# New Law passed



## Anepo (Apr 7, 2010)

A new law has been passed in the UK.
A very big law which will have a BIG impact on FurAffinity.
The question is which group will it have an effect on?
Babyfurs or non babyfurs.

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2009/ukpga_20090025_en_5#pt2-ch2-pb1-l1g62

The new law:
* From yesterday, artwork of characters under 18 in sexual situations were made illegal and akin to child pornography.

* Fur Affinity allows babyfur pornography.
* Fur Affinity is now a child pornography site under UK law.
* Using Fur Affinity from inside the UK is now illegal.

I believe the UK being the second biggest or third biggest place with furries in the world. With america being nr 1.
Canada or UK being nr 2.
Not sure which.

So my question is quite simple:
The peole of the United Kingdom (England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland) being forced to leave or possibly be put in jail for 20 years.
Seeing as there is internet police that monitors some of the net there.

Or the babyfur art?

I hate to see either go. Not that i like babyfur art.
But I believe everyone has an equal right here.
Also before somebody starts to talk hate about babyfur art let me remind you those few individuals here who have been arrested
(and banned here of course because of it)
who have been child molesters have all been artists that drew
ONLY art of characters that are NOT underage.

So please do NOT flame this thread with hate!


----------



## CerbrusNL (Apr 7, 2010)

Do you have some kind of link with the official text? (source?)


----------



## StainMcGorver (Apr 7, 2010)

Just about to make this thread.
So, yeah, what's gonna happen, change the rules or have a bunch of FA users leave? Some of my friends are UK users and they're all fleeing in terror.


----------



## Alexander Grey (Apr 7, 2010)

CerbrusNL said:


> Do you have some kind of link with the official text? (source?)



http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/04/06/cartoon_law_live/
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2009/ukpga_20090025_en_5#pt2-ch2-pb1-l1g62


----------



## Rekhit (Apr 7, 2010)

*FA Illegal In The UK*

Yesterday in the UK a law came into affect that makes it illegal to view artwork depicting those under the age of 18 in sexual situations. This would include cub porn on furry sites, this one included.

Basically, any one in the UK found viewing or accessing sites with these images will be prosecuted and mostly fined, imprisoned and put on the sex offenders list for life.

This is a very troubling situation that will directly affect thousands of UK based furs who access FA on a daily basis. They will be criminals in the eyes of a justice system that is obsessed with punishing the innocent and letting the guilty off scot free, after of course getting compension from their victims.

It seems there are two options: All UK based furs leave FA (taking a huge chunk of the membership and art) or FA bans cub porn. I'm not one for censorship like this, but desperate times calls for desperate measures.

The decision lies with the Admins: get rid of the cub porn or all UK furs face an uncertain future.


----------



## Slingblade_47 (Apr 7, 2010)

Although I have a deep antipathy of Underage images/stories and Cub art and try to stay away from it at all costs, this new law is only gonna punish the people who don't use this site for the Cub art. I managed to sign up today, and to learn that I'm gonna have to leave has left me distraught.

But, I would like to know what source this came from or if this can be backed up. People do lie, you know. But the thing is, you've said that the people who have been arrested have tried to carry out their sick fantasies in real life. I honestly don't know what I should think.


----------



## StainMcGorver (Apr 7, 2010)

*Re: FA Illegal In The UK*

-THIS SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK-
/post


----------



## StainMcGorver (Apr 7, 2010)

*FOR THOSE WHO WANT TO READ THE TEXT OF THIS LAW


*Also:
Ninja'd
VVVVVVV


----------



## TheChainedWolf (Apr 7, 2010)

The law can be read here.

Here is the story as originally reported on Furtean Times, but I have written an opinion piece claiming that we are not affected, as you can see here.


----------



## Sauvignon (Apr 7, 2010)

Most of these animals are fully mature after a couple of years, and don't even live to be 18 years old. What now?


----------



## Duality Jack (Apr 7, 2010)

hah Take that cradle robbers.


----------



## TashkentFox (Apr 7, 2010)

Fuck you Gordon Brown.


----------



## Anepo (Apr 7, 2010)

Slingblade_47 said:


> Although I have a deep antipathy of Underage images/stories and Cub art and try to stay away from it at all costs, this new law is only gonna punish the people who don't use this site for the Cub art. I managed to sign up today, and to learn that I'm gonna have to leave has left me distraught.
> 
> But, I would like to know what source this came from or if this can be backed up. People do lie, you know. But the thing is, you've said that the people who have been arrested have tried to carry out their sick fantasies in real life. I honestly don't know what I should think.



Nr1. i do not lie about something like this. Though it seems finding honest furrys on FA is like trying to find a needle in a haystack.
Also i dod NOT say what you wrote. Read it BETTER.
A lot of people hate furry cub art.
And i have yet to read news about a CUB from here being arrested for child abuse or posession of child pornography.
I have however seen a FEW furries here that are NOT into CUB art which have been arrested for child abuse. So I noted this fact to make sure people dont go all "we hate cubs they are child abusers"
when the opposite has been proved here.

After all if your a child abuser.
Why would you want to draw attention to yourself with cub art?
Hence why i have yet to see a cub artist arrested for child abuse. And having seen a few non cub artists arrrested for it in the past.


----------



## Ricky (Apr 7, 2010)

Looking at the legislation it is the same shit as we already have here in the US.

I see nothing new.


----------



## Thatch (Apr 7, 2010)

Well gee, "sexual situations". So non-sexual is by any means legal. 

Stop looking at drawings of baby animal-people having sex and masturbate to grown, REAL men and/or women. Problem solved.
Otherwise, who cares if you're some sick deviant who can't get off to anything that *isn't* prepubescent and not even human.


----------



## DemonWolfZero (Apr 7, 2010)

I wouldn't worry about this at all. This is just like how it is illegal to download free music and nobody gets in trouble for it. I think your fine in general and you shouldn't worry about it.


----------



## DemonWolfZero (Apr 7, 2010)

StainMcGorver said:


> Just about to make this thread.
> So, yeah, what's gonna happen, change the rules or have a bunch of FA users leave? Some of my friends are UK users and they're all fleeing in terror.



This is really no big deal. People are not going to monitor your IP address to see if you are on FA so your friends shouldn't be "fleeing"


----------



## Ricky (Apr 7, 2010)

I'm guessing what they did is reconstrue the definition of "child" but yeah, it would need to involve sex.

As far as I'm concerned you're all a punch of perverts, anyway.


----------



## CannonFodder (Apr 7, 2010)

We already know


----------



## Duality Jack (Apr 7, 2010)

szopaw said:


> Well gee, "sexual situations". So non-sexual is by any means legal.
> 
> Stop looking at drawings of baby animal-people having sex and masturbate to grown, REAL men and/or women. Problem solved.
> Otherwise, who cares if you're some sick deviant who can't get off to anything that *isn't* prepubescent and not even human.


I agree with this poster.


----------



## TheChainedWolf (Apr 7, 2010)

DemonWolfZero said:


> I wouldn't worry about this at all. This is just like how it is illegal to download free music and nobody gets in trouble for it. I think your fine in general and you shouldn't worry about it.



Actually, at this very moment the British government is discuss a bill which could result in people who illegally download in having their internet connections cut off. See Digital Economy Bill.


----------



## CannonFodder (Apr 7, 2010)

TashkentFox said:


> Fuck you Gordon Brown.


I still lol everytime I see that.

Also we do know about that new law, not sure what the fa admins did though.


----------



## TashkentFox (Apr 7, 2010)

TheChainedWolf said:


> Actually, at this very moment the British government is discuss a bill which could result in people who illegally download in having their internet connections cut off. See Digital Economy Bill.



That won't stop those who use mobile broadband.


----------



## TashkentFox (Apr 7, 2010)

CannonFodder said:


> I still lol everytime I see that.



It's even funnier to us Brits because he acts like Hitler on sedatives.


----------



## Ricky (Apr 7, 2010)

TheChainedWolf said:


> Actually, at this very moment the British government is discuss a bill which could result in people who illegally download in having their internet connections cut off. See Digital Economy Bill.



Good thing there's encryption :roll:

People should probably start using it.


----------



## Bayard Zylos (Apr 7, 2010)

I suppose this first needs huge scrutiny and and letting solicitors argue over it. Does babyfur art truly count as child pornography under the law? Would someone be arrested even if they haven't seen a single babyfur picture on the site? I'm not a law person, I'm not sure what exceptions we can make.

If it came down to it though, I'd rather get the adult babyfur art removed and let the UK people stay. It's a kink that can be found elsewhere if people are desperate, and its not fair to let such a huge population not be allowed to the biggest furry community because of it.


----------



## Ailure (Apr 7, 2010)

So can I get a lawyers interpretation of this law? It didn't seem to have anything to do with drawn artwork to start with. :|


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Apr 7, 2010)

I smell impending viktory!


----------



## Alexis (Apr 7, 2010)

I thought that ideas of that were going to be trashed after it was judged against commercial laws or something random like that.

As for the babyfur thing, I'm quite sure that they mean human children more than anything else, remember that most humans think that humans are the only species worth worrying about and everyone else can go jump.

However, it would be better for everyone if ppl refrained from creating babyfur content for pornographic purposes.  Basically, I agree with most of the peeps above.


----------



## crisp (Apr 7, 2010)

i will not be chased out here by law unless it's kicking and screaming


----------



## Otis (Apr 7, 2010)

Alexis said:


> I thought that ideas of that were going to be trashed after it was judged against commercial laws or something random like that.
> 
> As for the babyfur thing, I'm quite sure that they mean human children more than anything else, remember that most humans think that humans are the only species worth worrying about and everyone else can go jump.
> 
> However, it would be better for everyone if ppl refrained from creating babyfur content for pornographic purposes.  Basically, I agree with most of the peeps above.



No, it actually says "real or imaginary".


----------



## Ricky (Apr 7, 2010)

Bayard Zylos said:


> I suppose this first needs huge scrutiny and and letting solicitors argue over it. Does babyfur art truly count as child pornography under the law? Would someone be arrested even if they haven't seen a single babyfur picture on the site? I'm not a law person, I'm not sure what exceptions we can make.
> 
> If it came down to it though, I'd rather get the adult babyfur art removed and let the UK people stay. It's a kink that can be found elsewhere if people are desperate, and its not fair to let such a huge population not be allowed to the biggest furry community because of it.



It said "imaginary child" but doesn't necessarily encompass baby animals.

I highly doubt they even thought of it when writing the legislation :roll:

From the definitions:



> (5) â€œChildâ€, subject to subsection (6), means a person under the age of 18.
> (6) Where an image shows a person the image is to be treated as an image of a child ifâ€”
> (a) the impression conveyed by the image is that the person shown is a child, or
> (b) _*the predominant impression conveyed is that the person shown is a child despite the fact that some of the physical characteristics shown are not those of a child.*_


Again, it sounds like the same shit we already have here in the US.


----------



## Rekhit (Apr 7, 2010)

The law states " (1) It is an offence for a person to be  in possession of a prohibited image of a child."

Where does it state the species.... weak, yes. But it's there.


----------



## Sauvignon (Apr 7, 2010)

The law refers only to an image of a "child" or an "imaginary child". The word "child", itself, refers specifically to a humans, or "persons". This law says nothing of furries.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Apr 7, 2010)

crisp said:


> i will not be chased out here by law unless it's kicking and screaming


 Then gargle some saline and stretch your legs. You're going to need it.


----------



## Slingblade_47 (Apr 7, 2010)

Anepo said:
			
		

> Nr1. i do not lie about something like this. Though it seems finding honest furrys on FA is like trying to find a needle in a haystack.
> Also i dod NOT say what you wrote. Read it BETTER.
> A lot of people hate furry cub art.
> And i have yet to read news about a CUB from here being arrested for child abuse or posession of child pornography.
> ...


People have lied about things like this before. I just wanted to make sure that you weren't trying to screw with people by posting this, although now that I've had a look at the link I will take back what I said earlier. I know very well that a lot of people hate art that involves cubs - although I think this law is only dealing with human children the way I interpret it. I don't think there's much to worry about for non-humans, although it's better to be safe than sorry.

But you make a logical point with the next one. Any paedophile would try to avoid uploading cub art so that they can keep their secrets under wraps. But like you said in the first post, the people who have been arrested for it have tried to carry out child molestation in reality, which is illegal by itself. But what happens about the people who stay away from the cub art, don't produce any of their own, but visit this site?


----------



## Ricky (Apr 7, 2010)

Anyone who thinks they will get arrested for visiting FA because of this is dumb unless they are actually downloading massive amounts of cub porn.

If that's the case they probably deserve it anyway.


----------



## TashkentFox (Apr 7, 2010)

Sauvignon said:


> The law refers only to an image of a "child" or an "imaginary child". The word "child", itself, refers specifically to a humans, or "persons". This law says nothing of furries.



This is a government that arrested an old woman pet shop owner for selling a goldfish to a 16 year old boy who didn't have his parents consent, they'll manage to crowbar us in somehow. It's much better to upset a few perverts than have 20% of the sites users blocked from access.


----------



## StompyChar (Apr 7, 2010)

A very stupid thought i just ran across...

Murder is by all forms of the law illegal...so why is snuff in movies, artwork, literature, music etc. etc. no problem?

Its a tought that crossed my mind while trying to figure things out.


----------



## crisp (Apr 7, 2010)

Kit H. Ruppell said:


> Then gargle some saline and stretch your legs. You're going to need it.



i just realised who the hell is going to inforce this anyways. here we have laws that aren't inforced every minute of every day


----------



## Thatch (Apr 7, 2010)

Bayard Zylos said:


> and its not fair to let such a huge population not be allowed to the biggest furry community because of it.



So let me phrase this more clearly - "They cannot deprive fetishists of their baby porn"


----------



## Sauvignon (Apr 7, 2010)

TashkentFox said:


> This is a government that arrested an old woman pet shop owner for selling a goldfish to a 16 year old boy who didn't have his parents consent, they'll manage to crowbar us in somehow. It's much better to upset a few perverts than have 20% of the sites users blocked from access.



Yeah, England. The law is weak, though. I see things about imaginary children having sex with animals, but I see nothing about imaginary animals having sex with animals.


----------



## Ricky (Apr 7, 2010)

StompyChar said:


> A very stupid thought i just ran across...
> 
> Murder is by all forms of the law illegal...so why is snuff in movies, artwork, literature, music etc. etc. no problem?
> 
> Its a tought that crossed my mind while trying to figure things out.



Because art usually isn't a crime.

I don't believe it ever should be.  Emotional topics make it easy to pass legislation, however.


----------



## TashkentFox (Apr 7, 2010)

Sauvignon said:


> Yeah, England. The law is weak, though. I see things about imaginary children having sex with animals, but I see nothing about imaginary animals having sex with animals.



They'll manage to twist and turn it to fit in somehow. But the anime-addicts will have a lot more to fear.


----------



## Ben (Apr 7, 2010)

> (b) the predominant impression conveyed is that the person shown is a child despite the fact that some of the physical characteristics shown are not those of a child.



This is the sincher, pretty much. 

I figure what they're trying to do here is eradicate pedophiles from the gene pool, but I really don't see how that's feasible. The British are being absurdly silly.


----------



## Tewin Follow (Apr 7, 2010)

Ben said:


> The British are being absurdly silly.



I see what you bloody did there.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Apr 7, 2010)

Ben said:


> This is the sincher, pretty much.
> 
> I figure what they're trying to do here is eradicate pedophiles from the gene pool, but I really don't see how that's feasible. The British are being absurdly silly.


 They don't have the balls to do that. They're already being overrun with terrorists and letting it happen.


----------



## Anepo (Apr 7, 2010)

Slingblade_47 said:


> People have lied about things like this before. I just wanted to make sure that you weren't trying to screw with people by posting this, although now that I've had a look at the link I will take back what I said earlier. I know very well that a lot of people hate art that involves cubs - although I think this law is only dealing with human children the way I interpret it. I don't think there's much to worry about for non-humans, although it's better to be safe than sorry.
> 
> But you make a logical point with the next one. Any paedophile would try to avoid uploading cub art so that they can keep their secrets under wraps. But like you said in the first post, the people who have been arrested for it have tried to carry out child molestation in reality, which is illegal by itself. But what happens about the people who stay away from the cub art, don't produce any of their own, but visit this site?



No worries. Mommy raised me up good XD
But well the law is only as accurate as those who wrote it.
They can be bent and twisted if they are unclear like this one.
Which they are made unclear like this on purpose.

We have got MANY MANY laws in my country which have been bent and twisted to being completely out of hand and being only good for the select few rich people or government.

A law that is not crystal clear is just another way to change the rules and yet be on the grey area and to be able to control people more and abuse power.


----------



## Anepo (Apr 7, 2010)

Ben said:


> This is the sincher, pretty much.
> 
> I figure what they're trying to do here is eradicate pedophiles from the gene pool, but I really don't see how that's feasible. The British are being absurdly silly.



If they wanted to get rid of pedophiles. Then they should start with the churches where there are THOUSANDS of priests mollesting children. Not just there but around the world. I am willing to bet my soul on there being a million priests in the world mollesting kids.
All in the name of god and protected by the POOPY POPE and other governments.


----------



## crisp (Apr 7, 2010)

these lawmakers should realise they can't control the internet


----------



## Ben (Apr 7, 2010)

Kit H. Ruppell said:


> They don't have the balls to do that. They're already being overrun with terrorists and letting it happen.


When I say eradicate, I mean "jail them forever so they don't get a chance to reproduce." Obviously I'm not talking a kiddie-diddler holocaust.


----------



## StainMcGorver (Apr 7, 2010)

crisp said:


> these lawmakers should realise they can't control the internet


Actually...



Ben said:


> a kiddie-diddler holocaust.


I lol'd


----------



## TashkentFox (Apr 7, 2010)

Ben said:


> The British are being absurdly silly.



We've always been silly.


----------



## Ben (Apr 7, 2010)

Anepo said:


> If they wanted to get rid of pedophiles. Then they should start with the churches where there are THOUSANDS of priests mollesting children. Not just there but around the world. I am willing to bet my soul on there being a million priests in the world mollesting kids.
> All in the name of god and protected by the POOPY POPE and other governments.


If I recall correctly, the priest molestation thing was just blown out of proportion, since the Catholic church is supposed to be a symbol for purity and clean-mindedness. I'm pretty sure that there isn't some sort of epidemic affecting clergymen that compels them to shove their hands between little boys' legs while claiming they need to "bless" their prepubescent genitalia.


----------



## Ricky (Apr 7, 2010)

Ben said:


> I figure what they're trying to do here is eradicate pedophiles from the gene pool, but I really don't see how that's feasible. The British are being absurdly silly.



It would have to be genetic 

I agree they are being silly.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Apr 7, 2010)

Ben said:


> the Catholic church is supposed to be a simple for purity and clean-mindedness


 LMAO. Seriously.


----------



## Tewin Follow (Apr 7, 2010)

Hurr, if The Sun published the poll "should people who look at animated kiddie porn be executed?" I would actually worry about what the results would be.

That fucking paper.


----------



## Slingblade_47 (Apr 7, 2010)

> They're already being overrun with terrorists and letting it happen.


Because the said terrorists repeatedly play the 'racism' and 'human rights' cards, and abuse the law for their own ends, making it very challenging to punish them or deport them. They're terrified of doing anything to stop them in case they're deemed as anti-Islamic, which would likely then result in another 7/7 the moment Al Qaeda hears about it.


----------



## Anepo (Apr 7, 2010)

crisp said:


> these lawmakers should realise they can't control the internet



Actually...  They can. And almost did take complete control.
The father of the internet thankfully intervened.
But the american companies and net firms want to PRIVATIZE the net.
So that you have to pay a subscription for every commercial website you look at. And having only 10% of the net for normal people and having to pay large amounts to be allowed to have a private homepage.
want to look at whats on the mcdonalds menu?
Gotta subscribe and pay for example 5$ a month to do that.
This has been in plans for many years now.
And as far as i can see like people saw the LOTD about google.
Seems google might be actually able to pull it off since it owns a lot of things. Even internet connection companys.

They own every single type of internet company there is that could control internet acess. from search engines to email to messaging to internet providers. You name it. They own it.

In some years from now they could privatize the internet though i do believe there would be really really big riots and i do hope there will be.
Not that people will  take it lying down on the floor like is usual in europe and north america. And of course many other places as well.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Apr 7, 2010)

Slingblade_47 said:


> Because the said terrorists repeatedly play the 'racism' and 'human rights' cards, and abuse the law for their own ends, making it very challenging to punish them or deport them. They're terrified of doing anything to stop them in case they're deemed as anti-Islamic, which would likely then result in another 7/7 the moment Al Qaeda hears about it.


 Dead humans have no rights.


----------



## crisp (Apr 7, 2010)

Harebelle said:


> Hurr, if The Sun published the poll "should people who look at animated kiddie porn be executed?" I would actually worry about what the results would be.
> 
> That fucking paper.



i think you'll find thats the daily mail


----------



## Thatch (Apr 7, 2010)

Anepo said:


> Actually...  They can. And almost did take complete control.
> The father of the internet thankfully intervened.



Australia was less lucky.


----------



## Ben (Apr 7, 2010)

Ricky said:


> It would have to be genetic
> 
> I agree they are being silly.


Which is why I'm confounded as to why they think removing shota, loli and cub art from our muddied porn supplies will accomplish anything.

Really, if there are pedos out there that keep their interests to the art side of kiddie porn, it would make more sense from a conversing resources standpoint to just let them be. I don't think this is really going to accomplish anything.


----------



## Duality Jack (Apr 7, 2010)

Anepo said:


> Actually...  They can. And almost did take complete control.
> The father of the internet thankfully intervened.
> But the american companies and net firms want to PRIVATIZE the net.
> So that you have to pay a subscription for every commercial website you look at. And having only 10% of the net for normal people and having to pay large amounts to be allowed to have a private homepage.
> ...



Fortunately... this plan is horribly against the law in many many nations.


----------



## TashkentFox (Apr 7, 2010)

Slingblade_47 said:


> Because the said terrorists repeatedly play the 'racism' and 'human rights' cards, and abuse the law for their own ends, making it very challenging to punish them or deport them. They're terrified of doing anything to stop them in case they're deemed as anti-Islamic, which would likely then result in another 7/7 the moment Al Qaeda hears about it.



Don't forget the Irish republicans, who were rewarded for 30 years of carnage and mass murder with political power.


----------



## Tewin Follow (Apr 7, 2010)

crisp said:


> i think you'll find thats the daily mail



Yeah, probably.


----------



## Anepo (Apr 7, 2010)

Ben said:


> If I recall correctly, the priest molestation thing was just blown out of proportion, since the Catholic church is supposed to be a symbol for purity and clean-mindedness. I'm pretty sure that there isn't some sort of epidemic affecting clergymen that compels them to shove their hands between little boys' legs while claiming they need to "bless" their prepubescent genitalia.



nr1. the vatican is technicly a bank. And a company.
nr2. There were hundreds of priests if i remember correctly found out to be child molesters in ireland alone. And thousands in america.
Not to mention many other country's.

The catholic church has murdered millions in the world in the name of god through a few hundred years.

Only one who murdered more was god if you look at the statistics in the bible and each murder he did commit XD

The religious churches, catholic, christian, lutheran and all religions are about as clean as used toilet paper in my crapper.


----------



## Ben (Apr 7, 2010)

Anepo said:
			
		

> nr2. There were hundreds of priests if i remember correctly found out to be child molesters in ireland alone. And thousands in america.
> Not to mention many other country's.



Considering the only explanation for this is "it's a conspiracy" (since those numbers are too big to be a coincidence), you might want to back this up. 

I forget what I'm even arguing about, I just kind of want to see these figures.


----------



## CannonFodder (Apr 7, 2010)

crisp said:


> i will not be chased out here by law unless it's kicking and screaming


I'd hate to break it to you, but the fandom hates the shit out of cub porn and those into it.


Five bucks says this thread will get locked within the day, any takers?


----------



## Sauvignon (Apr 7, 2010)

Ben said:


> > (b) the predominant impression conveyed is that the person shown is a child despite the fact that some of the physical characteristics shown are not those of a child.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Yeah, but what if it is not "a person shown"... like, umm... an imaginary species of animal, such as a furry? I maintain that the law is weak, and does not affect furries.


----------



## Tewin Follow (Apr 7, 2010)

CannonFodder said:


> I'd hate to break it to you, but the fandom hates the shit out of cub porn and those into it.
> 
> 
> Five bucks says this thread will get locked within the day, any takers?



That doesn't mean they hate cub porn.
Just us.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Apr 7, 2010)

CannonFodder said:


> I'd hate to break it to you, but the fandom hates the shit out of cub porn and those into it.
> 
> Five bucks says this thread will get locked within the day, any takers?


 
^This^
The hugbox has been in need of dismantling for a while now, and we've just been handed the screwdriver.


----------



## Anepo (Apr 7, 2010)

Ben said:


> Considering the only explanation for this is "it's a conspiracy" (since those numbers are too big to be a coincidence), you might want to back this up.
> 
> I forget what I'm even arguing about, I just kind of want to see these figures.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_sex_abuse_cases#Global_extent

4392 priests and decons in the US alone.

But we are originally talking about a law banning art that could have a major impact on FA.


----------



## Ricky (Apr 7, 2010)

Kit H. Ruppell said:


> ^This^
> The hugbox has been in need of dismantling for a while now, and we've just been handed the screwdriver.



Right.

Why not the other 10,000 of these threads that get made every time a new law comes up about this stuff?


----------



## Sauvignon (Apr 7, 2010)

CannonFodder said:


> I'd hate to break it to you, but the fandom hates the shit out of cub porn and those into it.
> 
> 
> Five bucks says this thread will get locked within the day, any takers?



I care about cub pron either way; I just hate laws.


----------



## crisp (Apr 7, 2010)

CannonFodder said:


> I'd hate to break it to you, but the fandom hates the shit out of cub porn and those into it.
> 
> 
> Five bucks says this thread will get locked within the day, any takers?



1) i'm not into it i'm just worryed that coming here to this site will be considered illegal

2) i'll give it 2 days till thead lock


----------



## Anepo (Apr 7, 2010)

CannonFodder said:


> I'd hate to break it to you, but the fandom hates the shit out of cub porn and those into it.
> 
> 
> Five bucks says this thread will get locked within the day, any takers?



Do not tell me that you know what I hate or not.
Do not try to generalize for everyone!
I do not like cub porn but i certainly do not hate it.
I just avoid it it is that simple. Just as i avoid VORE and SCAT art.
And i dislike scat art and vore more than any other art here.


----------



## CannonFodder (Apr 7, 2010)

Harebelle said:


> That doesn't mean they hate cub porn.
> Just us.


Nah, you'd be downright surprised at how many furries hate it, honestly I'm surprised there isn't a furry website for bashing cub.


Kit H. Ruppell said:


> ^This^
> The hugbox has been in need of dismantling for a while now, and we've just been handed the screwdriver.


DO IT!


----------



## Ricky (Apr 7, 2010)

crisp said:


> i'm not into it i'm just worryed that coming here to this site will be considered illegal



Right...

Everybody who visits the site will get arrested :roll:

Actually, I think the same would go for 4-chan, and also the internet in general.

_*WE'RE ALL FUCKED D:*_


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Apr 7, 2010)

CannonFodder said:


> Nah, you'd be downright surprised at how many furries hate it, honestly I'm surprised there isn't a furry website for bashing cub.
> 
> DO IT!


 
You know I would....but I lack the means.


----------



## Redregon (Apr 7, 2010)

TheChainedWolf said:


> The law can be read here.
> 
> Here is the story as originally reported on Furtean Times, but I have written an opinion piece claiming that we are not affected, as you can see here.



i'm not sure i'd really trust the interpretation from the Furtean times for a couple reasons.

1. arm-chair lawyers often get things wrong or will skew their interpretations to fit with what they expect/want/hope for.
2. it's splitting hairs with regards to what is and what is not a person. yes, our persona's technically aren't "human" but they don't list it as human, they list it as "person" and our "*person*as" are based enough on people (as through definition B as they list it) that this might be better suited to leave to professionals (as in, actual lawyers/barristers and the site admins.)

still, unless there is an actual, fully recognized barrister in the crowd that would be willing to pipe in on this one, all we can do is run in circles going "it is" "is not" "is so" "i'm telling mom." (read: childish bickering.)


----------



## CannonFodder (Apr 7, 2010)

Kit H. Ruppell said:


> You know I would....but I lack the means.


You know, who do you think keeps on keeping furs from going after furs into cub?  Cause it's obvious someone in the fandom is protecting them from us.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Apr 7, 2010)

CannonFodder said:


> You know, who do you think keeps on keeping furs from going after furs into cub? Cause it's obvious someone in the fandom is protecting them from us.


 Maybe Satan's a furry?


----------



## CannonFodder (Apr 7, 2010)

Kit H. Ruppell said:


> Maybe Satan's a furry?


That explains the horns :V

But seriously considering how many furs want blood(metaphorically) it's obvious someone popular in the fandom is protecting them.


----------



## DarkOverord (Apr 7, 2010)

Sauvignon said:


> Yeah, but what if it is not "a person shown"... like, umm... an imaginary species of animal, such as a furry? I maintain that the law is weak, and does not affect furries.



That's what you're missing. The "person showing" will cover anthropomorphics. Read it over.



> despite the fact that some of the physical characteristics shown are not those of a child.


Unless it's feral (Which the UK has another law on if I recall...) then it would have to be visibly a child in some-way, otherwise it wouldn't be a cub correct? The law covers cubs, whether it's liked or not.

However people _are_ taking it to the extreme (Also it's probably mandleson not brown, just throwing that out there), the Police here don't normally actively look for this kind of thing, unless you make it aware to the police somehow.


----------



## Teco (Apr 7, 2010)

Fucking good, somebody is actually smart and LOOK, its not America. Fucking British accented Christ.

Sure, people are going to say, Oh its not hurting anyone. Or... its my right or freedom too, the man is putting me down!

Those people are stupid. Do we really need child porn? Real or otherwise? Do we? Look me in the eyes and tell me we do. That the art community as a whole wont be better off with it gone. No really go ahead, I want to headbutt some crooked yellowed teeth in, you sick fuck.


----------



## yummynbeefy (Apr 7, 2010)

well my opinion

i really dont think cub porn is that big a deal if you dont like it just steer clear of it like i do

cub porn drawn by someone and looking at it really isnt hurting anyone 

if it was a real child or animal though then id have some issues


----------



## Slingblade_47 (Apr 7, 2010)

Anepo said:
			
		

> No worries. Mommy raised me up good XD
> But well the law is only as accurate as those who wrote it.
> They can be bent and twisted if they are unclear like this one.
> Which they are made unclear like this on purpose.
> ...


You've got it right on. The libel laws that currently exist in the UK are a very good example of just how bad it can get, because with them it has now reached the pint where the rich and powerful are using this to suppress free speech from some. Drug companies have used this to silence people who have tried to make their side effects and actual benefits clear. Somebody who proved the 'healing powers' of faith healers to be false was repeatedly sued - and that's just the start. Once this law starts being misused, this can only mean disaster. I won't say why because I don't want to give any lawmakers reading this forum any ideas.



			
				Teco said:
			
		

> Those people are stupid. Do we really need child porn? Real or otherwise? Do we? Look me in the eyes and tell me we do. That the art community as a whole wont be better off with it gone. No really go ahead, I want to headbutt some crooked yellowed teeth in, you sick fuck.


If I was running this site, I would immediately have Cub art and Underage put on the list of things that violates the terms of service, and would personally make sure that anyone caught violating this would immediately be banned. But, that's just what I would do. And I think by now the people who have read this topic know my thoughts on it.


----------



## CannonFodder (Apr 7, 2010)

Slingblade_47 said:


> You've got it right on. The libel laws that currently exist in the UK are a very good example of just how bad it can get


Yeah I agree.

Whoever doesn't believe fa will get blocked in the UK cause of this is a fucking idiot.


----------



## Slingblade_47 (Apr 7, 2010)

I'm just glad that an election is being held next month in all honesty. It can only mean disaster if New Labour are allowed to continue their reign.


----------



## DarkOverord (Apr 7, 2010)

Slingblade_47 said:


> You've got it right on. The libel laws that currently exist in the UK are a very good example of just how bad it can get, because with them it has now reached the pint where the rich and powerful are using this to suppress free speech from some. Drug companies have used this to silence people who have tried to make their side effects and actual benefits clear. Somebody who proved the 'healing powers' of faith healers to be false was repeatedly sued - and that's just the start. Once this law starts being misused, this can only mean disaster. I won't say why because I don't want to give any lawmakers reading this forum any ideas.



Aha! One thing I have to say on this is that recently a libel case was overturned in the accused favour. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8598472.stm

But it's correct what you're saying. However, these laws, never seem to the the impact that the media, or fandom in this case, predict. Why? Because they're normally used if they have a reason to pick up a person, not if you go to the site. Also, I bet this sticks around if Conservatives get in.


----------



## Sauvignon (Apr 7, 2010)

DarkOverord said:


> That's what you're missing. The "person showing" will cover anthropomorphics. Read it over.




Not seeing it. 
I ctrl-f "person" and can't find anything defining a "person" for the purposes of this law, which leaves one with the reasonable assumption that a "person" is a human.


----------



## CannonFodder (Apr 7, 2010)

Slingblade_47 said:


> I'm just glad that an election is being held next month in all honesty. It can only mean disaster if New Labour are allowed to continue their reign.


Incumbents have a 10% bias in their favor.


----------



## Ricky (Apr 7, 2010)

DarkOverord said:


> Unless it's feral (Which the UK has another law on if I recall...) then it would have to be visibly a child in some-way, otherwise it wouldn't be a cub correct? The law covers cubs, whether it's liked or not.



Well, no...  The definition of "child" isn't that specific.

It says the impression must be "predominantly of a child" albeit some features may be altered.

It could be interpreted either way.


----------



## CannonFodder (Apr 7, 2010)

Basically cub porn, loli, etc etc is illegal in the UK, putting your fingers in your ears and yelling "fursecution fursecution" won't keep from worrying about dropping the soap.

Also no, arguing that it doesn't hurt anyone doesn't make it less illegal.


----------



## SnowFox (Apr 7, 2010)

I thought this was already the law anyway. Still, it's pretty fucked up. The whole thing is pretty much based on emotion, I don't see how it can possibly serve any useful purpose at all. It's not protecting children and it's not going to stop the real pedophiles from being pedophiles. It's like prosecuting someone because they "might" commit an actual crime.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Apr 7, 2010)

CannonFodder said:


> Basically cub porn, loli, etc etc is illegal in the UK, putting your fingers in your ears and yelling "fursecution fursecution" won't keep from worrying about dropping the soap.
> 
> Also no, arguing that it doesn't hurt anyone doesn't make it less illegal.


 You know, people's posts in this thread might turn out to be a great prediction of who's getting busted later!


----------



## CannonFodder (Apr 7, 2010)

Kit H. Ruppell said:


> You know, people's posts in this thread might turn out to be a great prediction of who's getting busted later!


You know I never thought of it that way, let's start betting on first one going to prison.


----------



## DarkOverord (Apr 7, 2010)

Ricky said:


> Well, no...  The definition of "child" isn't that specific.
> 
> It says the impression must be "predominantly of a child" albeit some features may be altered.
> 
> It could be interpreted either way.





Sauvignon said:


> Not seeing it.
> I ctrl-f "person" and can't find anything defining a "person" for the purposes of this law, which leaves one with the reasonable assumption that a "person" is a human.


Ricky's got it in one, because it isn't defined, but is ambiguous enough to be used how the police see fit, if the "character" is shown to be a CHILD, regardless of how fluffy and cute they are, they'll use it.

But as I said. Being blown way out of proportion.

Regardless of whether you like it (and are British) or not doesn't change the meaning, it's illegal now.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Apr 7, 2010)

This could _all_  have been avoided if we weren't so horrifyingly tolerant of everything under the sun!


----------



## AshleyAshes (Apr 7, 2010)

Sauvignon said:


> Yeah, England. The law is weak, though. I see things about imaginary children having sex with animals, but I see nothing about imaginary animals having sex with animals.


 
Would someone want to tell me how talking a human and covering it fur, relocating it's ears, giving it a take and mangeling it's skull makes furries no longer 'people'?

Furry characters are bipedal, have opposable thumbs, have breasts when humans are the only mammal on the planet that has breasts when not pregnant or nursing, wear pants, communicate with an evolved verbal and written language and sit on the couch eating pizza while playing Nintendo...  They're funny shaped humans at best and anyone who thinks otherwise is kidding themselves.


----------



## CannonFodder (Apr 7, 2010)

Kit H. Ruppell said:


> This could _all_  have been avoided if we weren't so horrifyingly tolerant of everything under the sun!


Isn't necro still allowed too?


----------



## Redregon (Apr 7, 2010)

Sauvignon said:


> Not seeing it.
> I ctrl-f "person" and can't find anything defining a "person" for the purposes of this law, which leaves one with the reasonable assumption that a "person" is a human.



or a person could be a toaster oven with arms, legs and a face. assuming that the lawmakers would inject terminology just to satisfy a bunch of furries is rather idiotic. 

and further, what is the root of furry? anthropomorphics. what is at the root of anthropomorphics? ascribing *human *characteristics to non-human beings.

if you want to split hairs, by all means go for it. remember, however, that splitting hairs doesn't solve anything in the end, it just makes all involved look like nittering buffoons.


----------



## Ben (Apr 7, 2010)

Wait, I just realized something. Considering FA requires you sign up and turn on adult artwork to even see cub porn, how would the authorities even know that FA hosts cub porn? Considering how unlikely it is that a law official would create an account on FA, I'm now thinking there isn't any reason to believe that FA would be blacklisted in the UK, Australia, or anywhere.


----------



## SnowFox (Apr 7, 2010)

Ben said:


> Wait, I just realized something. Considering FA requires you sign up and turn on adult artwork to even see cub porn, how would the authorities even know that FA hosts cub porn? Considering how unlikely it is that a law official would create an account on FA, I'm now thinking there isn't any reason to believe that FA would be blacklisted in the UK, Australia, or anywhere.



Maybe they could google "cub porn fur affinity" and get 2834203485623785 results from this forum discussing cub porn on the main site


----------



## Redregon (Apr 7, 2010)

Ben said:


> Wait, I just realized something. Considering FA requires you sign up and turn on adult artwork to even see cub porn, how would the authorities even know that FA hosts cub porn? Considering how unlikely it is that a law official would create an account on FA, I'm now thinking there isn't any reason to believe that FA would be blacklisted in the UK, Australia, or anywhere.



it never occoured to you that furries can sometimes be petty enough to rat out users because they thought it would be fun/vindicating/great-justice/payback-of-some-sort?

hell, i'm sure even the good ol chaps in Anon would love to tackle this since they seem to hate cub-porn just as much (if not moreso) than the average furry... or maybe that's just because they sustain themselves on distilled hate. (nutritious, delicious hate. :9)


----------



## CannonFodder (Apr 7, 2010)

Redregon said:


> it never occoured to you that furries can sometimes be petty enough to rat out users because they thought it would be fun/vindicating/great-justice/payback-of-some-sort?
> 
> hell, i'm sure even the good ol chaps in Anon would love to tackle this since they seem to hate cub-porn just as much (if not moreso) than the average furry... or maybe that's just because they sustain themselves on distilled hate. (nutritious, delicious hate. :9)


Shit they'd fucking destroy the fandom with this.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Apr 7, 2010)

CannonFodder said:


> Shit they'd fucking destroy the fandom with this.


 The cancer was allowed to spread too far, and its removal has become a daunting task.


----------



## AshleyAshes (Apr 7, 2010)

Ben said:


> Wait, I just realized something. Considering FA requires you sign up and turn on adult artwork to even see cub porn, how would the authorities even know that FA hosts cub porn? Considering how unlikely it is that a law official would create an account on FA, I'm now thinking there isn't any reason to believe that FA would be blacklisted in the UK, Australia, or anywhere.


 

It only took a few furries to email the hotel and get Foxmass cancled.

Do you SERIOUSLY believe there isn't a shit storm of pissed off furries with various motivations not ready right now to email the British government and tell them EXACTLY how to get to FA's cub porn?


----------



## Redregon (Apr 7, 2010)

CannonFodder said:


> Shit they'd fucking destroy the fandom with this.



quite true. hell, when they're motivated to team up under a common banner, they can achieve damn near anything.


----------



## Artificial Ginger (Apr 7, 2010)

*Re: FA Illegal In The UK*



Rekhit said:


> Yesterday in the UK a law came into affect that makes it illegal to view artwork depicting those under the age of 18 in sexual situations. This would include cub porn on furry sites, this one included.
> 
> Basically, any one in the UK found viewing or accessing sites with these images will be prosecuted and mostly fined, imprisoned and put on the sex offenders list for life.
> 
> ...


If UK furs don't know how to use proxies, good riddance =V


----------



## Dragoneer (Apr 7, 2010)

As posted on my journal, we're aware of the issues and investigating them. I don't see any reason for panic at this time.


----------



## Anepo (Apr 7, 2010)

Teco said:


> Fucking good, somebody is actually smart and LOOK, its not America. Fucking British accented Christ.
> 
> Sure, people are going to say, Oh its not hurting anyone. Or... its my right or freedom too, the man is putting me down!
> 
> Those people are stupid. Do we really need child porn? Real or otherwise? Do we? Look me in the eyes and tell me we do. That the art community as a whole wont be better off with it gone. No really go ahead, I want to headbutt some crooked yellowed teeth in, you sick fuck.



You sir are an example of an ignorant American. Thank you for putting more shame on the american public.
There is enough of people like you already.
Thank you also for the discriminative remarks about crooked yellow teeth which i expect you to be referring to england has they have been the jokes about teeth in american movies since the dawn of americas existance.

Do not forget that rape is just as sick as child porn.
Only furries dont seem to be able to realize that.
And do you americans really all need a gun? It kinda defeats the point of being able to protect yourselfs. It is much easier if everyone had knifes to protect themselfs than guns.
Atleast with knifes you get more time to either get away or to attack the intruder.

Give everyone the same weapon and they will be no more safe than if they all had the same knifes or just fists.
What do you think of vore and scat? You think thats hot or rape?
If so then i must say that you must be sick as well =p


----------



## SnowFox (Apr 7, 2010)

Thinking about it, even if FA did ban cub porn would it make any difference? Surely you'd have great difficulty mass deleting it all, you can't necessarily rely on the users to remove it all since not everyone with cub porn in their gallery is likely to be aware/care or even still be active on the site. 
Would the fact that the site used to host it or still potentially hosts it be enough to be blacklisted?


----------



## CannonFodder (Apr 7, 2010)

Kit H. Ruppell said:


> The cancer was allowed to spread too far, and its removal has become a daunting task.


All it would take to utterly destroy the fandom right now is for someone to call the cops in the UK and go, "hey this website has child porn on it" and bam "to catch a furry"


----------



## StainMcGorver (Apr 7, 2010)

Dragoneer said:


> As posted on my journal, we're aware of the issues and investigating them. I don't see any reason for panic at this time.


IGNORE HIM
PANIC!

No, what we should do is start a big flame war.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Apr 7, 2010)

Anepo said:


> Do not forget that rape is just as sick as child porn.
> Only furries dont seem to be able to realize that.


 
Speak for yourself.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Apr 7, 2010)

SnowFox said:


> Thinking about it, even if FA did ban cub porn would it make any difference? Surely you'd have great difficulty mass deleting it all, you can't necessarily rely on the users to remove it all since not everyone with cub porn in their gallery is likely to be aware/care or even still be active on the site.
> Would the fact that the site used to host it or still potentially hosts it be enough to be blacklisted?


 I can name a couple big ones.


----------



## CannonFodder (Apr 7, 2010)

StainMcGorver said:


> IGNORE HIM
> PANIC!


Yeah I'd hate to agree, but this is time to panic, next comes screaming "oh my god! the end is neigh(for the fandom)"


----------



## Teco (Apr 7, 2010)

Dragoneer said:


> As posted on my journal, we're aware of the issues and investigating them. I don't see any reason for panic at this time.



Just ban it on here too. Do we really need it? Really. Is that one freedom we want?


----------



## CannonFodder (Apr 7, 2010)

Everybody forward
http://www.furteantimes.com/r/135_cartoon_law_comes_into_effect_effectively_bans_minor_furry_pornography_in_the_uk
to everyone you know in the fandom :V

But yeah this is a big fucking deal.


----------



## Anepo (Apr 7, 2010)

Redregon said:


> it never occoured to you that furries can sometimes be petty enough to rat out users because they thought it would be fun/vindicating/great-justice/payback-of-some-sort?
> 
> hell, i'm sure even the good ol chaps in Anon would love to tackle this since they seem to hate cub-porn just as much (if not moreso) than the average furry... or maybe that's just because they sustain themselves on distilled hate. (nutritious, delicious hate. :9)



Those who report others and stuff like that for revenge/payback and so on are usually underage or basicly really really stupid kids.
That should not be here anyway.
And honestly i have seen many people like this here on FA.
Some even manage to fuck up relationships.
All i am going to say is it seems a large amount of the fandom is considered by me legally retarded. Or illegally ignorant/stupid/dumb.
Seen more bullshit than george bush could ever start or make up.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Apr 7, 2010)

Teco said:


> Just ban it on here too. Do we really need it? Really. Is that one freedom we want?


 The fandom's primary means of communication deserves a better death than brutal murder at the grimy hands of boundless tolerance.


----------



## Anepo (Apr 7, 2010)

Kit H. Ruppell said:


> Speak for yourself.


So you approve of people being raped. but not child porn?
In the end child porn IS rape. real childporn that is.
You sir seem to be the sick one here.
I am not for nor against cub art.
but i am against child porn and rape.
Seems a lot of people here in the fandom think RAPE is okay but cub art is not. Don't get me started on vore or scat. You would be best described as the latter.


----------



## StainMcGorver (Apr 7, 2010)

Anepo said:


> Those who report others and stuff like that for revenge/payback and so on are usually underage


So now you're discriminating against underage users as you try to 'protect them' by keeping your precious cub porn?!
Being underage myself, I am offended, my good sir.


----------



## CannonFodder (Apr 7, 2010)

Fifty dollars says the first person thrown in jail is a furry, any takers?


----------



## Anepo (Apr 7, 2010)

Kit H. Ruppell said:


> I can name a couple big ones.


Then perhaps you would be willing to enlighten us instead of just saying "yes"?


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Apr 7, 2010)

Anepo said:


> So you approve of people being raped. but not child porn?
> In the end child porn IS rape. real childporn that is.
> You sir seem to be the sick one here.
> I am not for nor against cub art.
> ...


No, I was talking about your "nobody cares but me" generalization about what furs do and do not like. Also, are you even READING my other posts?


----------



## Artificial Ginger (Apr 7, 2010)

I didn't see any replies to this, but it's wise and I might've missed 'em.



SnowFox said:


> I thought this was already the law anyway. Still, it's pretty fucked up. The whole thing is pretty much based on emotion, I don't see how it can possibly serve any useful purpose at all. It's not protecting children and it's not going to stop the real pedophiles from being pedophiles. It's like prosecuting someone because they "might" commit an actual crime.


If anything, it makes actual children _less_ safe by diverting resources toward fighting cartoon porn and away from catching actual predators =/

EDIT: Also, gb2 school and re-learn English, Anepo >.>


----------



## Anepo (Apr 7, 2010)

Kit H. Ruppell said:


> I can name a couple big ones.





StainMcGorver said:


> So now you're discriminating against underage users as you try to 'protect them' by keeping your precious cub porn?!
> Being underage myself, I am offended, my good sir.



As far as i can tell there is an AGE limit here for the mature filter. ANd it seems you violate that term and do have the filter disabled.
ANd i have said MANY times that i am neither against nor nor cub porn.
You may well be offended if you wish.
But i am not the one breaking the RULES of furaffinity by having a disabled filter as you now have proven.

And i never said i was trying to discriminate. We were all underage once.
Your so called logic that i am discriminating against kids is illogical.


----------



## Redregon (Apr 7, 2010)

Teco said:


> Just ban it on here too. Do we really need it? Really. Is that one freedom we want?



no and no. this site does not need to rely on the small percentage of cub-porn drawing artists and such. there are even sites that are built to cater specifically to that subset of the fandom. 

keeping it on here was (As i understand) an attempt to please people because of the whole "freedom of expression" argument. i've been critical when the whole "vote" came up those years back because opening it up to a vote was completely unnessessary since, well, this site is not nor will it ever be a true democracy. it has always been and always will be the property of one man (whose name is on the bills for the equipment and the hosting facility where said equipment resides.) if this law came to the US, the only thing i'd be concerned for is Dragoneer's ass being the communal bicycle if he were sent to prison (cause, well, this site is technically his computer and all images could be considered "his")

granted, the whole vote issue was flawed to begin with... it targeted the entire cub scene and didn't specify between cub art and cub porn. if it was only the cub porn scene, chances are this site would have been cub-porn free since 2005ish.

the fandom will survive if one site decides to remove one subset of a sort that the majority predominantly hate... and usually with a passion. we have to remember, this site is not the fandom, it is only one site.


----------



## Artificial Ginger (Apr 7, 2010)

In that case, go back to Vulcan, Anepo. You are clearly violating the Prime Directive.


----------



## Anepo (Apr 7, 2010)

Artificial Ginger said:


> I didn't see any replies to this, but it's wise and I might've missed 'em.
> 
> 
> If anything, it makes actual children _less_ safe by diverting resources toward fighting cartoon porn and away from catching actual predators =/
> ...



Indeed quite well stated. And excuse me Ginger but we are not all native in english. My country is NOT an country that has english as it's native tongue.
There is no need to complain at me for not writing english 100%.
Learn MY language and let's see how well you do in that.
Then you may complain and bitch all you want.
if you learn my country's language better than me.


----------



## StainMcGorver (Apr 7, 2010)

Anepo said:


> Words


...What?
Firstly, it was a joke.
Secondly, what the fuck?


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Apr 7, 2010)

Artificial Ginger said:


> In that case, go back to Vulcan, Anepo. You are clearly violating the Prime Directive.


 He knows nothing of logic *eyebrow raise*


----------



## Anepo (Apr 7, 2010)

Artificial Ginger said:


> In that case, go back to Vulcan, Anepo. You are clearly violating the Prime Directive.


Are you 5 years old or what? your comments are ridiculous and not helping to adress the issue about what should be done. wether to ban cub art or to have a big portion of the fandom left out.

If you can not comment with anything useful other than hate.
Then you may as well not comment at all.
This kind of humor looks to me like you might as well either be 5 years old or an adult who is legally retarded.


----------



## Anepo (Apr 7, 2010)

StainMcGorver said:


> ...What?
> Firstly, it was a joke.
> Secondly, what the fuck?



I do not see the full quote you put from me.


----------



## Redregon (Apr 7, 2010)

Anepo said:


> Are you 5 years old or what? your comments are ridiculous and not helping to adress the issue about what should be done. wether to ban cub art or to have a big portion of the fandom left out.
> 
> If you can not comment with anything useful other than hate.
> Then you may as well not comment at all.



assuming that cub porn constitutes a "big portion" of the fandom is a fallacy of logic. it is one small slice of an already targeted subset of the fandom itself. suggesting that cub-porn is Big business is like saying dress shops that cater to the transexual scene is "big business."


----------



## Anepo (Apr 7, 2010)

Kit H. Ruppell said:


> He knows nothing of logic *eyebrow raise*



Please try to keep to the topic itself what is to be done.
Not an immature drama fight. nor hate reply's.


----------



## Artificial Ginger (Apr 7, 2010)

Anepo said:


> Indeed quite well stated. And excuse me Ginger but we are not all native in english. My country is NOT an country that has english as it's native tongue.
> There is no need to complain at me for not writing english 100%.


There is plenty of need. This forum is hosted in a predominantly English-speaking country. _We_ all speak English fluently. _You_ clearly do not understand what _we_ are actually discussing. So, either you weren't taught English very well, or you're just a complete and utter idiot.

Either way, shut the fuck up, get the fuck out, and have a nice day! =D

EDIT: By the way: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Apr 7, 2010)

Anepo said:


> Are you 5 years old or what? your comments are ridiculous and not helping to adress the issue about what should be done. wether to ban cub art or to have a big portion of the fandom left out.
> 
> If you can not comment with anything useful other than hate.
> Then you may as well not comment at all.
> This kind of humor looks to me like you might as well either be 5 years old or an adult who is legally retarded.


 Oh, sure. As if "C'mon guys, play nice please. Can't we all just get along?" is the most helpful thing ever said!


----------



## StainMcGorver (Apr 7, 2010)

Anepo said:


> I do not see the full quote you put from me.


That's because I didn't want to waste valuable space by posting your full quote.
Seriously though. What the fuck? Study English moar


----------



## Anepo (Apr 7, 2010)

Redregon said:


> assuming that cub porn constitutes a "big portion" of the fandom is a fallacy of logic. it is one small slice of an already targeted subset of the fandom itself. suggesting that cub-porn is Big business is like saying dress shops that cater to the transexual scene is "big business."



I did NOT say that.
I said wether to ban cub porn. or to have a big portion of the fandom not being able to be here due to risks of being arrested.
People in the UK are now no longer legally allowed to be on this site due to laws passed.
So there is a large portion of people in the UK which are on FA.
FA is now considered a child pornography site in the UK thanks to the new laws.
Read the topics first post better before you comment. thank you.



Artificial Ginger said:


> There is plenty of need. This forum is hosted in a predominantly English-speaking country. _We_ all speak English fluently. _You_ clearly do not understand what _we_ are actually discussing. So, either you weren't taught English very well, or you're just a complete and utter idiot.
> 
> Either way, shut the fuck up, get the fuck out, and have a nice day! =D
> 
> EDIT: By the way: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek



Dear lord. You seem to be a complete racist. It shows your upbringing.
And if i am an idiot i am no more an idiot than you. Atleast i do have some kind of sense to not use curse words in that way.
And guess what? it is night time. Ever heard of different country's having different timezones? Of course not. your country only teaches english and nothing else.



StainMcGorver said:


> That's because I didn't want to waste valuable space by posting your full quote.
> Seriously though. What the fuck? Study English moar



Thank you but it is not my fault that my country has not its main language as english. Thank you for your racist comment. please may i have another?


----------



## Redregon (Apr 7, 2010)

Anepo said:


> I did NOT say that.
> I said wether to ban cub porn. or to have a big portion of the fandom not being able to be here due to risks of being arrested.
> People in the UK are now no longer legally allowed to be on this site due to laws passed.
> So there is a large portion of people in the UK which are on FA.
> ...



okay, i misinterpreted your comment. doesn't mean you have to get all indignant about it.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Apr 7, 2010)

Anepo said:


> I did NOT say that.
> I said wether to ban cub porn. or to have a big portion of the fandom not being able to be here due to risks of being arrested.


 That is not a difficult decision at all. Also, I can't tell what point you're trying to make anymore.


----------



## Mayonnaise (Apr 7, 2010)

Sauvignon said:


> The law refers only to an image of a "child" or an "imaginary child". The word "child", itself, refers specifically to a humans, or "persons". This law says nothing of furries.


Uhh... furries are not persons? 

Sorry if I got that wrong.


----------



## ArielMT (Apr 7, 2010)

Radio Viewer said:


> Uhh... furries are not persons?
> 
> Sorry if I got that wrong.



Furries as in the anthropomorphic animal subjects of various arts, not furries as in the people who are fans of such.


----------



## spartan117ak (Apr 7, 2010)

I say this simply without bothering to read the walls of text...

FA should ban cub art plain and simple. It's not censorship, it's illegal and many could argue it's wrong. Having to have your porn be under the legal limit for fetish reasons is not really something that holds up well for me. Why should I have to respect a fetish like that? And if your going to point out the irony of me being a furry myself and having people judge me... Well let them judge me, I AM a sick fuck. At least I am not a sick fuck that is into something illegal. 

That is all. I am trying to be as objective as possible without looking hateful. It's just, well... The rules now right? Being a law abiding citizen should not be hateful. :U


----------



## Redregon (Apr 7, 2010)

ArielMT said:


> Furries as in the anthropomorphic animal subjects of various arts, not furries as in the people who are fans of such.



i'll buy that argument when people stop referring to pictures of their characters as "ME" or other terms that mean the same level of personal attachment.


----------



## Sauvignon (Apr 7, 2010)

Radio Viewer said:


> Uhh... furries are not persons?
> 
> Sorry if I got that wrong.



In this case, "furries" refers to the fantasy animal characters - not the people who created them. 
People are animals, but not all animals are people. In fact, the only animals that are people, are people. 
A fantasy fox/wolf/dragon/tiger that walks on two legs and has opposable thumbs is still a fantasy fox/wolf/dragon/tiger that walks on two legs and has opposable thumbs. It is not a fantasy person, and not a person. 

People who write laws are either idiots, or smart enough to write the laws loosely enough to give the courts the leeway to interpret whatever the hell they feel like interpreting based on their political agendas.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Apr 7, 2010)

spartan117ak said:


> I say this simply without bothering to read the walls of text...
> 
> FA should ban cub art plain and simple. It's not censorship, it's illegal and many could argue it's wrong. Having to have your porn be under the legal limit for fetish reasons is not really something that holds up well for me. Why should I have to respect a fetish like that? And if your going to point out the irony of me being a furry myself and having people judge me... Well let them judge me, I AM a sick fuck. At least I am not a sick fuck that is into something illegal.
> 
> That is all. I am trying to be as objective as possible without looking hateful. It's just, well... The rules now right? Being a law abiding citizen should not be hateful. :U


 Unfortunately, it seems there are a great many who would rather see the destruction of the entire fandom than have their precious paraphilia questioned.


----------



## Artificial Ginger (Apr 7, 2010)

Anepo said:


> Dear lord. You seem to be a complete racist. It shows your upbringing.


Icelandic isn't a race. You're as white as I am. Deal with it.



> And if i am an idiot i am no more an idiot than you. Atleast i do have some kind of sense to not use curse words in that way.


I rarely swear. Here's what just happened to you.


> And guess what? it is night time.


That's not a valid excuse at all, since _you're_ the one who decided he was awake enough to be arguing with us in the first place.



> Ever heard of different country's having different timezones?


Of course. Your time zone's GMT, give or take an hour, right?



> Of course not. your country only teaches english and nothing else.


Actually, pretty much all of our public schools offer Spanish courses as well. I can't help it if nobody here cares about Iceland. Maybe if y'all started immigrating here _en masse_ we'd change our tunes, but until then, go soak your head.


----------



## Mayonnaise (Apr 7, 2010)

ArielMT said:


> Furries as in the anthropomorphic animal subjects of various arts, not furries as in the people who are fans of such.


But the characters... they have this "personhood" attached to them.


----------



## Riyeko (Apr 7, 2010)

I hate to say that I agree with this.
I do believe that FA needs to ban the cub porn. 
Its just a "legal" way of pedophiles to look at porn of kids. 

It also states in there that lolicon (which i believe to be nasty) is going to be in trouble as well.
Some of the situations ive glanced over (when visiting 4chan), are very violent and very. nasty and disgusting.

*shrug*

I have kids. Laws outlawing people looking at them in a perverted way, or looking at drawings of children in sexual poses, is something im all for.


----------



## Teco (Apr 7, 2010)

CannonFodder said:


> Fifty dollars says the first person thrown in jail is a furry, any takers?


 I'll take that bet.



Redregon said:


> the fandom will survive if one site decides to remove one subset of a sort that the majority predominantly hate... and usually with a passion. we have to remember, this site is not the fandom, it is only one site.


 It wont just survive, it'll fucking flourish. Get these fuckers out, we dont need them, its bad enough we got people using fursuits just for sex, but thats going to be a given, we dont need to cater to child motherfucking porn. Also, this site isn't the fandom but it, to me, seems like a big part of its communication. Just let the child fuckers make their own site.



Radio Viewer said:


> Uhh... furries are not persons?
> 
> Sorry if I got that wrong.


  *MOTHER FUCKING HEAD BUTT* I really wanted to headbutt someone...
Thats not the fucking point, you got it horribly wrong. Porn is porn. Child Porn, is Child Porn. Furries have human quality anyway, so in a way you're wrong there.


----------



## ArielMT (Apr 7, 2010)

Redregon said:


> i'll buy that argument when people stop referring to pictures of their characters as "ME" or other terms that mean the same level of personal attachment.



Well, crap.


----------



## Redregon (Apr 7, 2010)

is it just me, or does every thread that mentions wether cub-porn should be banned or not turn into an epic thread? i've got :5bux: that this thread will lengthen drastically in the time it takes for me to get some sleep tonight (Assuming it's not locked by then.)

still, however this law stands, so far there are some grey areas that are up for interpretation. thing that strikes me as rather entertaining is that there are a bajillion armchair lawyers that put in their biased two cents trying to define where those grey areas actually are. 

(what? does that mean I'm suggesting that i'm also biased? hellz yes i am and i freely admit it. don't like it? tough noogums.)


----------



## StainMcGorver (Apr 7, 2010)

Anepo said:


> Thank you but it is not my fault that my country has not its main language as english. Thank you for your racist comment. please may i have another?


Yeah, yew prabablee caan't unndur staned mi win I tak lik thiz


----------



## DarkOverord (Apr 7, 2010)

CannonFodder said:


> Everybody forward
> http://www.furteantimes.com/r/135_cartoon_law_comes_into_effect_effectively_bans_minor_furry_pornography_in_the_uk
> to everyone you know in the fandom :V
> 
> But yeah this is a big fucking deal.



Ah that'll be the law I mentioned earlier, and a reason why I think people are over-reacting :B


----------



## Smelge (Apr 7, 2010)

Actually, reporting this site to the cops IS a valid solution.

If suddenly the traffic from the UK disappears completely, something will need to be done about it straight away.


----------



## Teco (Apr 7, 2010)

Voidrunners said:


> Actually, reporting this site to the cops IS a valid solution.
> 
> If suddenly the traffic from the UK disappears completely, something will need to be done about it straight away.




Do it.


----------



## Sauvignon (Apr 7, 2010)

DarkOverord said:


> Ah that'll be the law I mentioned earlier, and a reason why I think people are over-reacting :B



As mentioned in those comments, nobody can prove the age of a fantasy character, unless the artist specifically states it. The law vaguely tries to cover that, but fails because it only applies itself to depictions of humans.


----------



## Artificial Ginger (Apr 7, 2010)

Teco said:


> I'll take that bet.
> 
> It wont just survive, it'll fucking flourish. Get these fuckers out, we dont need them, its bad enough we got people using fursuits just for sex, but thats going to be a given, we dont need to cater to child motherfucking porn. Also, this site isn't the fandom but it, to me, seems like a big part of its communication. Just let the child fuckers make their own site.
> 
> ...


And you're completely wrong because pictures are not the same thing as photographs.

Look. Do you get up in arms over animal cruelty just because some movie shows a dog getting blown to bits, even though it's just special effects and the dog was never actually hurt? No? Then why get so bent out of shape over cartoon kids?

Go headbutt the refrigerator. It's the only thing dumber than your reasoning.


----------



## Smelge (Apr 7, 2010)

Artificial Ginger said:


> Look. Do you get up in arms over animal cruelty just because some movie shows a dog getting blown to bits, even though it's just special effects and the dog was never actually hurt? No? Then why get so bent out of shape over cartoon kids?



Because the cartoon dog isn't usually used for sexual gratification (USUALLY. Damn furries). The drawing of the 3 year old getting rammed up the arse with a 7 foot fluffy manmeat truncheon is a sexual depiction.


----------



## Sauvignon (Apr 7, 2010)

Voidrunners said:


> Because the cartoon dog isn't usually used for sexual gratification (USUALLY. Damn furries). The drawing of the 3 year old getting rammed up the arse with a 7 foot fluffy manmeat truncheon is a sexual depiction.



A 3-year-old would be 21 in dog years.


----------



## Artificial Ginger (Apr 7, 2010)

Voidrunners said:


> Because the cartoon dog isn't usually used for sexual gratification



I didn't say a _cartoon_ dog. And whether or not something's used for sexual gratification really shouldn't be considered before whether or not that something is a _real living being_.


----------



## Mayonnaise (Apr 7, 2010)

Teco said:


> *MOTHER FUCKING HEAD BUTT* I really wanted to headbutt someone...
> Thats not the fucking point, you got it horribly wrong. Porn is porn. Child Porn, is Child Porn. Furries have human quality anyway, so in a way you're wrong there.


I'm sorry for my stupidity. Don't hurt yourself...


----------



## Redregon (Apr 7, 2010)

Teco said:


> It wont just survive, it'll fucking flourish. Get these fuckers out, we dont need them, its bad enough we got people using fursuits just for sex, but thats going to be a given, we dont need to cater to child motherfucking porn. Also, this site isn't the fandom but it, to me, seems like a big part of its communication. Just let the child fuckers make their own site.



oh, they have their own site... hell, they have quite a few.

but, thing is, they don't want to stick to those sites alone because they frequently feel this need to declare to the world what they are and what they do. it's almost like the whole "Fuck you i'm a dragon" idea except it's "fuck you, i like to piss and shit in diapers and i get off sexually to it." that plus the folly of the cub is typically a set of woefully underdeveloped social skills. that's not an absolute (i've had some decent discussions with some cubs that didn't devolve into "now, can you change my nappy?") but it is a common trend. 

i guess that's what you get when you have people that willingly want to be treated like a baby, sooner or later their social skills start to pattern after the behavior they feel is correct in those situations. the uglyness comes in when their adult impulses start to overlap and the sexual drives that they have (what with them being human and all) start to become perverted and twisted to enmesh themselves into the fantasies they derive so much emotional pleasure/release with.

yeah, i've done my research into it. at the very core of the AB scene, it actually is rather innocuous (if not odd) but it's when that drive becomes sexualized (and it always does) that the icky stuff creeps in.


----------



## Teco (Apr 7, 2010)

Artificial Ginger said:


> And you're completely wrong because pictures are not the same thing as photographs.
> 
> Look. Do you get up in arms over animal cruelty just because some movie shows a dog getting blown to bits, even though it's just special effects and the dog was never actually hurt? No? Then why get so bent out of shape over cartoon kids?
> 
> Go headbutt the refrigerator. It's the only thing dumber than your reasoning.




Not all movies have dogs getting blown the fuck up, I'm pretty sure they'll blow up a human before a dog if they want. Besides explosions are entertainment. Movies are entertainment. Porn is sexual.

Think of it this way. Humanity. Which way do you want it to go, even more down the shitter or get rid of something we really dont need. We dont need this. We dont. If it went away the only people who would care are the people who get off at looking a child porn. Those are the only people, pedos. Pedos. Pedos motherfucking pedos. When do we can about pedos and their need to jack it to children/cubs.

Humanity would be better with this issue gone. Dont fucking deny it.

Also come here so I can fuck you. 

Your logic.  
(dogs getting blown up)
A dog runs across a street and interrupts a shot from an RPG headed towards the hero of the story. Death is almost instant as the dog is blown to pieces, sending blood and flaming organs and bits of flesh through the air, colliding with the ground lastly with a sickly splatter.

(Cartoon Kids... you made that sound so harmless too, good job)
...actually I'll probably got in trouble if I make a scenario. So I'll put it bluntly.

Confused-undressed-violated-a memory that stick with them their entire life. OH MURR. SO HAWT. oh and lets not forget the people who like snuff and all that. .... beheaded, face fucked, amputated hips violated....  

Do we really need that. Do we? Do we?



Radio Viewer said:


> I'm sorry for my supidity. Don't hurt  yourself...


No amount of pain will make it not worth it.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Apr 7, 2010)

Teco said:


> Not all movies have dogs getting blown the fuck up, I'm pretty sure they'll blow up a human before a dog if they want. Besides explosions are entertainment. Movies are entertainment. Porn is sexual.
> 
> Think of it this way. Humanity. Which way do you want it to go, even more down the shitter or get rid of something we really dont need. We dont need this. We dont. If it went away the only people who would care are the people who get off at looking a child porn. Those are the only people, pedos. Pedos. Pedos motherfucking pedos. When do we can about pedos and their need to jack it to children/cubs.
> 
> ...


 Plus, the more freakish losers we banish, the better our reputation becomes!


----------



## StainMcGorver (Apr 7, 2010)

Sauvignon said:


> A 3-year-old would be 21 in dog years.


It looks three, it acts three, it wears diaper, IT MUST BE TWENTY-ONE


----------



## Redregon (Apr 7, 2010)

Teco said:


> Confused-undressed-violated-a memory that stick with them their entire life. OH MURR. SO HAWT.



... this... this line is so very unpleasant. to be fair, you've hit on some of the points that makes this such a damning subject for some.


----------



## Sauvignon (Apr 7, 2010)

StainMcGorver said:


> It looks three, it acts three, it wears diaper, IT MUST BE TWENTY-ONE



This law should not affect fantasy animal characters; as written, it applies to a "person", which is a human being by most all legal definitions. Do you think a fantasy cartoon animal with some human-like qualities should legally be considered a "person" when even a human fetus isn't defined a "person"?


----------



## Artificial Ginger (Apr 7, 2010)

Teco said:


> Not all movies have dogs getting blown the fuck up, I'm pretty sure they'll blow up a human before a dog if they want.


That is completely irrelevant.



> Besides explosions are entertainment. Movies are entertainment. Porn is sexual.


Oh, so you subscribe to that old "sex is worse than violence" fallacy?



> Think of it this way. Humanity. Which way do you want it to go, even more down the shitter or get rid of something we really dont need.


People who rant and shriek about humanity's decline have _always_ been more harmful to humanity than the people they complain about. 



> We dont need this. We dont.


We don't need this site, either. If you want to get technical, we don't _need_ the Internet itself.

You know what humanity _really_ doesn't need? People who can't differentiate between fiction and reality. You know, folks like you.



> If it went away the only people who would care are the people who get off at looking a child porn. Those are the only people, pedos. Pedos. Pedos motherfucking pedos. When do we can about pedos and their need to jack it to children/cubs.
> 
> Humanity would be better with this issue gone. Dont fucking deny it.


I deny it.



> Also come here so I can fuck you.


I don't think Rosie Palms would like you cheating on her.



> Your logic.
> (dogs getting blown up)
> A dog runs across a street and interrupts a shot from an RPG headed towards the hero of the story. Death is almost instant as the dog is blown to pieces, sending blood and flaming organs and bits of flesh through the air, colliding with the ground lastly with a sickly splatter.


Yes--but that's just a _movie._ That's _not_ real life. In real life, the dog is _perfectly fine._ Do you understand the difference?

Probably not. Let me make this more clear: Have you ever seen that thing in the credits where it says "No animals were harmed in the making of this film"? Do you know _why_ they put it there? To keep people like you from going on the warpath over animal cruelty.

Just shut up. You are an idiot.



> Confused-undressed-violated-a memory that stick with them their entire life. OH MURR. SO HAWT. oh and lets not forget the people who like snuff and all that. .... beheaded, face fucked, amputated hips violated....
> 
> Do we really need that. Do we? Do we?


Wow, I didn't realize fictional characters were so emotionally fragile! It's almost like their creators can't just decide they _aren't_ going to suffer the same psychological trauma as real kids over what happens or something!

Oh, wait, it's nothing like that at all. You're just blowing smoke out of your butt because you don't know how to think critically, and instead take social mores at face value.

There's an ugly name for people like you, but I don't feel like using it on a furry forum. It might convey the wrong message.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Apr 7, 2010)

Artificial Ginger said:


> Oh, so you subscribe to that old "sex is worse than violence" fallacy?


 That actually makes me happy!


----------



## Browder (Apr 7, 2010)

Sauvignon said:


> This law should not affect fantasy animal characters; as written, it applies to a "person", which is a human being by most all legal definitions. Do you think a fantasy cartoon animal with some human-like qualities should legally be considered a "person" when even a human fetus isn't defined a "person"?



Depends on how you define 'person'. If you mean it to mean 'human' than yeah the law doesn't have weight, but that's not really what 'person' means. If something has sapience and agency than it's a person. 

The reason the distinction was never made in law was because in reality there aren't any other people besides humans.


----------



## StainMcGorver (Apr 7, 2010)

Sauvignon said:


> This law should not affect fantasy animal characters; as written, it applies to a "person", which is a human being by most all legal definitions. Do you think a fantasy cartoon animal with some human-like qualities should legally be considered a "person" when even a human fetus isn't defined a "person"?


It affects people with inhuman qualities, i.e., furries.
Congratulations, you've brought up another controversial topic. I'm assuming you're a Republican Conservative?


----------



## Artificial Ginger (Apr 7, 2010)

Kit H. Ruppell said:


> That actually makes me happy!



How so?


----------



## Redregon (Apr 7, 2010)

Sauvignon said:


> This law should not affect fantasy animal characters; as written, it applies to a "person", which is a human being by most all legal definitions. Do you think a fantasy cartoon animal with some human-like qualities should legally be considered a "person" when even a human fetus isn't defined a "person"?



you're cherry picking again. stop it, bad doggie, no cookie *wields a newspaper menacingly.*


----------



## Dog_Fox (Apr 7, 2010)

OK I'll be honest I'm not a fan of cub art and would prefer to see it removed from FA all together.
 But short of doing that, would the FA admin be able to make it the art tagged babyfur be blocked from UK ip address?
 At least that way we won't lost all our UK friends.


----------



## StainMcGorver (Apr 7, 2010)

Dog_Fox said:


> OK I'll be honest I'm not a fan of cub art and would prefer to see it removed from FA all together.
> But short of doing that, would the FA admin be able to make it the art tagged babyfur be blocked from UK ip address?
> At least that way we won't lost all our UK friends.


I'm thinking that all submissions with "Cub" and "Babyfur" in the tags or category, set as mature or adult should be auto-wiped or something, rather than having a British IP block a tag like that.
Though it would take a shit-ton of coding from a code-ninja to make both happen, but the first seems more simple.


----------



## Sauvignon (Apr 7, 2010)

StainMcGorver said:


> It affects people with inhuman qualities, i.e., furries.
> Congratulations, you've brought up another controversial topic. I'm assuming your a Republican Conservative?



People with inhuman qualities
-------------A made up line----------------
Animals with human qualties

Irrelevant, because the law does not state, "inhuman".
It says:

_"...the impression conveyed by the image is that the person shown is a child, or

the predominant impression conveyed is that the person shown is a child despite the fact that some of the physical characteristics shown are not those of a child."_

Putting aside that "impressions" are entirely subjective (this is intentionally vague so the courts can prosecute whomever they feel like at the time), 

It is possible that "characterstics...not those of a child" could be applied to animal characteristics, however the law still defines the image in question as "a person", which is legally a human being as far as I know. I am not an English lawyer, though, so I am open to more information if you have anything to contribute other than your stupid opinions.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Apr 7, 2010)

Artificial Ginger said:


> How so?


 Because violence _is_ worse than sex, and I _am _tired of people thinking the opposite.


----------



## Browder (Apr 7, 2010)

Kit H. Ruppell said:


> Because violence _is_ worse than sex, and I _am _tired of people thinking the opposite.



How very un-American of you.


----------



## Corto (Apr 7, 2010)

I honest to God want the staff to keep allowing pedo-fur images here only to see some UK user use the line "but your honor, I'm no pedophile because those are baby dogs fucking!" in a serious context.


----------



## Artificial Ginger (Apr 7, 2010)

Corto said:


> I honest to God want the staff to keep allowing pedo-fur images here only to see some UK user use the line "but your honor, I'm no pedophile because those are baby dogs fucking!" in a serious context.


I like the way you think, sir.
...can this thread be locked now, pretty please? =3



Kit H. Ruppell said:


> Because violence _is_ worse than sex, and I _am _tired of people thinking the opposite.


I'm sincerely glad we agree on at least some facet of this debate =3


----------



## StainMcGorver (Apr 7, 2010)

Sauvignon said:


> Words


Suddenly, I don't want to argue with you anymore. Cubs can pull the Bestiality card all they want, but yeah, it's probably not gonna work in court. They'll be like, "GTFO, you sick fuck." and put you in prison.

Thanks for calling me stupid, though. It makes me warm and fuzzy inside when I think that I was the mature one, and refrained from insulting you.



Corto said:


> I honest to God want the staff to keep allowing pedo-fur images here only to see some UK user use the line "but your honor, I'm no pedophile because those are baby dogs fucking!" in a serious context.


THIS.


----------



## Slingblade_47 (Apr 7, 2010)

If I might be frank, I would be glad to see the back of all of the Underage and Cub art that is hosted here. It should never have been allowed in the first place and it shouldn't be allowed on this site now.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Apr 7, 2010)

Artificial Ginger said:


> I'm sincerely glad we agree on at least some facet of this debate =3


 I can barely tell what's been going on through the whole thread.


----------



## Redregon (Apr 7, 2010)

Corto said:


> I honest to God want the staff to keep allowing pedo-fur images here only to see some UK user use the line "but your honor, I'm no pedophile because those are baby dogs fucking!" in a serious context.



^This


----------



## Teco (Apr 7, 2010)

Redregon said:


> ... this... this line is so very much unpleasant to me. damn, and i was doing so well what with all these triggers around.


 Sorry bout that. Where exactly do you stand in this?



Sauvignon said:


> This law should not affect fantasy animal characters; as written, it applies to a "person", which is a human being by most all legal definitions. Do you think a fantasy cartoon animal with some human-like qualities should legally be considered a "person" when even a human fetus isn't defined a "person"?


 Yes, It should. Yes it should.



Artificial Ginger said:


> That is completely irrelevant.
> 
> 
> Oh, so you subscribe to that old "sex is worse than violence" fallacy?
> ...



No it is, people would frown on a dog being blown up, because its just a dog. Atleast mindlessly blown up, like a film of dogs being blown up. If things are going to mindlessly blow up they'll use a human instead. A fully grown human, usually evil ones too.

Child rape and porn is worse than them both.

Oh yeah, that's right, stupid fuckers themselves who do nothing for humanity that do this do. People who complain and act on it do better the world. 

No, we dont. We dont need this site, we dont need art in itself, it really doesn't do anything for us. Its only appealing. What exactly is child porn? Appealing to some and disgusting to most? I think that puts it in the red.

Obviously

Who?

And you rather have someone in real life taking an image in his or her mind of a child being violated/killed/what have you and sit there and draw it with a smile on their face and show the world what they have created!
And then there's people who will join them and they'll feel accepted, maybe they'll even take it to real life... heard the one about the two gay furries wanting to bite off the one's father's dick and violate him after killing him? No? I have. Guess where it started.

I'm glad thats in the credits, I'd frown on the movie if I learned they intentionally killed animals for the movie. I think anyone would.

No, you shut up.

No, but people will get off on the fact that an artificial personality is undergoing this, make a fantasy out of it. 

Think critically? Really? You need to think critically to decide weather or not there should be child porn real or not. Oh ho ok. Slap a helmet on me and call me Bobby.

Do it, faggot. Do your worse. Cause frankly I'm not scared at all or moved in my resolve.


----------



## Sauvignon (Apr 7, 2010)

StainMcGorver said:


> Suddenly, I don't want to argue with you anymore. Cubs can pull the Bestiality card all they want, but yeah, it's probably not gonna work in court. They'll be like, "GTFO, you sick fuck." and put you in prison.
> 
> Thanks for calling me stupid, though. It makes me warm and fuzzy inside when I think that I was the mature one, and refrained from insulting you.



Thanks for calling me Republican.
Obviously, you just wanted to bitch and had no desire to enter into any kind of logical legal conversation, so I'm sorry for wasting my time.


----------



## Artificial Ginger (Apr 7, 2010)

Kit H. Ruppell said:


> I can barely tell what's been going on through the whole thread.



Judging from cub porn being on that stickied list of dead-horse topics, I'm going to guess it's the same thing that's been going on in every other cub porn thread ever posted here =/


----------



## StainMcGorver (Apr 7, 2010)

Sauvignon said:


> Thanks for calling me Republican.
> Obviously, you just wanted to bitch and had no desire to enter into any kind of logical legal conversation, so I'm sorry for wasting my time.


You're welcome. 
And, well, I wanted to have a logical discussion with you, but after you ended up bringing fetuses into this argument, I decided that it was better to not waste my time trying to change your mind (I doubt you ever would), and possibly, derail this thread.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Apr 7, 2010)

The thread seems to be losing coherence! Quick, somebody derail it for good!


----------



## Corto (Apr 7, 2010)

Yeah I'll lock this on the grounds of no one here being able to form a coherent thought. 

If any of the other mods/admins/demigods think iit deserves to be reopened or whatever feel free.

Ok scratch that, people should be able to discuss smarter things than "oh no my dad doesnt accept me being turned on by Mickey Mouse" on this forum. Try not to kill eachother.


----------



## Artificial Ginger (Apr 7, 2010)

Teco said:


> No it is, people would frown on a dog being blown up, because its just a dog. Atleast mindlessly blown up, like a film of dogs being blown up. If things are going to mindlessly blow up they'll use a human instead. A fully grown human, usually evil ones too.
> 
> Child rape and porn is worse than them both.
> 
> ...


"It's not art until someone gets mad."



> Who?


Google it.



> And you rather have someone in real life taking an image in his or her mind of a child being violated/killed/what have you and sit there and draw it with a smile on their face and show the world what they have created!


Yeah, pretty much. Every hour they spend drawing that stuff is one less hour they can spend doing it.



> And then there's people who will join them and they'll feel accepted, maybe they'll even take it to real life...


Slippery-slope fallacy = automatic failure.



> heard the one about the two gay furries wanting to bite off the one's father's dick and violate him after killing him? No? I have. Guess where it started.


Odds are very, very good that that kid was messed up before he even became a furry. He, like you, didn't understand the difference between reality and fantasy.



> I'm glad thats in the credits, I'd frown on the movie if I learned they intentionally killed animals for the movie. I think anyone would.


Yes--and _I_ would frown on people actually using _real children_ for things of this nature. _But they aren't real._



> No, but people will get off on the fact that an artificial personality is undergoing this, make a fantasy out of it.


And your point is?



> Think critically? Really? You need to think critically to decide weather or not there should be child porn real or not.


I've already thought about it. You, on the other hand, are simply assuming what everyone says is bad is actually bad.

_Real_ child porn is bad because it hurts _real children._
_Fake_ child porn, at worst, only hurts _fake children._

Unless fiction has the same value as reality, they are in no way comparable. 

Stop trying to claim that just because you can't smack the snake to something it's morally untenable--because that's pretty much all this boils down to.

And if you won't do that, at least go write "Child molestation is illegal, pedophilia is not." 350 times. Repeat until you've gotten that fact into your thick head.



> Do it, faggot. Do your worse. Cause frankly I'm not scared at all or moved in my resolve.


That's not surprising in the least. You'd have to be thinking more than is necessary to just scream "RAWR ALL PEDOS ARE EEEVUL" before anything I say could affect you.

And if you can't figure out what the name actually is on your own, you're every bit as dumb as I thought and then some~


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Apr 7, 2010)

FICK!


----------



## Artificial Ginger (Apr 7, 2010)

Corto, didn't you lock this thread?

Who unlocked it? D=


----------



## Corto (Apr 7, 2010)

Kit H. Ruppell said:


> FICK!


Yeah just as a lil' warning I'll try this new technique called "when a thread is derailed on purpose, instead of locking the thread I'll delete all of the off-topic replies and infract the people who made them"


----------



## Ricky (Apr 7, 2010)

Teco said:


> And then there's people who will join them and they'll feel accepted, maybe they'll even take it to real life... heard the one about the two gay furries wanting to bite off the one's father's dick and violate him after killing him? No? I have. Guess where it started.



[yt]MCO1d9PsjGk[/yt]


----------



## Artificial Ginger (Apr 7, 2010)

Corto said:


> Yeah just as a lil' warning I'll try this new technique called "when a thread is derailed on purpose, instead of locking the thread I'll delete all of the off-topic replies and infract the people who made them"


But since this thread is just playing out the same way all the other ones did (as far as I know) and nobody can post anything coherent, why not just lock it now? =/


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Apr 7, 2010)

Corto said:


> Yeah just as a lil' warning I'll try this new technique called "when a thread is derailed on purpose, instead of locking the thread I'll delete all of the off-topic replies and infract the people who made them"


 Good thing nobody has done that yet. _I_ said what I did because I could see the thread was already dying.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Apr 7, 2010)

Artificial Ginger said:


> But since this thread is just playing out the same way all the other ones did (as far as I know) and nobody can post anything coherent, why not just lock it now? =/


 ^Also this^


----------



## Redregon (Apr 7, 2010)

Teco said:


> Sorry bout that. Where exactly do you stand in this?



long story boiled down to me losing my virginity unwillingly and way too early.

so as much as i try to stay cool headed, i will admit that this particular issue holds a little space in my black heart. as in, i would like nothing better than to see all the pedo's tossed in jail (or shot... or maybe castrated/nullified/mutilated on live pay-per-view TV.) but, i at the least understand that that is based purely in emotion and history and not in logic or rationality... which, is why i try to keep a cool head amidst this whole dramastorm.

but, sometimes a few things will slip through and it brings up some rather unpleasant memories. i'm just glad i don't have anything important to do tonight or i'd probably be in the middle of an anxiety attack. 

protip, a lot of molested children tend to develop symptoms of PTSD/CPTSD later in life or other anxiety related disorders... some of the lucky ones are able to deal with it, some of the not-so-lucky ones, well, it can cause signifigant damage to their psyche to the point where they are unable to function in society, hold down a job, have meaningful relationships... or turn to severe substance abuse and even increased risk of suicide.

if you want a good portrayal of a childhood rape survivor in a movie, watch "Mystic River." that movie made me go batty for a couple days because the portrayal was fucking spot on.


----------



## Corto (Apr 7, 2010)

Artificial Ginger said:


> But since this thread is just playing out the same way all the other ones did (as far as I know) and nobody can post anything coherent, why not just lock it now? =/


Because as much as I'm disgusted at seeing the same repetitive arguments being used over and over again, I prefer to believe that users deserve the chance to post something intelligent every once in a while. This forum shouldn't just be to post the bazillionth "what would you do if you woke up with a tail" thread. There's the slim chance one of you actually has something to learn from discussing this, or maybe someone has a new interesting argument. They should get the chance to talk about it.


Also next person that thinks "the thread is dying anyway so I'll post inane shit" gets an infraction the size of the maryana trenches. If you think the thread deserves, or is about to die, then* dont fucking post in it. *


----------



## GraemeLion (Apr 7, 2010)

I don't think the cub porn is covered by this law, having just read it. 

You'll have a hell of a time proving fictional characters with no age baseline are under the age of consent in the UK. 

Humans, of course, are easy to find a baseline for.  We have photos and six billion or so of us are walking around.

But you tell me that a cub character drawn of myself is really a cub?  How do you know?   I could say that I'm 31 (and I am  ) and the picture is me simply regressed physically alone.  

You have no proof otherwise as it's simply fictitious.  Maybe lions from the planet Tihathax age backwards as compared to how we age here?  

No.. I don't think that it's as cut and dry as people think.


----------



## ADF (Apr 7, 2010)

Despite what people may think of these changes, I am glad.

I don't care what you choose to wank to in the privacy of your own home, however I do care if I can continue to use FurAffinity or not. If FurAffinity became recognised as a pedo site; myself and many others wouldn't have been able to visit here any more.

It's between losing a few flavours of wank material or losing all UK members and then some.

I'm glad they took the sane option.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Apr 7, 2010)

GraemeLion said:


> I don't think the cub porn is covered by this law, having just read it.
> 
> You'll have a hell of a time proving fictional characters with no age baseline are under the age of consent in the UK.
> 
> ...


 I've thought about that. I usually like to just go by the artist's personal description of the image. Sort of like that annoyingly repetitive "is (...) furry" question: Only if the artist says so.


----------



## GraemeLion (Apr 7, 2010)

Kit H. Ruppell said:


> I've thought about that. I usually like to just go by the artist's personal description of the image. Sort of like that annoyingly repetitive "is (...) furry" question: Only if the artist says so.



See.. it comes down to a very simple fact. 

In the UK , it's a parliamentary government.  They're based off a series of rules for operating the government entity, but almost everything else requires definition.  That's why they had to define "obscene", "pornographic", and "child."

They also have a definition (elsewhere), for person.

And a child, by this definition in this law HAS to be a person.  A person, has to be a human.   A dog can't be considered a person.  A dog-human hybrid can't be considered a person.  A corporation over there can't be considered a person  

That's where it falls apart.  That's why it likely won't cover Furries.  If the INTENT was to cover furries, then they wouldn't have used the word "person."


----------



## Artificial Ginger (Apr 7, 2010)

GraemeLion said:


> See.. it comes down to a very simple fact.
> 
> In the UK , it's a parliamentary government.  They're based off a series of rules for operating the government entity, but almost everything else requires definition.  That's why they had to define "obscene", "pornographic", and "child."
> 
> ...



What's to stop them from expanding the definition?


----------



## GraemeLion (Apr 7, 2010)

Artificial Ginger said:


> What's to stop them from expanding the definition?



Nothing.

But that's the law now.  And if they expand it, it might indeed cover FA.

But right now, I bet it doesn't.


----------



## Teco (Apr 7, 2010)

Artificial Ginger said:


> *Yeah, pretty much. Every hour they spend drawing that stuff is one less hour they can spend doing it.
> 
> Real* * child porn is bad because it hurts real children.
> Fake* * child porn, at worst, only hurts fake children.
> ...



In bold; How is any of that at all acceptable?? In actual human society, how is any of that acceptable. If you were standing in front of me, preaching this shit, I would beat the shit out of you. If I had a child, I would probably give you concrete shoes. And by your words, if the people who are drawing it, stopped to draw it, all of them would turn to fucking little kids instead.

Italics; Not as much value in reality, but fiction has some value to it, religion derives from fiction after all. What you're defending is the value of children, real or fiction, being used by real people for sexual satisfaction. And I'm wrong? If all I did was draw murder, portray my 'inner self' as a murderer and got off at it AND made it public... i'd probably be sent to get mental help, which is what these people need. 

All pedos are PEDOS. Since when is that ever accepted ANYWHERE. Oh right, here! And the rest of the internet until now, now baw somemore.

I can see reality from fiction, but I can still use my fucking brain to tell right from wrong. Im not going to go see a movie about an actor playing a child gets kidnapped and raped and walk out all happy and tell everyone about it and expect them to be like, "Oh! I wanted to see that, cause its awesome, because its FAKE, otherwise I wouldn't." But its still child porn.

I dont know what the fuck you could possibly use to insult me just because its a furry forum. Sorry, I cant see that bit of logic... what am I? A Furrrcuker? A murrtherfucker? Just fucking say the one of many fucking insults you could use, or does your *6 year old, boy with emphasis on him being gay and wearing girly clothing(like skirts to show off his cute little boi butt, huh? HUH?Im right ain't I.), *inner you not want to say it cause its a BAD BAD WORD AND MOMMY WOULD GET MAD, RRRRR. 




ADF said:


> Despite what people may think of these changes, I am glad.
> 
> I don't care what you choose to wank to in the privacy of your own home, however I do care if I can continue to use FurAffinity or not. If FurAffinity became recognised as a pedo site; myself and many others wouldn't have been able to visit here any more.
> 
> ...


 yes, exactly, its WANK MATERIAL, just get rid of it, now the whole UK thing is solved and we can just have regular cute kid art instead of PORN. Where is the problem in that? One site stops. The pedos have to move to a different site, well shit.


----------



## AshleyAshes (Apr 7, 2010)

GraemeLion said:


> A corporation over there can't be considered a person


 
Actually the Companies Act of 2006 clearly states that companies are legally reguarded as 'persons'.


----------



## GraemeLion (Apr 7, 2010)

AshleyAshes said:


> Actually the Companies Act of 2006 clearly states that companies are legally reguarded as 'persons'.



Wow.

Okay, that was more a slam at the US's recent court case.

So what does a cub porn drawing of Lloyd's look like *snickers*


----------



## CannonFodder (Apr 7, 2010)

Artificial Ginger said:


> Judging from cub porn being on that stickied list of dead-horse topics, I'm going to guess it's the same thing that's been going on in every other cub porn thread ever posted here =/


Lemme sum up every cub porn thread ever
fandom: "GET RID OF THIS SICK SHIT!*raeg*"
fur into cub porn: "It's not real it's not hurting anyone, cry, baw, fursecution"


Ricky said:


> [yt]MCO1d9PsjGk[/yt]


I agree, but Penn and Teller really really need to go back to magic tricks.


GraemeLion said:


> Nothing.
> 
> But that's the law now.  And if they expand it, it might indeed cover FA.
> 
> But right now, I bet it doesn't.


Right now it does, the UK furs are committing felonies right now because they're accessing fa which does have cub porn, which is covered by the law stating that now it is illegal...
So congrats all you UK furs are now felons.


----------



## GraemeLion (Apr 7, 2010)

CannonFodder said:


> Lemme sum up every cub porn thread ever
> fandom: "GET RID OF THIS SICK SHIT!*raeg*"
> fur into cub porn: "It's not real it's not hurting anyone, cry, baw, fursecution"
> 
> ...



PERSONS.

That means humans.  Or apparently corporations.

What's on FA can't legally be defined as children in the UK.  If it is, it's got to go anyway per the new AUP.


----------



## CannonFodder (Apr 7, 2010)

GraemeLion said:


> PERSONS.
> 
> That means humans.  Or apparently corporations.
> 
> What's on FA can't legally be defined as children in the UK.  If it is, it's got to go anyway per the new AUP.


Nice try, it's illegal all the same, you can argue all you want it's still illegal.


----------



## GraemeLion (Apr 7, 2010)

CannonFodder said:


> Nice try, it's illegal all the same, you can argue all you want it's illegal now.



Nope  

It's not a nice try.  It's the law.  Not illegal, because fictional non-humans can't be persons ,ever, under UK law.

When they omit the word "person" and replace it with "element" or "character", then it'll be different.

But now, it's not.  So there.  Legal.  Deal.

And clearly FA thinks so as well.  And they have lawyers and stuff.


----------



## Redregon (Apr 7, 2010)

GraemeLion said:


> Nope
> 
> It's not a nice try.  It's the law.  Not illegal, because fictional non-humans can't be persons ,ever, under UK law.
> 
> ...



and are you a fully recognized lawyer/barrister in the UK's courts? if not, where are you getting your information?

if you're so adamant that you're right, please have the courtesy to show something to prove your position.


----------



## CannonFodder (Apr 7, 2010)

GraemeLion said:


> Nope
> 
> It's not a nice try.  It's the law.  Not illegal, because fictional non-humans can't be persons ,ever, under UK law.
> 
> ...


Even covers drawing and that even nekos, furries etc, it's still illegal, don't believe me go up to a cop in the UK and show them cub porn and see if you get 20 years.


----------



## GraemeLion (Apr 7, 2010)

Redregon said:


> and are you a fully recognized lawyer/barrister in the UK's courts? if not, where are you getting your information?
> 
> if you're so adamant that you're right, please have the courtesy to show something to prove your position.



Well, I've written one to ask, but it's 2 AM there  

I can point you to the actual text of the law, and you'd have to dig to find the definition of "person" in the criminal / legal sense in the UK.  It's parliamentary, so it's a bit more complicated than the US.  There's no real base constitution that their laws form from.


----------



## Sauvignon (Apr 7, 2010)

GraemeLion said:


> Nope
> 
> It's not a nice try.  It's the law.  Not illegal, because fictional non-humans can't be persons ,ever, under UK law.
> 
> ...



I agree, and I think they will have a very hard time passing a law that puts an age restriction on fantasy art characters, because fantasy characters are inherently impossible to define with an age unless the artist specifically states it.


----------



## GraemeLion (Apr 7, 2010)

CannonFodder said:


> Even covers drawing and that even nekos, furries etc, it's still illegal, don't believe me go up to a cop in the UK and show them cub porn and see if you get 20 years.



I know cops in the UK that DRAW cub porn


----------



## CannonFodder (Apr 7, 2010)

GraemeLion said:


> I know cops in the UK that DRAW cub porn


How do _you _know?


----------



## FatalSyndrome (Apr 7, 2010)

Kit H. Ruppell said:


> This could _all_  have been avoided if we weren't so horrifyingly tolerant of everything under the sun!



Never has a statement been more true. Agreed.

Ugh. This oughta teach FA a lesson in not allowing everything to be posted on the site. "Artistic freedom" my ass, drawing cub porn isn't artistic freedom and there should be a limit on what's "freedom" and what's just plain disgusting and wrong.

Maybe if they'd banned the cub shit, we wouldn't have this problem.


----------



## CannonFodder (Apr 7, 2010)

You know I just thought of something have a poll of
"ban cub?"
Y/N


*edit*
It honestly would not surprise me at all if the first person to go to jail cause of this would be a furry.


----------



## FatalSyndrome (Apr 7, 2010)

GraemeLion said:


> I don't think the cub porn is covered by this law, having just read it.
> 
> You'll have a hell of a time proving fictional characters with no age baseline are under the age of consent in the UK.
> 
> ...



Fictional or not, it's still a minor in the image. That's what makes it disgusting. Bring up an excuse you like, but it's still wrong. Even if you are 31 IRL... actually that makes it even more wrong...


----------



## CannonFodder (Apr 7, 2010)

FatalSyndrome said:


> Even if you are 31 IRL... actually that makes it even more wrong...


Am I the only one that GraemeLion is down right creeping out?


----------



## GraemeLion (Apr 7, 2010)

FatalSyndrome said:


> Never has a statement been more true. Agreed.
> 
> Ugh. This oughta teach FA a lesson in not allowing everything to be posted on the site. "Artistic freedom" my ass, drawing cub porn isn't artistic freedom and there should be a limit on what's "freedom" and what's just plain disgusting and wrong.
> 
> Maybe if they'd banned the cub shit, we wouldn't have this problem.



Putting a limit on freedom when that freedom isn't hurting anyone whatsoever kinda destroys the word "freedom."

If they banned the cub shit, there would be a newer, different problem that people would be blaming all of furry's ills on.  The cub shit is just convenient, and is an easy scapegoat.


----------



## GraemeLion (Apr 7, 2010)

CannonFodder said:


> Am I the only one that GraemeLion is down right creeping out?



Why?  Because i'm against thoughtcrime?

I personally am not a fan of cubporn.

But I'm also not a fan of sending people to prison for thinking.   I'd rather people go to jail for actually DOING something wrong.


----------



## Redregon (Apr 7, 2010)

CannonFodder said:


> You know I just thought of something have a poll of
> "ban cub?"
> Y/N



might not work as well... see, if you target all the cubs, they will band together in spite.

just go after the cub-porn specifically, i know a couple cubs that hate the shit (cause it's not what being a cub is about as they've described it to me. apparently the core trend of the cub phenomena is about embracing and reliving one's childhood. not nessessarily about being fucked while wearing a used diaper.) and if i can find a small amount, given that i'm not active in their midst, chances are there are more.

divide and conquer, as they say.


----------



## pickledance (Apr 7, 2010)

oh, this thread again... How original and unique...


----------



## FatalSyndrome (Apr 7, 2010)

GraemeLion said:


> Why?  Because i'm against thoughtcrime?
> 
> I personally am not a fan of cubporn.
> 
> But I'm also not a fan of sending people to prison for thinking.   I'd rather people go to jail for actually DOING something wrong.



They are doing something wrong, they're fapping to children being fucked publically. I don't care what they think privately, but this isn't private. It's posted on the internet therefore making it public.

So no, they're not just "thinking".


----------



## CannonFodder (Apr 7, 2010)

Redregon said:


> might not work as well... see, if you target all the cubs, they will band together in spite.
> 
> just go after the cub-porn specifically, i know a couple cubs that hate the shit (cause it's not what being a cub is about as they've described it to me. apparently the core trend of the cub phenomena is about embracing and reliving one's childhood. not nessessarily about being fucked while wearing a used diaper.) and if i can find a small amount, given that i'm not active in their midst, chances are there are more.
> 
> divide and conquer, as they say.


Actually the term for clean cub is babyfur, very few babyfurs are actually into it, I used to hate them all but even babyfurs hate cub porn.
That's pathetic when the sick fucks can't even find acceptance within their own subgroup.

Furs into cub, furries hate you, everyone hates you, babyfurs hate you, so leave cause we're just going to keep tearing you apart and no saying, "well if you don't like it leave" will not work it will just make the fandom despise your very existence even more.


----------



## GraemeLion (Apr 7, 2010)

FatalSyndrome said:


> They are doing something wrong, they're fapping to children being fucked publically. I don't care what they think privately, but this isn't private. It's posted on the internet therefore making it public.
> 
> So no, they're not just "thinking".



No, they are just thinking.  Nobody forces you to look at it .  

And I see people fapping to rape and murder on FA too.  Should that be outlawed as well, or is it "different?"

And vore.  Vore is killing.  

It's thoughtcrime.  Completely victimless.  The law stands even if you draw it for yourself in a diary.


----------



## GraemeLion (Apr 7, 2010)

CannonFodder said:


> Actually the term for clean cub is babyfur, very few babyfurs are actually into it, I used to hate them all but even babyfurs hate cub porn.
> That's pathetic when the sick fucks can't even find acceptance within their own subgroup.
> 
> Furs into cub, furries hate you, everyone hates you, babyfurs hate you, so leave cause we're just going to keep tearing you apart and no saying, "well if you don't like it leave" will not work it will just make the fandom despise your very existence even more.



Given that I _am_ a babyfur, you're incorrect.

Many, many babyfurs are into the cubporn.


----------



## CannonFodder (Apr 7, 2010)

Oh hey look anon has joined the party, wazup dude?


----------



## Sauvignon (Apr 7, 2010)

GraemeLion said:


> Why?  Because i'm against thoughtcrime?
> 
> I personally am not a fan of cubporn.
> 
> But I'm also not a fan of sending people to prison for thinking.   I'd rather people go to jail for actually DOING something wrong.



Thoughtcrimes! Look out!

There are many things that may in poor taste that  should never be subject to a law.

Examine why is it cub porn may or may not be morally wrong.

Does it hurt the people who create or enjoy it?: Does it encourage a behavior to the point where they will potentially seek out real child pornography and harm real children?

or

Does it benefit society?: Does satisfy a need and prevent them from potentially seeking out real child pornography?

I don't know the answers, but I don't think people's entire lives should be ruined because they enjoy some silly fantasy characters.


----------



## Teco (Apr 7, 2010)

FatalSyndrome said:


> Never has a statement been more true. Agreed.
> 
> Ugh. This oughta teach FA a lesson in not allowing everything to be posted on the site. "Artistic freedom" my ass, drawing cub porn isn't artistic freedom and there should be a limit on what's "freedom" and what's just plain disgusting and wrong.
> 
> Maybe if they'd banned the cub shit, we wouldn't have this problem.


 


CannonFodder said:


> You know I just thought of something have a poll of
> "ban cub?"
> Y/N
> 
> ...


 


CannonFodder said:


> Am I the only one that GraemeLion is down right creeping out?


 
I love you both.
A vote would be awesome, you know it would. Even if it was for shits and giggles.

And yes, GraemeLion is creepy as fuck. So is Ginger.


----------



## CannonFodder (Apr 7, 2010)

Sauvignon said:


> Thoughtcrimes! Look out!
> 
> There are many things that may in poor taste that  should never be subject to a law.
> 
> ...


I know a real simple quick answer
cub porn: it's for sick fucks


----------



## CannonFodder (Apr 7, 2010)

Teco said:


> And yes, GraemeLion is creepy as fuck. So is Ginger.


Honestly I'd be worried if any kids lived in his neighborhood, seriously 31 and into cub?  W T FUCK?


----------



## GraemeLion (Apr 7, 2010)

Teco said:


> I love you both.
> A vote would be awesome, you know it would. Even if it was for shits and giggles.
> 
> And yes, GraemeLion is creepy as fuck. So is Ginger.



What part of "I'm against Cub porn" don't you idiots get, really?


----------



## GraemeLion (Apr 7, 2010)

CannonFodder said:


> Honestly I'd be worried if any kids lived in his neighborhood, seriously 31 and into cub?  W T FUCK?



Um.

Not into cub.  Thanks.  And reported.


----------



## Sauvignon (Apr 7, 2010)

CannonFodder said:


> I know a real simple quick answer
> cub porn: it's for sick fucks



Sharks in top hats are sick.


----------



## CannonFodder (Apr 7, 2010)

GraemeLion said:


> Um.
> 
> Not into cub.  Thanks.  And reported.


K sorry dude, just sounded like you were into it.


----------



## GraemeLion (Apr 7, 2010)

CannonFodder said:


> K sorry dude, just sounded like you were into it.



Nope.

I'm just against governments making laws about people having fake kiddie porn when not doing shit about priests who've been fucking kids for 20 years.


----------



## CannonFodder (Apr 7, 2010)

GraemeLion said:


> Nope.
> 
> I'm just against governments making laws about people having fake kiddie porn when not doing shit about priests who've been fucking kids for 20 years.


Dude the pope has diplomatic immunity, not sure what people could do against him.


----------



## CannonFodder (Apr 7, 2010)

Sauvignon said:


> Sharks in top hats are sick.


Sharks are hot.


----------



## Sauvignon (Apr 7, 2010)

GraemeLion said:


> Nope.
> 
> I'm just against governments making laws about people having fake kiddie porn when not doing shit about priests who've been fucking kids for 20 years.




Good call.
And someone who draws/looks at fantasy animals should not be charged with the same crime as someone who actually fucks with kids.


----------



## GraemeLion (Apr 7, 2010)

CannonFodder said:


> Dude the pope has diplomatic immunity, not sure what people could do against him.



There are priests in the UK who've done it.  And it's been covered up.

As for the pope. *shrugs* The age of consent in the Vatican is 12.


----------



## CannonFodder (Apr 7, 2010)

GraemeLion said:


> As for the pope. *shrugs* The age of consent in the Vatican is 12.


GAH, I did not need to know that.


----------



## Corto (Apr 7, 2010)

Sauvignon said:


> I agree, and I think they will have a very hard time passing a law that puts an age restriction on fantasy art characters, because fantasy characters are inherently impossible to define with an age unless the artist specifically states it.



Let me give you an example.
I've never played Disgaea but I know these characters are it's protagonists or something like that. Now, I'm not very sure if this is true but I think that, in-story, that little redhead girl is like a thousand years old. Now draw porn of her being fucked by a normal adult-looking male and tell me it doesn't look like pedophilia. From the image itself you can infer the age of the character. Do you know what the duck test is? It's the one that says if you draw something and it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck and everyone recognizes it as a duck, then it will be considered a duck no matter how much you argue it's actually a very bizarre looking goose.

Replace "duck" with "underage individual", "quacks" with "is being sexually molested and/or raped" (remember, no consent for minors) and "goose" with "midget" and that's your whole argument thrown out of the window.


----------



## CannonFodder (Apr 7, 2010)

Corto said:


> Let me give you an example.
> I've never played Disgaea but I know these characters are it's protagonists or something like that. Now, I'm not very sure if this is true but I think that, in-story, that little redhead girl is like a thousand years old. Now draw porn of her being fucked by a normal adult-looking male and tell me it doesn't look like pedophilia. From the image itself you can infer the age of the character. Do you know what the duck test is? It's the one that says if you draw something and it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck and everyone recognizes it as a duck, then it will be considered a duck no matter how much you argue it's actually a very bizarre looking goose.
> 
> Replace "duck" with "underage individual", "quacks" with "is being sexually molested and/or raped" (remember, no consent for minors) and "goose" with "midget" and that's your whole argument thrown out of the window.


[/thread]


----------



## Corto (Apr 7, 2010)

I just wanted to use the term "midget" in a serious argument.


----------



## CannonFodder (Apr 7, 2010)

Corto said:


> I just wanted to use the term "midget" in a serious argument.


Did you know midget porn stars get paid twice as much?


----------



## Teco (Apr 7, 2010)

GraemeLion said:


> Um.
> 
> Not into cub. Thanks. And reported.


Yeah man, he stated he's not into CUB porn...dont know about human child porn but yeah know. ....*punched* :V



GraemeLion said:


> There are priests in the UK who've done it. And it's been covered up.
> 
> As for the pope. *shrugs* The age of consent in the Vatican is 12.


 


CannonFodder said:


> GAH, I did not need to know that.


 I didn't need to know that either, why the fuck do you know that? Why mention it when people already think you're creepy?! Jesus Fuck.


----------



## Corto (Apr 7, 2010)

Also, the next person to acuse another user of being a pedophile or something personal like that gets infracted unless they have some way to prove it (like, say, a copy of the police report after they arrested said user). Those are heavy terms and are not to be used as insults. 
Please don't personally insult each other. Completely destroying their point of view is ok, attacking the poster is not. That's basic debating rules.


----------



## Redregon (Apr 7, 2010)

GraemeLion said:


> No, they are just thinking.  Nobody forces you to look at it .
> 
> And I see people fapping to rape and murder on FA too.  Should that be outlawed as well, or is it "different?"
> 
> ...



it's only thoughtcrime if no action is taken... 

fapping is action. hell, it's an action that releases pleasureable chemicals in the brain which if you've ever bothered to understand the underlying drives behind addiction, you'd realize that if someone is actively fapping to the stuff and (basically) getting high off the feelings, it's only a matter of time before the fix they get with only fapping won't be enough. 

for example, how long can you go without jerking off or having any sexual contact whatsoever? i would be willing to bet that you wouldn't make it a week before you think "gee, i'd really like to" and a month before you find yourself touching yourself down there. 

that is the same basic pattern you see in any sort of addict.

and i take offence at there being no "Victims" to this sort of stuff. i take it very personally that you think that this shit is perfectly harmless.


----------



## CannonFodder (Apr 7, 2010)

*edit*
read corto nvm


----------



## Corto (Apr 7, 2010)

Do you know this magic website called "google"? Or "wikipedia"?

Seriously though, STICK TO ARGUMENTS. DONT INSULT OR TURN AGAINST OTHER USERS. I already should have infracted some people for insulting other members, I'm trying to be easy going here.


----------



## Shouden (Apr 7, 2010)

okay, first, cub porn isn't necessarily innocent. In fact, one could argue that drawing or viewing cub porn is a prelude or akin to child porn. And there IS a way to view this site and obey the law: you simply go to the settings and turn on the adult and mature content filters. If I were in the UK, this is what I would do. And, most likely, 99.9999999% of people viewing the site in the UK with or without the filters probably won't get in trouble, as it's impossible to track down everyone and there isn't enough room in the prisons for it. So, unless you're actually drawing the stuff or whatever, or get caught with a bunch of it, then I wouldn't worry too much.


----------



## Teco (Apr 7, 2010)

Corto said:


> I just wanted to use the term "midget" in a serious argument.


 With a post like that you can. Hell you could have used the most disgusting term anyone could think of and I'd be like, "You're awesome."


CannonFodder said:


> *edit*
> read corto nvm


 Aha, INB4 sudden change in law. Even though it was a joke. ...kinda. Not really.


----------



## CannonFodder (Apr 7, 2010)

Shouden said:


> okay, first, cub porn isn't necessarily innocent. In fact, one could argue that drawing or viewing cub porn is a prelude or akin to child porn. And there IS a way to view this site and obey the law: you simply go to the settings and turn on the adult and mature content filters. If I were in the UK, this is what I would do. And, most likely, 99.9999999% of people viewing the site in the UK with or without the filters probably won't get in trouble, as it's impossible to track down everyone and there isn't enough room in the prisons for it. So, unless you're actually drawing the stuff or whatever, or get caught with a bunch of it, then I wouldn't worry too much.


Then chances are they're going to go after the artists of cub.


----------



## Sauvignon (Apr 7, 2010)

Corto said:


> Let me give you an example.
> I've never played Disgaea but I know these characters are it's protagonists or something like that. Now, I'm not very sure if this is true but I think that, in-story, that little redhead girl is like a thousand years old. Now draw porn of her being fucked by a normal adult-looking male and tell me it doesn't look like pedophilia. From the image itself you can infer the age of the character. Do you know what the duck test is? It's the one that says if you draw something and it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck and everyone recognizes it as a duck, then it will be considered a duck no matter how much you argue it's actually a very bizarre looking goose.
> 
> Replace "duck" with "underage individual", "quacks" with "is being sexually molested and/or raped" (remember, no consent for minors) and "goose" with "midget" and that's your whole argument thrown out of the window.



There are plenty of mature, adult people that look very young... like those Japanese women. If they look 15, they're 50, but since they look 15 maybe they shouldn't be allowed to be pronstars? 
I know Australia has gone so far as to ban porn actresses who have boobs that are too small, no matter how old they are, just based on the fact that pedophiles like small boobs. That is ridiculous. There are plenty of underage girls with HUGE boobs. I don't like laws.


----------



## Teco (Apr 7, 2010)

Sauvignon said:


> There are plenty of mature, adult people that look very young... like those Japanese women. If they look 15, they're 50, but since they look 15 maybe they shouldn't be allowed to be pronstars?
> I know Australia has gone so far as to ban porn actresses who have boobs that are too small, no matter how old they are, just based on the fact that pedophiles like small boobs. That is ridiculous. There are plenty of underage girls with HUGE boobs. I don't like laws.


 
Its for the greater good.


----------



## CannonFodder (Apr 7, 2010)

Teco said:


> Its for the greater good.


I support breast enlargement surgery for all women :V


----------



## Redregon (Apr 7, 2010)

Sauvignon said:


> There are plenty of mature, adult people that look very young... like those Japanese women. If they look 15, they're 50, but since they look 15 maybe they shouldn't be allowed to be pronstars?
> I know Australia has gone so far as to ban porn actresses who have boobs that are too small, no matter how old they are, just based on the fact that pedophiles like small boobs. That is ridiculous. There are plenty of underage girls with HUGE boobs. I don't like laws.



but, we're not talking about Japan or Austrailia, are we?

no.

keep it on track and no more straw men. okay? okay.


----------



## CannonFodder (Apr 7, 2010)

Redregon said:


> but, we're not talking about Japan or Austrailia, are we?
> 
> no.
> 
> keep it on track and no more straw men. okay? okay.


Actually the small breast thing in Australia wasn't real.


----------



## Teco (Apr 7, 2010)

CannonFodder said:


> I support breast enlargement surgery for all women :V


 
Thats even greater good! Why dont we argue about this? Oh right. Because everyone wants that.


----------



## Ricky (Apr 7, 2010)

Shouden said:


> okay, first, cub porn isn't necessarily innocent. In fact, one could argue that drawing or viewing cub porn is a prelude or akin to child porn. And there IS a way to view this site and obey the law: you simply go to the settings and turn on the adult and mature content filters. If I were in the UK, this is what I would do. And, most likely, 99.9999999% of people viewing the site in the UK with or without the filters probably won't get in trouble, as it's impossible to track down everyone and there isn't enough room in the prisons for it. So, unless you're actually drawing the stuff or whatever, or get caught with a bunch of it, then I wouldn't worry too much.



If this were an ethical debate about cub porn I'd argue that no immoral act was actually committed, regardless of your psychological interpretation which is dubious at the least.  See the video I posted prior to this.

Also, people are not generally arrested for crimes they didn't commit so I agree with you one the second point.  If someone were to download a shitload of cub rape scat whatever porn and save it though (or favorite it) I couldn't say the potential for indictment isn't there.

I doubt the authorities care too much about FA so if someone was charged with that I'd be pretty certain there were other reasons they were under investigation.


----------



## CannonFodder (Apr 7, 2010)

Ricky said:


> I doubt the authorities care too much about FA so if someone was charged with that I'd be pretty certain there were other reasons they were under investigation.


Chances are they'll just nation-wide block FA.


----------



## Corto (Apr 7, 2010)

Sauvignon said:


> There are plenty of mature, adult people that look very young... like those Japanese women. If they look 15, they're 50, but since they look 15 maybe they shouldn't be allowed to be pronstars?
> I know Australia has gone so far as to ban porn actresses who have boobs that are too small, no matter how old they are, just based on the fact that pedophiles like small boobs. That is ridiculous. There are plenty of underage girls with HUGE boobs. I don't like laws.


With ACTUAL LIVING HUMAN BEINGS you can easily check on their age. with FICTIONAL CHARACTERS you must infer the age from the looks. Do you really not understand the difference?

Let me give you another example. If a random artist were to draw a photorealistic despiction of someone you love as a toddler being violently raped in the ass by the artist, would you get angry and/or disgusted? And if the artist said this isn't your loved one, but rather "Xanalaguma, the Destroyer of Worlds" which is a demon that is a million years old and just happens to look like a baby that just happens to look like your loved one, would you suddenly stop being disgusted and say "oh, of course! That changes everything!"?


----------



## Redregon (Apr 7, 2010)

Ricky said:


> If this were an ethical debate about cub porn I'd argue that no immoral act was actually committed, regardless of your psychological interpretation which is dubious at the least.  See the video I posted prior to this.
> 
> Also, people are not generally arrested for crimes they didn't commit so I agree with you one the second point.  If someone were to download a shitload of cub rape scat whatever porn and save it though (or favorite it) I couldn't say the potential for indictment isn't there.
> 
> I doubt the authorities care too much about FA so if someone was charged with that I'd be pretty certain there were other reasons they were under investigation.



well, they might if there was a chance of playing the "Champion of morality" card.

it would also make huge headlines and any politician behind it would score brownie points.

all other crimes being lesser, there's something about it when children are involved that immidiately amp up the emotions.


----------



## CannonFodder (Apr 7, 2010)

Corto said:


> With ACTUAL LIVING HUMAN BEINGS you can easily check on their age. with FICTIONAL CHARACTERS you must infer the age from the looks. Do you really not understand the difference?
> 
> Let me give you another example. If a random artist were to draw a photorealistic despiction of your mother as a toddler being violently raped in the ass by the artist, would you get angry and/or disgusted? And if the artist said this isn't your mother, but rather "Xanalaguma, the Destroyer of Worlds" which is a demon that is a million years old and just happens to look like a baby that just happens to look like your mother, would you suddenly stop being disgusted and say "oh, of course! That changes everything!"?


If someone drew that, I'd mercilessly beat them senseless.


----------



## GraemeLion (Apr 7, 2010)

Yeah, you know, I've been called a pedophile too many times here.

I'm outta this thread.

Good luck with it all, Corto.


----------



## Teco (Apr 7, 2010)

Corto said:


> With ACTUAL LIVING HUMAN BEINGS you can easily check on their age. with FICTIONAL CHARACTERS you must infer the age from the looks. Do you really not understand the difference?
> 
> Let me give you another example. If a random artist were to draw a photorealistic despiction of someone you love as a toddler being violently raped in the ass by the artist, would you get angry and/or disgusted? And if the artist said this isn't your loved one, but rather "Xanalaguma, the Destroyer of Worlds" which is a demon that is a million years old and just happens to look like a baby that just happens to look like your loved one, would you suddenly stop being disgusted and say "oh, of course! That changes everything!"?



*falls to my knees* You end these debates so beautifully... I-I have tears. I was in a deep dark place without logic and then you're like fucking jesus coming out of nowhere, amped on Sunny D or something because its fucking bright now.


----------



## Redregon (Apr 7, 2010)

GraemeLion said:


> Yeah, you know, I've been called a pedophile too many times here.
> 
> I'm outta this thread.
> 
> Good luck with it all, Corto.



you will not be missed.

if only the rest of the cub-porn addicts would follow suit and keep going until they're out of FA.


----------



## CannonFodder (Apr 7, 2010)

Redregon said:


> you will not be missed


Who are we forgetting?


----------



## Sauvignon (Apr 7, 2010)

Teco said:


> Its for the greater good.



What is good is subjective. 

The laws of society generally stem from the concept of property protection; property being one's self and possessions. These are good laws. They keep people from murdering, raping, and stealing.

Laws against child pornography stem mainly from the desire to protect children. This is a good reason, as children need protection until they are mature enough to make their own decisions.

Forgetting the objective reason for child pornography laws, and looking at it subjectively will lead one to believe that the laws exist because child pornography is morally wrong and in poor taste. 

From the subjective angle, you can make the argument that cub porn is wrong for the same reasons. But, from the objective angle, where the law really matters, there are no grounds. There is nobody, and no property to protect from cub porn; there is simply the desire to control other people's lives and keep them from doing something simply because you don't like it. 

The greater good can mean different things to different people. For me, freedom is better than not.


----------



## Ricky (Apr 7, 2010)

Redregon said:


> well, they might if there was a chance of playing the "Champion of morality" card.
> 
> it would also make huge headlines and any politician behind it would score brownie points.
> 
> all other crimes being lesser, there's something about it when children are involved that immidiately amp up the emotions.



It says something about the people >.<



GraemeLion said:


> Yeah, you know, I've been called a pedophile too many times here.
> 
> I'm outta this thread.
> 
> Good luck with it all, Corto.



[yt]CWsJcg-g1pg[/yt]


----------



## Corto (Apr 7, 2010)

Sauvignon said:


> From the subjective angle, you can make the argument that cub porn is wrong for the same reasons. But, from the objective angle, where the law really matters, there are no grounds.


You could argue that "fictional" underage porn helps promote the idea of pedophilia, something that makes a lot of sense and is probably the real argument behind these laws (as opposed to "because it's disgusting")



Sauvignon said:


> The greater good can mean different things to different people. For me, freedom is better than not.


Remember that freedom has it's limits, otherwise it would, simply put, implode. It's the reason I dont have the "freedom" of walking to my neighbours home and call him a sack of shit with a megaphone.


----------



## Sauvignon (Apr 7, 2010)

Corto said:


> With ACTUAL LIVING HUMAN BEINGS you can easily check on their age. with FICTIONAL CHARACTERS you must infer the age from the looks. Do you really not understand the difference?
> 
> Let me give you another example. If a random artist were to draw a photorealistic despiction of someone you love as a toddler being violently raped in the ass by the artist, would you get angry and/or disgusted? And if the artist said this isn't your loved one, but rather "Xanalaguma, the Destroyer of Worlds" which is a demon that is a million years old and just happens to look like a baby that just happens to look like your loved one, would you suddenly stop being disgusted and say "oh, of course! That changes everything!"?



I understand what you're talking about, and I would probably be a bit upset, but don't see legal grounds to prosecute that artist.


----------



## Redregon (Apr 7, 2010)

Corto said:


> You could argue that "fictional" underage porn helps promote the idea of pedophilia, something that makes a lot of sense and is probably the real argument behind these laws (as opposed to "because it's disgusting")
> 
> 
> Remember that freedom has it's limits, otherwise it would, simply put, implode. It's the reason I dont have the "freedom" of walking to my neighbours home and call him a sack of shit with a megaphone.



not to mention that if it's seen as being acceptable, the stigma associated with cub-porn (and by proxy, pedophelia) would have a lesser impact here. and do we really want to have the fandom, in any way, be associated with being accepting of pedophila?

i personally do not. the fandom may be fucked in the head, but i have this idealistic streak that beneath it all, we still know right from wrong (as a collective whole.)


----------



## Teco (Apr 7, 2010)

Sauvignon said:


> What is good is subjective.
> 
> The laws of society generally stem from the concept of property protection; property being one's self and possessions. These are good laws. They keep people from murdering, raping, and stealing.
> 
> ...



But the freedom to look at child porn. ........just. Really? Thats the kind of freedom you want? Child. Porn. I'm not even going to argue it, you cant fight a pedo against child porn.

I hope people who didn't waste their life looking at kiddie porn find the secret of immortality or something and go, "All you did for the 'greater good' was make sure cartoon child porn would continue to be legal, I made the fucking cure for life! Fuck you, and stay away from my kid."

Its for the greater good. Humanity does not need this.


----------



## Corto (Apr 7, 2010)

Sauvignon said:


> I understand what you're talking about, and I would probably be a bit upset, but don't see legal grounds to prosecute that artist.


What about insulting your dignity and honor (I don't know the proper term, that's what it's called on our constitution)? you would have to prove the person in the drawing is your loved one and not a random character. 

Remember, it's photorealistic. Compare it with a picture, it's obvious it's your loved one and not a random baby. Should the judge follow the evidence or simply go by the word of the artist?


----------



## Sauvignon (Apr 7, 2010)

Corto said:


> You could argue that "fictional" underage porn helps promote the idea of pedophilia, something that makes a lot of sense and is probably the real argument behind these laws (as opposed to "because it's disgusting")
> 
> 
> Remember that freedom has it's limits, otherwise it would, simply put, implode. It's the reason I dont have the "freedom" of walking to my neighbours home and call him a sack of shit with a megaphone.



I made the point about potentially encouraging the behavior a pedophile, but in the end, that is a big stretch from fantasy cartoons to hurting real children-- and if they did go that far, absolutely prosecute them to the full extent of the law.

I don't like arguing pro-cub porn; I don't like the stuff, personally. 
If I don't like it, I don't look at it. It hurts nobody. I let it be.
If FA banned it, I wouldn't care either way, but governments should have better things to do.
Let it be.


----------



## CannonFodder (Apr 7, 2010)

Redregon said:


> i personally do not. the fandom may be fucked in the head, but i have this idealistic streak that beneath it all, we still know right from wrong (as a collective whole.)


...Half of the fandom is fucked up in the head, the other have hate the sick fucks.


Also "sick fuck" is not a relative term.


----------



## Redregon (Apr 7, 2010)

CannonFodder said:


> ...*less than ten percent* of the fandom is fucked up in the head *and will voice their indignation loudly when their fucked-up nature is pointed out*, the other have hate the sick fucks.
> 
> 
> Also "sick fuck" is not a relative term.



fixed.


----------



## Corto (Apr 7, 2010)

CannonFodder said:


> Also "sick fuck" is not a relative term.


Oh, sure it is. Most of the internet thinks of the whole furry community as a bunch of "sick fucks".

EDIT: Also I should've been drinking a hour ago. Play nice, kiddies, or I'll infract you all once I come back.


----------



## Redregon (Apr 7, 2010)

Corto said:


> Oh, sure it is. Most of the internet thinks of the whole furry community as a bunch of "sick fucks".



but at the very core of it, what's considered "sick" is generally accepted as being morally bankrupt, severely deviant or plain psycho... at least that's how i see the western world perceiving the term.


----------



## Teco (Apr 7, 2010)

WHY DO PEOPLE KEEP MAKING THE STATEMENT. "IT DOESNT HURT ANYONE."

Ok, let me go find a kid, use gas or some sort of drug to knock them out and null them of pain THEN FUCK THEM. Put them in their bed, tuck them in, and have them wake up thinking nothing happened. 

IT DIDNT HURT ANYONE OH LOL. LEGAL. 

NO, NOT LEGAL, PAIN HAS NO RELAVANCE IN THIS MATTER.


----------



## Sauvignon (Apr 7, 2010)

Teco said:


> But the freedom to look at child porn. ........just. Really? Thats the kind of freedom you want? Child. Porn. I'm not even going to argue it, you cant fight a pedo against child porn.
> 
> I hope people who didn't waste their life looking at kiddie porn find the secret of immortality or something and go, "All you did for the 'greater good' was make sure cartoon child porn would continue to be legal, I made the fucking cure for life! Fuck you, and stay away from my kid."
> 
> Its for the greater good. Humanity does not need this.



Like I said, real child porn is outlawed to protect the children - that's a good reason. Imposing your own ideas of what is good another matter, entirely.

It is a slippery slope when you start making laws to control behavior. Up until a few years ago, anal sex was illegal in about fifteen states in the US. Aren't you glad that's over?


----------



## Sauvignon (Apr 7, 2010)

Teco said:


> WHY DO PEOPLE KEEP MAKING THE STATEMENT. "IT DOESNT HURT ANYONE."
> 
> Ok, let me go find a kid, use gas or some sort of drug to knock them out and null them of pain THEN FUCK THEM. Put them in their bed, tuck them in, and have them wake up thinking nothing happened.
> 
> ...



Ok, let me draw a baby fucking a dog, and then erase it. 
Oh, no it's like the same thing you just did.
wut


----------



## Teco (Apr 7, 2010)

Sauvignon said:


> Like I said, real child porn is outlawed to protect the children - that's a good reason. Imposing your own ideas of what is good another matter, entirely.
> 
> It is a slippery slope when you start making laws to control behavior. Up until a few years ago, anal sex was illegal in about fifteen states in the US. Aren't you glad that's over?


 
Because people like anal sex.

Most people dont like child porn.

You cant compare good and bad.

.....but yes, very glad thats over.


----------



## Lemmster (Apr 7, 2010)

Hello thar, I appear from some dark corner of the room because this topic has just had a friend of mine rattling in my ear for the past few hours.

Has anyone actually read this whole thing? If you scroll down past the exclusions for film section you will find this.

64 Defences Show EN
(1) Where a person is charged with an offence under section 62(1), it is a defence for the person to prove any of the following mattersâ€” 
(a) that the person had a legitimate reason for being in possession of the image concerned; 
(b) that the person had not seen the image concerned and did not know, nor had any cause to suspect, it to be a prohibited image of a child; 
(c) that the personâ€” 
(i) was sent the image concerned without any prior request having been made by or on behalf of the person, and 
(ii) did not keep it for an unreasonable time.

Unless someone cares to blast a hole in that, it appears to translate to, unless a UK citizen is intentionally searching and intentionally downloading the illegal material. Then anything that unfortunately pops up during browsing or other benign searches were not intentionally asked for.
This law is intended to fix a loophole in existing laws and is not meant to make all material on sites such as FA illegal and therefore unless your intentions were to search for something creepy and already vaguely covered by previous laws. Then you have nothing to fear.
If youâ€™re really that paranoid that youâ€™re going to be locked up for typing pretty much anything into Googles image search with the filters off. Your browser has a nifty little button that removes its history thus effectively removing the offending material. (ii) did not keep it for an unreasonable time.
 

Oh and hello everyone. feel free to tl;dr and keep chinwagging. *Offers slice of toast


----------



## Teco (Apr 7, 2010)

Sauvignon said:


> Ok, let me draw a baby fucking a dog, and then erase it.
> Oh, no it's like the same thing you just did.
> wut



PAIN. HAS. NO. REASON. TO BE. IN. THIS. MATTER.

GOOD! KEEP IT ERASED, THEN WE WOULDN'T HAVE THIS SHIT.


----------



## CannonFodder (Apr 7, 2010)

Corto said:


> Oh, sure it is. Most of the internet thinks of the whole furry community as a bunch of "sick fucks".
> 
> EDIT: Also I should've been drinking a hour ago. Play nice, kiddies, or I'll infract you all once I come back.


The furs that hump their dogs are sick fucks, the furs that hump their nieces whinnie the pooh plushy are sick fucks, the furs that touch themselves to childlike sentient beings are sick fucks.


This thread is madness, this thread is blasphemy to most furs
(waits for sparta)


----------



## Teco (Apr 7, 2010)

CannonFodder said:


> The furs that hump their dogs are sick fucks, the furs that hump their nieces whinnie the pooh plushy are sick fucks, the furs that touch themselves to childlike sentient beings are sick fucks.
> 
> 
> This thread is madness, this thread is blasphemy to most furs
> (waits for sparta)


 MADNESS? THIS. IS. SPART--FUCK UP INDEED.

ALSO IM IN SO MUCH RAGE FROM THE STUPIDITY OF THESE THREADS I CANT BRING MYSELF TO TURN OFF CAP LOCKS.


----------



## CannonFodder (Apr 7, 2010)

Teco said:


> MADNESS? THIS. IS. SPART--FUCK UP INDEED.
> 
> ALSO IM IN SO MUCH RAGE FROM THE STUPIDITY OF THESE THREADS I CANT BRING MYSELF TO TURN OFF CAP LOCKS.


OMG WHY ARE WE YELLING?!




But seriously cub is now illegal in the UK, get over it furries cub is now a felony(in the UK)


----------



## Ricky (Apr 7, 2010)

Corto said:


> You could argue that "fictional" underage porn helps promote the idea of pedophilia, something that makes a lot of sense and is probably the real argument behind these laws (as opposed to "because it's disgusting")



You could, if this were the case.  I could argue that little kids are the *true cause* for pedophilia and that someone who is into them would have done just fine without it.  I don't think someone is going to become a pedophile simply because they saw a cub porn picture.  They are more likely to become a pedophile after seeing the thing they are attracted to sexually.



Redregon said:


> not to mention that if it's seen as being acceptable, the stigma associated with cub-porn (and by proxy, pedophelia) would have a lesser impact here. and do we really want to have the fandom, in any way, be associated with being accepting of pedophila?
> 
> i personally do not. the fandom may be fucked in the head, but i have this idealistic streak that beneath it all, we still know right from wrong (as a collective whole.)



I personally don't care about the reputation of the furry fandom and I think that goes for the general public as well.

I'm more concerned with the actual issues at hand and right vs. wrong.


----------



## Samanthaweltzin (Apr 7, 2010)

CannonFodder said:


> The furs that hump their dogs are sick fucks, the furs that hump their nieces whinnie the pooh plushy are sick fucks, the furs that touch themselves to childlike sentient beings are sick fucks.


I don't suppose you see the difference between the first two and the last one. The first two are based in reality and affect others. The last is based in fantasy and is done in privacy.

If you're the same person with this userpage: http://www.furaffinity.net/user/cannonfodder you have no right to call anyone a sick fuck because, well, read the profile info at the top. If you're not, I'm still willing to bet that you partake of one of the weird fetishes on this site.
Point is: Anyone on this site for sexual reasons has no right to complain about anyone else's weird kinks, so long as they remain in a fantasy context.

I honestly don't know what the difference is when children are involved, but there is snuff, vore, pregnancy, hyper, watersports, scat, and a host of other weird and somewhat disturbing stuff on this site. I don't understand why cub stuff is singled out all the time. Just because I'm into vore doesn't make me want to go out and eat people, just as how cub fetishists don't want to go out and fuck little kids. If either of those two actually -are- wishes, especially ones acted upon, then yes. I'll agree that the people are sick fucks and ought to be in jail so they can't harm anyone. As it stands for most of those fetishists, though, it is honestly harmless.

Unfortunately, emotions run high around this issue, and no one ever convinces the other side. I don't expect to convince anyone either, but I wanted to voice support from a non-cub fetishist's point of view. Cub fans aren't alone in thinking all the crap they get is undeserved.



EDIT: Looking at the wording of the law, it doesn't look like it's any more illegal to deal with cub art than it is in the U.S. 



> (1) It is an offence for a person to be in possession of a prohibited image of a child.
> 
> (2) A prohibited image is an image whichâ€”   ( a ) is pornographic,   ( b ) falls within subsection (6), and   ( c ) is grossly offensive, disgusting or otherwise of an obscene character.


In other words, we're talking about images of actual children. Doesn't say anything about fictional portrayals, just as the U.S. law doesn't say anything about fictional portrayals. It's open for interpretation, but most of these child pornography laws, historically, are only about actual human children.


----------



## Teco (Apr 7, 2010)

Samanthaweltzin said:


> http://www.furaffinity.net/user/cannonfodder you have no right to call anyone a sick fuck because, well, read the profile info at the top. If you're not, I'm still willing to bet that you partake of one of the weird fetishes on this site.
> Point is: Anyone on this site for sexual reasons has no right to complain about anyone else's weird kinks, so long as they remain in a fantasy context.


 

AHAHAHAH, I DONT EVEN CARE IF I GET AN INFRACTION FOR THIS.

YOU'RE FUCKING STUPID.

ITS OBVIOUSLY NOT UNLESS ITS AN ALT ACCOUNT, IN WHICH CASE, IS FUCKED UP. BUT OH LOL, SAME NAME? MUST BE THE SAME GUY, EVEN THOUGH THERE'S A LINK TO A TOTALLY DIFFERENT PAGE UNDER THIS CANNONFODDER'S AVATAR. YOU KNOW. THE PAWPRINT LINK. *FACEDESK* 

I NEED CIGARS SOMETHING HARDCORE.


----------



## CannonFodder (Apr 7, 2010)

Samanthaweltzin said:


> If you're the same person with this userpage: http://www.furaffinity.net/user/cannonfodder


wrong person


----------



## Samanthaweltzin (Apr 7, 2010)

CannonFodder said:


> wrong person


Okay. Just making sure. Do you have a fetish, though?


----------



## Ricky (Apr 7, 2010)

Samanthaweltzin said:


> Point is: Anyone on this site for sexual reasons has no right to complain about anyone else's weird kinks, so long as they remain in a fantasy context.



Wow.  People be statin' their opinions and shit.

I think he's right, anyway.  You are all sick fucks.


----------



## CannonFodder (Apr 7, 2010)

Samanthaweltzin said:


> Okay. Just making sure. Do you have a fetish, though?


http://www.furaffinity.net/user/kokorokunatfa
That's me, I don't even have any porn on my fa page, or my favourites and nor have I have ever said anything on any pornographic picture.


----------



## Samanthaweltzin (Apr 7, 2010)

Teco said:


> AHAHAHAH, I DONT EVEN CARE IF I GET AN INFRACTION FOR THIS.
> 
> YOU'RE FUCKING STUPID.
> 
> ...


Oh. Thanks. Didn't realize that the forums had that ability. You may notice from my posts, but I haven't been on the FA forums long. I do appreciate the information, though.

And I'm not going to bother to argue with you much, given that you're a caps-lock kinda guy, but you didn't read what I wrote right. I was pretty clear about being uncertain if that was his page, what with posting "if you're the same person," but whatevs. You don't care what I think, and that's your privilege.



CannonFodder said:


> http://www.furaffinity.net/user/kokorokunatfa
> That's me, I don't even have any porn on my fa page, or my favourites and nor have I have ever said anything on any pornographic picture.


Alright. So you have more right to talk, though we could of course go all day on which grounds it's moral to call someone a "sick fuck." I don't expect to agree with you, but I do respect that at least you put your money where your mouth is.


----------



## CannonFodder (Apr 7, 2010)

Samanthaweltzin said:


> Alright. So you have more right to talk, though we could of course go all day on which grounds it's moral to call someone a "sick fuck." I don't expect to agree with you, but I do respect that at least you put your money where your mouth is.


I joke about furry porn, but that's all it is a joke.
I'm almost as a sarcastic as heckler.

I find cub porn sick and still think the ones that like it need mental help.


----------



## Attaman (Apr 7, 2010)

"You have fetishes so you have no room to talk" doesn't work.  This is akin to saying that, say, a Jew can't say shit to a Heavens Gate cultist because "You have a religion too."  Normally I'm loathe to make any analogies between the fandom and a religion, but considering I compared it to all fetishes and it's still being used only for a comparison and not an equation of importance, I feel it can slide for now.

Back on topic, you can't just say "You have [x] fetish so you can't say jack about [y]."  It doesn't work that way.


----------



## CannonFodder (Apr 7, 2010)

Attaman said:


> "You have fetishes so you have no room to talk" doesn't work.  This is akin to saying that, say, a Jew can't say shit to a Heavens Gate cultist because "You have a religion too."  Normally I'm loathe to make any analogies between the fandom and a religion, but considering I compared it to all fetishes and it's still being used only for a comparison and not an equation of importance, I feel it can slide for now.
> 
> Back on topic, you can't just say "You have [x] fetish so you can't say jack about [y]."  It doesn't work that way.


Five dollars says a fur will equate cub to being gay.


----------



## Samanthaweltzin (Apr 8, 2010)

CannonFodder said:


> I joke about furry porn, but that's all it is a joke.
> I'm almost as a sarcastic as heckler.
> 
> I find cub porn sick and still think the ones that like it need mental help.


See, I find it sick too. It grosses me out, actually, as do many other things. But just because I don't like it doesn't automatically make the people who like it degenerate dirtbags.
Honestly, I think that anyone with a fetish could probably use a little psychotherapy (that includes furs who find sexual gratification from anything on this site, even the "normal" stuff) simply because fetishes -are- a problem with mixed wires in the brain. However, it's when we start taking away privileges people once had just because we don't personally like something that I think we ought to draw the line.
No, cub porn is not a right. As a matter of fact, there is no such thing as a right. George Carlin had a great skit on that:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gaa9iw85tW8
What I'm referring to is at 4:20, but the whole skit is good.
However, just because cub porn isn't a right, it is something that gives some people comfort and makes their lives happier. Whether it's available or not doesn't affect their predisposition toward it; they're going to want to see it no matter whether it's on FA or not, and all removing it from FA will do to those who like it is to remove a place where they can get it. It's not going to "cure" anybody.
FA is a place for weird people with weird interests to find some common ground. Some are weirder than others, yes, but there's a place for pretty much everyone here. That's why the cub people are so vehement about this issue and don't just "walk away" as they're often told to do: This is a community they've grown attached to, and someone who doesn't understand them is telling them to get out.

There is no correlation between cub fans and RL child molesters, just as there is no correlation between vore fetishists and cannibalism. Some cub fans -may- be child molesters, but the majority just have some miswiring in their brains that makes them like a certain thing sexually. There are laws and penalties for breaking them for a reason, and it's not like an average cub fan is so sexually driven that he's going to go rape a baby. I'm sure we've all had urges to do illegal things, but guess what? Most of us are able to control those urges. People are like that.



Attaman said:


> "You have fetishes so you have no room to talk" doesn't work. This is akin to saying that, say, a Jew can't say shit to a Heavens Gate cultist because "You have a religion too." Normally I'm loathe to make any analogies between the fandom and a religion, but considering I compared it to all fetishes and it's still being used only for a comparison and not an equation of importance, I feel it can slide for now.
> 
> Back on topic, you can't just say "You have [x] fetish so you can't say jack about [y]."  It doesn't work that way.


See, that's a straw man there.
The difference in your analogy is that cults are dangerous. That's the difference there. Cub porn isn't dangerous. If you want me to pull up some research, I'll be glad to.


----------



## CannonFodder (Apr 8, 2010)

^I'd hate to break it to you but eddy quit because we found out he was a teacher.

Also yes there have been furs getting busted for being child molesters, one of the famous cub artists got caught with child porn, I can't remember his name at the moment though, the reason why I remember that person though is because his watchers wanted the fandom to give him our support(as if we would) and cliche stuff, seriously the dude was caught with child porn and furries said he shouldn't have been arrested because he wasn't hurting anyone.


----------



## Teco (Apr 8, 2010)

Samanthaweltzin said:


> Oh. Thanks. Didn't realize that the forums had that ability. You may notice from my posts, but I haven't been on the FA forums long. I do appreciate the information, though.
> 
> And I'm not going to bother to argue with you much, given that you're a caps-lock kinda guy, but you didn't read what I wrote right. I was pretty clear about being uncertain if that was his page, what with posting "if you're the same person," but whatevs. You don't care what I think, and that's your privilege.



I NOTICED THAT FEATURE THE MOMENT I LOOKED AT ANOTHER AVATAR. BECAUSE I OBSERVED. YOU MAY NOT HAVE BEEN HERE THAT LONG BUT YOUR LACK OF ABILITY ALREADY MAKES ME ANGRY LIKE THE HULK. YOU WONT LIKE ME WHEN IM ANGRY. I GO INTO ALL CAPS MODE.

YOUR FIRST MISTAKE WAS ASSUMING JUST BECAUSE HIS NAME WAS THE SAME IT MUST HAVE BEEN THE SAME PERSON. SECOND MISTAKE WAS ASSUMING JUST BECAUSE HE'S ON HERE HE PARTAKES IN SICK FETISHES LIKE VORE. 

I'M FAIRLY CERTAIN, IF GIVEN A CHANCE TO GO OFF SCOTT FREE, CHILD PORN FETISHISTS WOULD FUCK A SMALL CHILD. IN REAL LIFE. BECAUSE CHILD MOLESTATION IS REAL. I'M FAIRLY SURE I CANT GO INTO HYPER MODE AND GROW A 17 FT TALL PENIS, SO THATS PRETTY MUCH ALLOWED BECAUSE ITS ALL FANTASY AND ALL SILLY AS WELL.


----------



## Attaman (Apr 8, 2010)

Samanthaweltzin said:


> See, that's a straw man there.
> The difference in your analogy is that cults are dangerous. That's the difference there. Cub porn isn't dangerous. If you want me to pull up some research, I'll be glad to.


  "You have no right to mock the people who wear Sheathe Shorts because you wear Khakis."  That a better analogy for you?

And, personally, I'd like to see this research provided.  Mostly because I fail to see how a fetish that revolves entirely around either the fascination for infantile anthropomorphized animals can't possibly be a sign of some issues to come in anyone.  I can understand arguing tentacles aren't dangerous at least:  It's not like they can be compared to something outside of fantasies that the fetishist has any chance of acting upon. Cub porn _does_.


----------



## Teco (Apr 8, 2010)

WE ALSO NEED TO STOP SAYING MOTHERFUCKING CUB PORN.

WHY DOES IT HAVE TO BE CUB PORN WITH YOU PEOPLE AND NOT CHILD PORN. SAY IT RIGHT YOU GOD DAMN FURRIES. WHAT THE SHIT IS THIS FUCK.


----------



## thoron (Apr 8, 2010)

This providing me with so much entertainment.


----------



## CannonFodder (Apr 8, 2010)

thoron said:


> This providing me with so much entertainment.


We deliver 95% of the time, the other 5% we just facepalm.


----------



## Teco (Apr 8, 2010)

CannonFodder said:


> We deliver 95% of the time, the other 5% we just facepalm.


 
WHAT IS THIS OPPOSITE DAY?


----------



## CannonFodder (Apr 8, 2010)

Teco said:


> WHAT IS THIS OPPOSITE DAY?


Yes?(paradox)


----------



## south syde dobe (Apr 8, 2010)

Teco said:


> I'M FAIRLY SURE I CANT GO INTO HYPER MODE AND GROW A 17 FT TALL PENIS, SO THATS PRETTY MUCH ALLOWED BECAUSE ITS ALL FANTASY AND ALL SILLY AS WELL.


 
That fucking made me lol so hard my sides are killing me xP
Also in hyper mode I get a big ass bucket of KFC with a side order of watermelons which makes me invulnerable to any type of attack


----------



## Teco (Apr 8, 2010)

south syde dobe said:


> That fucking made me lol so hard my sides are killing me xP
> Also in hyper mode I get a big ass bucket of KFC with a side order of watermelons which makes me invulnerable to any type of attack


 DAMN RIGHT IT DID, CAUSE ITS TRUE.
THATS SUPER SEXY. I GOT MYSELF A RAGING CLUE.


----------



## CannonFodder (Apr 8, 2010)

south syde dobe said:


> That fucking made me lol so hard my sides are killing me xP
> Also in hyper mode I get a big ass bucket of KFC with a side order of watermelons which makes me invulnerable to any type of attack


...I'd hate to tell you it wasn't cooked.


----------



## south syde dobe (Apr 8, 2010)

Teco said:


> DAMN RIGHT IT DID, CAUSE ITS TRUE.
> THATS SUPER SEXY. I GOT MYSELF A RAGING CLUE.


Ok o.o;

HYPER MODE BIATCHES!!1! *eats the bucket of KFC*



CannonFodder said:


> ...I'd hate to tell you it wasn't cooked.


 
Bullshit, its cooked :V


----------



## Ricky (Apr 8, 2010)

Samanthaweltzin said:


> Honestly, I think that anyone with a fetish could probably use a little psychotherapy (that includes furs who find sexual gratification from anything on this site, even the "normal" stuff) simply because fetishes -are- a problem with mixed wires in the brain.



How could you possibly come to that conclusion?

People don't even understand sexuality in a basic sense at the neuronal level.  We don't know what causes fetishes or sexuality.

Though I don't disagree with the majority of what you were getting at.


----------



## Teco (Apr 8, 2010)

south syde dobe said:


> Ok o.o;
> 
> HYPER MODE BIATCHES!!1! *eats the bucket of KFC*


 OH YEAH!! EAT THAT CHICKEN. I WANT YOU INVULNERABLE TO GOING SOFT. MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM

...UGH GOD THATS GAY. LIKE EXTREMELY GAY. BUT I'LL KEEP IT UP SO SOMEONE CAN FAP TO IT. YOU FAGS.


----------



## Samanthaweltzin (Apr 8, 2010)

Attaman said:


> "You have no right to mock the people who wear Sheathe Shorts because you wear Khakis."  That a better analogy for you?
> 
> And, personally, I'd like to see this research provided.  Mostly because I fail to see how a fetish that revolves entirely around either the fascination for infantile anthropomorphized animals can't possibly be a sign of some issues to come in anyone.  I can understand arguing tentacles aren't dangerous at least:  It's not like they can be compared to something outside of fantasies that the fetishist has any chance of acting upon. Cub porn _does_.


Actually, that is a better analogy. Not perfect, because in the case of fetishes, -both- are kinda gross to those not into them, but better because both are harmless except to sensibilities. And we need more offensive material because there's too much "Boo hoo! I think that's gross and am therefore mentally scarred!" crap going around. So yeah. It kinda works. Better still would be "You have no right to mock the people who wear Sheathe Shorts because you wear a Speedo at the pool."

As for the research: http://www.yellodyno.com/html/child_molester_stats.html and http://www.allaboutcounseling.com/sexual_abuse.htm
Key points are â€¢ 89% of child sexual assault cases involve persons known to the child, such as a caretaker or family acquaintance.
            -Diana Russell Survey, 1978
â€¢ Pedophiles are a different class of     child molesters, and are considered sexual addicts. In spite of their best interests, a     pedophile will abuse children as long as there is opportunity. There are pedophiles who     must drive different routes home just to avoid the temptation of children they might     otherwise encounter.

See, the thing is, a cub porn fan's interest is so fixated on a single thing that anything else just doesn't suffice, similarly to how a pedophile (different thing) can't "get it up" to anything but children. Using your same logic (though I'm sure you'll say I'm twisting your words), cub porn is impossible too, since furries don't exist IRL, so it's impossible to fulfill this fetish other than through fantasy.
But, see, there are also degrees of "philia" as well, which I think the second site didn't really delve into due to its focus on molestation rather than pedophilia specifically. Just as a normal person doesn't screw girls at every opportunity, a fetishist doesn't indulge in the fetish at every opportunity either. I doubt I'm all that rare in being able to keep my vore fantasies under control. Believe it or not, there's such a thing as willpower even for those of us with miswiring in our heads.



Ricky said:


> How could you possibly come to that conclusion?
> 
> People don't even understand sexuality in a basic sense at the neuronal level.  We don't know what causes fetishes or sexuality.
> 
> Though I don't disagree with the majority of what you were getting at.


Just seems logical to me, but I will admit that I don't have any research to back it up.


----------



## south syde dobe (Apr 8, 2010)

Teco said:


> OH YEAH!! EAT THAT CHICKEN. I WANT YOU INVULNERABLE TO GOING SOFT. MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM
> 
> ...UGH GOD THATS GAY. LIKE EXTREMELY GAY. BUT I'LL KEEP IT UP SO SOMEONE CAN FAP TO IT. YOU FAGS.


 
Yea that was pretty gay even though it didn't make too much since x3

Anyhow THEY ARE GOING TO HAVE TO GLUE YOU BACK TOGETHER...IN *HELL*!!1!


----------



## Teco (Apr 8, 2010)

south syde dobe said:


> Yea that was pretty gay even though it didn't make too much since x3
> 
> Anyhow THEY ARE GOING TO HAVE TO GLUE YOU BACK TOGETHER...IN *HELL*!!1!


 

.....guys, I had some Vitamin Water...and I'm out of cap locks mode, dont...just dont say anything stupid or someone will have to curb stomp me.

It made perfect sense, perfectly gay sense.
Wait till somebody walks in with more bs to spew then set off the stickies :V


----------



## CannonFodder (Apr 8, 2010)

Ok I gotta ask Samanthaweltzin, how in the fucking world do you know all that?


----------



## south syde dobe (Apr 8, 2010)

Teco said:


> .....guys, I had some Vitamin Water...and I'm out of cap locks mode, dont...just dont say anything stupid or someone will have to curb stomp me.
> 
> It made perfect sense, perfectly gay sense.
> Wait till somebody walks in with more bs to spew then set off the stickies :V


 
Demoman are so damn cheap but fun as hell to use


----------



## Samanthaweltzin (Apr 8, 2010)

CannonFodder said:


> Ok I gotta ask Samanthaweltzin, how in the fucking world do you know all that?


I'm a scholarly sort, and I've tried to figure out why the hell I have two weird-ass fetishes: Furry and vore. I don't want them, but I've grown accustomed to the thought that unless I'm willing to pay money for therapy, I'm going to have them for a long time, and the two fetishes don't affect my life enough that I can justify the huge fees involved with getting them "fixed." Because of that, I did a lot of research on various fetishes, and I've seen cub porn get attacked constantly, so I figured I'd check it out specifically. I've always tried to stick up for "the underdog," assuming they don't really deserve the bad rap they get, and in the case of furries, cub fetishists are in that category so far as I've seen.

So yeah. Curiosity mixed with a little self-reflection and, of course, time on my hands.


----------



## south syde dobe (Apr 8, 2010)

Samanthaweltzin said:


> I'm a scholarly sort, and I've tried to figure out why the hell I have two weird-ass fetishes: Furry and vore. I don't want them, but I've grown accustomed to the thought that unless I'm willing to pay money for therapy, I'm going to have them for a long time, and the two fetishes don't affect my life enough that I can justify the huge fees involved with getting them "fixed." Because of that, I did a lot of research on various fetishes, and I've seen cub porn get attacked constantly, so I figured I'd check it out specifically. I've always tried to stick up for "the underdog," assuming they don't really deserve the bad rap they get, and in the case of furries, cub fetishists are in that category so far as I've seen.
> 
> So yeah. Curiosity mixed with a little self-reflection and, of course, time on my hands.


 
I guess that makes sense :\

I just wonder why I like fried chicken so much and derailing threads, I think I got a derailing thread fetish :I


----------



## Samanthaweltzin (Apr 8, 2010)

south syde dobe said:


> I guess that makes sense :\
> 
> I just wonder why I like fried chicken so much and derailing threads, I think I got a derailing thread fetish :I


GOD that's hot. I think I found a new one.

;P


----------



## Teco (Apr 8, 2010)

south syde dobe said:


> I guess that makes sense :\
> 
> I just wonder why I like fried chicken so much and derailing threads, I think I got a derailing thread fetish :I


 
Thats hawt. :V


----------



## south syde dobe (Apr 8, 2010)

Teco said:


> Thats hawt. :V


 
Inorite?
No fapping though, its my fetish :I



Samanthaweltzin said:


> GOD that's hot. I think I found a new one.
> 
> ;P


 
Hey its mine :V


----------



## Samanthaweltzin (Apr 8, 2010)

south syde dobe said:


> Inorite?
> No fapping though, its my fetish :I
> 
> 
> ...


Fine then. You just gave me a "calling dibs" fetish. And I call dibs on that one.


----------



## south syde dobe (Apr 8, 2010)

Samanthaweltzin said:


> Fine then. You just gave me a "calling dibs" fetish. And I call dibs on that one.


 
ITS NOT POSSIBLE!!1!


----------



## ArielMT (Apr 8, 2010)

Back to the topic, folks, unless you have an infraction or ban fetish as well.


----------



## south syde dobe (Apr 8, 2010)

ArielMT said:


> Back to the topic, folks, unless you have an infraction or ban fetish as well.


 
Don't know if I have either of those two <.<;
Anyways back on topic...Um what is this new law again?


----------



## Samanthaweltzin (Apr 8, 2010)

south syde dobe said:


> Don't know if I have either of those two <.<;
> Anyways back on topic...Um what is this new law again?


The basic gist is that images of child pornography are now illegal in the UK. The assumption was that this included cub art, but that's pretty murky legally, and we have similar child porn image laws in the U.S. but cub porn is still technically legal because it's not possible. Drawings of human children are illegal here, but furry children are still legal. That is -probably- the way it will be interpreted in the UK until someone actually brings it to court and they find that furries are included in the parameters of the law.
Got that info about U.S. laws from Wolfblade, actually. Give attribution where it's due.


----------



## Matt (Apr 8, 2010)

That's wack.


----------



## south syde dobe (Apr 8, 2010)

Samanthaweltzin said:


> The basic gist is that images of child pornography are now illegal in the UK. The assumption was that this included cub art, but that's pretty murky legally, and we have similar child porn image laws in the U.S. but cub porn is still technically legal because it's not possible. Drawings of human children are illegal here, but furry children are still legal. That is -probably- the way it will be interpreted in the UK until someone actually brings it to court and they find that furries are included in the parameters of the law.
> Got that info about U.S. laws from Wolfblade, actually. Give attribution where it's due.


 
Wow your pretty good at summing up everything ^^
I don't like cub porn art but as far as making it illegal or not I dunno :\


----------



## Teco (Apr 8, 2010)

Im pretty sure CHILD PORN isn't allowed in the UK in any matter now.
"Cub" porn included. Just because you people keep saying cub doesn't mean it isn't child porn. Cub is just a furry term. You cant go to court and go, "I wasn't fucking that little boy! I was yiffing them, there isn't a law against yiffing!"


----------



## CannonFodder (Apr 8, 2010)

Teco said:


> Im pretty sure CHILD PORN isn't allowed in the UK in any matter now.
> "Cub" porn included


pretty much, even with the entirety of those into bawing cub porn is now illegal in the UK, no amount of crying fursecution will keep from going to jail.


----------



## Samanthaweltzin (Apr 8, 2010)

Teco said:


> Im pretty sure CHILD PORN isn't allowed in the UK in any matter now.
> "Cub" porn included. Just because you people keep saying cub doesn't mean it isn't child porn. Cub is just a furry term. You cant go to court and go, "I wasn't fucking that little boy! I was yiffing them, there isn't a law against yiffing!"












Oh. I didn't realize these two were the same thing. My mistake. Your proof through logic and attribution, as well as your psychic powers delving into the minds of those who made the law are proof positive. "I'm pretty sure" is good enough for me. Thank you for enlightening me. 

Why am I responding to you? >.>


----------



## Teco (Apr 8, 2010)

.............I FEEL MYSELF GOING INTO CAP LOCKS MODE AGAIN.


----------



## Samanthaweltzin (Apr 8, 2010)

Teco said:


> .............I FEEL MYSELF GOING INTO CAP LOCKS MODE AGAIN.


*Snaps fingers.*


----------



## CannonFodder (Apr 8, 2010)

^Sorry Samantha, according to the law it's the same now, blame the parliament not us, we're just ecstatic about it, we're not in parliament though.


----------



## Samanthaweltzin (Apr 8, 2010)

CannonFodder said:


> ^Sorry Samantha, according to the law it's the same now, blame the parliament not us, we're just ecstatic about it, we're not in parliament though.


Oh, so it -was- legally decided that cub and other non-human species porn is included? From the legal language of the bill, that was up to interpretation (I'm a nerd. I know). However, did you have someone confirm this, or can you find a part of the law that I missed? I'm not trying to be confrontational with you (Can't say the same for Mr. Caps Lock ); I'm genuinely curious to know how that law is different from the one in the U.S.


----------



## DJ-Fragon (Apr 8, 2010)

Ball.


...


I have nothing else to say.


----------



## south syde dobe (Apr 8, 2010)

Samanthaweltzin said:


> Oh, so it -was- legally decided that cub and other non-human species porn is included? From the legal language of the bill, that was up to interpretation (I'm a nerd. I know). However, did you have someone confirm this, or can you find a part of the law that I missed? I'm not trying to be confrontational with you (Can't say the same for Mr. Caps Lock ); I'm genuinely curious to know how that law is different from the one in the U.S.


 
Samantha has a point there, for a newbie your pretty sharp ^^


----------



## Samanthaweltzin (Apr 8, 2010)

south syde dobe said:


> Samantha has a point there, for a newbie your pretty sharp ^^


Thanks. I'm not a total n00b. It's just the FA forums that I'm new to, and that was just because I saw no reason to get on until that My Little Pony Link of the Day. Just -had- to comment on that.

Still, there is no "point" just yet unless CannonFodder can't produce anything backing up his statement. He may very well be right, and I'll stand corrected that the U.K. law doesn't say anything about fictional species if he shows evidence for his statement.


----------



## south syde dobe (Apr 8, 2010)

Samanthaweltzin said:


> Thanks. I'm not a total n00b. It's just the FA forums that I'm new to, and that was just because I saw no reason to get on until that My Little Pony Link of the Day. Just -had- to comment on that.
> 
> Still, there is no "point" just yet unless CannonFodder can't produce anything backing up his statement. He may very well be right, and I'll stand corrected that the U.K. law doesn't say anything about fictional species if he shows evidence for his statement.


 
I see that now, I wonder what that link of the day was? I always tend to miss the really good ones T.T

Yea I can tell you know quite a bit and you don't bawww when someone gets on your case


----------



## Ricky (Apr 8, 2010)

Samanthaweltzin said:


> Oh, so it -was- legally decided that cub and other non-human species porn is included? From the legal language of the bill, that was up to interpretation (I'm a nerd. I know). However, did you have someone confirm this, or can you find a part of the law that I missed? I'm not trying to be confrontational with you (Can't say the same for Mr. Caps Lock ); I'm genuinely curious to know how that law is different from the one in the U.S.



It really isn't, but like I was saying before I doubt they had FA or cub porn in mind when writing the legislation.


----------



## Samanthaweltzin (Apr 8, 2010)

south syde dobe said:


> I see that now, I wonder what that link of the day was? I always tend to miss the really good ones T.T
> 
> Yea I can tell you know quite a bit and you don't bawww when someone gets on your case


If I posted it, it might be considered harassment. It's absolutely TERRIBLE. 
But I'm'a post it anyway. Mwaha: http://forums.furaffinity.net/showthread.php?t=64138



Ricky said:


> It really isn't, but like I was saying before I doubt they had FA or cub porn in mind when writing the legislation.


Likely. Still, because they didn't specifically say anything about it, it'll take a court case to make it officially illegal. Until then, it's still not against the law and, as such, UK furs will not be charged with a crime for visiting FA, even -if- someone was looking at the sites they went to.


----------



## south syde dobe (Apr 8, 2010)

Samanthaweltzin said:


> If I posted it, it might be considered harassment. It's absolutely TERRIBLE.
> But I'm'a post it anyway. Mwaha: http://forums.furaffinity.net/showthread.php?t=64138


 


south syde dobe said:


> I couldn't take either of them ;_;


 
This^


----------



## Slingblade_47 (Apr 8, 2010)

Now that I look at this properly...are you sure this doesn't only deal with merely _possessing_ the affected images - by which I mean storing them on your hard drive or USB key? I've got a funny feeling that if you completely stay away from the Cub material on this site and don't view or produce any yourself, there could be no issue. The monitoring software used by ISPs normally only filters out sites that deal _only_ with _real_ child porn, and like has been said before, the people from this site who have been arrested are _people who have tried to molest children in real life_.

The way I now interpret this is this: if you just keep away from from the Cub art entirely, then it's not actually an offence to come to this site. But the law could be interpreted any way because of how it's worded; there's no mention from what I can see of online communities that do things like this site does.


----------



## Samanthaweltzin (Apr 8, 2010)

Slingblade_47 said:


> Now that I look at this properly...are you sure this doesn't only deal with merely _possessing_ the affected images - by which I mean storing them on your hard drive or USB key? I've got a funny feeling that if you completely stay away from the Cub material on this site and don't view or produce any yourself, there could be no issue. The monitoring software used by ISPs normally only filters out sites that deal _only_ with _real_ child porn, and like has been said before, the people from this site who have been arrested are _people who have tried to molest children in real life_.
> 
> The way I now interpret this is this: if you just keep away from from the Cub art entirely, then it's not actually an offence to come to this site. But the law could be interpreted any way because of how it's worded; there's no mention from what I can see of online communities that do things like this site does.


I seem to remember hearing something along those lines, and it does make sense. If anyone is liable in a court of law, it'd be the possessor of the material and the knowing distributors. If FA were based in the U.K., and if this law applied to babyfurs, then there would be pretty much no choice but to ban the stuff unless they wanted to fight a legal battle. Still, we're not there yet.


----------



## Smelge (Apr 8, 2010)

Wrong!

As long as they can prove you've been visiting sites with stuff that could be classed as child porn, they will prosecute. Even if you clicked it by mistake, there's a record somewhere of you having visited that page. If the authorities find that page, they'll eventually find who was there. Everything you do online leaves a trail.


----------



## Samanthaweltzin (Apr 8, 2010)

Voidrunners said:


> Wrong!
> 
> As long as they can prove you've been visiting sites with stuff that could be classed as child porn, they will prosecute. Even if you clicked it by mistake, there's a record somewhere of you having visited that page. If the authorities find that page, they'll eventually find who was there. Everything you do online leaves a trail.


The part about everything online leaving a trail is definitely true, but where's your proof that the authorities will prosecute you simply for visiting a website hosting child porn, among various other things?
Show me a case or a bill and I'll believe it. 'Til then, I don't have any reason to think that they'd waste their time fining or putting thousands of people in jail who just happened to be on a website hosting a myriad of other things for various interests. Seems unrealistic to me.


----------



## Smelge (Apr 8, 2010)

Artificial Ginger said:


> "Child molestation is illegal, pedophilia is not."



Well done. You've just tried to justify paedophillia.

Now go away and think about what you've done.


----------



## Ilayas (Apr 8, 2010)

Well when it really comes down to it the whole debate boils down to section 56 "Meaning of â€œimageâ€ and â€œchildâ€" 

The 2 parts you need to look at 



> (7) References to an image of a person include references to an image of an imaginary person.
> 
> ( 8 ) References to an image of a child include references to an image of an imaginary child.



What is stated there can be interpreted as furry stuff but yea.... it's not explicitly stated.  I'm no expert on British law but I think it'd be open to judicial interpretation. If a judge REALLY wanted to he/she could maybe include furry stuff in that.  But until a judge rules on it or the law it's self gets less ambiguous language it's really any ones guess.


----------



## Smelge (Apr 8, 2010)

Ok, look at it like this:

1) You have a picture of a young anthropomorphic animal in nappies being vigourously filled with chunky manfat from an overweight 32 year old man.

2) Someone sees this picture goes "Fuck, that's hot" and clicks the download butto.

3) Suddenly, police.

4) It goes to court, a jury looks at it. It smells and tastes like child porn. It is child porn, to your average normal person.

5) "BUT WAIT", screams the fury. "According to the law, only a graphical interpretation of a *person* is illegal. It has fur. It has a tail and a different sull structure. Totally not a person."

6) "Well, shit, he's right", says the judge. The jury are dubious, but it's true.

7) "Wait a second though" announces Mr Judge. "The law states imaginary persons. By anthromorphosising it, it's attained the characteristics of a person, therefore it's up to interpretation. Let's give this one to the jury to decide."

8) The jury mull it over. They're divided. Is it actually child porn or isn't it? Finally, the decision comes back, narrowly voting it isn't (because Mr Braithwaite in Row 3 systematically abuses his daughter, and sees a kindred spirit in the defendant).

9) "Hooray!" shouts the furry. Vindication.

10) "But, it still counts under the Extreme Pornography Act, so that's 3 years in prison, Â£12,000 fine plus the sex offenders register." claims the judge.

11) "Well shit", says the furry, tears in his eyes.

12) Furry ends up poorer, and with chunky manfat from an overweight 53 year old in his anus.


----------



## DarkOverord (Apr 8, 2010)

Samanthaweltzin said:


> The part about everything online leaving a trail is definitely true, but where's your proof that the authorities will prosecute you simply for visiting a website hosting child porn, among various other things?
> Show me a case or a bill and I'll believe it. 'Til then, I don't have any reason to think that they'd waste their time fining or putting thousands of people in jail who just happened to be on a website hosting a myriad of other things for various interests. Seems unrealistic to me.



You're talking about the people who let out terrorists, while leaving people in for charges of Fraud. 

They have banned file sharing which runs a three strike policy where with the first strike you're warned by the ISP, second you're fined, and on the third strike your ISP bans you from the Internet. 

You underestimate how absurd the UK is at the moment. All in the sake of "protecting the people"


----------



## Samanthaweltzin (Apr 8, 2010)

DarkOverord said:


> You're talking about the people who let out terrorists, while leaving people in for charges of Fraud.
> 
> They have banned file sharing which runs a three strike policy where with the first strike you're warned by the ISP, second you're fined, and on the third strike your ISP bans you from the Internet.
> 
> You underestimate how absurd the UK is at the moment. All in the sake of "protecting the people"


Actually, yeah. You're right. I've heard a lot of other crap about England's laws lately. Guess I just lapsed, thinking that sometimes there is reason in law.


----------



## Ilayas (Apr 8, 2010)

Voidrunners said:


> Ok, look at it like this:
> 
> 1) You have a picture of a young anthropomorphic animal in nappies being vigourously filled with chunky manfat from an overweight 32 year old man.
> 
> ...



Yea I highly doubt you'd be pulled in just for downloading cub porn.  The reason why this issue hasn't been specifically addressed here in the US or the UK is it doesn't need to be.  It's not because the people who have been prosecuted for possessing pedophilic materials haven't had cub porn.  It's far more likely that the people that have been prosecuted haven't possessed *Exclusively* cub porn. If you are a prosecutor you are going to go for the path of lest resistance.  Why even mess with furry crap when you have pictures/drawings/stories/whatever dealing with humans.  It's a hell of a lot less work and you get the same result. 


Cub porn isn't really new so I'd say the likeliness of coming across a case were the defendant ONLY had cub porn is very very low. Thus cub porn is relatively safe from prosecution.

That said if FA wanted to cover it's self they should just get rid of cub porn all together.  But that's just my opinion.


----------



## Nicci Skunk Fan (Apr 8, 2010)

I'm an equal rights activist. I am not gonna voice my opinion on babyfur art, considering it not of importance. However, even though I think everyone should be free to what they like I feel if a place makes a law follow it. It's not worth the trouble to try and get around it. Let the government think what it wants to think. Let us know who we truly are. Only in that since can we really gain self-respect for ourselves and others.


Thank you


----------



## Alec Hopp (Apr 8, 2010)

Oer capita there are more furrs in England then the US I dont have the numbers of the top of my head but they are both high and suprisingly main stream. If we get hammered in Britin and moved against hear we are hurting as a sub culture. We are aware of what ticks of non furrs and should do a better job of in house policing that stuff up. Babby fur pics and anthroporn are the only ways the outsiders know us they never sit in on one of our PETA discusions or talk about animal spirit guids they see 1 just 1 semi porno pic of some nekomata cat girl and say (all furr is porn) we need to clean up our act and educate the same was the RP D&D crowd did in the 1970's when chic tracks made all dungeaons and dragons players look like satan worshiping baby eaters. (and yes I am old enough to rember that)
Alec.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Apr 8, 2010)

GraemeLion said:


> Putting a limit on freedom when that freedom isn't hurting anyone whatsoever kinda destroys the word "freedom."
> 
> If they banned the cub shit, there would be a newer, different problem that people would be blaming all of furry's ills on. The cub shit is just convenient, and is an easy scapegoat.


 Well then...perhaps you'd like to enlighten us as to what the _real _problems are?


----------



## Wyldfyre (Apr 8, 2010)

DarkOverord said:


> You underestimate how absurd the UK is at the moment. All in the sake of "protecting the people"


The people in Parliment don't give a shit about the people, they just want to make it look like they're doing something useful to the population. Especially as we have an Election coming up. 

It is kinda getting stupid, but TBH, I've seen it coming for a long time. 
Honestly, I despise anything related to children. I can't stand 'em. 

More On-Topic: Does this mean that it's illegal for me to surf the main FA page?


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Apr 8, 2010)

CannonFodder said:


> Dude the pope has diplomatic immunity, not sure what people could do against him.


 Diplomatic immunity isn't immortality.


----------



## DarkOverord (Apr 8, 2010)

Wyldfyre said:


> The people in Parliment don't give a shit about the people, they just want to make it look like they're doing something useful to the population. Especially as we have an Election coming up.



Hence the quotes ;D And if you turned your mature filter on it wouldn't!


----------



## Wyldfyre (Apr 8, 2010)

DarkOverord said:


> Hence the quotes ;D And if you turned your mature filter on it wouldn't!


But according to this law, FA would still be illegal as it still hosts 'child porn' regardless of filters.

Edit: Shit, police cars just went past as I posted this. XD


----------



## Redregon (Apr 8, 2010)

Voidrunners said:


> Ok, look at it like this:
> 
> 1) You have a picture of a young anthropomorphic animal in nappies being vigourously filled with chunky manfat from an overweight 32 year old man.
> 
> ...



well said, most people are just debating that one law, but furry can be covered in that other set as well. 

well played, clerks, well played.


----------



## Redregon (Apr 8, 2010)

Ilayas said:


> Yea I highly doubt you'd be pulled in just for downloading cub porn.  The reason why this issue hasn't been specifically addressed here in the US or the UK is it doesn't need to be.  It's not because the people who have been prosecuted for possessing pedophilic materials haven't had cub porn.  It's far more likely that the people that have been prosecuted haven't possessed *Exclusively* cub porn. If you are a prosecutor you are going to go for the path of lest resistance.  Why even mess with furry crap when you have pictures/drawings/stories/whatever dealing with humans.  It's a hell of a lot less work and you get the same result.
> 
> 
> Cub porn isn't really new so I'd say the likeliness of coming across a case were the defendant ONLY had cub porn is very very low. Thus cub porn is relatively safe from prosecution.
> ...



well, all it's really going to take (As i see it) is a cub-porn collection on some furry's computer and ONE single child porn picture. that would probably be enough of a link that they could bring their attention to the various furry websites.

and besides, the more and more that the countries of the world crack down on Child pornography the more and more pedo's will likely find their way here... given how permissive the fandom seems and how all they have to get used to is the ears, tail and fur. it could be considered the "Gateway" to real child porn if the wrong people start attacking it.


----------



## CannonFodder (Apr 8, 2010)

Wyldfyre said:


> More On-Topic: Does this mean that it's illegal for me to surf the main FA page?


Technically yes.
Congratulations FA, you kept your socially unacceptable porn by making your UK users felons.

Wyldfyre I wouldn't worry to much about it _at the moment_, what will probably happen is the first few furries will get arrested and the media will have a field day and then realize how many furries there are in the UK and we'll end up with a new law specifically targeting furries.

In otherwords, hit the panic button, the fandom is about to die at the hands of the media.


----------



## south syde dobe (Apr 8, 2010)

CannonFodder said:


> Technically yes.
> Congratulations FA, you kept your socially unacceptable porn by making your UK users felons.
> 
> Wyldfyre I wouldn't worry to much about it _at the moment_, what will probably happen is the first few furries will get arrested and the media will have a field day and then realize how many furries there are in the UK and we'll end up with a new law specifically targeting furries.
> ...


 
Sweet


----------



## Wyldfyre (Apr 8, 2010)

CannonFodder said:


> Technically yes.


FFFUUU....


----------



## Redregon (Apr 8, 2010)

CannonFodder said:


> Technically yes.
> Congratulations FA, you kept your socially unacceptable porn by making your UK users felons.
> 
> Wyldfyre I wouldn't worry to much about it _at the moment_, what will probably happen is the first few furries will get arrested and the media will have a field day and then realize how many furries there are in the UK and we'll end up with a new law specifically targeting furries.
> ...



agreed... not to knock the admins, but it almost feels like they're making light of the situation. granted, the servers and staff are in the US mostly so this law technically doesn't affect them... but i wonder, will they decide to take a more stronger stance if a couple users are hauled off to prison because of what they downloaded from this site?


----------



## south syde dobe (Apr 8, 2010)

Redregon said:


> agreed... not to knock the admins, but it almost feels like they're making light of the situation. granted, the servers and staff are in the US mostly so this law technically doesn't affect them... but i wonder, will they decide to take a more stronger stance if a couple users are hauled off to prison because of what they downloaded from this site?


 
Well played sir, well played.


----------



## CannonFodder (Apr 8, 2010)

Redregon said:


> agreed... not to knock the admins, but it almost feels like they're making light of the situation. granted, the servers and staff are in the US mostly so this law technically doesn't affect them... but i wonder, will they decide to take a more stronger stance if a couple users are hauled off to prison because of what they downloaded from this site?


Watch 100 UK users get hauled off and they still downplay it, wouldn't surprise me at all.


Wyldfyre said:


> FFFUUU....


Try telling all the UK furs you know and that, get the word out.


----------



## Wyldfyre (Apr 8, 2010)

Redregon said:


> but i wonder, will they decide to take a more stronger stance if a couple users are hauled off to prison because of what they downloaded from this site?


I doesn't even need to be downloaded.
Simply browsing a site 'accused' of hosting illegal content for 'an extended period' or 'frequently' warrants legal intervention.


----------



## Redregon (Apr 8, 2010)

CannonFodder said:


> Watch 100 UK users get hauled off and they still downplay it, wouldn't surprise me at all.
> 
> Try telling all the UK furs you know and that, get the word out.



you know, it wouldn't surprise me one bit if there's some "enterprising" individual or group that would approach dragoneer for permission to establish a UK version of the site... i know it would be expensive for them but if i know one thing about the typical furry it's that they would froth at the mouth for the chance to attain celebrity status.



Wyldfyre said:


> I doesn't even need to be downloaded.
> Simply browsing a site 'accused' of hosting illegal content for 'an extended period' or 'frequently' warrants legal intervention.



so, i guess this covers wether a user has faved a piece as well.


----------



## Wyldfyre (Apr 8, 2010)

Redregon said:


> so, i guess this covers wether a user has faved a piece as well.


Yep.
Absolutely _anything_ to do with FA.


----------



## CannonFodder (Apr 8, 2010)

Wyldfyre said:


> I doesn't even need to be downloaded.
> Simply browsing a site 'accused' of hosting illegal content for 'an extended period' or 'frequently' warrants legal intervention.


In other words, you will find oxygen masks in the overhead compartment and your chair can be used as a floatation device cause the fandom is about to come crashing down in a _flaming_ fireball.


----------



## south syde dobe (Apr 8, 2010)

This is getting rather exciting


----------



## Wyldfyre (Apr 8, 2010)

south syde dobe said:


> This is getting rather exciting


I'll let you know when the police arrive. k?


----------



## CannonFodder (Apr 8, 2010)

south syde dobe said:


> This is getting rather exciting


Keep cub porn to appease 1/20th of your users Y/N?
Keep cub porn by destroying the furry fandom? Y/N


----------



## Ricky (Apr 8, 2010)

Wyldfyre said:


> I doesn't even need to be downloaded.
> Simply browsing a site 'accused' of hosting illegal content for 'an extended period' or 'frequently' warrants legal intervention.



Right...  :roll:

I'm assuming you are joking here and didn't actually miss the half of the thread explaining why this isn't the case.


----------



## CannonFodder (Apr 8, 2010)

Ricky said:


> Right...  :roll:
> 
> I'm assuming you are joking here and didn't actually miss the half of the thread explaining why this isn't the case.


Shh, you're going to kill the drama.


----------



## Wyldfyre (Apr 8, 2010)

Ricky said:


> Right...  :roll:
> 
> I'm assuming you are joking here and didn't actually miss the half of the thread explaining why this isn't the case.


No, I read the thread, but I also took a course in Internet Security a few years back which brushed on internet legal issues.
I think it would be possible to get off without a criminal record or conviciton, but it wouldn't stop me coming to the attention of the authorities.


----------



## Redregon (Apr 8, 2010)

Wyldfyre said:


> No, I read the thread, but I also took a course in Internet Security a few years back which brushed on internet legal issues.
> I think it would be possible to get off without a criminal record or conviciton, but it wouldn't stop me coming to the attention of the authorities.



so, basically you're "armchair lawyer-ing?"

if you could link to the information you know, that would help. i'm sure we could all go in circles but in matters like this, maybe it's a good idea to get some actual professional input into this.

hell, i could say that it's illegal or legal for a million reasons, but unless i'm an actual lawyer or i am well versed in the laws as it pertains to this, all that that would be would be opinion and not hold any weight. it's one of the resons why i've pestered the admins as to wether lawyers are consulted in issues regarding law. a judge won't take the "well, i interpreted this law in my favour so you can't prosecute me" stance from anyone. hell, i would love to see a case like this case handled by Judge Judy, it would make me moist in my nether areas to see her verbally bitchslap a cub-porn addict trying to defend himself with that sort of argument.


----------



## Wyldfyre (Apr 8, 2010)

Redregon said:


> hell, i would love to see a case like this case handled by Judge Judy, it would make me moist in my nether areas to see her verbally bitchslap a cub-porn addict trying to defend himself with that sort of argument.


XD _That_ would be amusing.


----------



## Ricky (Apr 8, 2010)

Wyldfyre said:


> No, I read the thread, but I also took a course in Internet Security a few years back which brushed on internet legal issues.
> I think it would be possible to get off without a criminal record or conviciton, but it wouldn't stop me coming to the attention of the authorities.



Well, I'm real proud of you 

To sum it up again:

1.) People don't get charged for crimes they didn't commit.  You can't get arrested for simply visiting a site that has been charged with hosting illegal content.  That is rediculous.

2.) As someone pointed out, in the exclusions it states in pretty clear English what you said is not the case:



> 64 Defences  (1) Where a person is charged with an offence under section 62(1), it is a defence for the person to prove any of the following mattersâ€”
> (a) that the person had a legitimate reason for being in possession of the image concerned;
> (b) that the person had not seen the image concerned and did not know, nor had any cause to suspect, it to be a prohibited image of a child;
> (c) that the personâ€”
> ...



It is nice you took a class from your community college or whatever but if there are relevant facts here we are missing please point them out.


----------



## Wyldfyre (Apr 8, 2010)

> (i) *was sent the image concerned without any prior request having  been made by or on behalf of the person, and*
> (ii) *did not keep it for an unreasonable time.*


This also includes cache content, which I trust you know, is stored on a computer purely through browsing.
Personally, I wouldn't go looking for 'illegal content', but items such as thumbnails and links would still be stored.


----------



## Ricky (Apr 8, 2010)

Wyldfyre said:


> This also includes cache content.



Well, no it doesn't.

If someone isn't searching specifically for the content, cached content would mean the person was:



> sent the image concerned without any prior request having been made by or on behalf of the person


You could also say they didn't keep it for an unreasonable time (nothing over whatever they have their internet cache set to).

This is actually the reason they put these exclusions in here.  If you unintentionally get crap in your internet cache from FA or 4-chan or whatever it would be unreasonable grounds for prosecution.  Or for example, get emailed a bad picture.


----------



## Wyldfyre (Apr 8, 2010)

Ricky said:


> This is actually the reason they put these exclusions in here.  If you unintentionally get crap in your internet cache from FA or 4-chan or whatever it would be unreasonable grounds for prosecution.


Wouldn't stop them trying.
But thanks for the info anyway.


----------



## Ricky (Apr 8, 2010)

Wyldfyre said:


> Wouldn't stop them trying.
> But thanks for the info anyway.



So you're saying there aren't any relevant facts here I'm missing?

Cool.  Just wanted to make sure


----------



## Artificial Ginger (Apr 8, 2010)

Teco said:


> In bold; How is any of that at all acceptable??


Okay, so, it's not more acceptable to keep one's perversions confined to the realm of fantasy than to actually act on them. That's your entire premise, right?



> In actual human society, how is any of that acceptable. If you were standing in front of me, preaching this shit, I would beat the shit out of you. If I had a child, I would probably give you concrete shoes.


Oh, look, the Internet Tough Guy made an appeal to violence. How is it that I'm not surprised in the least?



> And by your words, if the people who are drawing it, stopped to draw it, all of them would turn to fucking little kids instead.


Yes and no. Many who draw such things are not pedophiles themselves--but if their audience is comprised mostly of pedophiles, and the images keep them at home masturbating



> Not as much value in reality, but fiction has some value to it, religion derives from fiction after all.


Say that to a religious person. Odds are good that they'll hand you your ass.



> What you're defending is the value of children, real or fiction, being used by real people for sexual satisfaction.


No, I'm defending the idea that fiction is one thing and reality is quite another.



> And I'm wrong? If all I did was draw murder, portray my 'inner self' as a murderer and got off at it AND made it public... i'd probably be sent to get mental help, which is what these people need.


Just because you'd be sent to get help doesn't mean you'd actually need it.

Though _you_ clearly do need mental help, since you're frothing at the mouth over something like this and completely incapable of replying without using at least three logical fallacies and a number of _ad hominem_ attacks.



> All pedos are PEDOS.


THE HELL YOU SAY =O



> Since when is that ever accepted ANYWHERE. Oh right, here!


If you have a problem with that, why are you here? You're more than welcome to leave if it's got your panties in that much of a twist.



> I can see reality from fiction, but I can still use my fucking brain to tell right from wrong.


"Right" and "wrong" are used in the moral sense rather than the factual sense here, correct? "There is no such thing as a moral or immoral book. Books are either well written or badly written. That is all."

All fiction is still fiction.



> Im not going to go see a movie about an actor playing a child gets kidnapped and raped and walk out all happy and tell everyone about it and expect them to be like, "Oh! I wanted to see that, cause its awesome, because its FAKE, otherwise I wouldn't." But its still child porn.


That's nice. Largely irrelevant and almost completely incoherent, but good for you.



> I dont know what the fuck you could possibly use to insult me just because its a furry forum. Sorry, I cant see that bit of logic... what am I? A Furrrcuker? A murrtherfucker?


The word is "sheep", you mindless howler. 
The joke, therefore, is that anybody with a sheep character might jump in and start ranting.

By the way, are you familiar with the colloquialism "ten pounds of crap in a five-pound bag"? Because it certainly seems to apply to you very well.



> Just fucking say the one of many fucking insults you could use, or does your *6 year old, boy with emphasis on him being gay and wearing girly clothing(like skirts to show off his cute little boi butt, huh? HUH?Im right ain't I.),*


I don't use my character for sexual things. Nice try, though.



> inner you not want to say it cause its a BAD BAD WORD AND MOMMY WOULD GET MAD, RRRRR.


D'aww, that's as clever as you're capable of being, isn't it? How cute~



> yes, exactly, its WANK MATERIAL


And how is it any worse than your porn of choice?

The funny thing here is that there are two main kinds of people who actually look at cub porn: Pedophiles, and screaming moralizers. So any "intelligent" argument the latter might like to make against it--always of the form "this promotes pedophilia"--is defeated right there, because it's not making the moralizers like it any more (except insofar as they love to feel outraged), and the pedophiles are already pedophiles.

As for _your_ argument, it's already a slippery slope and thus fallacious.



> just get rid of it, now the whole UK thing is solved and we can just have regular cute kid art instead of PORN. Where is the problem in that? One site stops. The pedos have to move to a different site, well shit.


Problem #1: How to get rid of all the existing cub porn?
Problem #2: What's to stop the UK from just banning FurAffinity anyway?
Problem #3: It lets the screaming moralizers who can't even make a good argument get what they want, thereby


----------



## Duality Jack (Apr 8, 2010)

whoa ginger is a he? 

never knew that, and seems to be a baby fur too xD


----------



## Redregon (Apr 8, 2010)

all other arguments aside, i think that we're missing a little bit of the point here.

it's not that all people that look at cub porn are pedophiles (though i am of the mind that it is a very slippery slope itself and becoming addicted to it is a very dangerous prospect.) but that it's the furries that don't have the sense to keep their fantasies limited to just fantasy. 

this is applicable to almost any fetish or kink (wether innocuous or not.) reason being, there have been furries (which are people at the core) who have raped, who have infected people with STIs, and some whom have even been caught trying to either diddle kids or with actual CP on their hard drives.

i think the point i'm trying to get at here is that suggesting that it's completely innocent and innocuous is itself a little bit of a fallacy since we all know that there ARE furries that have a hard time or just don't make the distinction between fantasy and reality. (shit, how many furries do you know that get bent out of shape because they don't see a fox or husky or panther looking back at them when they look in the mirror? how many furries just can't seem to get-it-up to human porn?)


----------



## Artificial Ginger (Apr 8, 2010)

Redregon said:


> all other arguments aside, i think that we're missing a little bit of the point here.
> 
> it's not that all people that look at cub porn are pedophiles (though i am of the mind that it is a very slippery slope itself and becoming addicted to it is a very dangerous prospect.) but that it's the furries that don't have the sense to keep their fantasies limited to just fantasy.
> 
> ...


So, in other words, you propose letting the few people who _can't_ control themselves mess things up for the many who can?

Wow, this whole thing really _is_ politics as usual.



Voidrunners said:


> Well done. You've just tried to justify paedophillia.


It's impossible to outlaw an attraction to something, and it's impossible to keep somebody from being a pedophile. It's a deep-seated psychological condition, not a choice.



> Now go away and think about what you've done.


Evidently, I annoyed a cat in a Batman mask. I am very proud of myself right now.



Wyldfyre said:


> The people in Parliment don't give a shit about the people, they just want to make it look like they're doing something useful to the population. Especially as we have an Election coming up.


I suspect this is exactly how at least 95% of the UK's Orwellian laws got passed.



The Drunken Ace said:


> whoa ginger is a he?
> 
> never knew that, and seems to be a baby fur too xD


You should probably drink less. You read my character's profile not long ago =/

...and my character is a _cub_, not a babyfur. I'm not into the diaper thing, and kids under 5 annoy me >.>


----------



## Ricky (Apr 8, 2010)

Redregon said:


> all other arguments aside, i think that we're missing a little bit of the point here.
> 
> it's not that all people that look at cub porn are pedophiles (though i am of the mind that it is a very slippery slope itself and becoming addicted to it is a very dangerous prospect.) but that it's the furries that don't have the sense to keep their fantasies limited to just fantasy.
> 
> ...



I see what you're saying and to back up a bit I don't think it's "innocent and innocuous" and I don't think people should look at cub porn and not think there is something wrong and creepy with it.  That's just opinions though.  It is still art and it's not hurting anyone.  As I was saying before, I don't think cub porn will actually turn people into pedos but that's just my opinion.

If you're really concerned with this stuff there are much bigger vectors, even within the fandom itself.  Take babyfurs, for example.  I don't think it is the cub porn people should be worrying about as much as the creepy "daddies" that register to sites looking for young teens to molest.  I know for a fact it happens and it works because these "teen babies" have a fetish for being babied by a daddy-type figure.

That is a _real_ problem.  Fuck this art shit nobody should even care about.


----------



## Teco (Apr 8, 2010)

CannonFodder said:


> Keep cub porn to appease 1/20th of your users Y/N?
> Keep cub porn by destroying the furry fandom? Y/N


 N



The Drunken Ace said:


> whoa ginger is a he?
> 
> never knew that, and seems to be a baby fur too xD


I want a picture of him in real life too, i got the vibe he's extremely pedo looking.


----------



## Artificial Ginger (Apr 8, 2010)

Is it me or is the anthropomorphic middle finger the most reasonable poster in this thread?


----------



## Redregon (Apr 8, 2010)

Artificial Ginger said:


> So, in other words, you propose letting the few people who _can't_ control themselves mess things up for the many who can?



things like that have happened before and will probably happen again. so, no, i'm not proposing they be left to their own devices, i'm of the mind that at least here i would like nothing better than to see their backsides as they mope off to other sites better suited to the cub-porn. 

you can't deny that the fandom has a lot of indivuduals that are really fucked in the head.

and at the very base of it, i'm suggesting a ban on the cub-porn which you kinda agree is nasty at best, downright brain-bleach time at it's worst. let's not kid ourselves, this isn't about "artistic freedom" or other such bs, we're talking about wether we should allow this pedo-catnip to stay here since it will draw them.

at the very core of my argument here, however, is based on emotion and less on logic so, i dunno, do you want to be a ponce and dismiss all my opinions because i'm not "being logical?" i freely admit i am biased and for (What i feel is) a damn good reason. it's not hard to see that a lot of the people arguing pro or con have an ulterior motive. wether it be "for the lulz" or "for great justice" doesn't really matter since all we're doing is arguing back and forth like all these threads end up happening until one or the other decides to just leave. it solves nothing and unless anyone in the UK is willing to speak up about it and actually DO something about it, all that everyone here is doing is just flapping their jaws. i mean, Dragoneer and the admins have likely already made up their mind, all that everyone here is  doing is just whining (in the end.)

so, yeah... call me an emotional and logic free dolt, i really don't care about that (i've been called worse) but at the very least accept that what everyone here is posting is their personal opinion and that's likely not going to change unless there's some very compelling arguments AND evidence presented (which few people here have done.)


----------



## south syde dobe (Apr 8, 2010)

Artificial Ginger said:


> Is it me or is the anthropomorphic middle finger the most reasonable poster in this thread?


 
I can beat Ricky =D


----------



## Artificial Ginger (Apr 8, 2010)

Redregon said:


> things like that have happened before and will probably happen again. so, no, i'm not proposing they be left to their own devices, i'm of the mind that at least here i would like nothing better than to see their backsides as they mope off to other sites better suited to the cub-porn.
> 
> you can't deny that the fandom has a lot of indivuduals that are really fucked in the head.


Of course not. But nor can I pretend they'll be any less "fucked in the head" if we take the cub porn away. Unfortunately for your line of reasoning, there are plenty of furs here who are insane without being pedos. (Teco, for example.)



> and at the very base of it, i'm suggesting a ban on the cub-porn


Obviously =V



> which you kinda agree is nasty at best, downright brain-bleach time at it's worst.


I don't mind it, I'm just not into it.



> let's not kid ourselves, this isn't about "artistic freedom" or other such bs,


Sure it is.



> we're talking about wether we should allow this pedo-catnip to stay here since it will draw them.


Having minors here will be sufficient to draw pedophiles.



> at the very core of my argument here, however, is based on emotion and less on logic so, i dunno, do you want to be a ponce and dismiss all my opinions because i'm not "being logical?"


Yes. If you can't back up your arguments with logic, don't bother making them at all.



> i freely admit i am biased and for (What i feel is) a damn good reason. it's not hard to see that a lot of the people arguing pro or con have an ulterior motive.


Pretty much. I'm only still here because I'm trying to make Teco's head explode from sheer rage.



> wether it be "for the lulz" or "for great justice" doesn't really matter since all we're doing is arguing back and forth like all these threads end up happening until one or the other decides to just leave. it solves nothing and unless anyone in the UK is willing to speak up about it and actually DO something about it, all that everyone here is doing is just flapping their jaws. i mean, Dragoneer and the admins have likely already made up their mind, all that everyone here is  doing is just whining (in the end.)


Agreed.



> so, yeah... call me an emotional and logic free dolt, i really don't care about that (i've been called worse) but at the very least accept that what everyone here is posting is their personal opinion and that's likely not going to change unless there's some very compelling arguments AND evidence presented (which few people here have done.)


Whatever. All the arguments and evidence in the world won't open a closed mind.


----------



## Duality Jack (Apr 8, 2010)

So people need laws to tell them child porn is not cool....


fucking furries.


----------



## Verin Asper (Apr 8, 2010)

http://www.furaffinity.net/journal/1321273/

that is all DERP :B


----------



## Redregon (Apr 8, 2010)

Artificial Ginger said:


> Of course not. But nor can I pretend they'll be any less "fucked in the head" if we take the cub porn away. Unfortunately for your line of reasoning, there are plenty of furs here who are insane without being pedos. (Teco, for example.)



yes, but the types of "fucked in the head" varies and not all of them involve minors or a lack of informed consent.



Artificial Ginger said:


> Sure it is.



nobody is saying that they aren't allowed to draw it, just suggesting not to post it. one doesn't NEED to post their work to enjoy the freedom to actually draw it. suggesting that one DOES have the right to post whatever they want under the grounds of "artistic freedom" clearly hasn't read or comprehended the AUP and all that that boils down to is an overinflated and unbalanced sense of self-entitlement... which boils down further to an overinflated ego.



Artificial Ginger said:


> Having minors here will be sufficient to draw pedophiles.



true enough, but if you think about it, if you can remove one of two factors, then the liklyhood of it occouring is (logically) assumed to be lessened. (OMG, did i actually use logic in that one? tut tut, i should know better.)



Artificial Ginger said:


> Yes. If you can't back up your arguments with logic, don't bother making them at all.



and if you're dismissing all that i've posted because of that one thing, that's only pointing towards your own failings. you're just as emotional about it because you are just as biased as i am... just, in the opposite direction. does this mean that we can also dismiss all your arguments as well? i mean, tit for tat.



Artificial Ginger said:


> Pretty much. I'm only still here because I'm trying to make Teco's head explode from sheer rage.



Aaah, the good old "Social experiment" line. been waiting for this one to pop up.



Artificial Ginger said:


> Whatever. All the arguments and evidence in the world won't open a closed mind.



aaand here's where the attempt at a character assassination comes into play. a weak one at best but still it is what it is.


----------



## Trpdwarf (Apr 8, 2010)

The Drunken Ace said:


> So people need laws to tell them child porn is not cool....
> 
> 
> fucking furries.



It's not that they need laws to tell them child porn is not cool. It's that so many pedophiles refuse to admit to the obvious. They will never admit to the obvious.

The obvious that is what cub porn is. They will rant and rave that child porn isn't good, but back peddle and go "Well cub porn isn't child porn" even though the porn sexually depicts child characters doing sexually explicit things. I mean, isn't that where the use of the word "Cub" came from? Cub means child as per furry terms. But that's all I have to say here.

EDIT: Something for the cub furs watching this thread: *At the end of the day I really feel for the cub furs that have to put up with this evisceration of their little sub group. Here the whole cub thing was supposed to be about (as far as I understand it) innocence of childhood, cuteness of children(in the innocent aspect) and emulating that with characters and now when people think cub fur, too easily they think of the bastardization of it. It's kind of sad. I'd wholly support kicking the cub porn to the curb because that's one better step in right direction for the whole cub fur thing, but that is just my humble opinion.


----------



## south syde dobe (Apr 8, 2010)

Trpdwarf said:


> It's not that they need laws to tell them child porn is not cool. It's that so many pedophiles refuse to admit to the obvious. They will never admit to the obvious.
> 
> The obvious that is what cub porn is. They will rant and rave that child porn isn't good, but back peddle and go "Well cub porn isn't child porn" even though the porn sexually depicts child characters doing sexually explicit things. I mean, isn't that where the use of the word "Cub" came from? Cub means child as per furry terms. But that's all I have to say here.


 
ilu <3


----------



## Verin Asper (Apr 8, 2010)

Artificial Ginger said:


> Whatever. All the arguments and evidence in the world won't open a closed mind.


what I learn from my history teacher

"there is no such thing as a open minded person, just a degree of how close to closed their door is. If an open minded person Did exist, they would not partake in any argument as they would accept the other person views right away, thus open minded folks are more likely the ones that really, really don't give a damn 100% but even thats impossible cause everyone gives a damn in some way"


----------



## Trpdwarf (Apr 8, 2010)

Crysix Corps said:


> what I learn from my history teacher
> 
> "there is no such thing as a open minded person, just a degree of how close to closed their door is. If an open minded person Did exist, they would not partake in any argument as they would accept the other person views right away, thus open minded folks are more likely the ones that really, really don't give a damn 100% but even thats impossible cause everyone gives a damn in some way"



I'd rather have my mind's door partially closed than be a doormat for everyone to step on because they know I won't bite back or take a stand.

It's like I've told people time and time again. Your mind is like a parachute. If it is too open you're going face first to the ground.


----------



## Ricky (Apr 8, 2010)

Trpdwarf said:


> It's not that they need laws to tell them child porn is not cool. It's that so many pedophiles refuse to admit to the obvious. They will never admit to the obvious.
> 
> The obvious that is what cub porn is. They will rant and rave that child porn isn't good, but back peddle and go "Well cub porn isn't child porn" even though the porn sexually depicts child characters doing sexually explicit things. I mean, isn't that where the use of the word "Cub" came from? Cub means child as per furry terms. But that's all I have to say here.



Well, not always.  I know a lot of babyfurs and a lot of them have mates who are babyfurs as well.  They sometimes have people commission art of their cub fursonas.  Unsurprisingly, a lot of the art is of an adult nature and although I still find it a bit odd I know for a fact many are not pedo's; they just like having a cub fursona.

There are also those who think the cub porn itself is hot.

As for the broader issue of whether or not it should be banned on FA, I don't particularly care one way or the other.  If it is banned here another site will just step in to replace it and it would be erring on the side of caution.  I'm just here to argue.



Crysix Corps said:


> what I learn from my history teacher
> 
> "there is no such thing as a open minded person, just a degree of how close to closed their door is. If an open minded person Did exist, they would not partake in any argument as they would accept the other person views right away, thus open minded folks are more likely the ones that really, really don't give a damn 100% but even thats impossible cause everyone gives a damn in some way"



No offense to your teacher but he's wrong.

An open mind just means allowing your opinions to change.

It doesn't mean not having an opinion or not giving a damn.


----------



## Verin Asper (Apr 8, 2010)

Ricky said:


> No offense to your teacher but he's wrong.
> 
> An open mind just means allowing your opinions to change.
> 
> It doesn't mean not having an opinion or not giving a damn.


nope cause he is right, there is no such thing as an open minded person

"An open Mind just means allowing your opinions to change"
Thus an open minded person dont hold to their opinions, a closed minded person with a rather open door will change theirs.

Every fur here who claimed to have an open mind, they dont really, they have a rather open door but still close on other things.


----------



## Redregon (Apr 8, 2010)

Ricky said:


> No offense to your teacher but he's wrong.
> 
> An open mind just means allowing your opinions to change.
> 
> It doesn't mean not having an opinion or not giving a damn.



i'm just going to leave this video here for you to enjoy

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T69TOuqaqXI


----------



## Ricky (Apr 8, 2010)

Crysix Corps said:


> nope cause he is right, there is no such thing as an open minded person
> 
> "An open Mind just means allowing your opinions to change"
> Thus an open minded person dont hold to their opinions, a closed minded person with a rather open door will change theirs.
> ...



You are making up the term "closed minded person with a rather open door" and trying to substitute it for the term "open minded".  I don't think this helps in a semantic debate.

Let's back up.  There are two terms here that people actually use: "open minded" and "closed minded".  Everyone lies at some point between those two extremes.  Having an "open mind" means listening to what other people say and taking it into consideration.  It doesn't mean you are going to believe everything they say or not stick to your own opinion but rather you are _open_ to the possibility.  Having a "closed mind" simply means you won't take anything people say into consideration but rather stubbornly stick to your own static opinions.

The only reason nobody has a completely open mind is because people, by nature, are stubborn.


----------



## Teco (Apr 8, 2010)

What I want to know is why the fucking pedos just cant be happy with the normal child art. The tame shit.

Why and the fuck are people actually defending child porn.

@Ginger 

You say your creepy little 6 year old 'fursona' isn't used sexually but its written all over it. Which makes it even more creepy because you're actually one of the ones defending child porn.

If it was just a 6 year old fursona that likes to play ball and stuff and you said we could all do without the child porn I would be alright, but no.

You're using a crossdressing 'fetish', probably of your own, on him, which makes it sexual. Because 6 year olds dont go and buy girl clothing and the parents wouldn't do that as well while joking about it unless they were PEDOS. Not only that, you further fuck up your 'oh its just an innocent cub fursona' by giving it a sexual orientation. Making him gay means he's attracted sexually to all the other little boys.

So dont give me that shit.


----------



## Redregon (Apr 8, 2010)

Teco said:


> Not only that, you further fuck up your 'oh its just an innocent cub fursona' by giving it a sexual orientation. *Making him gay means he's attracted sexually to all the other little boys*.
> 
> So dont give me that shit.



couldn't have said it better myself.

fun fact, children don't grasp the concept of sex or sexual attraction until puberty. if they did, do you think schoolyards would have those massive outbreaks of "cooties" that they do?


----------



## Carenath (Apr 8, 2010)

Ricky said:


> I don't believe it ever should be.  Emotional topics make it easy to pass legislation, however.


It's called Social Engineering.

To everyone whining about this new law, if you're not into cub porn or babyfur porn, it won't effect you, so, cut your whining. This isn't a case of "First They Came/Slippery Slope" this is a law passed with the intention of further curtailing access to material that paedophiles would seek out.

To everyone saying, this law will result in FA being blocked in the UK, where is your proof that the *entire* site will become unavailable to UK users regardless of the content hosted?
If the current system, and the proposed Australian system, are anything to go by, then it won't be.

Oh, and keep it civil people.


----------



## Hermie (Apr 8, 2010)

Fun fact, toddlers masturbate. As young as 2, infants do discover their sexual organs, and touch them, because they feel good.


----------



## Teco (Apr 8, 2010)

Hermie said:


> Fun fact, toddlers masturbate. As young as 2, infants do discover their sexual organs, and touch them, because they feel good.


 
Yeah yeah, thats like. Social Science 101 or something.


----------



## Ricky (Apr 8, 2010)

Hermie said:


> Fun fact, toddlers masturbate. As young as 2, infants do discover their sexual organs, and touch them, because they feel good.



Heh, that reminds me of that baby in Fritz the Cat


----------



## Carenath (Apr 8, 2010)

Redregon said:


> it never occoured to you that furries can sometimes be petty enough to rat out users because they thought it would be fun/vindicating/great-justice/payback-of-some-sort?
> 
> hell, i'm sure even the good ol chaps in Anon would love to tackle this since they seem to hate cub-porn just as much (if not moreso) than the average furry... or maybe that's just because they sustain themselves on distilled hate. (nutritious, delicious hate. :9)


Human Nature 101.
But, what makes you think, people have not tried this already?


----------



## Ricky (Apr 8, 2010)

Carenath said:


> Human Nature 101.
> But, what makes you think, people have not tried this already?



I'm sure it has.

Someone has probably emailed the FBI with a bunch of furry drama and someone probably skimmed over it, sent a generic reply then hit "delete".


----------



## Artificial Ginger (Apr 8, 2010)

Redregon said:


> yes, but the types of "fucked in the head" varies and not all of them involve minors or a lack of informed consent.


That isn't the relevant factor here. The relevant factor is that some furries can't keep their fantasies and their realities separate, and quite frankly the pedophiles seem to be the least problematic in that respect.



> and if you're dismissing all that i've posted because of that one thing


I'm dismissing all you've posted because I don't really care about what you have to say. You're making all the same arguments Rage Boy's been making, except you aren't even angry enough or _interesting_ enough to make replying to you worthwhile.



> Aaah, the good old "Social experiment" line. been waiting for this one to pop up.


Actually, it'd be "LOL I TROL U". If you're going to say I'm using a cop-out, at least pick the right one.



> aaand here's where the attempt at a character assassination comes into play. a weak one at best but still it is what it is.


But it'd be A-OK if I agreed with you and Mr. Furious over there, right? =V


----------



## Bir (Apr 8, 2010)

Well damn. That's just horrible. : / 

I have friends from the UK here.

Maybe there's a way to make all UK furs just.. not able to view that kind of art, ya know? And all artwork uploaded with that content must have a "not appropriate for UK laws" option. Sounds stupid, but... I think it'll help with ya know.. NOT GOING TO JAIL. : /


----------



## Artificial Ginger (Apr 8, 2010)

Bir said:


> Well damn. That's just horrible. : /
> 
> I have friends from the UK here.
> 
> Maybe there's a way to make all UK furs just.. not able to view that kind of art, ya know? And all artwork uploaded with that content must have a "not appropriate for UK laws" option. Sounds stupid, but... I think it'll help with ya know.. NOT GOING TO JAIL. : /


I like this idea, except it'd be entirely reliant on the artists tagging/labeling things properly.

Some artists still don't even tag the things they draw at all. Otherwise, it seems like it'd work.

Banning it all's still easier, though =/


----------



## Bir (Apr 8, 2010)

Artificial Ginger said:


> I like this idea, except it'd be entirely reliant on the artists tagging/labeling things properly.
> 
> Some artists still don't even tag the things they draw at all. Otherwise, it seems like it'd work.
> 
> Banning it all's still easier, though =/




Well maybe it could be done this way:

We get more art moderators, and anyone found with art that ISN'T tagged or rated appropriately will have the art deleted until it IS appropriate. Then, all uploads should be monitered, like.. go through and be tagged and rated by the art moderators. It'd be a pain, but.. we'd lost more members than just the UK members if that kind of art were banned altogether.


----------



## GraemeLion (Apr 8, 2010)

I know I said I was gone, but I don't like thoughtcrime.  But I'm not going to defend cub art or what not.

I certainly don't think FA should tailor its site to another country's laws. 

What do you think Muslim countries would say about the stuff that goes on on FA?  Should we have a "not appropriate for Saudi Arabia" or "not appropriate for Qatar" or "Not appropriate for UAE" as well?

The law in question here does not punish people "just passing through."    We shouldn't , in America, have to change a website to meet another country's laws.


----------



## Bir (Apr 8, 2010)

That's true, GraemeLion. I didn't even think about other laws that other countries might have. 

I guess I'd have to agree with that, then. FA shouldn't change its laws for other countries. Maybe the UK can make it's own fursite suitable for its laws =3


----------



## TashkentFox (Apr 8, 2010)

Bleeding self-centered Americans.


----------



## GraemeLion (Apr 8, 2010)

Bir said:


> That's true, GraemeLion. I didn't even think about other laws that other countries might have.
> 
> I guess I'd have to agree with that, then. FA shouldn't change its laws for other countries. Maybe the UK can make it's own fursite suitable for its laws =3



Plus, FA has enough trouble moderating what it has, right now.  Its not nearly staffed as much as people think.   These are people working for free.  Maybe if there was a paid system, the reaction time would be better, but there are cases that sit in Trouble Tickets for weeks.

I think eventually all cub stuff is going to have to be outlawed on FA.  But I also think eventually FA is going to have to go pure paid to sustain its growth.  That doesn't mean it's the right thing right now.


----------



## Ricky (Apr 8, 2010)

Bir said:


> Well damn. That's just horrible. : /
> 
> I have friends from the UK here.
> 
> Maybe there's a way to make all UK furs just.. not able to view that kind of art, ya know? And all artwork uploaded with that content must have a "not appropriate for UK laws" option. Sounds stupid, but... I think it'll help with ya know.. NOT GOING TO JAIL. : /



Again, the law is not anything different than what is already in place here in the United States so all of this country bullshit is irrelevant.

Don't search for cub porn and you shouldn't need to worry about anything.  If you read a couple pages back it was stated why this is the case.


----------



## Bir (Apr 8, 2010)

Well I certainly don't want anyone in the UK to go. : /  I think their laws are silly, but.. I don't mean to say this the wrong way... if furaffinity is an american site... then it should apply to american laws. To be honest, I don't know if FA IS an american site. For all I know, it's... Australian or something. Whatever it is, though, it should stick with it. They'll suffer losing MOST of the FA population by banning that kind of artwork.


----------



## GraemeLion (Apr 8, 2010)

TashkentFox said:


> Bleeding self-centered Americans.



Hey, I just don't want YOUR laws to affect MY life.  You don't like it, change your government on May 6.  Don't expect us to follow your laws, that's why we have OUR OWN legislators


----------



## Redregon (Apr 8, 2010)

Artificial Ginger said:


> That isn't the relevant factor here. The relevant factor is that some furries can't keep their fantasies and their realities separate, and quite frankly the pedophiles seem to be the least problematic in that respect.



if they're so non-problematic, then why do they usually elicit such a great display of outrage when the subject is brought up?

but you know what, i think this IS the relevant factor here. i merely pointed out that there are furries with dubious grips on reality, you're the one that's specifying that the pedo's in that crowd are somehow innocent and gentle souls? i call bullshit on this one. 



Artificial Ginger said:


> I'm dismissing all you've posted because I don't really care about what you have to say. You're making all the same arguments Rage Boy's been making, except you aren't even angry enough or _interesting_ enough to make replying to you worthwhile.



oh, so, it's only a valid point if you agree with it? or maybe i should inject a string of obscenities. sorry, that's not my style. don't like it? tough noogums princess.



Artificial Ginger said:


> Actually, it'd be "LOL I TROL U". If you're going to say I'm using a cop-out, at least pick the right one.



same hat, different lady. now you're just quibbling on semantics. 9_9



Artificial Ginger said:


> But it'd be A-OK if I agreed with you and Mr. Furious over there, right? =V



no, but at the least have the decency to admit that you're biased on this and your attempts to play at the "champion of morality" is a false illusion. 

trust me, bud, you're about as transparent as one can get in this sort of argument. :lol:


----------



## Bir (Apr 8, 2010)

Ricky said:


> Again, the law is not anything different than what is already in place here in the United States so all of this country bullshit is irrelevant.
> 
> Don't search for cub porn and you shouldn't need to worry about anything.  If you read a couple pages back it was stated why this is the case.



I haven't read the past 17 pages. I was just putting my thoughts in, thanks. I personally like clean art, so whether I'm from the UK or not I'm safe. However, soon or even right now they may have a rule banning sites with that type of art allowed in general.


----------



## Redregon (Apr 8, 2010)

GraemeLion said:


> I know I said I was gone, but I don't like thoughtcrime.  But I'm not going to defend cub art or what not..



it's not Thought crime if the person acts on it. then it's action... not just thought. we are discussing something that takes Action to come into reality, afterall.

i mean, how do you think all these cub-porn pictures become reality? someone has to "Act" on the thought of drawing them.


----------



## TashkentFox (Apr 8, 2010)

GraemeLion said:


> Hey, I just don't want YOUR laws to affect MY life.  You don't like it, change your government on May 6.  Don't expect us to follow your laws, that's why we have OUR OWN legislators



Damn rebel colonist, a hell of a lot of this sites users are British, should we be denied access for the sake of allowing some fapping material to remain online? I know our government are being assholes but we didn't know they'd turn into the CSPU when we elected them in 1997.


----------



## Bir (Apr 8, 2010)

TashkentFox said:


> Damn rebel colonist, a hell of a lot of this sites users are British, should we be denied access for the sake of allowing some fapping material to remain online? I know our government are being assholes but we didn't know they'd turn into the CSPU when we elected them in 1997.



So gather and talk about it. : / I don't know much about what goes on there, so pardon me if I say anything insulting, but... here, if we don't like something, we have the power to try to change it. Not sure about anywhere else.


----------



## GraemeLion (Apr 8, 2010)

TashkentFox said:


> Damn rebel colonist, a hell of a lot of this sites users are British, should we be denied access for the sake of allowing some fapping material to remain online? I know our government are being assholes but we didn't know they'd turn into the CSPU when we elected them in 1997.



So instead of it being your problem, you want to turn it into our problem too? 

Hey, we dumped the tea into the harbor for a REASON 

Handle your own mess


----------



## CannonFodder (Apr 8, 2010)

Carenath said:


> Oh, and keep it civil people.


This is pretty civil, well for a thread about cub it's civil, last one everyone just raged at each other.


GraemeLion said:


> What do you think Muslim countries would say about the stuff that goes on on FA?  Should we have a "not appropriate for Saudi Arabia" or "not appropriate for Qatar" or "Not appropriate for UAE" as well?









That's furries in the world, percentage of population being furries, how many dots do you see in the middle east?


GraemeLion said:


> Hey, I just don't want YOUR laws to affect MY life.  You don't like it, change your government on May 6.  Don't expect us to follow your laws, that's why we have OUR OWN legislators **puts sunglasses on* IN AMERICA! YEEAAAAHHHHH!*


fix'd :V


----------



## Ricky (Apr 8, 2010)

Redregon said:


> it's not Thought crime if the person acts on it. then it's action... not just thought. we are discussing something that takes Action to come into reality, afterall.
> 
> i mean, how do you think all these cub-porn pictures become reality? someone has to "Act" on the thought of drawing them.



You're assuming that drawing something can be inherently immoral, but it can't.


----------



## Smelge (Apr 8, 2010)

GraemeLion said:


> Hey, I just don't want YOUR laws to affect MY life.



Like the US has been doing for years, you mean?

Nah, that can't be right.


----------



## TashkentFox (Apr 8, 2010)

Bir said:


> So gather and talk about it. : / I don't know much about what goes on there, so pardon me if I say anything insulting, but... here, if we don't like something, we have the power to try to change it. Not sure about anywhere else.



From what I've heard about the United States, no you don't. Neither America nor Britain have been free society's since the 1950's.


----------



## CannonFodder (Apr 8, 2010)

TashkentFox said:


> From what I've heard about the United States, no you don't. Neither America nor Britain have been free society's since the 1950's.


Technically speaking America has been a socialist country since the early 1900's.
(_TECHNICALLY_)


----------



## Tewin Follow (Apr 8, 2010)

TashkentFox said:


> since the 1950's.



Are you sure that's correct?


----------



## Redregon (Apr 8, 2010)

Ricky said:


> You're assuming that drawing something can be inherently immoral, but it can't.



now, where did i say that drawing something is immoral? i just said that we're not talking about thought crime here. 

but, since you brought it up, it's not specifically that the actual act of drawing anything is  immoral, it's the subject matter that IS being drawn that can be interpreted as being immoral... and, before you object that cub porn and the like is immoral, i would like to introduce you to the rest of the western world where it is considered immoral to act on fantasies that involve children (of any stripe) in sexual situations. 

and since drawing Cub Porn is an action, that means that logically speaking, since cub porn is about children in sexual situations and it's considered an immoral subject, it stands to reason that the act of drawing children in sexual situations is also immoral.


----------



## TashkentFox (Apr 8, 2010)

Harebelle said:


> Are you sure that's correct?



Aye, that's when the Neo-Cons basically took over the American political system and our post-war slavish following of the United States took us the same way along the road to tyranny.


----------



## Ricky (Apr 8, 2010)

Redregon said:


> now, where did i say that drawing something is immoral? i just said that we're not talking about thought crime here.



Something should be a crime if it is an immoral act.

If you are saying drawing a picture is a crime you are saying it is immoral.  The reason it is considered a "thought crime" is because it is purely fantasy unless the physical act of drawing it on the piece of paper can be shown to be immoral in some way.



Redregon said:


> but, since you brought it up, it's not specifically that the actual act of drawing anything is  immoral, it's the subject matter that IS being drawn that can be interpreted as being immoral... and, before you object that cub porn and the like is immoral, i would like to introduce you to the rest of the western world where it is considered immoral to act on fantasies that involve children (of any stripe) in sexual situations.



So, by your rationale we shouldn't draw anything that has content in the picture that is immoral.  Do you see why this doesn't make any sense?  Do you understand the difference between reality versus fiction?  I could come up with examples such as movies with people getting murdered in them but this should all be obvious.

Drawing a picture is not an immoral act.  Hurting an actual child _is_.

derp


----------



## Redregon (Apr 8, 2010)

Ricky said:


> Something should be a crime if it is an immoral act.
> 
> If you are saying drawing a picture is a crime you are saying it is immoral.  The reason it is considered a "thought crime" is because it is purely fantasy unless the physical act of drawing it on the piece of paper can be shown to be immoral in some way.



well, the UK seems to think that drawing it (which is akin to producing it) is close enough to warrant legislation. 

again, don't like it? do something about it. 

whining about it on an online forum is like winning the special olympics.


----------



## Carenath (Apr 8, 2010)

GraemeLion said:


> Given that I _am_ a babyfur, you're incorrect.
> Many, many babyfurs are into the cubporn.


That, is, sigworthy.



TashkentFox said:


> Bleeding self-centered Americans.





TashkentFox said:


> Damn rebel colonist, a hell of a lot of this sites users are British, should we be denied access for the sake of allowing some fapping material to remain online? I know our government are being assholes but we didn't know they'd turn into the CSPU when we elected them in 1997.


And American websites should totally bend-over backwards to meet UK Government legal requirements.. /sarcasm

Ironic considering America wants foreign websites to do just that.

Dude, read what I said in the previous post. Unless there is incontrovertable evidence to say the *entirity* of FurAffinity will be blocked in the UK under the IWF scheme (Cleanfeed) *and* that accessing FA in of itself will result in criminal prosecution, then, shut up about it.

The only people who have to give a shit, are the paedos that will need to go to e621 and SoFurry for their fap material. Even if those two sites implement a filter, UK users will just work around it the way we always work around silly geo-restrictions.


----------



## Trpdwarf (Apr 8, 2010)

Hermie said:


> Fun fact, toddlers masturbate. As young as 2, infants do discover their sexual organs, and touch them, because they feel good.



And?

How does this factor into anything? It doesn't.

Fun Fact, dogs masturbate too. It doesn't justify boning them. Just as irrelevant here.
As for children, that young babies can figure out something feels good does not justify harboring an entire culture of sexualizing childhood. There was an outrage towards the Bratz dolls for a reason. And there is also a reason I'm pretty certain Freud was a sick fuck tool just like his patients.

That's neither here nor there though. I personally abhorr desecrating childhood. At the end of the day I don't have to look at the stuff, that's what a filter is for. The babyfur community as a whole would be better off without the kiddie porn.


----------



## GraemeLion (Apr 8, 2010)

Carenath said:


> That, is, sigworthy.



I used to be into that .. stuff.  But not anymore.  It .. just isn't something that I care for.  But, having been into it, I know there are a lot more than not in Babyfur.


----------



## Ricky (Apr 8, 2010)

Redregon said:


> well, the UK seems to think that drawing it (which is akin to producing it) is close enough to warrant legislation.
> 
> again, don't like it? do something about it.
> 
> whining about it on an online forum is like winning the special olympics.



Geeze, and this whole time I thought I was engaged in an intellectual debate in an online discussion forum.  I wasn't expecting to win anything ^^

Half of me almost thinks you're getting upset and on the offense here


----------



## Redregon (Apr 8, 2010)

Carenath said:


> And American websites should totally bend-over backwards to meet UK Government legal requirements.. /sarcasm



well, if anything is done i would hope that it's done out of courtesy. i mean, if it comes down to one of two alternatives being either ban the cub porn (keep the cutesy innocent stuff) or force all UK furs to face the risk of their access being denied, which do you think would be the more friendly option?

and besides, all this drama over a small handful of babyfurs crying because they don't wan their wank material to go somewhere else. (because, that's the reality. if it's not here on FA, it's going to be somewhere else.)

sheesh, Furries and their Porn 9_9


----------



## Ozriel (Apr 8, 2010)

Redregon said:


> well, if anything is done i would hope that it's done out of courtesy. i mean, if it comes down to one of two alternatives being either ban the cub porn (keep the cutesy innocent stuff) or force all UK furs to face the risk of their access being denied, which do you think would be the more friendly option?
> 
> and besides, all this drama over a small handful of babyfurs crying because they don't wan their wank material to go somewhere else. (because, that's the reality. if it's not here on FA, it's going to be somewhere else.)
> 
> sheesh, Furries and their Porn 9_9



No matter how bad it is, furries will defend their fetishes to their last breath.


----------



## Duality Jack (Apr 8, 2010)

Catering to damaged and corrupted mindsets only promotes more corruption and damage, so as a nation they decided to try to make said corruption and damage harder to happen.


----------



## Teco (Apr 8, 2010)

GraemeLion said:


> I used to be into that .. stuff.  But not anymore.  It .. just isn't something that I care for.  But, having been into it, I know there are a lot more than not in Babyfur.


God damn it I called it. Bloody knew it.


The Drunken Ace said:


> Catering to damaged and corrupted mindsets only promotes more corruption and damage, so as a nation they decided to try to make said corruption and damage harder to happen.


 Sounds good to me.


----------



## Ricky (Apr 8, 2010)

The Drunken Ace said:


> Catering to damaged and corrupted mindsets only promotes more corruption and damage, so as a nation they decided to try to make said corruption and damage harder to happen.



There's a term for this: *demagogy*.

It is all one big slippery slope.

As I was saying before, these laws get easily passed because it is an emotional topic.  People don't think along the lines of "was a crime actually committed" and "what should constitute a crime" but rather "think" with their emotions about the subject matter at hand, like in the example above.

It is easy to use terms like "damage" and "corruption" to appeal to these emotions but there is no actual content that makes it a valid argument.


----------



## GraemeLion (Apr 8, 2010)

Teco said:


> God damn it I called it. Bloody knew it.
> Sounds good to me.



What's there to call? Anyone who knows me knew that I tried it. 

Anyone who knows me also knows that someone I considered a friend went to jail for raping a kid, and that's when I got out of the cub stuff.  I didn't have the stomach for it in the end.

It's different when it's all play, but when it gets real, and you start asking how you missed warning signs right in front of you.. well, then it's something different.

At the same time, though, it's worth noting that we have plenty of pedophiles in Furry who've had their things covered up by some pretty popular furs, and they've not had any connection to cub at all.


----------



## Redregon (Apr 8, 2010)

Ricky said:


> There's a term for this: *demagogy*.
> 
> It is all one big slippery slope.
> 
> ...



is it just me or does anyone else find it increasingly ironic that he preaches against the UK laws as being Demagogic and yet, he does the exact same thing to try and drive his own point home?

i mean... appealing to the prurient interests of the society or appealing to the sense of "freedom" and "correct action" when you get to the bottom of it all, it's all still the same thing.

you sir seem to be cut from the very cloth of those you're railing against.

edit:: and of course it's all one huge slippery slope. there is very little that anyone can do that Doesn't fall down a slippery slope. given there is no such thing as a perfect system of governance and this is really only falling into the domain of the Tyranny of the Majority, does it make a little bit more sense how this is happening? and if you're not from the UK, other than removing the cub porn, there isn't anything at risk here that you should be worried about. 

besides, is it your job to be the "Voice of reason?" if so, i don't think you're doing a very good job about it since you're terribly biased and knowing that, it does make more sense why it is you're defending this so harshly.


----------



## Ricky (Apr 8, 2010)

Redregon said:


> is it just me or does anyone else find it increasingly ironic that he preaches against the UK laws as being Demagogic and yet, he does the exact same thing to try and drive his own point home?
> 
> i mean... which is it? appealing to the prurient interests of the society or making an impassioned plea to somehow shame those against it that it's against the true spirit of democracy and decency?
> 
> you sir are cut from the very cloth of those you're railing against.



I'm trying to be as objective here as possible.

My argument is not based on trying to scare people on what would happen if more laws like this are passed, otherwise yes -- it would be along the same lines.  Instead, I am backing up a bit and defining what I would consider a crime, and based on this definition whether it would encompass cub porn, or *any* art for that matter.

In order for something to be considered a crime an immoral act needs to have taken place, in my opinion.  Given this much I don't think a crime has taken place.

Do you have a legitimate argument against that?

Do you not agree with the definitions?


----------



## DarkOverord (Apr 8, 2010)

GraemeLion said:


> Hey, I just don't want YOUR laws to affect MY life.  You don't like it, change your government on May 6.  Don't expect us to follow your laws, that's why we have OUR OWN legislators



It's likely that no matter who gets in this law will hold.

Just saying.

Sides. A lot of UK sites bend over backwards for US and EU legislation already.


----------



## TashkentFox (Apr 8, 2010)

DarkOverord said:


> A lot of UK sites bend over backwards for US and EU legislation already.



This.


----------



## squire (Apr 8, 2010)

If any UK furs are worried about this, you can use something like Tor network to make your browsing anonymous, though it does slow things down a lot.


----------



## Redregon (Apr 8, 2010)

Ricky said:


> I'm trying to be as objective here as possible.
> 
> My argument is not based on trying to scare people on what would happen if more laws like this are passed, otherwise yes -- it would be along the same lines.  Instead, I am backing up a bit and defining what I would consider a crime, and based on this definition whether it would encompass cub porn, or *any* art for that matter.
> 
> ...



i guess this is more a difference in perspectives then. 

to me, the act of creating any drawing or art that depicts an immoral act is dubious at best but given the severity of the act it's depicting, then yeah, maybe the act of creating it could be considered a crime imo. but, this IS based on what i consider immoral and though i will accept that morality is a little bit subjective, one's personal moral code is at the least expected to somewhat match the mores of the society they live in. if they can't abide the moral code, they have to accept the consequences or find a place where they CAN live the way that they feel is correct.

laws aren't always there to "put down the little guy" as there are many laws that allow us the freedom to pursue what we feel is a reasonable life. most times they're based on decency that the majority will agree on, other times they're reactionary (like this one) which is like the governments saying "whoops, that was an oversight... we should fix that."


----------



## Ricky (Apr 8, 2010)

Redregon said:


> i guess this is more a difference in perspectives then.
> 
> to me, the act of creating any drawing or art that depicts an immoral act is dubious at best but given the severity of the act it's depicting, then yeah, maybe the act of creating it could be considered a crime imo. but, this IS based on what i consider immoral and though i will accept that morality is a little bit subjective, one's personal moral code is at the least expected to somewhat match the mores of the society they live in. if they can't abide the moral code, they have to accept the consequences or find a place where they CAN live the way that they feel is correct.



But then would you consider works (movies, books, pictures, etc.) with murder and rape in them immoral, or is this only if people are getting off to the subject matter?

Murder is pretty "severe" so I don't I'm creating a strawman by asking this.



Redregon said:


> laws aren't always there to "put down the little guy" as there are many laws that allow us the freedom to pursue what we feel is a reasonable life. most times they're based on decency that the majority will agree on, other times they're reactionary (like this one) which is like the governments saying "whoops, that was an oversight... we should fix that."



A lot of the time they are based on religion, as well.

You're entitled to your opinion, of course.  I really believe there is such a thing as right vs. wrong but there are many gray areas that seem subjective in any ethical debate.  Until we actually have a way to objectively make moral choices (which we do not) a lot of it is based on opinion, I agree.

This doesn't mean it can't be better.  I think we can have a more objective platform for making these choices than we already do.  I believe there are correct and incorrect answers to these questions despite differences in opinion.


----------



## Redregon (Apr 8, 2010)

Ricky said:


> But then would you consider works (movies, books, pictures, etc.) with murder and rape in them immoral, or is this only if people are getting off to the subject matter?
> 
> Murder is pretty "severe" so I don't I'm creating a strawman by asking this



i dunno... i guess it would depend on the severity of the murder being depicted but yeah, there are some movies i've seen where i can't help but go "wow, that's a bit much." 

though, this doesn't include those movies where there are literally gallons upon gallons of blood gushing out... that is just a bit too over the top that it breaks the suspension of disbelief. but, we're not talking merely about entertainment, we're talking about people that actually find these sorts of things sexually gratifying. that takes this out of the "it's only a picture" context and into a whole new area.

and that also ties in to my perspective on addiction. (as in, sooner or later the fantasy won't be enough for whomever is fapping to it.) yes, this includes violent rape scenes, hardcore gore/murder/snuff and the like. we're focusing on the pedophiles here mainly because that's what the topic is about. if there was another thread about violent rape being depicted, i'd probably say the same sort of stuff there.


----------



## Teco (Apr 8, 2010)

GraemeLion said:


> What's there to call? Anyone who knows me knew that I tried it.
> 
> Anyone who knows me also knows that someone I considered a friend went to jail for raping a kid, and that's when I got out of the cub stuff.  I didn't have the stomach for it in the end.
> 
> ...



...I.. I dont know you? How would I know except the way you speak.

....I.. dont know you? Was your friend a child porn loving pedo?

Yes, when child porn is all PLAY. You make a good point there, "Its all fun and games till someone loses an eye. ...or virginity."

........wait what? Who did what and the who now?

Also has anyone NOT said CUB....? No? We're all just.. gonna keep being furries and call all child porn.. cub. Well hurp a derp yiff yaff.


----------



## Volkodav (Apr 8, 2010)

People will be thrown in jail for this DEVIL CHILD PORNOGRAPHY SITE long before cub porn is banned.

Face it.


----------



## Azure (Apr 8, 2010)

Religion is not an accurate compass to measure morals off of. Thought crime is pretty much the beginning of an Orwellian state, something England has been inching toward for a long time now. The reality of the situation is that FA has to make a choice. While they cannot be prosecuted for hosting content as they are located here, they do have to realize that their user base in the UK will be at risk if they browse the site, so they either segregate that user base, remove it entirely, or remove cub porn, either to another site, or entirely.


----------



## Teco (Apr 8, 2010)

Clayton said:


> People will be thrown in jail for this DEVIL CHILD PORNOGRAPHY SITE long before cub porn is banned.
> 
> Face it.



Fucking good---

--KEEP THE CHILD PORN GOING, NEER. *thumbs up* Yeeeah.


----------



## Volkodav (Apr 8, 2010)

Teco said:


> Fucking good---
> 
> --KEEP THE CHILD PORN GOING, NEER. *thumbs up* Yeeeah.



It's true though.
Because cub porn is much more important than the UK member's freedom.
THROW THEM IN JAILLL
WOOO CUB PORN
WOOO YAYY GO CUB PORN


----------



## Locke (Apr 8, 2010)

I've pretty much railed against all forms of censorship all my life, so I'm quite disappointed by this, not because I support/condone the subject at hand, but because I believe in freedom of expression, and most especially the harm principle. No one gets hurt by drawn art.

That said, I'd rather not see FA go down, or users get thrown in jail over protecting a niche, whatever that niche may be.


----------



## Gonebatty (Apr 8, 2010)

I say ban it.

I'd do it if I was in 'neers position. (Which I wont cuz I'm incompetent, AND not that stupid.)

Ban the art and the pervs.


----------



## Teco (Apr 8, 2010)

Clayton said:


> It's true though.
> Because cub porn is much more important than the UK member's freedom.
> THROW THEM IN JAILLL
> WOOO CUB PORN
> WOOO YAYY GO CUB PORN



Hell yeah it is!

GO GO GOGOGOGOGOGOGO WHOOOOOO


----------



## Volkodav (Apr 8, 2010)

I was just told by a friend of mine that Canada will soon be passing this law too.

HEH.

WHAT'S IT GONNA BE.


----------



## Locke (Apr 8, 2010)

Clayton said:


> I was just told by a friend of mine that Canada will soon be passing this law too.
> 
> HEH.
> 
> WHAT'S IT GONNA BE.


Source?


----------



## Azure (Apr 8, 2010)

Man oh man, this thread sure is rife with mature argumentation.


----------



## Teco (Apr 8, 2010)

Clayton said:


> I was just told by a friend of mine that Canada will soon be passing this law too.
> 
> HEH.
> 
> WHAT'S IT GONNA BE.



Good, and America will be last cause we're fucked up.

ITS GONNA BE UPHILL FROM HERE BABY.


----------



## Gonebatty (Apr 8, 2010)

Also, I know nothing of UK laws, But I'm guessing you cant just have the content filter on?


----------



## Volkodav (Apr 8, 2010)

Locke said:


> Source?


Can't release that information, sorry! It'll come out soon enough though.



Teco said:


> Good, and America will be last cause we're fucked up.
> 
> ITS GONNA BE UPHILL FROM HERE BABY.


I realize America's always the last fucking country to proceed in being more... civilized. 
:\


----------



## Teco (Apr 8, 2010)

Clayton said:


> Can't release that information, sorry! It'll come out soon enough though.
> 
> 
> I realize America's always the last fucking country to proceed in being more... civilized.
> :\



Fuck yeah it is. Aren't we awesome?!


----------



## Volkodav (Apr 8, 2010)

Teco said:


> Fuck yeah it is. Aren't we awesome?!



I don't understand it.
For a country that's so self-loving, you seem to fuck yourselves over a lot. [Not trying to be rude or anything it's just something I've noticed]
Tell Obama to fix some laws and come chill like Canada does, with no wars and shit.


----------



## Duality Jack (Apr 8, 2010)

Teco said:


> Sounds good to me.


Indeed.


Ricky said:


> There's a term for this: *demagogy*.
> 
> It is all one big slippery slope.
> 
> ...


 How is it not corrupt to think about fucking children?
How is not Destructive to feed these thoughts?


----------



## Teco (Apr 8, 2010)

Clayton said:


> I don't understand it.
> For a country that's so self-loving, you seem to fuck yourselves over a lot. [Not trying to be rude or anything it's just something I've noticed]
> Tell Obama to fix some laws and come chill like Canada does, with no wars and shit.




Cause we're controlled by a bunch of corps and rich old white dudes who dont know shit. 

No offense, America blows. There's good in there but good luck finding it in all the shit.


----------



## Locke (Apr 8, 2010)

The Drunken Ace said:


> How is it not corrupt to think about fucking children?
> How is not Destructive to feed these thoughts?


How is it not corrupt to think about killing people?
How is it not Destructive to feed these thoughts?

How is it not corrupt to think about harming anything?
How is it not Destructive to feed these thoughts?


Slippery slope, my friend.


----------



## Volkodav (Apr 8, 2010)

Teco said:


> Cause we're controlled by a bunch of corps and rich old white dudes who dont know shit.
> 
> No offense, America blows. There's good in there but good luck finding it in all the shit.



Sighh
Imagine if I were president for a week.


One can only dream.


----------



## Volkodav (Apr 8, 2010)

Locke said:


> How is it not corrupt to think about killing people?
> How is it not Destructive to feed these thoughts?
> 
> How is it not corrupt to think about harming anything?
> ...



You sound like you're trying to justify this shit.

I aint likin them there thoughts boy.


----------



## Duality Jack (Apr 8, 2010)

Locke said:


> How is it not corrupt to think about killing people?
> How is it not Destructive to feed these thoughts?
> 
> How is it not corrupt to think about harming anything?
> ...


 Because thoughts involving violence are had by humans as a norm.


----------



## Teco (Apr 8, 2010)

Clayton said:


> Sighh
> Imagine if I were president for a week.
> 
> 
> One can only dream.


 :V  ...I.. I dont know if that would be a good thing or not. I call dibs on vice though.



Clayton said:


> You sound like you're trying to justify this shit.
> 
> I aint likin them there thoughts boy.



Heh heh heh, wotz you 'spose we ought tah do wit em, Skeeter? Hurp a Derp.


----------



## Azure (Apr 8, 2010)

Clayton said:


> You sound like you're trying to justify this shit.
> 
> I aint likin them there thoughts boy.


I'm not liking any of your thoughts. Ever. To make an avenue through which to punish thought crime is a pretty terrible decision on the part of any society that strives to evolve from the fucking dark ages. Because a drawn picture isn't a person, nor does it represent any sort of reality at all, it's simply a thought, an expression. It's not real. It has no substance beyond that of a piece of paper.


----------



## Volkodav (Apr 8, 2010)

Teco said:


> :V  ...I.. I dont know if that would be a good thing or not. I call dibs on vice though.
> 
> 
> 
> Heh heh heh, wotz you 'spose we ought tah do wit em, Skeeter? Hurp a Derp.



You may.

Get my belt, boy


----------



## CannonFodder (Apr 8, 2010)

AzurePhoenix said:


> they do have to realize that their user base in the UK will be at risk if they browse the site, so they either segregate that user base, remove it entirely, or remove cub porn, either to another site, or entirely.


They're "_discussing_" it, they've been "_discussing_" it :V


Clayton said:


> I was just told by a friend of mine that Canada will soon be passing this law too.
> 
> HEH.
> 
> WHAT'S IT GONNA BE.


Well there's going to go another country.



Let's face it folks FA would rather lose 

Afghanistan 2 
Akrotiri 3 
Albania 4 
Algeria 5 
American Samoa 6 
Andorra 7 
Angola 8 
Anguilla 9 
Antarctica 10 
Antigua and Barbuda 11 
Argentina 12 
Armenia 13 
Aruba 14 
Ashmore and Cartier Islands 15 
Australia 16 
Austria 17 
Azerbaijan 18 
Bahamas, The 19 
Bahrain 20 
Bangladesh 21 
Barbados 22 
Bassas da India 23 
Belarus 24 
Belgium 25 
Belize 26 
Benin 27 
Bermuda 28 
Bhutan 29 
Bolivia 30 
Bosnia and Herzegovina 31 
Botswana 32 
Bouvet Island 33 
Brazil 34 
British Indian Ocean Territory 35 
British Virgin Islands 36 
Brunei 37 
Bulgaria 38 
Burkina Faso 39 
Burma 40 
Burundi 41 
Cambodia 42 
Cameroon 43 
Canada 44 
Cape Verde 45 
Cayman Islands 46 
Central African Republic 47 
Chad 48 
Chile 49 
China 50 
Christmas Island 51 
Clipperton Island 52 
Cocos (Keeling) Islands 53 
Colombia 54 
Comoros 55 
Congo, Democratic Republic of the 56 
Congo, Republic of the 57 
Cook Islands 58 
Coral Sea Islands 59 
Costa Rica 60 
Cote d'Ivoire 61 
Croatia 62 
Cuba 63 
Cyprus 64 
Czech Republic 65 
Denmark 66 
Dhekelia 67 
Djibouti 68 
Dominica 69 
Dominican Republic 70 
Ecuador 71 
Egypt 72 
El Salvador 73 
Equatorial Guinea 74 
Eritrea 75 
Estonia 76 
Ethiopia 77 
Europa Island 78 
Falkland Islands (Islas Malvinas) 79 
Faroe Islands 80 
Fiji 81 
Finland 82 
France 83 
French Guiana 84 
French Polynesia 85 
French Southern and Antarctic Lands 86 
Gabon 87 
Gambia, The 88 
Gaza Strip 89 
Georgia 90 
Germany 91 
Ghana 92 
Gibraltar 93 
Glorioso Islands 94 
Greece 95 
Greenland 96 
Grenada 97 
Guadeloupe 98 
Guam 99 
Guatemala 100 
Guernsey 101 
Guinea 102 
Guinea-Bissau 103 
Guyana 104 
Haiti 105 
Heard Island and McDonald Islands 106 
Holy See (Vatican City) 107 
Honduras 108 
Hong Kong 109 
Hungary 110 
Iceland 111 
India 112 
Indonesia 113 
Iran 114 
Iraq 115 
Ireland 116 
Isle of Man 117 
Israel 118 
Italy 119 
Jamaica 120 
Jan Mayen 121 
Japan 122 
Jersey 123 
Jordan 124 
Juan de Nova Island 125 
Kazakhstan 126 
Kenya 127 
Kiribati 128 
Korea, North 129 
Korea, South 130 
Kuwait 131 
Kyrgyzstan 132 
Laos 133 
Latvia 134 
Lebanon 135 
Lesotho 136 
Liberia 137 
Libya 138 
Liechtenstein 139 
Lithuania 140 
Luxembourg 141 
Macau 142 
Macedonia 143 
Madagascar 144 
Malawi 145 
Malaysia 146 
Maldives 147 
Mali 148 
Malta 149 
Marshall Islands 150 
Martinique 151 
Mauritania 152 
Mauritius 153 
Mayotte 154 
Mexico 155 
Micronesia, Federated States of 156 
Moldova 157 
Monaco 158 
Mongolia 159 
Montserrat 160 
Morocco 161 
Mozambique 162 
Namibia 163 
Nauru 164 
Navassa Island 165 
Nepal 166 
Netherlands 167 
Netherlands Antilles 168 
New Caledonia 169 
New Zealand 170 
Nicaragua 171 
Niger 172 
Nigeria 173 
Niue 174 
Norfolk Island 175 
Northern Mariana Islands 176 
Norway 177 
Oman 178 
Pakistan 179 
Palau 180 
Panama 181 
Papua New Guinea 182 
Paracel Islands 183 
Paraguay 184 
Peru 185 
Philippines 186 
Pitcairn Islands 187 
Poland 188 
Portugal 189 
Puerto Rico 190 
Qatar 191 
Reunion 192 
Romania 193 
Russia 194 
Rwanda 195 
Saint Helena 196 
Saint Kitts and Nevis 197 
Saint Lucia 198 
Saint Pierre and Miquelon 199 
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines 200 
Samoa 201 
San Marino 202 
Sao Tome and Principe 203 
Saudi Arabia 204 
Senegal 205 
Serbia and Montenegro 206 
Seychelles 207 
Sierra Leone 208 
Singapore 209 
Slovakia 210 
Slovenia 211 
Solomon Islands 212 
Somalia 213 
South Africa 214 
South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands 215 
Spain 216 
Spratly Islands 217 
Sri Lanka 218 
Sudan 219 
Suriname 220 
Svalbard 221 
Swaziland 222 
Sweden 223 
Switzerland 224 
Syria 225 
Taiwan 226 
Tajikistan 227 
Tanzania 228 
Thailand 229 
Timor-Leste 230 
Togo 231 
Tokelau 232 
Tonga 233 
Trinidad and Tobago 234 
Tromelin Island 235 
Tunisia 236 
Turkey 237 
Turkmenistan 238 
Turks and Caicos Islands 239 
Tuvalu 240 
Uganda 241 
Ukraine 242 
United Arab Emirates 243 
United Kingdom 245 
Uruguay 246 
Uzbekistan 247 
Vanuatu 248 
Venezuela 249 
Vietnam 250 
Virgin Islands 251 
Wake Island 252 
Wallis and Futuna 253 
West Bank 254 
Western Sahara 255 
Yemen 256 
Zambia 
Zimbabwe


 

















than ban cub porn.
(sorry about that I just copied all the countries in the world except for the US, cause I can't list them all)


----------



## Teco (Apr 8, 2010)

Clayton said:


> You may.
> 
> Get my belt, boy



Whoo! Im'a be vice pres, y'all.

Whooowee we gonna 'ave us a good ol hogtie isn't we? *snort snort*


----------



## Locke (Apr 8, 2010)

The Drunken Ace said:


> Because thoughts involving violence are had by humans as a norm.


What is a social norm? Nothing but a flaky, temporary, subjective consensus that may or may not be correct.

I am attempting to illustrate that the second you start outlawing *fictional depictions* of things purely based off of "morality" or "norms", where do you stop?


----------



## Redregon (Apr 8, 2010)

Locke said:


> How is it not corrupt to think about killing people?
> How is it not Destructive to feed these thoughts?
> 
> How is it not corrupt to think about harming anything?
> ...



everything and everyone is on a slippery slope of one kind or another. moral purity does not exist in anything other than theory. 

nobody in this thread, let alone the world would be able to "throw stones" as it were if only those that were "pure" were allowed the right to do so.


----------



## Artificial Ginger (Apr 8, 2010)

AzurePhoenix said:


> I'm not liking any of your thoughts. Ever. To make an avenue through which to punish thought crime is a pretty terrible decision on the part of any society that strives to evolve from the fucking dark ages. Because a drawn picture isn't a person, nor does it represent any sort of reality at all, it's simply a thought, an expression. It's not real. It has no substance beyond that of a piece of paper.



This. For christ's sake, people, it's not a difficult concept to grasp.



Redregon said:


> if they're so non-problematic, then why do they usually elicit such a great display of outrage when the subject is brought up?


Precisely because they're less problematic than the freakos who want to eat each other's dicks, I would imagine.



> but you know what, i think this IS the relevant factor here. i merely pointed out that there are furries with dubious grips on reality, you're the one that's specifying that the pedo's in that crowd are somehow innocent and gentle souls? i call bullshit on this one.



I don't believe I ever said "innocent and gentle souls" or anything like it. If you can't reply without putting words in my mouth, don't bother trying.

Pedos make up a very small portion of the furries who can't separate fantasy from reality. The vast majority of that subcategory are otherkin, and a large portion of what's left are snuff fetishists.



> oh, so, it's only a valid point if you agree with it? or maybe i should inject a string of obscenities. sorry, that's not my style. don't like it? tough noogums princess.


It's only a point worth replying to if I haven't already replied to it. Since you have not yet spewed one thing that Teco hasn't, you can just read my replies to him if you actually want to hear my counterpoints.

Of course, we both know you _don't_ want to hear my counterpoints, because it would rob you of your "You're not replying! I win!!" card.



> same hat, different lady. now you're just quibbling on semantics. 9_9


Not even. Educate yourself:

http://encyclopediadramatica.com/Trollface
http://encyclopediadramatica.com/It_was_a_social_experiment




> no, but at the least have the decency to admit that you're biased on this and your attempts to play at the "champion of morality" is a false illusion.



Y'know, since "false illusion" is a double negative, you just said I really am the "champion of morality" =D

I don't recall ever claiming to be that, though. Morality is a worthless and arbitrary thing. However, _facts_ are not, and the _fact_ of the matter is that nobody was ever hurt by a drawing. Ever.



> trust me, bud, you're about as transparent as one can get in this sort of argument. :lol:


Whatever that's supposed to mean.

Anyway, you're the one who still wants revenge on all pedophiles who ever lived just because you were molested once. No offense, but that's gotta have been around ten years ago or more, and I think it's high time you got over it.

Hell, I was molested when I was three. That's why I'd prefer pedos be allowed to look at cartoon kids--like I said before, they can't be out on the prowl for real children when they're at home looking at cartoon ones.

Though considering the statistic somebody else posted about 89% of molestations being done by people a child already knows, I suppose it wouldn't improve things all that much--but maintaining the status quo really couldn't make things worse, either.


----------



## Duality Jack (Apr 8, 2010)

Locke said:


> What is a social norm? Nothing but a flaky, temporary, subjective consensus that may or may not be correct.
> 
> I am attempting to illustrate that the second you start outlawing *fictional depictions* of things purely based off of "morality" or "norms", where do you stop?


 I could pull in the "Majority is repulsed and angered by its existence and would rather make lynch mobs then outlaw it so they are making a comprise" 

Who cares if its fictional if someone viewed that smut I would rather shoot em then have em near my children (once  have them)


----------



## Azure (Apr 8, 2010)

The Drunken Ace said:


> I could pull in the "Majority is repulsed and angered by its existence and would rather make lynch mobs then outlaw it so they are making a comprise"
> 
> Who cares if its fictional if someone viewed that smut I would rather shoot em then have em near my children (once  have them)


And this is why you'll never be a decent anything, much less a decent human being. You know, the majority of people used to be down with slavery, witch hunts, killing gay people, total subservience from women, and that Jews are penny pinching devils that are sub human. You are clearly down with those folks.


----------



## CannonFodder (Apr 8, 2010)

The Drunken Ace said:


> I would rather shoot em then have em near my children (once  have them)


Yeah I wouldn't let any of those furries into cub near children, if a fur into cub is a grade school teacher, you know what's coming next.


----------



## Locke (Apr 8, 2010)

The Drunken Ace said:


> I could pull in the "Majority is repulsed and angered by its existence and would rather make lynch mobs then outlaw it so they are making a comprise"
> 
> Who cares if its fictional if someone viewed that smut I would rather shoot em then have em near my children (once  have them)


Oh yes, and we all know just how accurate the majority is at dictating moral standards.

Whether you have a personal vendetta against something or not changes nothing.

It's all about freedom of expression and the harm principle. No one is directly harmed by cub porn. I may personally be disgusted by it, however I also don't take it upon myself to dictate how others should live their lives, as long as their actions don't harm others.


----------



## Gushousekai195 (Apr 8, 2010)

Well, there's only one way to fix this: don't allow babyfur pornography on FurAffinity any longer.


----------



## Teco (Apr 8, 2010)

Teco said:


> What I want to know is why the fucking pedos just cant be happy with the normal child art. The tame shit.
> 
> Why and the fuck are people actually defending child porn.
> 
> ...



Cause I'm still wondering why we have to have porn and not just regular child art.

...and see how Ginger talks himself out of the obvious sexual attributes mentioned above into something people go, "Oh that makes sense, you're totally not creepy."

Gonna borrow something of cannonfodders here.... Who doesn't think Ginger gets off at little boys getting banged Y/N?


----------



## Volkodav (Apr 8, 2010)

CannonFodder said:


> They're "_discussing_" it, they've been "_discussing_" it :V
> 
> Well there's going to go another country.
> 
> ...


Oh I know.
Because banning cub porn from one site [WHEN THE PEDOS CAN GO TO ANOTHER SITE] is SOOOO BADDDD. Bad enough to let the UK users get thrown in fucking jail.

To Dragoneer: Who fucking cares that 2-3 mods like cub porn?
You're gonna let UK members get thrown in jail for "child pornography" because you want it to stay?

Ugh.


----------



## Samanthaweltzin (Apr 8, 2010)

The Drunken Ace said:


> I could pull in the "Majority is repulsed and angered by its existence and would rather make lynch mobs then outlaw it so they are making a comprise"
> 
> Who cares if its fictional if someone viewed that smut I would rather shoot em then have em near my children (once  have them)


Listen to yourself. You're saying murder (or at least severe maiming) is acceptable. How does this put you on a moral high ground? Perhaps you were joking, but such a strong example is not the best way to get someone on the 'Net to understand your point.

Someone up above mentioned the "harm principle." Honestly, that's probably the best and least subjective way to determine laws. "Is it hurting anyone?" And your sensibilities don't count; otherwise we could outlaw name-calling.


----------



## CannonFodder (Apr 8, 2010)

Clayton said:


> Oh I know.
> Because banning cub porn from one site [WHEN THE PEDOS CAN GO TO ANOTHER SITE] is SOOOO BADDDD. Bad enough to let the UK users get thrown in fucking jail.
> 
> To Dragoneer: Who fucking cares that 2-3 mods like cub porn?
> ...


I'm watching the news to see who gets arrested, fifty bucks on the first one getting arrested cause of this will be a furry.
No seriously I am looking for the first one get arrested to see if he's a furry.


----------



## Azure (Apr 8, 2010)

Teco said:


> Cause I'm still wondering why we have to have porn and not just regular child art.
> 
> ...and see how Ginger talks himself out of the obvious sexual attributes mentioned above into something people go, "Oh that makes sense, you're totally not creepy."
> 
> Gonna borrow something of cannonfodders here.... Who doesn't think Ginger gets off at little boys getting banged Y/N?


Ignoring the obvious ad hominen here, lets roll on this a bit.

_


			
				Teco said:
			
		


			What I want to know is why the fucking pedos just cant be happy with the normal child art. The tame shit.
		
Click to expand...

Clarify here, please? What is "normal" art, to a pedophile, hmm? Well, clearly it ain't tame. But unlike REAL Child Porn, which presumes that children are harmed in its making(and they often are), what is in question here is FICTIONAL CONTENT, completely separate from reality.



			
				Teco said:
			
		


			Why and the fuck are people actually defending child porn.
		
Click to expand...

It's not child porn. It's not real. Nobody was harmed. It is a thought, scribbled down on a piece of paper. Nothing more, nothing less. So please stop attempting to create false realities.



			
				Teco said:
			
		


			You say your creepy little 6 year old 'fursona' isn't used sexually but its written all over it. Which makes it even more creepy because you're actually one of the ones defending child porn.

If it was just a 6 year old fursona that likes to play ball and stuff and you said we could all do without the child porn I would be alright, but no.

You're using a crossdressing 'fetish', probably of your own, on him, which makes it sexual. Because 6 year olds dont go and buy girl clothing and the parents wouldn't do that as well while joking about it unless they were PEDOS. Not only that, you further fuck up your 'oh its just an innocent cub fursona' by giving it a sexual orientation. Making him gay means he's attracted sexually to all the other little boys.
		
Click to expand...

Who are you to judge the presumed sexual fantasies of others? If there is no harm done in reality(because, I'll reiterate YET AGAIN, fictional characters simply cannot be harmed((Unless you're Judge Doom)) in any way, and to twist what is simply fantasy into harmful reality depends on a person, and not a piece of art) then what right does anyone have to judge, or even to inhibit. Pretty soon, we'll be punishing thoughts of other things, like entertaining the notion to vote against an incumbent president, or any number of things to keep us "under control". People like you who would trade freedom for false security are the most ignorant of peoples.



			
				Teco said:
			
		


			So dont give me that shit.
		
Click to expand...

Right back atcha.
_


----------



## Samanthaweltzin (Apr 8, 2010)

CannonFodder said:


> I'm watching the news to see who gets arrested, fifty bucks on the first one getting arrested cause of this will be a furry.
> No seriously I am looking for the first one get arrested to see if he's a furry.


Just out of curiosity: What if none of the arrests are furries? Would you change your mind?
Do keep us posted, though. It'd be interesting data to have.

@AzurePhoenix: There really isn't any point in arguing with Teco. He's just trying to frame it on his own terms, which is why he keeps saying that it's "child porn," denying the difference between fantasy and reality. You're never gonna convince him, so the best thing to do is not to legitimize him by answering him.


----------



## Redregon (Apr 8, 2010)

Artificial Ginger said:


> Precisely because they're less problematic than the freakos who want to eat each other's dicks, I would imagine.



well, if two consenting adults agree to let one eat the dick of the other, i see no harm in that aside from the obvious... cause, well, informed consent.



Artificial Ginger said:


> I don't believe I ever said "innocent and gentle souls" or anything like it. If you can't reply without putting words in my mouth, don't bother trying.



oh, so, it's okay for you to put words in people's mouths but not put them in yours? interesting. so, how does it feel to be a hypocrite like that? still, you did imply that pedophiles aren't actually harming people because they're only fapping to drawings and not actually diddling kiddies.



Artificial Ginger said:


> Pedos make up a very small portion of the furries who can't separate fantasy from reality. The vast majority of that subcategory are otherkin, and a large portion of what's left are snuff fetishists.



again, read back to the "informed consent" part.



Artificial Ginger said:


> It's only a point worth replying to if I haven't already replied to it. Since you have not yet spewed one thing that Teco hasn't, you can just read my replies to him if you actually want to hear my counterpoints.



aah, so you just can't be bothered to retype precious words? 
aah, so you just can't be bothered to retype precious words?



Artificial Ginger said:


> Of course, we both know you _don't_ want to hear my counterpoints, because it would rob you of your "You're not replying! I win!!" card.



You: "Last word last word last word last word last word I WIN"
Me: *facepalm* "wow, you're acting like an idiot."



Artificial Ginger said:


> Not even. Educate yourself:
> 
> http://encyclopediadramatica.com/Trollface
> http://encyclopediadramatica.com/It_was_a_social_experiment



Quibbling further i see... but hey, at the very core i'm sure you can't grasp the roots of your statement and how they're related.



Artificial Ginger said:


> Y'know, since "false illusion" is a double negative, you just said I really am the "champion of morality" =D



again, quibbling. gee, you're not really all that good at bringing anything of substance to this argument, are you?



Artificial Ginger said:


> I don't recall ever claiming to be that, though. Morality is a worthless and arbitrary thing. However, _facts_ are not, and the _fact_ of the matter is that nobody was ever hurt by a drawing. Ever.



9_9 here's a prime example of "words being put in mouth" since i'm not a fan of it because i understand probably a bit more about human sexuality and addiction than you do.



Artificial Ginger said:


> Whatever that's supposed to mean.
> 
> Anyway, you're the one who still wants revenge on all pedophiles who ever lived just because you were molested once. No offense, but that's gotta have been around ten years ago or more, and I think it's high time you got over it.
> 
> ...



right, like it's really that effective to tell someone that has had something like that happen to them and had a hard time coping with it to just "Get over it." i would love to hear you say that to a rape survivor support group. 

but hey, this has been quite the entertaining argument and it really shows a lot of what you're capable of (or incapable of as this case may be.) 

oh, and i particularily love it when people like you get hooked. i could go on like this for days and days and you just wouldn't grasp that no matter what arguments you present, i will find holes in them. but hey, your frustration only feeds me. it's delicious... so, keep em coming! i want moar!


----------



## CannonFodder (Apr 8, 2010)

Samanthaweltzin said:


> Just out of curiosity: What if none of the arrests are furries? Would you change your mind?
> Do keep us posted, though. It'd be interesting data to have.


Considering how there are just as many furries in the UK as there are in the US and the UK has far less people chances are atleast one of them is going to be a furry.


----------



## Samanthaweltzin (Apr 8, 2010)

CannonFodder said:


> Considering how there are just as many furries in the UK as there are in the US and the UK has far less people chances are atleast one of them is going to be a furry.


That's fine, but it still doesn't answer my question: Would you change your mind if none of the arrests you see in the paper, on the 'Net, or on TV were furries? It may not be likely, but it -could- happen.


----------



## CannonFodder (Apr 8, 2010)

Samanthaweltzin said:


> That's fine, but it still doesn't answer my question: Would you change your mind if none of the arrests you see in the paper, on the 'Net, or on TV were furries?


I gave up long ago on the hugbox.


----------



## Teco (Apr 8, 2010)

Porn. With a Child Involved. Child porn


----------



## Gushousekai195 (Apr 8, 2010)

Clayton said:


> To Dragoneer: Who fucking cares that 2-3 mods like cub porn?
> You're gonna let UK members get thrown in jail for "child pornography" because you want it to stay?
> 
> Ugh.



Oh, no!  That's not good!!


----------



## CannonFodder (Apr 8, 2010)

Teco said:


> Porn. With a Child Involved. Child porn


Exactly!


----------



## Azure (Apr 8, 2010)

Samanthaweltzin said:


> @AzurePhoenix: There really isn't any point in arguing with Teco. He's just trying to frame it on his own terms, which is why he keeps saying that it's "child porn," denying the difference between fantasy and reality. You're never gonna convince him, so the best thing to do is not to legitimize him by answering him.


I just like shitting on people :B. Honestly, I take the words of a drug addled mental midget with the biggest grain of salt, but I do enjoy demonstrating to people who would post the same stupid shit he does why they're wrong and invite them to go fuck themselves.


----------



## Redregon (Apr 8, 2010)

Teco said:


> Porn. With a Child Involved. Child porn



insert random butthurt cub saying "but we're not real people"

... it'll be said, just you wait. (and the lulz will be tremendous.)

still, when the distinction between fantasy and reality is blurred like it is in the fandom, that is what makes cub porn all that more disgusting and (imo) ban worthy.

cause, how many furries do you know that refer to their personas as "me?" how many furries fail to make the distinction that despite how much they wish it, they are and will always be human. if they cannot separate the fantasy element (being anthropomorphic animals) from the reality (being human) THAT is what makes this a bit more serious than just "pictures of fictional characters."

hell, a great deal of furries have a poor grasp on that distinction anyway... chances are there is bound to be quite a few pedo-furs with that same delusion.


----------



## Azure (Apr 8, 2010)

Redregon said:


> still, when the distinction between fantasy and reality is blurred like it is in the fandom, that is what makes cub porn all that more disgusting and (imo) ban worthy.


And how is this, I'd love to see you justify how a fictional character is "blurring" reality.



Redregon said:


> cause, how many furries do you know that refer to their personas as "me?" how many furries fail to make the distinction that despite how much they wish it, they are and will always be human. if they cannot separate the fantasy element (being anthropomorphic animals) from the reality (being human) THAT is what makes this a bit more serious than just "pictures of fictional characters."


And not with this pathetic bunch of tripe. Any barely rational human being knows that in reality they are a person, and that a roleplay character is a fictional being. The anthro characteristics have nothing to do with it.



Redregon said:


> hell, a great deal of furries have a poor grasp on that distinction anyway... chances are there is bound to be quite a few pedo-furs with that same delusion.


And of course, the blanket stereotype without any sort of justification, simply thrown in for added flavor and to lend false credibility.


----------



## Teco (Apr 8, 2010)

AzurePhoenix said:


> And of course, the blanket stereotype without any sort of justification, simply thrown in for added flavor and to lend false credibility.



Wtf, really?? You haven't noticed it?  Between Anthrocon, This site, Furcadia and other random spots, I could easily say, most furries are fucked up like that. It really obvious


----------



## Samanthaweltzin (Apr 8, 2010)

AzurePhoenix said:


> I just like shitting on people :B. Honestly, I take the words of a drug addled mental midget with the biggest grain of salt, but I do enjoy demonstrating to people who would post the same stupid shit he does why they're wrong and invite them to go fuck themselves.


I s'pose I can dig that to some extent, but I'd suggest instead going after those who bring up his points and actually appear to have brains.

For instance, Redregon seems to have a head on his shoulders, even if I disagree with him.


> still, when the distinction between fantasy and reality is blurred like it is in the fandom, that is what makes cub porn all that more disgusting and (imo) ban worthy.
> 
> cause, how many furries do you know that refer to their personas as "me?" how many furries fail to make the distinction that despite how much they wish it, they are and will always be human. if they cannot separate the fantasy element (being anthropomorphic animals) from the reality (being human) THAT is what makes this a bit more serious than just "pictures of fictional characters."


Yeah. That's where the "slippery slope" comes in, though. It's been mentioned so many times, both in positive and negative terms.
To clarify, the "slippery slope" logical fallacy is making a statement about what -will- happen without having enough evidence that it actually will. It may or may not be true, but what makes it a fallacy is the certainty involved in it.
In this case, banning cub porn from the site because some furries have a loose grasp on reality really could justify banning all sorts of other fetishes. I bring up vore again, since I have a personal stake in it: There are some vorarephile furries out there who are also otherkin, and they imagine that they really are eating other people. However, there isn't a large rush to ban vore from the site, even though it is actually potentially more harmful than cub fetishists because it involves death if performed IRL.
So, banning cub porn would be a good segueway into justifying the banning of future "harmful" fetishes such as vore, snuff, and S&M. After all, laws are based on precedent, and the banning of one fetish because of the sensibilities of some stuck-up people who can't tell the difference between fantasy and reality could in all likelihood lead to the banning of other fetishes. It isn't 100% certain that that will happen, but it looks likely given the history of such decisions.

Here's something that people arguing on the forums tend to forget though: This is a private site, and the admins can do whatever they darned well please. If we don't like it, we can either ignore it, whine about it (to no effect), or, as so many people keep saying, leave.

Incidentally, Dungeons and Dragons players refer to their characters as "me" and "I" as well. While some furries really don't have the grasp on reality they should, saying those words in reference to their characters is not proof-positive that they have an identity disorder.


----------



## DarkOverord (Apr 8, 2010)

Gonebatty said:


> Also, I know nothing of UK laws, But I'm guessing you cant just have the content filter on?



If the site went onto a watchlist, ISP's would have to report it, content filters or not.


----------



## Azure (Apr 8, 2010)

Teco said:


> Hello there, I am a troll. I judge individuals based on the groups they associate with, no matter how nebulous and loosely defined they are, and I only judge based on uneducated guesses and stereotypes.


Yu huh.


----------



## CannonFodder (Apr 8, 2010)

DarkOverord said:


> If the site went onto a watchlist, ISP's would have to report it, content filters or not.


So pretty much, UK furs are in deep shit now.


----------



## DarkOverord (Apr 8, 2010)

CannonFodder said:


> So pretty much, UK furs are in deep shit now.



I don't think the site is "black listed" so far. The site isn't known for child porn, and the government isn't concentrating on furries atm. But, hey :V


----------



## CannonFodder (Apr 8, 2010)

DarkOverord said:


> I don't think the site is "black listed" so far. The site isn't known for child porn, and the government isn't concentrating on furries atm. But, hey :V


Uhm, newfag(and other ones that really are disgusted by us) anons report FA to the FBI alot, once they catch wind of this they will tell the authorities as soon as they can in the UK.


----------



## DarkOverord (Apr 8, 2010)

CannonFodder said:


> Uhm, newfag(and other ones that really are disgusted by us) anons report FA to the FBI alot, once they catch wind of this they will tell the authorities as soon as they can in the UK.


I did say so far. But I won't deny it won't be long.


----------



## MrBlack (Apr 8, 2010)

Sucks to be British :U
I really take America for granted sometimes you know?


----------



## CannonFodder (Apr 8, 2010)

DarkOverord said:


> I did say so far. But I won't deny it won't be long.


Chances are FA is going to be watch listed in the UK within the month, that's not alot of time for FA to "discuss" it.


----------



## Takun (Apr 8, 2010)

Change the rules.


----------



## CannonFodder (Apr 8, 2010)

Takun said:


> Change the rules.


They're not going to, incase you haven't realize everytime FA says the term, "discuss it" or something similar that's code for do nothing.


----------



## Volkodav (Apr 8, 2010)

Someone on Lulz has already reported FA as a child porn site to some anti-CP law site.
:\

Sooo I think it's time we change the rules, Neer.


----------



## Redregon (Apr 8, 2010)

CannonFodder said:


> Chances are FA is going to be watch listed in the UK within the month, that's not alot of time for FA to "discuss" it.



and hey, if you really think about it, given that if this site does get reported and any UK users get sent away (rightly or wrongly) it's gonna likely be on the admin's consciences. if not, i'm sure there will be enough social pressure coming their way anyway.


----------



## Volkodav (Apr 8, 2010)

CannonFodder said:


> They're not going to, incase you haven't realize everytime FA says the term, "discuss it" or something similar that's code for do nothing.


HHAHAHAHAH


----------



## CannonFodder (Apr 8, 2010)

Clayton said:


> Someone on Lulz has already reported FA as a child porn site to some anti-CP law site.
> :\
> 
> Sooo I think it's time we change the rules, Neer.


I knew they would, congrats furries, FA is now completely illegal in the UK.


----------



## CannonFodder (Apr 8, 2010)

Clayton said:


> HHAHAHAHAH


It's true, take everything FA says and replace "discuss" with do nothing.


----------



## Volkodav (Apr 8, 2010)

CannonFodder said:


> I knew they would, congrats furries, FA is now completely illegal in the UK.


Who am I fucking kidding.
An entire country not allowed to visit FA is better than banning one type of gross art!!!

EDIT: Make that two countries.
Canada soon.



CannonFodder said:


> It's true, take everything FA says and replace "discuss" with do nothing.


Loling so hard


----------



## Azure (Apr 8, 2010)

Wow, people ITT sure are adept at addressing the issue, aren't they? You fellas are the picture of maturity and legal knowledge. Fuck, you can do my taxes next year.


----------



## CannonFodder (Apr 8, 2010)

AzurePhoenix said:


> Fuck, you can do my taxes next year.


Doing taxes is easy, I don't understand why everyone complains about it.


----------



## Artificial Ginger (Apr 8, 2010)

CannonFodder said:


> Doing taxes is easy, I don't understand why everyone complains about it.


Because everyone hates having to _pay_ for roads, schools, and law enforcement.


----------



## Duality Jack (Apr 8, 2010)

Never use slippery slope arguments.

Why: See how they are used in the gay marriage debate.

Its a load of shit.


----------



## Ricky (Apr 8, 2010)

The Drunken Ace said:


> Indeed.
> How is it not corrupt to think about fucking children?
> How is not Destructive to feed these thoughts?



I never said it wasn't, but I think it is funny you mentioned the word "thought" in both of those questions.

How is "thought" a crime?


----------



## Azure (Apr 8, 2010)

CannonFodder said:


> Doing taxes is easy, I don't understand why everyone complains about it.


Already did mine. Got 2 grand coming back to me. My fathers taxes, what a shitload of fuck. It takes him two months just to get all his documents together.


----------



## Locke (Apr 8, 2010)

The Drunken Ace said:


> Never use slippery slope arguments.
> 
> Why: See how they are used in the gay marriage debate.
> 
> Its a load of shit.


Aha! Perfect example of the majority rule being fucked up.

Look at the majority's decision on: witches, women, gays, etc in the past, and then tell me the majority always knows best.


And saying one can't use an argument because someone else has abused it is sheer lunacy. That's like saying "well you can't use evidence because people have faked evidence before", it simply makes no sense.


----------



## Duality Jack (Apr 8, 2010)

Ricky said:


> I never said it wasn't, but I think it is funny you mentioned the word "thought" in both of those questions.
> 
> How is "thought" a crime?


 its not the thought you are making a crime... you are criminalizing the things that promote them. 

kind of like not banning being high: But banning what makes you high,


----------



## CannonFodder (Apr 8, 2010)

The Drunken Ace said:


> Never use slippery slope arguments.
> 
> Why: See how they are used in the gay marriage debate.
> 
> Its a load of shit.


You know I just thought of something, since gay people aren't gay by choice wouldn't letting them marry and that keep them from having kids and keep from passing on the biological factors?


----------



## Ricky (Apr 8, 2010)

The Drunken Ace said:


> its not the thought you are making a crime... you are criminalizing the things that promote them.
> 
> kind of like not banning being high: But banning what makes you high,



So the art is what causes people to fuck kids?

I didn't think art could do that.


----------



## Locke (Apr 8, 2010)

The Drunken Ace said:


> its not the thought you are making a crime... you are criminalizing the things that promote them.
> 
> kind of like not banning being high: But banning what makes you high,


A close analogy would be the following:

Being high isn't illegal, that which makes you high is illegal.
They are now proposing a law that doesn't allow people to have fictional depictions of getting high.

Makes no sense.


----------



## Duality Jack (Apr 8, 2010)

you cannot ban a state of mind: But you can ban what puts you in that state of mind. 



Ricky said:


> So the art is what causes people to fuck kids?


No, but it promotes the thoughts that make people want to fuck children.

Preventative enforcement works. But it is a tad big brother-ish.


----------



## Locke (Apr 8, 2010)

The Drunken Ace said:


> No, but it promotes the thoughts that make people want to fuck children.
> 
> Preventative enforcement works. But it is a tad big brother-ish.


A tad? It's completely Orwellian. There is no hard evidence to correlate looking at cub porn and actually going out and acting on those fictional depictions. NONE. If there is, kindly bring it forth.


----------



## Redregon (Apr 8, 2010)

The Drunken Ace said:


> you cannot ban a state of mind: But you can ban what puts you in that state of mind.
> 
> No, but it promotes the thoughts that make people want to fuck children.
> 
> Preventative enforcement works. But it is a tad big brother-ish.



as many times as that's said ITT, don't expect it to be taken into consideration. i've noticed a trend to cherry pick the arguments and leave out the uncomfortable bits.


----------



## Teco (Apr 8, 2010)

Locke said:


> Aha! Perfect example of the majority rule being fucked up.
> 
> Look at the majority's decision on: witches, women, gays, etc in the past, and then tell me the majority always knows best.
> 
> ...


 
You're really gonna compare this to say, witches... gays, slavery.

Ha, actually, yeah that'd be great, I want to go around spewing drawings of enslaving africans, burning witches and fucking children and see if I dont end up dead. Maybe I'll get a job making propaganda for Hitler while I'm at it, cause you know, paper with drawings and words on it cant affect shit.


----------



## Volkodav (Apr 8, 2010)

Locke said:


> A tad? It's completely Orwellian. There is no hard evidence to correlate looking at cub porn and actually going out and acting on those fictional depictions. NONE. If there is, kindly bring it forth.



What's the similarities between cub porn and child porn?

1. They are both CHILDRENS BODIES
2. Most of the time they both involve ADULTS WITH CHILDREN
3. They are both underdeveloped
4. Adults are fapping over both.

It is the SEXUAL ATTRACTION TO CHILDREN'S BODIES that makes cub porn so wrong.


----------



## Azure (Apr 8, 2010)

Teco said:


> You're really gonna compare this to say, witches... gays, slavery.
> 
> Ha, actually, yeah that'd be great, I want to go around spewing drawings of enslaving africans, burning witches and fucking children and see if I dont end up dead. Maybe I'll get a job making propaganda for Hitler while I'm at it, cause you know, paper with drawings and words on it cant affect shit.


AND GODWIN! Knew you'd do it too. Propaganda is used to mislead people through mental manipulation. It is not a thought, it is a political strategy. Nobody is posting pictures of cub porn in a effort to tell people that they should fuck baby animals for the good of their country and the Aryan race. Please, grow a frontal lobe and try to think critically.



Clayton said:


> What's the similarities between cub porn and child porn?
> 
> 1. They are both CHILDRENS BODIES
> 2. Most of the time they both involve ADULTS WITH CHILDREN
> ...


Again, fantasy vs reality. Conspiracy without action isn't punishable by any laws. You're just grasping at straws, so please, give up before you sound even more uneducated about the subject than you already are.


----------



## Locke (Apr 8, 2010)

Teco said:


> You're really gonna compare this to say, witches... gays, slavery.
> 
> Ha, actually, yeah that'd be great, I want to go around spewing drawings of enslaving africans, burning witches and fucking children and see if I dont end up dead. Maybe I'll get a job making propaganda for Hitler while I'm at it, cause you know, paper with drawings and words on it cant affect shit.


Harm principle. Hate speech and propaganda is made with a purpose in mind: to harm others and convince others to do so.

Show me any proof that Cub Porn indirectly harms anyone, beyond anecdotal evidence.


----------



## Samanthaweltzin (Apr 8, 2010)

The Drunken Ace said:


> its not the thought you are making a crime... you are criminalizing the things that promote them.
> 
> kind of like not banning being high: But banning what makes you high,


Prove that this "promotion" is taking place.
Just because it exists doesn't necessarily make it appealing. Example: I've seen pictures of scat on this site. I still hate scat.
Even if you're talking about "promoting" it to those already predisposed to like it, do a little research on fetishes. The lack of availability actually tends to make people want it more, because they're already predisposed to like it but it's not around. Think of it this way: What if you -really- like steak, but you live in Japan, where there isn't much beef at all? Wouldn't that make steak all the more appealing when you do encounter it?
Same principle.



Clayton said:


> What's the similarities between cub porn and child porn?
> 
> 1. They are both CHILDRENS BODIES
> 2. Most of the time they both involve ADULTS WITH CHILDREN
> ...


You left out the differences, though. Let me illustrate why this is a silly form of argument:

What're the similarities between cats and people?
1. They both have body hair.
2. They both give live birth.
3. They are both warm-blooded.
4. They both have eyes.

See how important mentioning the differences between things can be? In the case of child porn and cub porn, there are some important differences. For instance:

1. Humans are real. Furries are not.
2. Real-life child porn involves actual children. Cub porn only involves depictions of fictional characters.
3. Real-life child porn hurts someone. Cub porn does not.

Pretty important differences here.


----------



## Duality Jack (Apr 8, 2010)

Locke said:


> A tad? It's completely Orwellian. There is no hard evidence to correlate looking at cub porn and actually going out and acting on those fictional depictions. NONE. If there is, kindly bring it forth.


 But on the reverse: can you find evidence it does not promote it? Not to mention why do people _need _it as well? What drives people to seek out depictions of youth being violated?  



Redregon said:


> as many times as that's said ITT, don't expect it to be taken into consideration. i've noticed a trend to cherry pick the arguments and leave out the uncomfortable bits.


 I do not debate on an emotional level sorry XD.


----------



## Redregon (Apr 8, 2010)

Locke said:


> Aha! Perfect example of the majority rule being fucked up.
> 
> Look at the majority's decision on: witches, women, gays, etc in the past, and then tell me the majority always knows best.



but, you see, witches, gays and women aren't predators by nature... if you want to reword that argument, go for it... but maybe choose a better analogy


----------



## Locke (Apr 8, 2010)

Clayton said:


> What's the similarities between cub porn and child porn?
> 
> 1. They are both CHILDRENS BODIES
> 2. Most of the time they both involve ADULTS WITH CHILDREN
> ...


So you don't like it. Neither do I. There is no evidence that Cub Porn causes people to harm anyone, so why should you dictate how other people live their lives?


----------



## Ricky (Apr 8, 2010)

The Drunken Ace said:


> No, but it promotes the thoughts that make people want to fuck children.



I've been over this argument before in this thread and I even posted a video.

Looking at porn has been never been shown to promote devious acts and in fact, it has been shown statistically to do the opposite. (see the video I posted)

Do you really think someone will turn into a pedo because they saw a cub porn picture?

No.  People turn into pedos by seeing the thing they are sexually attracted to which is little boys and little girls.

But like I said, I already posted this.  This conversation is now going in circles and I'm getting a bad feeling in my gut speaking for all the pedos in the fandom by posting in this thread.  I don't like pedos and I don't like cub porn but what I like and what I dislike is seperate from what I think is right and wrong.

On that note, I am heading to the gym but I might stop by a bit later only fur the lulz if nohting else.

Ya'll furries amuse me B)


----------



## Takun (Apr 8, 2010)

Clayton said:


> What's the similarities between cub porn and child porn?
> 
> 1. They are both CHILDRENS BODIES
> 2. Most of the time they both involve ADULTS WITH CHILDREN
> ...



I bet you are against midgets aren't you?  Just another example of the government stepping all over the little man.  *snickers*


----------



## CannonFodder (Apr 8, 2010)

AzurePhoenix said:


> AND GODWIN! Knew you'd do it too. Propaganda is used to mislead people through mental manipulation.


Godwin's law strikes again
[/thread]


----------



## Locke (Apr 8, 2010)

The Drunken Ace said:


> But on the reverse: can you find evidence it does not promote it?


Last time I checked, we live in a society founded upon evidence. We lock someone up if their is evidence they harmed someone.

You're proposing we switch our policy from "innocent until proven guilty" to "guilty until proven innocent"


----------



## Locke (Apr 8, 2010)

Redregon said:


> but, you see, witches, gays and women aren't predators by nature... if you want to reword that argument, go for it... but maybe choose a better analogy


We're not talking about predators, we're talking about fictional depictions of cub porn. There is nothing influencing reality, and there is no hard evidence is causes such.


----------



## Duality Jack (Apr 8, 2010)

Feeding a predator depictions of prey then  


Locke said:


> Last time I checked, we live in a society founded upon evidence. We lock someone up if their is evidence they harmed someone.
> 
> You're proposing we switch our policy from "innocent until proven guilty" to "guilty until proven innocent"


 but we are *not  *locking someone up as is we are locking away a substance, a vice. A vice has no rights, then in turn whoever use the vice. Now reply to my other questions in my same post please I am curious to what you will say.


----------



## Volkodav (Apr 8, 2010)

AzurePhoenix said:


> Again, fantasy vs reality. Conspiracy without action isn't punishable by any laws. You're just grasping at straws, so please, give up before you sound even more uneducated about the subject than you already are.


It is reality.
The reality being these adults are attracted to children's bodies, yet are taking it out on a legal [in some places] alternative because people don't see it wrong when it really is.



Locke said:


> So you don't like it. Neither do I. There is no evidence that Cub Porn causes people to harm anyone, so why should you dictate how other people live their lives?


That's like saying child porn doesn't cause anybody to hurt children.
I don't dictate it. The law does.



Takun said:


> I bet you are against midgets aren't you?  Just another example of the government stepping all over the little man.  *snickers*


Yes, down with midgets.
Down with midgets and their shenanigans.


----------



## Redregon (Apr 8, 2010)

Locke said:


> We're not talking about predators, we're talking about fictional depictions of cub porn. There is nothing predatory in that, and there is no hard evidence is causes such.



http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/Alan_The_Panda

you wanted some evidence linking Cub porn to predators, there you go.


----------



## Samanthaweltzin (Apr 8, 2010)

The Drunken Ace said:


> Feeding a predator depictions of prey then
> but we are *not  *locking someone up as is we are locking away a substance, a vice. A vice has no rights, then in turn whoever use the vice. Now reply to my other questions in my same post please I am curious to what you will say.


Yeah. Prohibition worked so well in the United States. [/sarcasm]


Redregon said:


> http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/Alan_The_Panda
> 
> you wanted some evidence linking Cub porn to predators, there you go.


Anecdotal evidence does not prove things in a broad sense, which is what we're arguing here. All the ED article proved was that Alan the Panda is a sick person.



CannonFodder said:


> Godwin's law strikes again
> [/thread]


This ^


----------



## CannonFodder (Apr 8, 2010)

Redregon said:


> http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/Alan_The_Panda
> 
> you wanted some evidence linking Cub porn to predators, there you go.


I highly doubt furs want to know how many predators(not the aliens) are lurking in the fandom.
I'd guess there are as many pedophiles in the fandom as there are dog fuckers.


----------



## Redregon (Apr 8, 2010)

Samanthaweltzin said:


> Yeah. Prohibition worked so well in the United States. [/sarcasm]
> 
> Anecdotal evidence does not prove things in a broad sense, which is what we're arguing here. All the ED article proved was that Alan the Panda is a sick person.



http://www.bostonherald.com/news/na...te_senate_staffer_accused_of_child_sex_crime/
http://www.thepittsburghchannel.com/news/19604318/detail.html
http://www.lehighvalleylive.com/breaking-news/index.ssf/2009/05/pennsylvania_man_suggested_dre.html

does that do it for you? or are you going to dismiss that as well? i'm not showing this to prove that cubporn makes pedos, i'm just posting it because it's a link between the two.


----------



## MrBlack (Apr 8, 2010)

Samanthaweltzin said:


> Yeah. Prohibition worked so well in the United States. [/sarcasm]
> 
> Anecdotal evidence does not prove things in a broad sense, which is what we're arguing here. All the ED article proved was that Alan the Panda is a sick person.


Vore cannot be banned as it is imaginary



and plus i would be sad if it were banned :U


----------



## Duality Jack (Apr 8, 2010)

Samanthaweltzin said:


> Yeah. Prohibition worked so well in the United States. [/sarcasm]
> 
> Anecdotal evidence does not prove things in a broad sense, which is what we're arguing here. All the ED article proved was that Alan the Panda is a sick person.


Even if evidence does not support its harmful laws are mad on norms.

Why is rape bad? Because we agree it is.
Why is theft bad? Because we agree it is. 
Why is murder bad? Because we agree it is.
Why is cub porn bad? Because most people agree it is.


----------



## Volkodav (Apr 8, 2010)

Redregon said:


> http://www.bostonherald.com/news/na...te_senate_staffer_accused_of_child_sex_crime/
> http://www.thepittsburghchannel.com/news/19604318/detail.html
> http://www.lehighvalleylive.com/breaking-news/index.ssf/2009/05/pennsylvania_man_suggested_dre.html
> 
> does that do it for you? or are you going to dismiss that as well?


Was TORA into baby/cub/diaperfur stuff too?


----------



## Teco (Apr 8, 2010)

Clayton said:


> What's the similarities between cub porn and child porn?
> 
> 1. They are both CHILDRENS BODIES
> 2. Most of the time they both involve ADULTS WITH CHILDREN
> ...


 Exactly.



AzurePhoenix said:


> AND GODWIN! Knew you'd do it too. Propaganda is used to mislead people through mental manipulation. It is not a thought, it is a political strategy. Nobody is posting pictures of cub porn in a effort to tell people that they should fuck baby animals for the good of their country and the Aryan race. Please, grow a frontal lobe and try to think critically.


 
Who the hell uses 'Godwin'... and I swear to godwin if you have a FA account full of submissions and favorites of children....

No, no one is. But its words and pictures. Words and Pictures cant hurt anyone right? So its ok. Specially if it develops a sexual attraction for whatever is in those words or pictures. Which, being that its porn, they will (or gag, whichever team you're batting for here), so yay. Now we got a bunch of pedo faggots that get off when they watch little Timmy running around in those shorts. Now lets sprinkle in lust and temptation and prolonged use of child porn and everyone is alright with that? Everyone is alright with allowing child porn. 

Like it fucking matters anyway, I seriously doubt they'll take the time purging FA of all the massive amounts of child porn.


----------



## Locke (Apr 8, 2010)

The Drunken Ace said:


> Feeding a predator depictions of prey then
> but we are *not  *locking someone up as is we are locking away a substance, a vice. A vice has no rights, then in turn whoever use the vice.


And what is a vice? Again, something decided by society to be a vice. Alchohol and gambling are considered vices, yet they are legal and accepted. Besides, you have yet to provide any evidence that Cub Porn causes harm. You keep dancing around this point. Without this, it is nothing but your personal opinion against how other people choose to live their lives *without harming anyone*.



The Drunken Ace said:


> BNot to mention why do people _need _it as well? What drives people to seek out depictions of youth being violated?


I don't know, I'm not interested in that stuff. Honestly I don't care as long as they don't harm anyone. I don't like depictions of rape in pornography, but I know that the fictional depiction harms no one, and it is perfectly legal as well.



Clayton said:


> It is reality.
> The reality being these adults are attracted to children's bodies, yet are taking it out on a legal [in some places] alternative because people don't see it wrong when it really is..


Nice personal opinion. I'll say it again: *unless you can provide evidence that Cub Porn causes harm, you have no place judging the way someone lives their life*.


----------



## Volkodav (Apr 8, 2010)

MrBlack said:


> Vore cannot be banned as it is imaginary
> 
> 
> 
> and plus i would be sad if it were banned :U


Uhhh vore isn't imaginary. I know people that jack off to snakes eating live rats.


----------



## Volkodav (Apr 8, 2010)

Locke said:


> And what is a vice? Again, something decided by society to be a vice. Alchohol and gambling are considered vices, yet they are legal and accepted. Besides, you have yet to provide any evidence that Cub Porn causes harm. You keep dancing around this point. Without this, it is nothing but your personal opinion against how other people choose to live their lives *without harming anyone*.
> 
> I don't know, I'm not interested in that stuff. Honestly I don't care as long as they don't harm anyone. I don't like depictions of rape in pornography, but I know that the fictional depiction harms no one, and it is perfectly legal as well.
> 
> Nice personal opinion. I'll say it again: *unless you can provide evidence that Cub Porn causes harm, you have no place judging the way someone lives their life*.


http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/Alan_The_Panda

Wawaweewa


----------



## Samanthaweltzin (Apr 8, 2010)

Redregon said:


> http://www.bostonherald.com/news/na...te_senate_staffer_accused_of_child_sex_crime/
> http://www.thepittsburghchannel.com/news/19604318/detail.html
> http://www.lehighvalleylive.com/breaking-news/index.ssf/2009/05/pennsylvania_man_suggested_dre.html
> 
> does that do it for you? or are you going to dismiss that as well? i'm not showing this to prove that cubporn makes pedos, i'm just posting it because it's a link.


Allow me to provide a link of my own.
http://www.youtube.com/user/QualiaSoup?blend=2&ob=1#p/u/5/NPqerbz8KDc

Find broad, sweeping evidence (statistics and studies with thousands of people), and not individual cases, and I will change my mind. I promise.


----------



## Locke (Apr 8, 2010)

The Drunken Ace said:


> Even if evidence does not support its harmful laws are mad on norms.
> 
> Why is rape bad? Because we agree it is.
> Why is theft bad? Because we agree it is.
> ...


Fictional depictions of rape, theft, and murder are all socially acceptable. This is the hole in your argument.

Also *stop posting anecdotal evidence*. Anyone with any real background in debate or science would know that isolated instances prove nothing.


----------



## CannonFodder (Apr 8, 2010)

Clayton said:


> Uhhh vore isn't imaginary. I know people that jack off to snakes eating live rats.


Can you imagine what would happen if a furry tried to eat another furry alive?


----------



## MrBlack (Apr 8, 2010)

Clayton said:


> Uhhh vore isn't imaginary. I know people that jack off to snakes eating live rats.


Damn thats hardcore, I don't like watching snakes eat stuff


----------



## Redregon (Apr 8, 2010)

Samanthaweltzin said:


> Allow me to provide a link of my own.
> http://www.youtube.com/user/QualiaSoup?blend=2&ob=1#p/u/5/NPqerbz8KDc
> 
> Find broad, sweeping evidence (statistics and studies with thousands of people), and not individual cases, and I will change my mind. I promise.



i didn't post it to change your mind, i really don't care what you think. you're just making fallacious arguments and further refining your "requests" when you're provided with a link. Pedos are like cockroaches. if you see one, there are at least a dozen you aren't seeing.


----------



## Duality Jack (Apr 8, 2010)

Locke said:


> And what is a vice? Again, something decided by society to be a vice. Alchohol and gambling are considered vices, yet they are legal and accepted. Besides, you have yet to provide any evidence that Cub Porn causes harm. You keep dancing around this point. Without this, it is nothing but your personal opinion against how other people choose to live their lives *without harming anyone*.
> 
> I don't know, I'm not interested in that stuff. Honestly I don't care as long as they don't harm anyone. I don't like depictions of rape in pornography, but I know that the fictional depiction harms no one, and it is perfectly legal as well.
> 
> Nice personal opinion. I'll say it again: *unless you can provide evidence that Cub Porn causes harm, you have no place judging the way someone lives their life*.



We are arguing away from the point further and further.


Why is cub porn bad?
What place does it have in society?
Is there a risk of harm? 
What benefit is there?


----------



## Samanthaweltzin (Apr 8, 2010)

The Drunken Ace said:


> Even if evidence does not support its harmful laws are mad on norms.
> 
> Why is rape bad? Because we agree it is.
> Why is theft bad? Because we agree it is.
> ...


The difference between the first three and the last one is that the first three hurt people in some way or another. Cub porn is just gross to most people, but it's not hurting anyone.


CannonFodder said:


> Can you imagine what would happen if a furry tried to eat another furry alive?


Your gut asplode.


The Drunken Ace said:


> We are arguing away from the point further and further.
> 
> 
> Why is cub porn bad?
> ...


Other than the first one (That's an assumption, not a legit question), those are reasonable questions to ask. Unfortunately, most people here think they know the answers when they have no evidence to prove it.


----------



## Locke (Apr 8, 2010)

Redregon said:


> i didn't post it to change your mind, i really don't care what you think. you're just making fallacious arguments and further refining your "requests" when you're provided with a link. Pedos are like cockroaches. if you see one, there are at least a dozen you aren't seeing.


All the evidence provided so far is anecdotal. All we ask is that people actually back up their arguments with real evidence.

The burden of proof lies with the accusers.


----------



## Duality Jack (Apr 8, 2010)

Locke said:


> Fictional depictions of rape, theft, and murder are all socially acceptable. This is the hole in your argument.
> 
> Also *stop posting anecdotal evidence*. Anyone with any real background in debate or science would know that isolated instances prove nothing.


But if everyone agreed the fictional depiction was bad it would get banned anyhow. 

and I'm sorry I am used to political debate more then academic, and when it comes to writing law: Its all politics.


----------



## Locke (Apr 8, 2010)

The Drunken Ace said:


> We are arguing away from the point further and further.
> 
> 
> Why is cub porn bad?
> ...


All of that is MOOT. Don't you realize this? Cub Porn is fictional, and unless hard evidence can be provided that it causes harm, no one has the right to place their moral judgement upon it.



The Drunken Ace said:


> But if everyone agreed the fictional depiction was bad it would get banned anyhow.


Fictional depictions of rape, murder, violence, incest, theft all exist and are legal. I fail to see how this is any different.


----------



## Redregon (Apr 8, 2010)

The Drunken Ace said:


> We are arguing away from the point further and further.



Why is cub porn bad? 
- the general regard is that there is a link between pedophilia and cub-porn.

What place does it have in society?
- that will differ depending on who you ask... a better question would be, does it bring anything of value to the community aside from wank-material?

Is there a risk of harm? 
- that depends on the person wanking to it. if the person has a tenuous grip on reality, there is a risk that they may wish to take their fantasies and somehow amp it up. simplest way to amp up a fantasy is to try it in real life (you can see this with all sorts of kinks and fetishes.)

What benefit is there?
- that's subjective, but personally i think there is no benefeit to having cub porn on the site whatsoever. it's porn, the only thing of value is that it gives perverts erections. hardly what i'd call beneficial.


----------



## CannonFodder (Apr 8, 2010)

tl;dr cub porn is now illegal in the UK, FA has already been reported for cub in the UK and pretty soon FA is going to get blocked in the UK and the staff are discussing what to do*doing nothing.*


----------



## Volkodav (Apr 8, 2010)

CannonFodder said:


> Can you imagine what would happen if a furry tried to eat another furry alive?


I can tell you what will happen.

Two less freaks in the fandom!



MrBlack said:


> Damn thats hardcore, I don't like watching snakes eat stuff


That's what vore is.
Something eating another thing alive.


----------



## CrazyLee (Apr 8, 2010)

I thought they had a similar law like this in the USA.

I'm no fan of cub porn, but it doesn't hurt anyone being that it's FAKE, DRAWN porn. And I'm all for defending the weak and innocent, but there's no one weak and innocent in cub porn being hurt. Now, if someone looks at cub porn and then molests some kid, maybe there can be a case made that the cub porn made him molest, even though I believe in people making their own choices and decisions, and that only that person is to blame, not something that might have influenced them. (If we go along with the argument that cub porn could cause someone to molest, we could also say that GTA causes someone to kill hookers, or Bioshock causes people to chop others in pieces, and ban all video games).

But when will governments stop being nazi dictatorships? Must we start the revolution now?


----------



## Duality Jack (Apr 8, 2010)

Locke said:


> All of that is MOOT. Don't you realize this? Cub Porn is fictional, and unless hard evidence can be provided that it causes harm, no one has the right to place their moral judgement upon it.


 How is it moot? Explain if everyone says "this should be against the law" and its just a drawing or an action it does not change the opinions of the masses, to the masses, bad is bad, drawing or not. 


his is obviously personal for you.


----------



## CannonFodder (Apr 8, 2010)

Clayton said:


> I can tell you what will happen.
> 
> Two less freaks in the fandom!


*achievement unlocked: "darwin award"*


----------



## Samanthaweltzin (Apr 8, 2010)

Actually, yeah. CannonFodder's got a point. We're going in circles, and everything either side would have to say has already been said. What say we call it a day and let the thread die? We'll see how, if at all, this law affects UK FA users, but until then I, at least, am out.


----------



## Redregon (Apr 8, 2010)

Clayton said:


> That's what vore is.
> Something eating another thing alive.



and if it's happening between two consenting adults, it's nothing that we should really take any steps against.

the best three words for any sexual situation.

Safe, Sane and Consensual.


----------



## Carenath (Apr 8, 2010)

Fuck this shit.
Not only is this thread miles off the original topic, but it's boiled down to another fucking
Cub-Lovers vs Lynch Mob


----------

