNet IRC server is owned and operated by known zoophiles (and potential pedophiles) such as ZetaWolf, ShadowLab, etc etc etc..

I would suggest, instead of attacking furry as a whole, maybe start with FurAffinity.  Just press the issue on the cub stuff and their IRC channel, and maybe there will be some progress made.


----------



## Ilayas (Aug 2, 2012)

Gryphoneer said:


> If you want to live like an open Satanist in the deepest pocket of the Bible Belt, okay, but don't think everybody wants.



I already do.  It's really not so bad and hey you get to sleep in on Sundays.

Seriously though this fandom will never be main stream it's too damn weird. It's not necessarily a bad thing. I don't like peodos or bestiality but I honestly don't think that any "organized" movement within the furry community to remove them will have much success.  Such efforts in the past have failed miserably.


----------



## Aleu (Aug 2, 2012)

softi said:


> too much rabble-rousing, not enough problem solving
> 
> EDIT: After raising the issue several times, I still have yet to receive an answer from FurAffinity staff as to why their official IRC channel is hosted on FurNet (irc.furnet.org).  The FurNet IRC server is owned and operated by known zoophiles (and potential pedophiles) such as ZetaWolf, ShadowLab, etc etc etc..
> 
> I would suggest, instead of attacking furry as a whole, maybe start with FurAffinity.  Just press the issue on the cub stuff and their IRC channel, and maybe there will be some progress made.


Isn't that technically offsite?


----------



## Ozriel (Aug 2, 2012)

Aleu said:


> Isn't that technically offsite?



I think so...


----------



## Jaxinc (Aug 3, 2012)

Unsilenced said:


> This is also true.
> 
> *"Yeah, I like porn that involves people with fur and tails getting plowed by anatomically correct dog dicks, but boy do I hate zoophiles!" *
> 
> ...


This.

I mean don't you know? To the outside world we're ALL zoophiles and fucksuiters, so this whole BAN THEM FROM THE COMMUNITY will amount to nothing. Especially considering those 'zoophiles', outside of the ones who openly and idiotically express it, DON'T ever talk about it or mention it because of the scorn, drama and everything related to it, so... good luck finding all of them! You'd be better off trying to stand on a street corner and pick out every gay/straight person and separate them.


----------



## Calemeyr (Aug 3, 2012)

I think when people have puppy rape fantasies, but don't act on it _only because it's illegal_ need to stay away from pets. As for the porn, there wouldn't be as much an issue with zoophiles vs cartoon porn if the usual vocal few (the lifestylers) weren't so vocal about it--though they were and the damage was done.
I still can't imagine why anyone would brag about their fetishes outside of attention-seeking, to be honest. I think the best thing we can do is to just be less tolerant of bullshit. I mean, just be (relatively) normal. If something feels wrong, don't ignore it.

Also, I have a question. Why are registered sex offenders allowed  at conventions? I keep seeing pics of certain people walking around at  cons. This is a much bigger issue than if person A likes drawn naked anthro hares.


----------



## Commiecomrade (Aug 3, 2012)

I don't understand the hate against those who like cub art. The general public sees our porn as unfappable, and I see cub porn as unfappable. Nobody's being hurt; whatever gets you off should be fine, especially since it's only drawn.


----------



## TreacleFox (Aug 3, 2012)

I don't see why we should do anything if they are not hurting anyone, just going about their fantasy's like everyone else.
My main attraction to the fandom was its accepting nature. :<


----------



## Batty Krueger (Aug 3, 2012)

Commiecomrade said:


> I don't understand the hate against those who like cub art. The general public sees our porn as unfappable, and I see cub porn as unfappable. Nobody's being hurt; whatever gets you off should be fine, especially since it's only drawn.



It's not the regular cub stuff that mostly bothers people, it's the cub porn.  
Comparing the 2 side by side seems a bit redundant.


----------



## illivion (Aug 3, 2012)

You people are deluded.

To the guy who started this thread: You do realize that the visual metaphor of a mob carrying torches and pitchforks is usually used to represent the ignorant, uneducated, ill-informed, irrational, superstitious, and otherwise uncivilized and primitive hatred of people who just happen to be different, right?

That fact that you and so many other furs lump zoosexuality with pedophilia together as being similar phenomena is a demonstration of your own ignorance and, in many cases, hypocrisy. This idiotic and bigoted position is based on the scientifically-illiterate belief that human children and adult animals are exactly the same when it comes to sexuality when there is absolutely NO evidence to support this view and a great deal of evidence to the contrary.

Children do not go looking for sex or have sex for pleasure in nature. Adult animals do. Animals have and do initiate sex with human beings and demonstrate behaviors that indicate that they are capable of enjoying it. Animals engage in non-procreative sex acts, including masturbation, anal intercourse, and oral sex for pleasure and it is pretty well documented. Adult animals that are sexually mature and willing to engage in sex are not harmed psychologically by having sex with humans in the way that children are. Anyone who believes otherwise is a complete idiot and knows absolutely nothing about animal behavior or animal cognitive capacities. The idea that animals cannot consent to sex or cannot communicate the willingness to have sex is demonstrably false, just as it is equally absurd to assume that animals are not capable of communicating other needs and desires. Just because animals do not use speech does not mean that they no means of communication. They have their own means of communication with lexicons comprised largely of body language and, if you think about it, sex is primarily something that is communicated through body language far more than verbal speech. Of course this requires sincere and careful listening and attentiveness on the part of human, but all real zoos are extremely considerate of both the physical and emotional welfare of their animals above all else. Why? Because they see their animal partners as their equal and love them like they would a spouse. People who simply use animals as sex objects and care for nothing more than their own gratification at the expense of the animal are not zoosexuals and deserve condemnation. But most furries are too blinded by ignorance and hatred to make or acknowledge this distinction. Unfortunately, so is most of society and that is why we have irrational laws that are based on fear and ignorance instead of logic and scientific fact.

If animals were truly exactly the same as children when it comes to sex, the condemnatory sentiments expressed here would be justified but since there is no reason to believe animals share this commonality with children, such sentiments are ridiculous and unfounded. We do not live in a Disney universe. Animals here in the real world have genitals and orifices and they intentionally use them for sexual gratification, provided they are not sterilized and mutilated at an early age.

That's the ignorance part. As for hypocrisy, the great majority of those who stand indignant towards "zoophilia" on the basis of animal welfare don't give a damn about animal welfare in most other cases. Most you probably care little about the fact that we abuse and take advantage of animals all the time in society. We mutilate their genitals, slaughter them, eat them, use them for scientific experiments, force them to work and perform slave labor, euthanize them for any convenient excuse, kill them for sport, and do a whole host of horrific things to animals without ever bothering to get their consent first. We tolerate, permit, and even celebrate all kinds of cruelty to animals on a daily basis and yet we are outraged that someone might actually love and appreciate an animal on a deeper level than most and wants to express that love through physical intimacy simply because we might find it strange or aesthetically distasteful. Anyone who thinks that having sex with animal is more cruel and predatory than killing it for food or torturing it for the sake of science or human benefit is seriously misguided in their ethical priorities.

For those who think animals are children, should we treat children the way we treat animals? Should we start sterilizing children? Should we kill them for food and other products? Should we do experiments on them? Should we make them do slave labor? If all those things are good enough for animals but not sex, why not apply the same standard to children? You can't say that animals and children are the same when it comes to sex but then completely different when it comes to everything else. It doesn't work that way. 

Never mind the fact that we're talking about furries; people who fantasize and imagine about BEING animals or part animal and enjoy art and literature featuring animals and animalistic beings in sexual situations. Many of these often involve actual animal sex behaviors and genitalia. Someone said above that for certain furries to condemn zoophiles is similar to closeted gay senators promoting anti-gay legislation and I agree with this. Hypocrisy at its finest. 

But facts and reason will not persuade recalcitrant and bigoted minds and I don't expect to change any here. Very few people 50 years ago could be convinced that homosexuality was anything less than a sickness or a perversion. Yet ironically, many of the same arguments used against homosexuality back then are still being used against zoosexuals and often by people who are gay and should know better.

The most deluded belief of all expressed here, however, is the notion that people hate furries because of the zoophiles involved in the fandom. This view has no basis in reality. I'd challenge anyone to provide solid evidence that the primary reason why furries are supposedly hated and looked down upon is because of zoophiles. It couldn't be so because so many furries are socially awkward or inept. It couldn't be so because of all the abnormal and taboo fetishes and expressions of sexuality that have nothing to do with zoophilia you see regularly in the fandom. It couldn't be due to the fact that homosexuality is a huge part of the fandom and that many people are still repulsed by it. It couldn't be because people generally find it strange for grown adults to fantasize about being cartoon animals and dressing up like them. It couldn't be due to primetime TV shows and media depictions of furries. No, it can't be any of that. We've got to scapegoat 'teh evil zoos'. It's all their fault. 

As for driving people out of the fandom, there is no justification for driving people out of fandom simply for their beliefs or thoughts. If someone has actually broken the law, then there is at least legal precedent for taking action. But no one has the right to punish people for thoughts and opinions, especially with a First Amendment, constitutional right to free speech. There is no basis for thought police and the only kind of people who want that are those who cherish totalitarian dictatorships and genocidal regimes. Anyone who thinks that the image of the fandom will magically change because it is "purified" of zoophiles and believes that furries will receive unconditional and universal acceptance by mainstream society as a result is an utter fool. 

Stop using your fursecution complex as an excuse to inflict persecution on others. It's not only immoral and hypocritical, it's pathetic.


----------



## Batty Krueger (Aug 3, 2012)

Oh man this is gunna be good.


----------



## BRN (Aug 3, 2012)

illivion said:


> Stop using your fursecution complex as an excuse to inflict persecution on others. It's not only immoral and hypocritical, it's pathetic.


 

We all realised the original post was a waste of time; that's why it, and its poster, was so easily crushed. That original poster left the thread a long time ago and it didn't take much to make him do so.

 We all realise that mainstream acceptance of the fandom isn't going to be ensured by making it an intolerant autocracy. I don't think anybody's contesting that fact. But weaving so many arguments into this post makes its seem almost imflammatory rather than reasonable even though there's so many good points you're raising. 

In short, it would be in the interest of the point you're trying to defend to rephrase your argument into a more reasonable, less emotional one. Please?


----------



## LizardKing (Aug 3, 2012)

illivion said:


> [a load of text]



Goddamn, that sure is a long-winded way to say, "Hey, go after the pedos but you leave dogfuckers alone! They're totally cool!"


----------



## Verin Asper (Aug 3, 2012)

the idola clan says: "if Anime cant get rid of their pedos, what think you furries can do it?"


----------



## BarlettaX (Aug 3, 2012)

TreacleFox said:


> I don't see why we should do anything if they are not hurting anyone, just going about their fantasy's like everyone else.
> My main attraction to the fandom was its accepting nature. :<



Yes, but should we openly accept zoophiles and paedophiles? I.... don't know on this one. I guess if they keep it restricted to fantasies, I'm fine with it.


----------



## Aleu (Aug 3, 2012)

illivion said:


> tl;dr



Animals and children are in the same boat as it's immoral to fuck them because it harms them either physically, emotionally, mentally, or a combination of them all.

Sterilizing, experiments, euthanasia etc are all irrelevant.
A person would sterilize their cat for many reasons. If it's an indoor cat, the spraying of a tom poses a health hazard for anyone that lives there. Females aren't so much of an issue with this though but it does happen. For an outdoor cat, it's important to fix them because that increases the population of cats in the area which in turn affect the ecosystem of the area. So because it's "ebil" to spay/neuter a cat, you have a lot of homeless wild cats attacking each other for territory and killing everything else.
Now that's just an example.

Experiments are important for animal testing before human testing. Especially regarding biology and medicine. Yeah, let's test a product we don't know if it'll work or not on a human. That'll end real well.

You're also not talking about animal welfare. You're putting animals on the same platform as humans. That's animal rights and I don't believe animals have rights but that doesn't give us an excuse to take a weed-wacker to baby ducks for shits n' gigs (yes, someone has done this here.)

You also seem to believe that zoophiles care about their animals. Well guess what, sport? If they cared then they wouldn't be raping them! They wouldn't train their animal to be fucked or to fuck them. They don't understand how the animal's mind works let alone that the genitalia are completely different. Let's take the cat again. Note how tiny the female's vagina is, now note how big the average man's penis is. So you're saying that there is a circumstance where that is okay? For dogs, they're largely pack animals. They don't see you as a mate. They see you as an alpha. A leader. They show dominance by humping. If a dog is humping you, it isn't because they want you in bed. It's because they're showing that they're top dog.

In short, no. Sex with children and animals are bad. Just because we treat them differently doesn't mean jack shit.


----------



## Ozriel (Aug 3, 2012)

illivion said:


> stuff.



Okay, we should totally boink our pets because we take advantage of them and sex with them is okay. Fuck morals, because furries who speak out against this are faggots and need to go DIAF.


----------



## Judge Spear (Aug 3, 2012)

illivion said:


> Lot's of words



Well.........I can respect you being adamant on your stance. But, seriously...


----------



## RedFoxTwo (Aug 3, 2012)

Reminds me of how pretty much all appeals by the pro-zoo' movement to the gay community for help are shot down on account of the latter not wanting to be associated with the former. 

The irony is phenomenal.


----------



## Ozriel (Aug 3, 2012)

RedFoxTwo said:


> Reminds me of how pretty much all appeals by the pro-zoo' movement to the gay community for help are shot down on account of the latter not wanting to be associated with the former.
> 
> The irony is phenomenal.




When you think about the argument, it's personal morals vs. personal morals.

On one hand, it's wrong due to the fact that forcing sex on an animal is wrong, while on the ther having sex with an animal is justified because humans do all sorts of things to them so it's not a problem. It's seen as a right. There are also Beastiallitsts that become veg*n for this purpose. If they aren't consuming animal flesh, then it's okay because they see it as not adding on to "animal cruelty".


----------



## triage (Aug 3, 2012)

this is an early contender for thread of the year 2012


----------



## Calemeyr (Aug 3, 2012)

Why is it that some of the main site users who always crawl out of the woodwork to these threads always feel offended when someone says they're creepy and need to seek help? If some guy gets a hardon when ever he goes to the zoo or looks at photos of people's pets...that's creepy. That means inside his head, Leo the Lion is a suitable mate. What the hell?! Also, certain conventions need to do more about sex offenders running around and potentially contacting the kiddies. No more of that "didn't occur here, don't care" policy.


----------



## RedFoxTwo (Aug 3, 2012)

Marcus Stormchaser said:


> If some guy gets a hardon when ever he goes to the zoo or looks at photos of people's pets...that's creepy. That means inside his head, Leo the Lion is a suitable mate. What the hell?!


*Error 404: No objectivity found*


----------



## Rilvor (Aug 3, 2012)

As it has been presented, you basically have three options folks.

You can either put your money where your mouth is, so to speak, and actively take it upon yourself to oust these people to the authorities. If they're doing nothing wrong, then the authorities shouldn't put them in jail. Relying on Site Administration to get the job done has been proven time and time again to be ineffective.

Or if you cannot commit to that you will simply have to accept that no one is willing to take it upon themselves to remove these people and deal with their presence.

Finally, you can also stop associating yourself as a Furry if you come to feel that this horrible behavior is so ingrained with the fandom that it distorts what it means to you.


----------



## BRN (Aug 3, 2012)

Ozriel said:


> When you think about the argument, it's personal morals vs. personal morals.
> 
> On one hand, *it's wrong due to the fact that forcing sex on an animal is wrong*, while on the ther having sex with an animal is justified because humans do all sorts of things to them so it's not a problem. It's seen as a right. There are also Beastiallitsts that become veg*n for this purpose. If they aren't consuming animal flesh, then it's okay because they see it as not adding on to "animal cruelty".


 Wait, it's wrong because it's wrong? I don't know about appeals to objective morality.  F'sure, forcing sex sure should be criminalised whether it's two humans or only one; but I think talking about right and wrong here is pointless.

I'm not sure, I really just disagree with the morality statement. The reason it's going to be hard for any anti-zoophilia statement based on 'harm', hence immorality, to stand up for itself is because the same reasons used to justify that stance, utterly contradict what happens day-by-day.

Taking semen collection as an example - a man jacks off a horse, and won't be prosecuted for it. Yet _the same action_ is condemned if a zoo does it, because of immoral harm to an animal? Is it the action, or the intent here which is prosecuted? If it's the action, why are semen collection, battery farming, selective breeding and captivity legalised-? If it's the intent, what's the proof of harm? This disphoria makes me unable to appreciate certain moral arguments.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Aug 3, 2012)

LizardKing said:


> Goddamn, that sure is a long-winded way to say, "Hey, go after the pedos but you leave us proud, upstanding dogfuckers alone! We're totally cool!"


Fixed


----------



## Saiko (Aug 3, 2012)

> For dogs, they're largely pack animals. They don't see you as a mate. They see you as an alpha. A leader. They show dominance by humping. If a dog is humping you, it isn't because they want you in bed. It's because they're showing that they're top dog.


I personally suggest a source for this out of thoroughness.



illivion said:


> Adult animals that are sexually mature and willing to engage in sex are not harmed psychologically by having sex with humans in the way that children are.


This needs a source without a doubt.



Aleu said:


> You also seem to believe that zoophiles care about their animals.






			
				Bestiality and Zoophilia: Sexual Relations with Animals said:
			
		

> When asked about their emotional involvement, only a few men (3.5%, Beetz 2002) reported having no emotional attachment to the animal they were having sex with, while about 20% indicated a "normal" attachment, like one has with a pet, and the majority (76.1%) reported a very strong emotional attachment, comparable to love between human partners.


----------



## Ziaki (Aug 3, 2012)

You can't just kick somebody out of a fandom.  It's not like we are some exclusive club. Anybody can call themselves furry and participate in the fandom and nobody can really do anything about it.

It's not like you can go up to somebody and say "Hey you can't call yourself furry anymore because you're embarrassing us."

People can and will do anything they want as far as how they identify themselves.


----------



## Ozriel (Aug 3, 2012)

SIX said:


> Wait, it's wrong because it's wrong? I don't know about appeals to objective morality.  F'sure, forcing sex sure should be criminalised whether it's two humans or only one; but I think talking about right and wrong here is pointless.
> 
> I'm not sure, I really just disagree with the morality statement. The reason it's going to be hard for any anti-zoophilia statement based on 'harm', hence immorality, to stand up for itself is because the same reasons used to justify that stance, utterly contradict what happens day-by-day.



As much as you want to disagree, people put subjectivity before objectivity. Objective morals means that you understand that it's wrong, but you have an understanding with facts to why it is wrong...or okay. While one side says it is wrong due to morallity, the other side sees justification in it. Our brain is wired make shortcuts and only we want to believe what is right and what is wrong despite what others believe. Jacking off a horse and eating meat is wrong. Using an animal for sex is wrong, but it's okay to use them for other things to better ourselves.





> Taking semen collection as an example - a man jacks off a horse, and won't be prosecuted for it. Yet _the same action_ is condemned if a zoo does it, because of immoral harm to an animal? Is it the action, or the intent here which is prosecuted? If it's the action, why are semen collection, battery farming, selective breeding and captivity legalised-? If it's the intent, what's the proof of harm? This disphoria makes me unable to appreciate certain moral arguments.



But people for animal "rights" believe it is, reguardless if it is for breeding or not. Humans don't hold non-human animals on the same pedistal as we hold other humans. In short, because we do one thing to animals, justification to another is seen as fine...which still is a moral issue. If you choose not to eat meat due to the meat industry cruely slaughtering animals without their care first, is based on morals.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Aug 3, 2012)

Aleu: Granting other animals some legal rights =/= putting them on a 'level' equal to humans in society. I would argue that much animal abuse is due partly to the idea that only humans can have "rights". There is the popular argument from the (sometimes unwitting) allies of cruelty to nonhuman animals: "If animals want their rights, let them start a revolution and fight for them." These same people will go on to say that humans have *intrinsic *rights, and typically spew forth a great deal of philosophical banter and religious text-thumping to try to support it. I say this: If you'll give the royal treatment to a human specimen with less intelligence than a dog (for example), you have no good reason not to grant a dog a lot more legal protection than it has now.


----------



## Elim Garak (Aug 3, 2012)

Aleu said:


> Animals and children are in the same boat as it's immoral to fuck them because it harms them either physically, emotionally, mentally, or a combination of them all.
> 
> You also seem to believe that zoophiles care about their animals. Well guess what, sport? If they cared then they wouldn't be raping them! They wouldn't train their animal to be fucked or to fuck them. They don't understand how the animal's mind works let alone that the genitalia are completely different. Let's take the cat again. Note how tiny the female's vagina is, now note how big the average man's penis is. So you're saying that there is a circumstance where that is okay? For dogs, they're largely pack animals. They don't see you as a mate. They see you as an alpha. A leader. They show dominance by humping. If a dog is humping you, it isn't because they want you in bed. It's because they're showing that they're top dog.



Again I am not a zoo, but as a larger scale animal owner, I don't really think it harms animals. 
I mean, yes, we let semen get collected from our horses for money(You have no idea how much semen is worth), no I don't do it myself, I leave it to the professionals in semen collecting(Yes that is a profession). However I have observed the whole ordeal a couple of time(I always make sure my horses are treated correctly by people), the don't seem to mind at all, and they seem..how to say this, relieved and less stressed after. 
The mares we have, well we don't get em impregnated but we have to give em some meds so they calm down in heat, they go crazy to the point that they start smashing against the doors to get to the stallions in the different stable building(We have to keep em separate or they both go crazy, however geldings and mares can be put in stables next to each other). 
Dogs, I am not sure about the males, some say they take pleasure in it, some say its just dominance, I don't sell/breed dogs so I have no clue there.

I really don't care if someone gets fucked by an animal, all I can think of is that their anus gets ripped due well horse dick, not sure how large dogs are, however I can imagine an akita or larger dog being pretty big.

However penetrating an animal really really enrages me, it's generally not made for humans to enter and it might hurt the animal. If it hurts the animals I get angry. I once smacked a guy in the face because he had fucking sharp spurs that caused a horse to bleed. We also really really limit the use of whips, they aren't used in 99% of the things we do with the horses(Mainly Jumping events). I also have been helping around with local organizations dealing with abused animals..especially with horses...It's sad how some people treat their animals(One of my horses was a rescued one...when he arrived here he was starved, he had a HUGE HUGE growth on his front filled with pus...which my best guess being that he was stabbed with a pitchfork and didn't receive care for weeks, he is fine now and a very sweet horse, but very very scared of humans he doesn't know and well pitchforks). 

You know, I'd rather have legislation and police force going to people who actually beat, starve or do whatever to animals rather than the guy who destroys his anus due taking a horse with the horse not giving a shit about it. I heard and have seen too many things where the police don't care too much and videos such as www.meatvideo.com doesn't really help my view of things.


----------



## Ozriel (Aug 3, 2012)

Elim Garak said:


> Dogs, I am not sure about the males, some say they take pleasure in it, some say its just dominance, I don't sell/breed dogs so I have no clue there.



Females will "hump" in a gesture of dominance too. I had a dog that would do that to my cat. It's a dominance thing. If they pin you, their behavior becomes somewhat agressive towards you afterwards.


----------



## Elim Garak (Aug 3, 2012)

Ozriel said:


> Females will "hump" in a gesture of dominance too. I had a dog that would do that to my cat. It's a dominance thing. If they pin you, their behavior becomes somewhat agressive towards you afterwards.



So they do not also derive pleasure from the act? Does it cause harm? That's what I am curious about, though I don't want to know really. Damn curiosity.


----------



## Trpdwarf (Aug 3, 2012)

Elim Garak said:


> So they do not also derive pleasure from the act? Does it cause harm? That's what I am curious about, though I don't want to know really. Damn curiosity.



When a human initiates sex with a dog or allows a dog to mount them/engage the potential for different kinds of harm exist. There are the obvious ones such as physical damage, psychological harm, and disturbing the dog's mental image of the "pack" (which can turn to aggressive and sometimes dangerous behaviors). There is also the threat of disease transfer, and for men emerging research suggests that engaging in sex with non-human animals has an increased risk of prostate cancer. For women engaging in sex with non-human animals leads to an increased risk of bacterial/yeast infection, and tears.

No matter how you look at it engaging in sex with something like a dog is dangerous on a multitude of levels. It's dangerous to the human and to the dog.


----------



## Ozriel (Aug 3, 2012)

Elim Garak said:


> So they do not also derive pleasure from the act? Does it cause harm? That's what I am curious about, though I don't want to know really. Damn curiosity.



It's not a sexual act. If the dog trues to grab your neck with it's teeth, it can cause harm.


----------



## Saiko (Aug 3, 2012)

Trpdwarf said:


> There is also the threat of disease transfer, and for men emerging research suggests that engaging in sex with non-human animals has an increased risk of prostate cancer. For women engaging in sex with non-human animals leads to an increased risk of bacterial/yeast infection, and tears.


Bear in mind that a variation of this specific point is also used to condemn homosexuality due to its increased STD risk. :S


----------



## dinosaurdammit (Aug 3, 2012)

Elim Garak said:


> www.meatvideo.com


for the record that video that aims to show the "truth" really just lies and shows the same video over and over that peta and other organizations have- some of that video is mid 90's or even later.


----------



## Trpdwarf (Aug 3, 2012)

Saiko said:


> Bear in mind that a variation of this specific point is also used to condemn homosexuality due to its increased STD risk. :S



The argument against homosexuality deals with illness that already goes between humans via heterosexuality. This is different than the issue with bestiality where you are taking humans and non humans and creating a vector for not just existing disease that is usually easy enough to avoid getting, but also new disease that otherwise would not be able to transfer between species. Bestiality is a walking time bomb when it comes to disease. 

It is worth noting that one of the most avid promoters of bestiality not only ended up leading up one of his females to rip another one's throat out by failing at canine pack behavior comprehension, but also ended up contracting debilitating zoonoses himself which effectively crippled his health.

Don't compare the two with homosexuality and bestiality, gays won't like you for it and often times the complexities are not similar enough to make valid the comparison.


----------



## Delta Fox (Aug 3, 2012)

My opinion, which I hope most people will agree with, is that it is wrong to have sex with animals and children. With Animals they are not human and therefore it is certainly not physically safe for either party involved and the animal really has no grasp of the situation apart from what is physically happening. Regardless of what you say, the animal will never view you as a mate and that in my opinion is what makes it non-consensual. With children, they have no concept of sexuality or interest in it and do not even know what is going on. It would be like having sex with a person who is sleeping, they don't really know what is happening and cannot control the situation. You can throw around "moral" and "immoral" all day but what it comes down to is that it is unsafe, non-consensual, and dangerous to engage in these acts.


----------



## Elim Garak (Aug 3, 2012)

Trpdwarf said:


> When a human initiates sex with a dog or allows a dog to mount them/engage the potential for different kinds of harm exist. There are the obvious ones such as physical damage, psychological harm, and disturbing the dog's mental image of the "pack" (which can turn to aggressive and sometimes dangerous behaviors). There is also the threat of disease transfer, and for men emerging research suggests that engaging in sex with non-human animals has an increased risk of prostate cancer. For women engaging in sex with non-human animals leads to an increased risk of bacterial/yeast infection, and tears.
> 
> No matter how you look at it engaging in sex with something like a dog is dangerous on a multitude of levels. It's dangerous to the human and to the dog.


Thanks! This is what I needed to know.


----------



## Saiko (Aug 3, 2012)

Trpdwarf said:


> Don't compare the two with homosexuality and bestiality, gays won't like you for it and often times the complexities are not similar enough to make valid the comparison.


I wasn't comparing homosexuality and bestiality so much as pointing out a parallel between their criticisms; each has risk of disease. However, now you've clarified where this parallel ends; and it is quite a valid point.


----------



## Fallowfox (Aug 3, 2012)

Alerio Corvinus said:


> My opinion, which I hope most people will agree with, is that it is wrong to have sex with animals and children. With Animals they are not human and therefore it is certainly not physically safe for either party involved and the animal really has no grasp of the situation apart from what is physically happening. Regardless of what you say, the animal will never view you as a mate and that in my opinion is what makes it non-consensual. With children, they have no concept of sexuality or interest in it and do not even know what is going on. It would be like having sex with a person who is sleeping, they don't really know what is happening and cannot control the situation. You can throw around "moral" and "immoral" all day but what it comes down to is that it is unsafe, non-consensual, and dangerous to engage in these acts.



Homo sapiens interbred with at least two species, neanderthalus and denisovan man, which is a curisoty on the subject of cross-species interbreeding being non-consensual.
 I however agree both are from a practical perspective non-consesnual and forms of rape, with reference to the thread topic I cannot legitimately tell a rapist that they cannot be a furry, which would be comparable to telling a rapist they cannot be an anime fan, cannot be a keen marathon runner or a chemist, as these adjectives do not inherently exclude people that society does.


----------



## Kanye East (Aug 7, 2012)

How about we just force out people who fuck in suit yes? I think they cause more damage to the fandom then anyone else realistically, you don't see furs who like cub stuff or zoofurs on fox news, making a disgrace to the fandom.

or you know, we can just worry about ourselves and not hang out with those people we don't like. 

nah, that would be drama free.


----------



## noxy (Feb 16, 2013)

Let's force out 420furs and any user discussing or depicting illegal drug use as well, why don't we?


----------



## Ansitru (Feb 16, 2013)

noxy said:


> Let's force out 420furs and any user discussing or depicting illegal drug use as well, why don't we?



So you joined the forum, which is notorious for it's dislike of the extremer parts of fandom (such as zoo and pedophilia) and you necro'd a thread to white-knight these kinds of ...  "people".
A+ move, newbie. A+.


----------



## noxy (Feb 16, 2013)

Trpdwarf said:


> When a human initiates sex with a dog or allows a dog to mount them/engage the potential for different kinds of harm exist. There are the obvious ones such as physical damage, psychological harm, and disturbing the dog's mental image of the "pack" (which can turn to aggressive and sometimes dangerous behaviors). There is also the threat of disease transfer, and for men emerging research suggests that engaging in sex with non-human animals has an increased risk of prostate cancer. For women engaging in sex with non-human animals leads to an increased risk of bacterial/yeast infection, and tears.
> 
> No matter how you look at it engaging in sex with something like a dog is dangerous on a multitude of levels. It's dangerous to the human and to the dog.




Can you please cite sources for your claims of:

1. Psychological harm
2. Sex with another species disturbing the dog's mental image of the "pack"
3. Disturbing the dog's mental image of the "pack" turning to aggressive and dangerous behaviors


----------



## Ricky (Feb 16, 2013)

Without all the dogfuckers and pedos, though... where would we get all of our cheap entertainment? :c

Edit: noxy, you are living up to your name. I'm not interested in a moral debate about dogfucking. I just want to laugh at people.

Oh wait. Actually, on that note... please do carry on ;3


----------



## Ansitru (Feb 16, 2013)

noxy said:


> Can you please cite sources for your claims of:
> 
> 1. Psychological harm
> 2. Sex with another species disturbing the dog's mental image of the "pack"
> 3. Disturbing the dog's mental image of the "pack" turning to aggressive and dangerous behaviors



Okay, so you're a dogfucker. *We get it.*


----------



## noxy (Feb 16, 2013)

Ricky said:


> Without all the dogfuckers and pedos, though... where would we get all of our cheap entertainment? :c
> 
> Edit: noxy, you are living up to your name. I'm not interested in a moral debate about dogfucking. I just want to laugh at people.
> 
> Oh wait. Actually, on that note... please do carry on ;3



Living up to my name? I don't understand.


----------



## Tiamat (Feb 16, 2013)

In what stage of your childhood did it all go wrong?


----------



## Smelge (Feb 16, 2013)

Tiamat said:


> In what stage of your childhood did it all go wrong?



Probably the part where he couldn't get laid normally, so fucked his dog instead.


----------



## Gryphoneer (Feb 16, 2013)

Hey mods, how about you forward his IP to the mainsite staff for special screening?


----------



## Smelge (Feb 16, 2013)

Gryphoneer said:


> Hey mods, how about you forward his IP to the mainsite staff for special screening?



I tried looking up Noxy on the mainsite, and just got a profile full of babyfur. Just. Ugh.


----------



## Kalmor (Feb 16, 2013)

Smelge said:


> I tried looking up Noxy on the mainsite, and just got a profile full of babyfur. Just. Ugh.


I searched for "noxy" too.

Eyes need cleaning now.


----------



## noxy (Feb 16, 2013)

Can anyone actually give some answers, or am I just being subjected to a lynch mob here?


----------



## Mentova (Feb 16, 2013)

I'm just gunna kill this jesus christ


----------



## CerbrusNL (Feb 16, 2013)

Raptros said:


> I searched for "noxy" too.
> 
> Eyes need cleaning now.



The guy with the same username mainsite is most likely not him. I'm not going to tell you who he is, mainsite, obviously, but I just wanted to clear that guy's name, as he's not related to this thread.

(In after lock)


----------

