# "Mongering"



## Devious Bane (Aug 23, 2011)

_The act of promoting something undesirable or discreditable._
It is also something used to disband groups such as _Intolerant Furs_, which there is already a thread about, and groups like _No Beastiality_.

Promoting the intolerance of something that is already undesirable or discreditable has been ruled to be "mongering" drama, following the figure of two wrongs don't make a right. Though, groups like these 2 certainly do take an upstanding approach, they aren't the only ones who fall under this narrow-minded use of the definition. For example, a group named _Tolerant Furs_ would also be "mongering" as would a group named _More  Beastiality_. Both of which promoting the (in)tolerance for something that remains to be a heated topic.

Here's the problem: The issue with these groups _*is not*_ that they're serving to monger drama. This is a rushed label of ignorance done by the administration.
The primary goal of groups like these is to serve as a base for these heated topics to be disputed by those in agreement to one side of the topic being discussed. The fact drama is not an issue among some of these groups is due to the fact the side for which they serve consists of a vast majority of individuals. These groups do not serve with means to promote drama, but for those who partake in discussions with those alike.

Here's what's actually happening: Mongering _*is taking effect*_ by the existance of these groups. Again, their goals are to bring individuals with similar views together and have discussion. This would certainly be the act of promoting something undesirable or discreditable because it is that of which they are discussing. Whether they promote the tolerance or intolerance of should not be considered, every form of currency has at least two faces.


----------



## Volkodav (Aug 23, 2011)

http://www.furaffinity.net/user/zoofurs
THIS GROUP HAS BEEN DISAVOWED. FA does not support groups promoting zoophilia/bestiality.

While the FA staff does not support this group, harassment on this account will not be tolerated.

You have been warned.
===
While the FA staff does not support this group, harassment on this account will not be tolerated.

You have been warned.


...
http://www.furaffinity.net/user/nobeastiality/
FA does not condone Drama-Mongering. This group has been disavowed. 

Why the double-standards, admins? The zoos mongered drama on the nobeastiality page, not the other way around


----------



## dinosaurdammit (Aug 23, 2011)

Fucking animals is bad mmmmkay.

I don't honestly see why it would be banned. It is on the same basis as drug free furs and whatever. It is illegal and abusive so why ban something that is against it?


----------



## Verin Asper (Aug 23, 2011)

dinosaurdammit said:


> Fucking animals is bad mmmmkay.
> 
> I don't honestly see why it would be banned. It is on the same basis as drug free furs and whatever. It is illegal and abusive so why ban something that is against it?


as why the 420 group exist and the drug free furs group exist: There isnt any issues between the two groups
just sometimes sadly you end up with groups created to just counter their related group.

I'm sure both the 420 group and Drug Free furs would be both banned if they both started attacking each other.


----------



## Devious Bane (Aug 23, 2011)

Clayton said:


> Why the double-standards, admins? The zoos mongered drama on the nobeastiality page, not the other way around


The administration's visual display of hypocrisy and complete ignorance has long been a dominant figure. As you were implying, "_mongering_" hasn't been their only means of making that clear to us - Just one of the more recent.


----------



## Kihari (Aug 23, 2011)

I'd kind of like to know what alleged drama, specifically, was at work here, as all I can do is make seemingly obvious assumptions about what was going on.

Were users in one group getting harassed (by which I mean harassed, and not "harassed") by those in the other? Was one group created not as a common-grounds area for like-minded folks, but as an assault on the group with the opposing viewpoint? Was this happening out in the open community, or through private communications?

Disregarding (for the moment) what either of them stood for, what _drama _perpetrated by these groups called for these administrative measures to have been taken?


----------



## Volkodav (Aug 23, 2011)

Kihari said:


> I'd kind of like to know what alleged drama, specifically, was at work here, as all I can do is make seemingly obvious assumptions about what was going on.
> 
> Were users in one group getting harassed (by which I mean harassed, and not "harassed") by those in the other? Was one group created not as a common-grounds area for like-minded folks, but as an assault on the group with the opposing viewpoint? Was this happening out in the open community, or through private communications?
> 
> Disregarding (for the moment) what either of them stood for, what _drama _perpetrated by these groups called for these administrative measures to have been taken?


The only harassment that was happening was zoophiles going to the anti-bestiality groups and egging them into fights. Nobody reacted, of course, because the anti groups were strictly no-drama. The zoos were blocked, any harassing comments deleted and everybody moved on.


----------



## Xenke (Aug 23, 2011)

Here's the thing:

Groups like "Intolerant Furs" and "No Beastiality" are founded on the principles that they do not approve of a certain type of people. They may not actively be harassing people, but what they stand for is a general message of dislike towards another type of people.

And there lies the problem.

Zoo groups and drug groups do not do this, no matter how their actions may be dislike. They exist to unite people with similar habits/interests. They usually do not exist on the premise of "we hate the people who don't approve of us" but instead they exist to say "this is what we like, join us if you agree.

And that's the difference.


----------



## Trpdwarf (Aug 23, 2011)

Alright, after looking over everything that happened I am going to speak about the issue at hand. First of all there is this funny thing about group accounts. Group accounts need to be well moderated and they need to be very careful not to step the line. At this current time frame one of the groups "NoBestiality" had journals up that went a little too far this time. There was also another similar group that got taken out because it's name violates the rules. Usernames are not supposed to contain curse-words after all or vulgarity.

Now some people are wondering why the 420 furs group is still up. 420 furs is a group that does not promote the usage of weed, but  the artwork and the information surrounding the topic. Zoofurs in theory  did the same, but when it hosts a journal getting it's users to create a  bestiality mailing list for it's users to document 'experiences' it  needs to be taken down.

We are not against people having their own opinions but group accounts that are created for a stance need to be carefully constructed and well moderated. Now I know a lot of people are upset to see two particular groups gone but I have a good idea that is within the rules. The core issue a lot of people have with things like Bestiality is that it is a medium for animal cruelty. So perhaps we can see a group created that is against "Animal Cruelty" that doesn't have any vulgarity in it's username. There would be some guidelines of course to ensure that this does not become a foot hold for drama-mongering, and actually has a useful positive purpose. Just think of the kinds of topics that can be covered as to points of contention of what is animal cruelty onwards to how to be a good pet owner, or exposing the truths of the slaughter industry as it is (as an example). Something like this can keep the members occupied and have less of a chance of running afoul of the rules if moderated and run well.


----------



## Volkodav (Aug 23, 2011)

Xenke said:


> Here's the thing:
> 
> Groups like "Intolerant Furs" and "No Beastiality" are founded on the principles that they do not approve of a certain type of people. They may not actively be harassing people, but what they stand for is a general message of dislike towards another type of people.
> 
> ...


Zoofurs advertised chats encouraging talk of illegal activities.
The members of the drug groups very often talk openly about doing drugs.



Trpdwarf said:


> At this current time frame one of the groups "NoBestiality" had journals up that went a little too far this time.


Clarification on this, please? 
Nobeastiality reported on animal sexual abuse in the news. How is that against the rules? 

If someone creates a group called "nocruelty", would they be able to do reports on animal sexual abuse news articles? Or are zoo articles no-go because they get special privileges for some reason.


----------



## Kihari (Aug 23, 2011)

Clayton said:


> The only harassment that was happening was zoophiles going to the anti-bestiality groups and egging them into fights. Nobody reacted, of course, because the anti groups were strictly no-drama. The zoos were blocked, any harassing comments deleted and everybody moved on.


 
If that was the only "harassment" going down, it doesn't seem like something that should warrant a NO YOU CAN'T DO THIS THING YOU'RE DOING, SO GET OUT! from atop of the power-ladder.

...but what the hell do I know?



Xenke said:


> Groups like "Intolerant Furs" and "No Beastiality" are founded on the principles that they do not approve of a certain type of people. *They may not actively be harassing people*, but what they stand for is a general message of dislike towards another type of people.



One might argue that it's not a dislike of the people themselves, but the actions those people take or the beliefs they hold that the other group finds offensive... which I would say is the case here, especially if there was no active harassment of the opposing group's members; the group in question is called _No Bestiality_, after all, and not _No Zoophiles Allowed in Furrydom_ or somesuch.

Is it common practice to kill off these sorts of things based solely on what a built-in disagreement might _potentially _lead to?

EDIT:



Trpdwarf said:


> So perhaps we can see a group created that is  against "Animal Cruelty"... Just think of the kinds of topics that can be  covered as to points of contention of what is animal cruelty onwards to  how to be a good pet owner, or exposing the truths of the slaughter  industry as it is (as an example).



I'd love to see a group like this created if there isn't one out there already (though I'd expect there would be).

But even with such a broad theme as _No Animal Cruelty_, wouldn't that mean that one is just as opposed to animal molestation--arguably the most heinous sort of animal cruelty there is? Now we seem to be right back where we started.


----------



## Xenke (Aug 23, 2011)

Clayton said:


> Zoofurs advertised chats encouraging talk of illegal activities.
> The members of the drug groups very often talk openly about doing drugs.



So report them for discussing/advertising illegal activities. And by that I mean actually make a case that the groups are detrimental to the community and pose a liability, don't just say LOL ILLEGALZ.

Either way, what I said about the other groups stands.



Kihari said:


> Is it common practice to kill off these sorts of things based solely on what a built-in disagreement might _potentially _lead to?



You mean preemptively shutting something down to prevent the inevitable butthurt of many users?

Sounds pretty reasonable.


----------



## Browder (Aug 23, 2011)

Clayton said:


> Clarification on this, please?
> Nobeastiality reported on animal sexual abuse in the news. How is that against the rules?



Well since I personally did all of the bannings in this thread I'll provide the clarification. But first, an apology for not being able to back up what I'm saying as I did not get screen-caps.

Needless to say there was a journal and some numerous comments calling out both the zoofur group, and various users. This is against the TOS. I noticed it, got permission, and banned the group.


----------



## Volkodav (Aug 23, 2011)

Kihari said:


> If that was the only "harassment" going down, it doesn't seem like something that should warrant a NO YOU CAN'T DO THIS THING YOU'RE DOING, SO GET OUT! from atop of the power-ladder.
> 
> ...but what the hell do I know?


 
That's all it was. I was a regular news contributor to the anti-beast groups.



Xenke said:


> So report them for discussing/advertising illegal activities. And by that I mean actually make a case that the groups are detrimental to the community and pose a liability, don't just say LOL ILLEGALZ.


Zoofurs was taken down for discussing illegal activities [no surprise]



Browder said:


> Well since I personally did all of the bannings in this thread I'll provide the clarification. But first, an apology for not being able to back up what I'm saying as I did not get screen-caps.
> 
> Needless to say there was a journal and some numerous comments calling out both the zoofur group, and various users. This is against the TOS. I noticed it, got permission, and banned the group.


 
I was a regular frequenter/contributor to the anti-beast groups. I never saw one journal calling out the zoo furs, they were against that.

I'm still curious as to why zoos are being given permission to challenge the zoofurs suspension?


----------



## Trpdwarf (Aug 23, 2011)

Clayton said:


> Zoofurs advertised chats encouraging talk of illegal activities.
> The members of the drug groups very often talk openly about doing drugs.
> 
> 
> ...



Clayton if you see this kind of activity please please pretty please with a cherry on top report it? Also you will see Browder responded to your question for clarification.

Now as per the "nocruelty" group ideally it would be best to see the group actually used for a diversity of topics. It is fine to do reports on animal sexual abuse as long as the tone is against the cruelty and not just a one big anti-zoo call out/stomp out group. The key point I am stressing here is that if there is a stance being made against something the target should be the meat of the issue. It shouldn't be "Rabble rable evbil zoophiles!" but "This is why bestiality is animal cruelty". See where I am going?

eDIT:
Also keep in mind that it is up to the owner of a group account to moderate what is said on it's page. So if people start making comments that violate the rules and the owner blatantly ignores that...well it's not kosher. When an article against animal cruelty devolves into a shit flinging name fest the owner should step in, moderate the messages, and talk with the people involved to stress that it should stay civil and within the rules...and be unafraid to block people who won't keep things civil and stuff.


----------



## Browder (Aug 23, 2011)

Clayton said:


> I was a regular frequenter/contributor to the anti-beast groups. I never saw one journal calling out the zoo furs, they were against that.
> 
> I'm still curious as to why zoos are being given permission to challenge the zoofurs suspension?



This is my fuck-up. I really should have gotten screenshots.

And no one is getting permission to challenge the suspension. I mean people have a right to protest but zoofurs isn't getting it's group back. At all.


----------



## Volkodav (Aug 23, 2011)

Trpdwarf said:


> Clayton if you see this kind of activity please please pretty please with a cherry on top report it? Also you will see Browder responded to your question for clarification.


I didn't report the group, but I did see the journal and you already said that's what got the group banned hahaha 



Trpdwarf said:


> Now as per the "nocruelty" group ideally it would be best to see the group actually used for a diversity of topics. It is fine to do reports on animal sexual abuse as long as the tone is against the cruelty and not just a one big anti-zoo call out/stomp out group. The key point I am stressing here is that if there is a stance being made against something the target should be the meat of the issue. It shouldn't be "Rabble rable evbil zoophiles!" but "This is why bestiality is animal cruelty". See where I am going?


Yeah I getcha, thanks for the info 



Trpdwarf said:


> eDIT:
> Also keep in mind that it is up to the owner of a group account to moderate what is said on it's page. So if people start making comments that violate the rules and the owner blatantly ignores that...well it's not kosher. When an article against animal cruelty devolves into a shit flinging name fest the owner should step in, moderate the messages, and talk with the people involved to stress that it should stay civil and within the rules...and be unafraid to block people who won't keep things civil and stuff.


 The owners of the groups were strict-antidrama/callout/fighting because they didn't want to get the group banned.



Browder said:


> This is my fuck-up. I really should have gotten screenshots.
> 
> And no one is getting permission to challenge the suspension. I mean people have a right to protest but zoofurs isn't getting it's group back. At all.


I saw a comment [this was a little while back around the time the group was banned] Cerb left on someone's page saying something along the lines of "note/TT/whatever to challenge the zoofurs suspension". I did not screencap it, but I'm willing to drop that whole issue if I know zoofurs aint comin back


----------



## Kihari (Aug 23, 2011)

Xenke said:


> You mean preemptively shutting something down to prevent the inevitable butthurt of many users?
> 
> Sounds pretty reasonable.



I don't know to what extent most websites _reasonably _protect their users from getting their feelings hurt by the existence of members with differing opinions. That must be a pretty tricky line to draw.

Now, Browder's over there talking about some journals being _actually against the TOS_, or whatever; for something tangible like that, action would obviously be required.

(FWIW I'm not just trying to wear out my keyboard here, I just didn't like the idea that this was some sort of HURP DRAMA BANZ, which given all this insight seems to not be the case after all.)


----------



## Xenke (Aug 23, 2011)

Clayton said:


> I saw a comment [this was a little while back around the time the group was banned] Cerb left on someone's page saying something along the lines of "note/TT/whatever to challenge the zoofurs suspension". I did not screencap it, but I'm willing to drop that whole issue if I know zoofurs aint comin back



Well, keep in mind that every user/group has the right to challenge a suspension. Doesn't mean it'll get repealed though. 

I'm willing to bet that comment was posted as a response to users who were using a public fora to try to repeal the ban, as apposed to using more correct methods.


----------



## Trpdwarf (Aug 23, 2011)

You know what, it was my idea/brain child to have a group that is "Against" animal cruelty in this context. I want to see it done right so I'm making it myself. I'll welcome contributors though who want to help scout good content and topic ideas.


----------



## Browder (Aug 23, 2011)

Clayton said:


> I
> I saw a comment [this was a little while back around the time the group was banned] Cerb left on someone's page saying something along the lines of "note/TT/whatever to challenge the zoofurs suspension". I did not screencap it, but I'm willing to drop that whole issue if I know zoofurs aint comin back



It ain't comin' back.

They're allowed to appeal but after what they did they lost their privileges.


----------



## rodox_video (Aug 24, 2011)

Callouts are actually, very, very counter-productive. I learned this the hard way over the years. Several figures in the subculture were found to be sexually abusing animals, and the resulting public shitstorm caused these individuals to either go into hiding or change their activities/identities so as to avoid providing law enforcement with enough evidence to make an arrest.

As I've said in the other thread, the lessons learned were clear: If you see something genuinely criminal and fucked-up, don't plaster it all over the imageboards and Livejournal. Work with other people who might have seen what you saw, people you're sure you can trust. Carefully assemble a package of information, and run it by the authorities. Do not post publically about it, do not pass go, do not collect $200. Once you've made that report you are now a part of a real criminal case and you do NOT want to explain why you've fucked it six ways from sunday by running your mouth on the internet and tipping off the suspect.

When talking about specific cases or people, it would be a good idea to limit yourself to those cases that have already either made the media or resulted in police action.


----------



## Trpdwarf (Aug 24, 2011)

rodox_video said:


> Callouts are actually, very, very counter-productive. I learned this the hard way over the years. Several figures in the subculture were found to be sexually abusing animals, and the resulting public shitstorm caused these individuals to either go into hiding or change their activities/identities so as to avoid providing law enforcement with enough evidence to make an arrest.
> 
> As I've said in the other thread, the lessons learned were clear: If you see something genuinely criminal and fucked-up, don't plaster it all over the imageboards and Livejournal. Work with other people who might have seen what you saw, people you're sure you can trust. Carefully assemble a package of information, and run it by the authorities. Do not post publically about it, do not pass go, do not collect $200. Once you've made that report you are now a part of a real criminal case and you do NOT want to explain why you've fucked it six ways from sunday by running your mouth on the internet and tipping off the suspect.
> 
> When talking about specific cases or people, it would be a good idea to limit yourself to those cases that have already either made the media or resulted in police action.



I have to say that was very well said. 10/10

I would like to add that people should have a lot of self restraint before they start to get involved in pursuing cases and having them go through the channels. Otherwise one stands to mess up or harm a lot of innocent people in their zeal to oust certain kinds of criminals.


----------



## Rakuen Growlithe (Aug 24, 2011)

Clayton said:
			
		

> Zoofurs advertised chats encouraging talk of illegal activities.
> The members of the drug groups very often talk openly about doing drugs.



There's nothing wrong with talking about illegal activities, especially if it is something like whether an activity should be illegal or not. Drug use is not illegal everywhere and studies of drug use find that the legal status of a drug isn't related to how dangerous the drug is and making drug use illegal is counter productive if you are interested in reducing drug use.


----------



## jcfynx (Aug 24, 2011)

Crysix Fousen said:


> why the 420 group



The use of marijuana is illegal in the United States of America where the site is hosted. As such, admission to the usage of marijuana is considered a violation of site policy.

I, for one, am astounded that their tin-can shield protects them:

"This is a club for those who enjoy artwork with the themes of Marijuana, Salvia, Kratom, Psychedellic Mushrooms or LSD. We will also discuss issues regarding these subjects."

"We do not advocate illegal activity- however we DO support personal choice."

If you're to believe their statements, it is a club for people who have never used drugs, but for some reason are _so interested in them_ that they have created a fan club for images _depicting this activity._ I hope no person is foolish enough to believe that this is actually the case.

Clearly, this group exists to identify people who use illegal drugs and want to publicly advertise this to others.

It is so adorable. Next we'll have "artistic nude cubs" who post naked animal babies for their _purely non-sexual qualities_ and we will believe this because we are _incapable of making basic rational judgments._


----------



## Verin Asper (Aug 24, 2011)

Rakuen Growlithe said:


> There's nothing wrong with talking about illegal activities, especially if it is something like whether an activity should be illegal or not. Drug use is not illegal everywhere and studies of drug use find that the legal status of a drug isn't related to how dangerous the drug is and making drug use illegal is counter productive if you are interested in reducing drug use.


its against TOS for FA to discuss it ON SITE OPENLY though, just like its against fa ToS to do Raffles thru the site openly.


jcfynx said:


> The use of marijuana is illegal in the United  States of America where the site is hosted. As such, admission to the  usage of marijuana is considered a violation of site policy.
> 
> I, for one, am astounded that their tin-can shield protects them:
> 
> ...


really, you decided to go after that one lil piece and not even quote the whole thing....when it showed no hostility to that group?
why
what is your common sense and logic center doing?


----------



## Volkodav (Aug 24, 2011)

Rakuen Growlithe said:


> There's nothing wrong with talking about illegal activities


Are you serious


----------



## Verin Asper (Aug 24, 2011)

Clayton said:


> Are you serious


this is the same person who kept on defending zoo and beastiality?


----------



## Volkodav (Aug 24, 2011)

Crysix Fousen said:


> this is the same person who kept on defending zoo and beastiality?


"we shouldn't move a cow off the middle of the road because it wouldn't harm it but it wouldn't benefit it either"


is what he told me before, about bestiality.
[yes]


----------



## Verin Asper (Aug 24, 2011)

Clayton said:


> "we shouldn't move a cow off the middle of the road because it wouldn't harm it but it wouldn't benefit it either"
> 
> 
> is what he told me before, about bestiality.
> [yes]


...so his brain works on science instead of math i.e. logic


----------



## Volkodav (Aug 24, 2011)

Crysix Fousen said:


> ...so his brain works on science instead of math i.e. logic


His brain works on nonsense.
One would think to push the cow off the road in order for it to not get hurt. Not in the zoophile world! Where everybody sits in their cars, jacking off while looking at a cow.. unable to get anywhere because they all don't think to get out and move the cow.


----------



## Devious Bane (Aug 24, 2011)

The depth of human ignorance and stupidity is so amusing.


----------



## jcfynx (Aug 24, 2011)

Crysix Fousen said:


> what is your common sense and logic center doing?



Arguing on the Internet.


----------



## rodox_video (Aug 24, 2011)

Guys, look me in the face and tell me honestly that you or anyone else would (or far more importantly: should) really give a shit about someone talking about doing drugs on the internet.


----------



## Antonin Scalia (Aug 24, 2011)

jcfynx said:


> Arguing on the Internet.



Indeed, this is Internet Thing.


----------



## Verin Asper (Aug 24, 2011)

jcfynx said:


> Arguing on the Internet.


no I think they are doing drugs currently, arguing you would make sense at least


----------



## jcfynx (Aug 25, 2011)

Crysix Fousen said:


> no I think they are doing drugs currently, arguing you would make sense at least



Can you believe I have no idea what you just said?

I'm so sorry.


----------



## Browder (Aug 25, 2011)

rodox_video said:


> Guys, look me in the face and tell me honestly that you or anyone else would (or far more importantly: should) really give a shit about someone talking about doing drugs on the internet.


I care if they're talking about doing illegal things on the site sure. I don't distinguish much between one illegality and another.

But since 420 furs is doing nothing illegal, I don't care.


----------



## Gavrill (Aug 25, 2011)

One of the major reasons 420 furs isn't getting shit like Zoofurs is because 420 furs doesn't say "Here are small samples of drugs and here's where to find drug dealers", whereas Zoofurs was more than willing to give information about bestiality sites and legality to its members. 

Kind of the difference between discussing drugs and outright peddling to the addicts.


----------



## Rakuen Growlithe (Aug 25, 2011)

Crysix Fousen said:
			
		

> its against TOS for FA to discuss it ON SITE OPENLY though, just like its against fa ToS to do Raffles thru the site openly.



I think that's discussing your own activities, not activities in general.



			
				Clayton said:
			
		

> "we shouldn't move a cow off the middle of the road because it wouldn't harm it but it wouldn't benefit it either"
> 
> 
> is what he told me before, about bestiality.
> [yes]



You've actually left out the rest of the scenario there and it wasn't my words. It was part of a philosophy essay someone else wrote.


----------



## Verin Asper (Aug 25, 2011)

Rakuen Growlithe said:


> I think that's discussing your own activities, not activities in general.


and with FA's rule talking about illegal stuff is against its tos


----------



## Ozriel (Aug 25, 2011)

From what I've noticed when checking on the front page that the Zoofur group's members were usually instagators when it came to it. The owner of the group would delete, block, and move on with little or no rebuttal. 

The words "drama" and "troll" have been tossed too many times like frisbees when it came to certain issues and/or comments that people have made in the fandom.


----------



## Volkodav (Aug 25, 2011)

Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> From what I've noticed when checking on the front page that the Zoofur group's members were usually instagators when it came to it. The owner of the group would delete, block, and move on with little or no rebuttal.
> 
> The words "drama" and "troll" have been tossed too many times like frisbees when it came to certain issues and/or comments that people have made in the fandom.


I don't mean to generalize but most of the zoos [speaking from experience here] are often volatile, drama instigators, crybabies and love throwing around "troll" and "closeminded"


----------



## Ozriel (Aug 25, 2011)

Clayton said:


> I don't mean to generalize but most of the zoos [speaking from experience here] are often volatile, drama instigators, crybabies and love throwing around "troll" and "closeminded"



I can believe it.


----------



## Verin Asper (Aug 25, 2011)

Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> From what I've noticed when checking on the front page that the Zoofur group's members were usually instagators when it came to it. The owner of the group would delete, block, and move on with little or no rebuttal.
> 
> The words "drama" and "troll" have been tossed too many times like frisbees when it came to certain issues and/or comments that people have made in the fandom.


I was called troll by the owner when I pointed out when they delete comments "You guys sure like to hide evidence dont cha"


----------



## Volkodav (Aug 25, 2011)

Crysix Fousen said:


> I was called troll by the owner when I pointed out when they delete comments "You guys sure like to hide evidence dont cha"


Did you expect any different from the owner of that group?


----------



## Verin Asper (Aug 25, 2011)

Clayton said:


> Did you expect any different from the owner of that group?


they only only blocked me for a day to calm down folks, and currently they too pissed off about how artist and the commissioner have shared rights on art instead of the commissioner having full rights....they taking a vacay from FA


----------



## DarrylWolf (Aug 26, 2011)

Intolerant Furs, by their own existence, really had something to prove. Most people who claim to be "intolerant" are at least honest about their alleged bigotry which makes them a little more tolerant than the hypocrites who preach "tolerance". 
This may seem shocking to many of us but the "tolerant" people who preach to the masses about being  tolerant of those â€œdifferentâ€ than us, they are in fact the most  â€œintolerantâ€ of all people. They themselves hate people who do not agree with them. Intolerant Furs would have exposed those who pay lip service to tolerance.


----------



## CannonFodder (Aug 26, 2011)

Crysix Fousen said:


> they only only blocked me for a day to calm down folks, and currently they too pissed off about how artist and the commissioner have shared rights on art instead of the commissioner having full rights....they taking a vacay from FA


Oh right, it's technically a work for hire.

Honestly imo groups like zoofurs should be banned instead of the group OP was talking about, on the grounds that the group OP was calling, "intolerant" is actually a group that takes opposition to a already illegal activity; whereas zoofurs take a pro ground and actively promote said illegal activity and tell how not to get caught/get out of jail/etc.

Like the analogy said earlier in the thread, 420 furs don't tell people where their local drug dealer is.

Also another point, if the zoofurs were banned then the ensuing drama would just make all them ragequit and go elsewhere in the internet. It's not like alienating a small minority of users would all of a sudden cause all the users to leave.  Sure some artists ragequit and that, and some of their watchers ragequit as well, but it wouldn't be a firesale.

tl;dr: I think instead zoofurs should be banned, because it would cause at most a internet shitstorm within a small teacup.


DarrylWolf said:


> Intolerant Furs, by their own existence,  really had something to prove. Most people who claim to be "intolerant"  are at least honest about their alleged bigotry which makes them a  little more tolerant than the hypocrites who preach "tolerance".
> This may seem shocking to many of us but the "tolerant" people who  preach to the masses about being  tolerant of those â€œdifferentâ€ than us,  they are in fact the most  â€œintolerantâ€ of all people. They themselves  hate people who do not agree with them. Intolerant Furs would have  exposed those who pay lip service to tolerance.


It's kinda like how the fandom claims to be tolerant of all sexualities and all you really have to do is go to the straight furs, alot of the comments alot of the times will be straightbashing.
Pretty much a internet tactic for internet argues you see many people use is to throw a fit and call the other side intolerant and/or godwin.


----------



## DarrylWolf (Aug 27, 2011)

Well, perhaps Intolerant Furs would have been like a first step towards overcoming bigotry, just like joining AA could be seen as the first step in combatting alcoholism. At least they're honest with themselves about how they feel about others without having to claim that they're something they're not. If the ultimate goal of Intolerant Furs is to finally become an unbigoted person, then we should support them. And lastly, why would anyone want to tolerate somebody when you can actually treat them with love and compassion? When someone tolerates somebody else, it means that they're this close to actually hating them.


----------



## Rakuen Growlithe (Aug 27, 2011)

CannonFodder said:
			
		

> Honestly imo groups like zoofurs should be banned instead of the group  OP was talking about, on the grounds that the group OP was calling,  "intolerant" is actually a group that takes opposition to a already  illegal activity; whereas zoofurs take a pro ground and actively promote  said illegal activity and tell how not to get caught/get out of  jail/etc.



Maybe while you're at it you should also ban people who advocate for assisted suicide and perhaps even something like gay marriage. You can't ban people because they want to discuss or further the interests of an action that is illegal. Would you also ban people that would have argued oral sex should be legal? It was illegal in some US states till as late as 2003. Perhaps you'd ban people who wanted to marry outside their race, also once illegal in the US until up to 1967. As you know bestiality isn't even illegal in all US states.


----------



## CannonFodder (Aug 27, 2011)

Rakuen Growlithe said:


> Maybe while you're at it you should also ban people who advocate for assisted suicide and perhaps even something like gay marriage. You can't ban people because they want to discuss or further the interests of an action that is illegal. Would you also ban people that would have argued oral sex should be legal? It was illegal in some US states till as late as 2003. Perhaps you'd ban people who wanted to marry outside their race, also once illegal in the US until up to 1967. As you know bestiality isn't even illegal in all US states.


There's a massive difference between someone wanting to marry someone else of their own sex and somebody porking fido.


----------



## Rakuen Growlithe (Aug 27, 2011)

CannonFodder said:
			
		

> There's a massive difference between someone wanting to marry someone else of their own sex and somebody porking fido.



You're missing the point. You can argue about the differences between them but the point is that you can. The point is do not prevent the discussion of a topic because it is illegal.


----------



## Verin Asper (Aug 27, 2011)

Rakuen Growlithe said:


> You're missing the point. You can argue about the differences between them but the point is that you can. The point is do not prevent the discussion of a topic because it is illegal.


and like I said last time, Do it somewhere where its not against the rules...something zoofurs failed to do as site rules here said doing such things will get you banned...look what happen to Ebon Lupus.
And dont use Freedom of Speech, you forget its within a box and you have to follow the rules of that box.
and oh also note, just cause beastiality isnt illegal in all the states, those states will happily use the "Animal Abuse" card on those folks...like we do in florida


----------



## Shay Feral (Aug 28, 2011)

Clayton said:


> Did you expect any different from the owner of that group?


 


Crysix Fousen said:


> they only only blocked me for a day to calm down folks, and currently they too pissed off about how artist and the commissioner have shared rights on art instead of the commissioner having full rights....they taking a vacay from FA



I suspected this would land on my shoulders, but I gave zoofurs to another user back in April. I'm actually rather pissed that the user didn't stick to my instructions!


----------



## Volkodav (Aug 28, 2011)

Shay Feral said:


> I suspected this would land on my shoulders, but I gave zoofurs to another user back in April. I'm actually rather pissed that the user didn't stick to my instructions!


Don't flatter yourself, honey. I wasn't referring to you.



Rakuen Growlithe said:


> Maybe while you're at it you should also ban people who advocate for assisted suicide and perhaps even something like gay marriage. You can't ban people because they want to discuss or further the interests of an action that is illegal. Would you also ban people that would have argued oral sex should be legal? It was illegal in some US states till as late as 2003. Perhaps you'd ban people who wanted to marry outside their race, also once illegal in the US until up to 1967. As you know bestiality isn't even illegal in all US states.


Blah blah typing diarrhea fart piss poop blah blah blah
The day you stop comparing sexual abuse to animals to gay marriage is the day I won't have as much seething hatred towards you.


*FurAffinity does not operate by the laws of the entire USA. It operates by the laws of the state that it is located in.*


----------



## Shay Feral (Aug 28, 2011)

Clayton said:


> Don't flatter yourself, honey. I wasn't referring to you.



TBH, with your attitude and style of posting I was in the right to make that assumption. Regardless, the statement stands for anyone who doesn't know.

And don't call me honey...


----------



## Devious Bane (Aug 28, 2011)

Rakuen Growlithe said:


> You can argue about the differences between them but the point is that you _*can't.*_ The point is do not prevent the discussion of a topic because it is illegal.


You have the _*right*_ to free speech, who gives a shit? This does not mean you can walk into a restaurant and start talking shit about the service expecting police not to escort you out if you refuse to leave. Your right to free speech may not infringe the rights of others. If what you discussed disturbs the right of someone's peace of mind, guess what? It gets censored or you are prohibited from speaking of such matters. This is like comparing the FA staff to FCC, same concept applies.
You talk about sex, FCC will filter you.
You talk about sex with animals, FA staff will filter you.


----------



## Shay Feral (Aug 28, 2011)

Aye, maybe I should have kept a spare key and an eye on the profile so I could have intervened before things got out of hand. :/


----------



## Volkodav (Aug 28, 2011)

Shay Feral said:


> TBH, with your attitude and style of posting I was in the right to make that assumption. Regardless, the statement stands for anyone who doesn't know.
> 
> And don't call me honey...


You weren't. I never knew you owned/ran zoofurs. I know who owns/runs it.


----------



## Rouz (Aug 28, 2011)

Drama is drama and people who complain about it usually like it and stuff and eat stuff and love drama and it make me furious, you have no idea


----------



## Shay Feral (Aug 28, 2011)

Clayton said:


> You weren't. I never knew you owned/ran zoofurs. I know who owns/runs it.



I don't necessarily believe you, but I'll take your word for it and we'll just drop it.


----------



## Volkodav (Aug 28, 2011)

Shay Feral said:


> I don't necessarily believe you, but I'll take your word for it and we'll just drop it.


http://www.furaffinity.net/user/dobies


Stop flattering yourself, I don't really give two fucks about you and I don't even know who you are.


----------



## Shay Feral (Aug 28, 2011)

Clayton said:


> http://www.furaffinity.net/user/dobies
> 
> 
> Stop flattering yourself, I don't really give two fucks about you and I don't even know who you are.



Your blind third eye is showing.


----------



## Volkodav (Aug 28, 2011)

Shay Feral said:


> Your blind third eye is showing.


I really don't think you understand what the term 'third eye blind' means.


----------



## Verin Asper (Aug 28, 2011)

Shay Feral said:


> I suspected this would land on my shoulders, but I gave zoofurs to another user back in April. I'm actually rather pissed that the user didn't stick to my instructions!


didnt know you gave up that group in april thus it wasnt you but that other person then.


----------



## Shay Feral (Aug 28, 2011)

Crysix Fousen said:


> didnt know you gave up that group in april thus it wasnt you but that other person then.



I gave it up to focus on artwork, amongst other things. I regret giving it up, but I needed someone who could be more dedicated to it than myself, to keep it updated and keep the drama in check. Maybe next time I need to trust someone I do a background check?


----------



## Volkodav (Aug 28, 2011)

Shay Feral said:


> I gave it up to focus on artwork, amongst other things. I regret giving it up, but I needed someone who could be more dedicated to it than myself, to keep it updated and keep the drama in check. Maybe next time I need to trust someone I do a background check?


Anybody you pass that group onto and do a background check, you'll find that they have years of animal abuse backing them up, so there's really no use.
It's best to bring her out back behind the shed and put her down.


----------



## Shay Feral (Aug 28, 2011)

Clayton said:


> Anybody you pass that group onto and do a background check, you'll find that they have years of animal abuse backing them up, so there's really no use.
> It's best to bring her out back behind the shed and put her down.



*facepalm*

Do you ever have anything of value to contribute to a conversation?

----------------------

In direct response to the original topic of the thread.

It's possible to argue that groups like "intolerant  furs" weren't created to monger, but anyone with commonsense can see  where it was going to lead. When promoting anti- subject material it has  to have an obvious positive goal, anti-racism would be an excellent  example. A group with the name "intolerant furs" is destined for failure  because the word intolerance (intolerant) comes with a negative social  connotation. It can be argued technically that intolerance can be  positive, but most people don't think about robbery or murder when the word "intolerant" is spoken in such a vague definition. You can survey random people at the mall, ask them what comes to mind when they think of an intolerant person. Some of the first things that come to their mind might be "Bigot", "racist", "sexist" and etc... To reach murderer you'd have to lead them. 

As an example of how the group appeared to other people; I've seen the "intolerant furs" badge floating around, never visited because the name made me think it was just a bunch of prudes gather for their moral white knighting charade. While not everyone reacted the same way, the title was misleading because of it's broad definition.


----------



## Rakuen Growlithe (Aug 28, 2011)

Crysix Fousen said:
			
		

> and like I said last time, Do it somewhere where its not against the  rules...something zoofurs failed to do as site rules here said doing  such things will get you banned...look what happen to Ebon Lupus.
> And dont use Freedom of Speech, you forget its within a box and you have to follow the rules of that box.



Like I said I don't agree with your interpretation of the rules. The interpretation I see is that you're not allowed to discuss your own illegal activities but you can discuss illegal activities. That would be why a number of mods were discussing bestiality the last time a thread was started on it.
Freedom of speech is more than a law or part of a constitution. It's a principle that can always be invoked. Just because FA can tell you not to discuss something doesn't mean that it's right for it not to. And why're you even bringing it up when I never made any mention of freedom of speech?



			
				Clayton said:
			
		

> The day you stop comparing sexual abuse to animals to gay marriage is the day I won't have as much seething hatred towards you.



I didn't. Learn to read properly.



			
				Devious Bane said:
			
		

> You have the _*right*_ to free speech, who gives a  shit? This does not mean you can walk into a restaurant and start  talking shit about the service expecting police not to escort you out if  you refuse to leave. Your right to free speech may not infringe the  rights of others. If what you discussed disturbs the right of someone's  peace of mind, guess what? It gets censored or you are prohibited from  speaking of such matters. This is like comparing the FA staff to FCC,  same concept applies.
> You talk about sex, FCC will filter you.
> You talk about sex with animals, FA staff will filter you.



Discussions on FA do not infringe on other people's rights. No one is forcing you to interact. If it's on the forum you just don't open the thread. If you don't like a group, don't visit their page. You can't stop someone from having a conversation because you don't like it. You could complain if people were constantly PMing you, or posting shouts on your page but when you move into the situation then that is your own fault.


----------



## Verin Asper (Aug 28, 2011)

Rakuen Growlithe said:


> Like I said I don't agree with your interpretation of the rules. The interpretation I see is that you're not allowed to discuss your own illegal activities but you can discuss illegal activities. That would be why a number of mods were discussing bestiality the last time a thread was started on it.
> Freedom of speech is more than a law or part of a constitution. It's a principle that can always be invoked. Just because FA can tell you not to discuss something doesn't mean that it's right for it not to. And why're you even bringing it up when I never made any mention of freedom of speech



because you wont accept the very fact site rules said dont do that shit on here
what its saying is "DONT TALK ABOUT ILLEGAL STUFF ON THIS SITE" and that means "ANY"

its not my interpretation, its the SITES OUT IN THE DAMN OPEN RULES.

its why if I was to say stuff OFF SITE it becomes not the sites problem


----------



## Rakuen Growlithe (Aug 28, 2011)

Crysix Fousen said:
			
		

> because you wont accept the very fact site rules said dont do that shit on here
> what its saying is "DONT TALK ABOUT ILLEGAL STUFF ON THIS SITE" and that means "ANY"
> 
> its not my interpretation, its the SITES OUT IN THE DAMN OPEN RULES.



"_Discussion is  permitted within reason provided you do not admit to  undertaking any  activity considered illegal and/or you do not provide  assistance in  committing an illegal activity."
_http://forums.furaffinity.net/announcement.php?f=72&a=1

Presumably that same sort of rule applies to the main site since I don't see any reason for it's rules to differ on the matter.


----------



## Verin Asper (Aug 28, 2011)

Rakuen Growlithe said:


> "_Discussion is  permitted within reason provided you do not admit to  undertaking any  activity considered illegal and/or you do not provide  assistance in  committing an illegal activity."
> _http://forums.furaffinity.net/announcement.php?f=72&a=1
> 
> Presumably that same sort of rule applies to the main site since I don't see any reason for it's rules to differ on the matter.


*You MAY NOT do any of the following*



 Fur Affinity strives to allow users freedom of expression where  possible, but asks users refrain from making comments, journals,  statements or posting material which is racist, bigoted, defamatory,  otherwise offensive towards any particular sexuality, philosophy,  religion, illegal gambling (raffles, games of chance) or *content  alluding to illegal activity* or child pornography. Disruptive behavior  meant to interfere with the normal flow of the community will not be  tolerated, and we frown upon mob tactics and organized harassment.  Comments which are overly aggressive, personally insulting or abusive  are prohibited.
 *Don't post or discuss anything illegal. You and you alone are  responsible for your actions, and take full responsibility for  consequences of your actions.
*
http://help.furaffinity.net/article/AA-00203/8/Terms-of-Service-TOS.html

maybe you should not assume the forums and main site work the same, you would actually gotten points in the common sense area


----------



## Devious Bane (Aug 28, 2011)

Rakuen Growlithe said:


> Discussions on FA do not infringe on other people's rights. No one is forcing you to interact. If it's on the forum you just don't open the thread. If you don't like a group, don't visit their page. You can't stop someone from having a conversation because you don't like it. You could complain if people were constantly PMing you, or posting shouts on your page but when you move into the situation then that is your own fault.


_This is like comparing the FA staff to FCC,  *same concept applies*._


----------



## Ozriel (Aug 28, 2011)

Crysix Fousen said:


> *You MAY NOT do any of the following*
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The forum rules and the main-site rules are no different. As soon as you admit to getting sexual attractions to your niece (like one user), or other illegal activities, then you become a liability to the site and "taken care of" immediately.


----------



## Shay Feral (Aug 28, 2011)

Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> The forum rules and the main-site rules are no different. As soon as you admit to getting sexual attractions to your niece (like one user), or other illegal activities, then you become a liability to the site and "taken care of" immediately.



Technically a person admitting attraction to their niece isn't admitting to a crime, it isn't the attraction that's illegal it's the action of acting upon it.


----------



## Ozriel (Aug 28, 2011)

Shay Feral said:


> Technically a person admitting attraction to their niece isn't admitting to a crime, it isn't the attraction that's illegal it's the action of acting upon it.



There's more to it, but I am not at liberty to say.

But admitting to doing anything sexual is a liability.


----------



## Shay Feral (Aug 28, 2011)

Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> There's more to it, but I am not at liberty to say.
> 
> But admitting to doing anything sexual is a liability.



But you are referring to the admission of the action taking place, not an admission of the desire. I believe that is what Rakuen was referring to, just a general discussion without personal admission of action.


----------



## Volkodav (Aug 28, 2011)

Shay Feral said:


> But you are referring to the admission of the action taking place, not an admission of the desire. I believe that is what Rakuen was referring to, just a general discussion without personal admission of action.


They were advertising chats to speak about admission to the actions taking place.

[yt]8xyvOCNCXdU[/yt]


----------



## Shay Feral (Aug 28, 2011)

Clayton said:


> They were advertising chats to speak about admission to the actions taking place.



We're not talking about ZF, we're talking about topics of an illegal nature in general. Please read thoroughly before posting!

And don't ruin a great movie by including clips of it in your posts, it would be appreciated.


----------



## Devious Bane (Aug 28, 2011)

I think we need to not look at it as a form of "admission" but as a form of "impression".
If you're "implying" that you partake in illegal activity, you're just as guilty as you would be if you actually committed the group. To put simply, it's known as *guilt by association*.
When you join a group that talks about *illegal shit here*, you leave the _impression_ that you would have committed said acts. If you're associating with groups that stand against those illegal activities, the same concept applies except you would be going against as opposed to contributing to said acts. 
This circles up back around to this:


> Technically a person admitting attraction to their niece isn't admitting  to a crime


This is true however


> admitting to doing anything sexual is a liability.


Because of the impression the person leaves on individuals - Which is often negative given the example.


> They were advertising chats to speak about admission to the actions taking place.


This is a whole different story. Admitting to said acts, or stating to whether you did or didn't, creates more negativity around the subject. Good if you want to start drama.


----------



## Volkodav (Aug 28, 2011)

Shay Feral said:


> We're not talking about ZF, we're talking about topics of an illegal nature in general. Please read thoroughly before posting!
> 
> And don't ruin a great movie by including clips of it in your posts, it would be appreciated.


I was referring to ZooFurs and why it was banned.
They were discussing illegal activities 

& sorry! This thread/convo made me think of that clip for some reason


----------



## Shay Feral (Aug 28, 2011)

Devious Bane said:


> I think we need to not look at it as a form of "admission" but as a form of "impression".
> If you're "implying" that you partake in illegal activity, you're just as guilty as you would be if you actually committed the group. To put simply, it's known as *guilt by association*.
> When you join a group that talks about *illegal shit here*, you leave the _impression_ that you would have committed said acts. If you're associating with groups that stand against those illegal activities, the same concept applies except you would be going against as opposed to contributing to said acts.
> This circles up back around to this:
> ...



It's not a good idea to go by impression, it leaves too much to be interpreted. And the assumption or impression that people who join "illegal activity" groups; has participated in such activities is invalid, and is often what people _want_ to believe. There is no proof to back it up and then you'd just be banning users who've been obeying the rules.

Guilt by association has absolutely no legitimate merit on it's own accord.



Clayton said:


> I was referring to ZooFurs and why it was banned.
> They were discussing illegal activities



We're all aware of why Zoofurs was banned, and the new admin basically used FA as an advertisement to promote actual actual acts of bestiality. It wasn't a general discussion of an illegal activity, it was promoting an illegal activity, thus irrelevant to the conversation.


----------



## Devious Bane (Aug 29, 2011)

Shay Feral said:


> It's not a good idea to go by impression, it leaves too much to be interpreted. And the assumption or impression that people who join "illegal activity" groups; has participated in such activities is invalid, and is often what people _want_ to believe. There is no proof to back it up and then you'd just be banning users who've been obeying the rules.
> 
> Guilt by association has absolutely no legitimate merit on it's own accord.


As correct as you are, expecting people to think and conduct themselves in that manner is irrelevant to the matter at hand. The depth of human ignorance plays a big role here, so logic such as this is often tossed out of the thought process.


----------



## Volkodav (Aug 29, 2011)

Shay Feral said:


> We're all aware of why Zoofurs was banned, and the new admin basically used FA as an advertisement to promote actual actual acts of bestiality. It wasn't a general discussion of an illegal activity, it was promoting an illegal activity, thus irrelevant to the conversation.


Discussion of illegal activity is not allowed on FA. Rightfully so.
If you're going to be pro-discussing illegal activities [animalmonglery] then you should be fair and support talking about murder, drug use and child molestation.
Equality for all!


----------



## Cloudius (Aug 29, 2011)

Clayton, I'm just curious, lets say bestiality and anything related or referencing such was banned. What topic will your next moral crusade be about?

I don't really care to argue this thread, but I'l say this, when I was younger on here, you used to be able to talk about being a furry because of the overall tolerant attitude of the fandom. Oh well, guess I would be really bored at work right now if I didn't have all this jaw flapping to read.


----------



## Volkodav (Aug 29, 2011)

Cloudius said:


> Clayton, I'm just curious, lets say bestiality and anything related or referencing such was banned. What topic will your next moral crusade be about?
> 
> I don't really care to argue this thread, but I'l say this, when I was younger on here, you used to be able to talk about being a furry because of the overall tolerant attitude of the fandom. Oh well, guess I would be really bored at work right now if I didn't have all this jaw flapping to read.


Oh I dunno. I really wish people would get over me, I'm not who I used to be. I'm not a rabid dogfucker hunter anymore.
I still hold the same views on the subject [and always will]


in b4 you call be a biblethumper
p.s I'm anti-religion as well.


----------



## Rakuen Growlithe (Aug 29, 2011)

Clayton said:
			
		

> Discussion of illegal activity is not allowed on FA. Rightfully so.
> If you're going to be pro-discussing illegal activities [animalmonglery]  then you should be fair and support talking about murder, drug use and  child molestation.
> Equality for all!



I thought we agreed it was allowed within limits. Not allowed admitting to it but you are allowed discussing it. That's why Zeke didn't contradict my post. 
And I do support talking about murder, drug use, child molestation etc. All laws, rules, principles and such must constantly be scrutinised to make sure that they are consistent and do represent our best understandings of science and philosophy. People make mistakes and rules are all made by people. As such they are all fallible and it will never be good to decide on one and then declare it something that can never be questioned.


----------



## Volkodav (Aug 29, 2011)

Rakuen Growlithe said:


> I thought we agreed it was allowed within limits. Not allowed admitting to it but you are allowed discussing it. That's why Zeke didn't contradict my post.
> And I do support talking about murder, drug use, child molestation etc. All laws, rules, principles and such must constantly be scrutinised to make sure that they are consistent and do represent our best understandings of science and philosophy. People make mistakes and rules are all made by people. As such they are all fallible and it will never be good to decide on one and then declare it something that can never be questioned.


It was never allowed.
Do you believe people should be allowed to talk about how much child porn they own? [I've seen people do this on fa]
Do you think that it wouldn't get FA in shit at all?


----------



## Rakuen Growlithe (Aug 29, 2011)

Clayton said:
			
		

> Do you believe people should be allowed to talk about how much child porn they own? [I've seen people do this on fa]
> Do you think that it wouldn't get FA in shit at all?



No. That's why the rule says you can't admit to illegal activities. You can't say, "I have child porn" because that will cause legal issues for FA and they will be forced to act. You can discuss whether or not child porn should be illegal.


----------



## Volkodav (Aug 29, 2011)

Rakuen Growlithe said:


> No. That's why the rule says you can't admit to illegal activities. You can't say, "I have child porn" because that will cause legal issues for FA and they will be forced to act. You can discuss whether or not child porn should be illegal.


Should someone be allowed to say "I fucked a donkey last night"?


----------



## Rakuen Growlithe (Aug 29, 2011)

Clayton said:
			
		

> Should someone be allowed to say "I fucked a donkey last night"?



Read my answer again because I'm not typing the same reply to a question about every possible crime.


----------



## Volkodav (Aug 29, 2011)

Rakuen Growlithe said:


> Read my answer again because I'm not typing the same reply to a question about every possible crime.


Okay so no, we should not be able to say "I fucked a donkey" because it can put FA in legal trouble
So I will assume you believe the zoofurs ban is acceptable.


----------



## Rakuen Growlithe (Aug 29, 2011)

Clayton said:
			
		

> Okay so no, we should not be able to say "I fucked a donkey" because it can put FA in legal trouble
> So I will assume you believe the zoofurs ban is acceptable.



If that's what was happening then yes. I don't know what was going on in the group and my points have nothing to do with the group.


----------



## Volkodav (Aug 29, 2011)

Rakuen Growlithe said:


> If that's what was happening then yes. I don't know what was going on in the group and my points have nothing to do with the group.


It was
and that was what the thread was based on. I apologize for not following your crybaby wank.


----------



## Shay Feral (Aug 29, 2011)

Devious Bane said:


> As correct as you are, expecting people to think and conduct themselves in that manner is irrelevant to the matter at hand. The depth of human ignorance plays a big role here, so logic such as this is often tossed out of the thought process.



It's actually quite relevant to the matter at hand, ignorance of this caliber creates problems if allowed to be acted upon. If impression were allowed to be a banning offense then we'd have alot of these ignorant people getting countless innocent users banned simply because they _think_ the user did a specific criminal act.

Impression is really just a bad idea all around because it gives power to ignorance.

--**edit**--

Also, banning by impression also sets a bad example for the website in general. It wouldn't bring a positive rep for banning users just because they come off as a creep. It might pacify moralistic users, but thats about all it would do.



Clayton said:


> Discussion of illegal activity is not allowed on FA. Rightfully so.
> If you're going to be pro-discussing illegal activities [animalmonglery] then you should be fair and support talking about murder, drug use and child molestation.
> Equality for all!



I do support it, I don't turn my back on the freedom of speech when people start talking about things I'm uncomfortable with.

Also, I see that your little buddy in your signature is quite fond of crack.


----------



## Verin Asper (Aug 29, 2011)

Shay Feral said:


> I do support it, I don't turn my back on the freedom of speech when people start talking about things I'm uncomfortable with.
> 
> Also, I see that your little buddy in your signature is quite fond of crack.


too bad folks dont really know how Freedom of speech works fully.
everyone forgets "Its within a box" and it was always "within a box" after all freedom isnt free


----------



## Shay Feral (Aug 29, 2011)

Crysix Fousen said:


> too bad folks dont really know how Freedom of speech works fully.
> everyone forgets "Its within a box" and it was always "within a box" after all freedom isnt free



Freedom of speech isn't "within a box", freedom of speech comes with responsibility however. To say there is a limit to the freedom of speech it basically implies that it's "freedom of speech until I become uncomfortable". Restricting freedom of speech is a slippery slope, restricting one's rights to this freedom based upon controversial views and or subject matter can open the door for something more prudent to be restricted in the future; which could very well be your own words.

But this is not me saying that the owner and staff of fur affinity can't control what they want on their privately owned servers.


----------



## Verin Asper (Aug 29, 2011)

Shay Feral said:


> Freedom of speech isn't "within a box", freedom of speech comes with responsibility however. To say there is a limit to the freedom of speech it basically implies that it's "freedom of speech until I become uncomfortable". Restricting freedom of speech is a slippery slope, restricting one's rights to this freedom based upon controversial views and or subject matter can open the door for something more prudent to be restricted in the future; which could very well be your own words.
> 
> But this is not me saying that the owner and staff of fur affinity can't control what they want on their privately owned servers.


Thats the point, in private areas you are then subjected to the box. The whole point of this tread is due to some folks have been violating FA's ToS, and some of those folks are going "well freedom of speech" forgetting that on FA you are in a box.


----------



## Devious Bane (Aug 29, 2011)

Shay Feral said:


> Also, banning by impression also sets a bad example for the website in general. It wouldn't bring a positive rep for banning users just because they come off as a creep. It might pacify moralistic users, but thats about all it would do.





> The depth of human  ignorance plays a big role here, so logic such as this is often tossed  out of the thought process.


The point remains the same. I wouldn't be surprised if this is one of the reasons FA is so often DDoS'd because no service is better than shitty service, amirite?


> Freedom of speech isn't "within a box"


*Wrong*, it has been confined around many, many boxes for quite some time. There are laws, rules, etc that specifically target around your freedom of speech - One such example would be the ToS for the site. The freedom of speech hasn't been the only right to come under fire, such as a bill which can hold you in prison indefinitely if you're suspected of terrorism.


----------



## Lobar (Aug 29, 2011)

Devious Bane said:


> *Wrong*, it has been confined around many, many boxes for quite some time. There are laws, rules, etc that specifically target around your freedom of speech - One such example would be the ToS for the site. The freedom of speech hasn't been the only right to come under fire, such as a bill which can hold you in prison indefinitely if you're suspected of terrorism.


 
are you seriously comparing "hey, don't talk about fucking your dogs on my website guys, thanks" to being detained without cause in Guantanamo Bay


----------



## Shay Feral (Aug 29, 2011)

Crysix Fousen said:


> Thats the point, in private areas you are then subjected to the box. The whole point of this tread is due to some folks have been violating FA's ToS, and some of those folks are going "well freedom of speech" forgetting that on FA you are in a box.



I haven't been paying attention to every part of the thread, but from where I started in; the question in which I'm focusing on isn't whether or not people have been violating the ToS. But what exactly is considered a ToS violation when it comes to "illegal" topics, obviously general discussion is not covered because we've had countless threads about various illegal activities.



Devious Bane said:


> The point remains the same. I wouldn't be surprised if this is one of the reasons FA is so often DDoS'd because no service is better than shitty service, amirite?
> 
> *Wrong*, it has been confined around many, many boxes for quite some time. There are laws, rules, etc that specifically target around your freedom of speech - One such example would be the ToS for the site. The freedom of speech hasn't been the only right to come under fire, such as a bill which can hold you in prison indefinitely if you're suspected of terrorism.



No one knows the exact reason why FA has been DDoS'd, it's happened dozens of times for unknown reasons. It wouldn't be a bad guess to think that bad impressions could be the cause, but it is not an excuse for the person or people behind these attacks to commit a crime like starting a DDoS. Which further proves my point, do not give power to ignorance.

Hold off on the "your wrong" comments until you've read the entirety of my post. Private property is an exception to the right of free speech and I did acknowledge that in my post that you hacked half off.


----------



## Verin Asper (Aug 29, 2011)

Shay Feral said:


> I haven't been paying attention to every part of the thread, but from where I started in; the question in which I'm focusing on isn't whether or not people have been violating the ToS. But what exactly is considered a ToS violation when it comes to "illegal" topics, obviously general discussion is not covered because we've had countless threads about various illegal activities.


now thats where the fun comes in, to which you have pointed out before
"Talking about the subject is one thing, admitting or promoting to doing said subject is another"
Lets take your old group you were formally the owner of
My gut say: "the group was only meant for if not towards the art of Anthros and Ferals, not meant to promote the actual act" what happened after is that the new owner of the group was promoting the actual act along with art.
the problem is...the line is a bit too thin due to everything can be subjective, no clarity to folks.


----------



## Shay Feral (Aug 29, 2011)

Crysix Fousen said:


> now thats where the fun comes in, to which you have pointed out before
> "Talking about the subject is one thing, admitting or promoting to doing said subject is another"
> Lets take your old group you were formally the owner of
> My gut say: "the group was only meant for if not towards the art of Anthros and Ferals, not meant to promote the actual act" what happened after is that the new owner of the group was promoting the actual act along with art.
> the problem is...the line is a bit too thin due to everything can be subjective, no clarity to folks.



The new owner took it beyond general discussion and went towards advertising the act of bestiality. There is a difference between discussing which animals you find most appealing and advertising the actual act.

But honestly when I ran the group, anything not focused on the artwork or writing was disallowed; mainly to keep on the safe side of the rules and drama to a minimum.


----------



## Devious Bane (Aug 29, 2011)

Lobar said:


> are you seriously comparing "hey, don't talk about fucking your dogs on my website guys, thanks" to being detained without cause in Guantanamo Bay


No, but if I was to go anywhere near that threshold it would be around the lines of 'fucking your dog should land your ass in Guantanamo Bay'.
To rephrase where I was going with that, _your right to free speech doesn't mean shit anymore_.



> Hold off on the "*your wrong*" comments until you've read the entirety of  my post. Private property is an exception to the right of free speech  and I did acknowledge that in my post that you hacked half off.


Before you go striking my own comments, be sure to mind your own literacy - Especially since you were being criticized for spinning terminology around. You were stating that though the freedom of speech isn't confined to a _box_, _*which is wrong*_ on many different levels and situations, and addressed the mentioned confines as _responsibilities_.  Your _responsibility_ is not to abuse that freedom, because if you do, tighter restrictions - _smaller boxes_ - get placed around it. *This is why we can't have good things.*

Also, the DDoS comment was just thrown out for dry humor.


> It wouldn't be a bad guess to think that bad impressions could be the  cause, but it is not an excuse for the person or people behind these  attacks to commit a crime like starting a DDoS.


Yet again you're missing the reality of the matter here, 





> The depth of human  ignorance plays a big role here, so logic such as this is often tossed  out of the thought process.


It can happen therefore it might as well, said Murphy.


----------



## Verin Asper (Aug 29, 2011)

Shay Feral said:


> The new owner took it beyond general discussion and went towards advertising the act of bestiality. There is a difference between discussing which animals you find most appealing and advertising the actual act.
> 
> But honestly when I ran the group, anything not focused on the artwork or writing was disallowed; mainly to keep on the safe side of the rules and drama to a minimum.


Exactly what I said
now lets use 420 furs
They only have 3 journals but their group is only requesting art and/or stories involving the usage of drugs but do not promote or advertise it. Using what happen to your old group: If 420furs was to...say suddenly promote if not also advertise what drugs folks in their group should use...then thats violates the TOS. They would have to be shut down due to promoting and advertising.

now lets get back to the source "No beastiality" group and "intolerant Furs" These two groups just by their name smell of attack/counter groups. Intolerant furs ended being an attack/counter group by default its promoting that folks should not even tolerate anyone. They would be the anti to all groups instantly just by their name. No beastiality group come off as the counter to ZooFurs (well mainly after you gave it to someone else) as the group was promoting the actual act.


----------



## Shay Feral (Aug 29, 2011)

Devious Bane said:


> Before you go striking my own comments, be sure to mind your own literacy - Especially since you were being criticized for spinning terminology around. You were stating that though the freedom of speech isn't confined to a _box_, _*which is wrong*_ on many different levels and situations, and addressed the mentioned confines as _responsibilities_.  Your _responsibility_ is not to abuse that freedom, because if you do, tighter restrictions - _smaller boxes_ - get placed around it. *This is why we can't have good things.*



I think you are failing to understand that I am accepting the factual concept of your argument that there are restrictions based upon situations, but I am not accepting your choice of metaphorical expression.



Devious Bane said:


> Yet again you're missing the reality of the matter here,
> It can happen therefore it might as well, said Murphy.



Please show a little bit more respect and don't assume I'm missing any form of reality on this matter.



Crysix Fousen said:


> Exactly what I said
> now lets use 420 furs
> They only have 3 journals but their group is only requesting art and/or stories involving the usage of drugs but do not promote or advertise it. Using what happen to your old group: If 420furs was to...say suddenly promote if not also advertise what drugs folks in their group should use...then thats violates the TOS. They would have to be shut down due to promoting and advertising.



I think we're agreeing that ZF was rightfully shut down based upon the actions of the new owner, I won't refute that.


----------



## Volkodav (Aug 29, 2011)

Shay Feral said:


> I do support it, I don't turn my back on the freedom of speech when people start talking about things I'm uncomfortable with.
> 
> Also, I see that your little buddy in your signature is quite fond of crack.


Typing "babies are hot" is not freedom of speech
and it's a character from Homestuck and no he doesn't do crack.



in before the good ol' zoophile "close-minded bible thumper" so I'm gonna flip it around and say it first
Shay Feral, you're a close-minded bible-thumper. You are close-minded against my hatred towards your kind.


----------



## Shay Feral (Aug 29, 2011)

Clayton said:


> Typing "babies are hot" is not freedom of speech



You just did, looks like you've proven my point.



Clayton said:


> in before the good ol' zoophile "close-minded bible thumper" so I'm gonna flip it around and say it first
> Shay Feral, you're a close-minded bible-thumper. You are close-minded against my hatred towards your kind.



You're right, I am a bible thumper... I like to use them as weapons cos nothing is more degrading than getting bitch slapped with a bible. Well, short of being sodomized with the new testament.


----------



## Volkodav (Aug 29, 2011)

Shay Feral said:


> You just did, looks like you've proven my point.
> You're right, I am a bible thumper... I like to use them as weapons cos nothing is more degrading than getting bitch slapped with a bible. Well, short of being sodomized with the new testament.


You're confusing freedom of speech [Westboro Baptist Church] with typing things online that are controversial. I was kind of wrong to expect any intelligence out of your ilk.

IDK why you'd own a book that has hate speech about you in it.


----------



## Shay Feral (Aug 29, 2011)

Clayton said:


> You're confusing freedom of speech [Westboro Baptist Church] with typing things online that are controversial. I was kind of wrong to expect any intelligence out of your ilk.



Clayton, you can't expect intelligence because you can't recognize it. You've proven it time and again in this thread alone. Most people in the last few pages has exchanged views in an intelligent and respectful manner, but you've primarily stuck to insults and passive and arrogant behavior. You haven't provided anything remotely useful, and you post in a manner that you're hoping it encourages someone to come in and pick up the slack for you.

Simply put, you've been that bug that's been buzzing around annoying people and flies away when someone tries to crush it.


----------



## Volkodav (Aug 29, 2011)

Shay Feral said:


> Clayton, you can't expect intelligence because you can't recognize it. You've proven it time and again in this thread alone. Most people in the last few pages has exchanged views in an intelligent and respectful manner, but you've primarily stuck to insults and passive and arrogant behavior. You haven't provided anything remotely useful, and you post in a manner that you're hoping it encourages someone to come in and pick up the slack for you.
> 
> Simply put, you've been that bug that's been buzzing around annoying people and flies away when someone tries to crush it.


No, I just state my opinion in a short n' sweet, arrogant manner.

JSYK, freedom of speech is the only thing keeping the Westboro Baptist Church on street corners and not in jail. Freedom of speech does not apply to saying "all ___ should die" on the internet.
I hope I have taught you something today.


----------



## Shay Feral (Aug 29, 2011)

Clayton said:


> JSYK, freedom of speech is the only thing keeping the Westboro Baptist Church on street corners and not in jail. Freedom of speech does not apply to saying "all ___ should die" on the internet.



Thank you captain-fucking-obvious. Please refer to this...



Shay Feral said:


> You haven't provided anything remotely useful


----------



## Volkodav (Aug 29, 2011)

Shay Feral said:


> Thank you captain-fucking-obvious. Please refer to this...


If it's obvious, why do you keep spouting off "saying I fuck dogs [or anything equivalent] is freedom of speech!"


----------



## CannonFodder (Aug 29, 2011)

You know this thread's title is entirely one sided, because in reality this thread isn't about "mongering", but if the thread's title was accurate it would be, "people dislike my fetish, so can we change the rules so we can suppress their opinion on the subject so my fetish can gain greater acceptance?


----------



## Shay Feral (Aug 29, 2011)

Clayton said:


> If it's obvious, why do you keep spouting off "saying I fuck dogs [or anything equivalent] is freedom of speech!"



*facepalm* You truly can not communicate with other people.

It's obvious that the WBC is protected by the freedom of speech, cos most of their actions are borderline harassment and even trespassing.

"All ____ must die" is a threat

"I fuck (insert animal)s" is a declaration


----------



## Volkodav (Aug 29, 2011)

Shay Feral said:


> *facepalm* You truly can not communicate with other people


It's okay, just admit you're wrong. :S


----------



## Shay Feral (Aug 29, 2011)

Clayton said:


> It's okay, just admit you're wrong. :S



This will be my final response to you in this thread until you pull your head out of your ass. Arrogance is not an acceptable replacement for logic in a debate, you did not put me in "check-mate" with your previous post, you've only provoked me to the point of not being level headed enough through your ignorance and arrogance to make a proper rebuttal.


----------



## CannonFodder (Aug 29, 2011)

popcorn.jpg


My other two cents is that if you talk about "freedom of speech", then you don't have the right to complain when someone has a opinion opposite of your own.


----------



## Devious Bane (Aug 29, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> My other two cents is that if you talk about "freedom of speech", then you don't have the right to complain when someone has a opinion opposite of your own.


The joy of double standards.


----------



## CannonFodder (Aug 29, 2011)

Devious Bane said:


> The joy of double standards.


I've got a idea, the FA forum drinking game.  Take a sip every time you see the phrase, "freedom of speech".  Just don't do it on a thread about cub, otherwise you'll end up dead from alcohol poisoning.


----------



## Shay Feral (Aug 29, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> My other two cents is that if you talk about "freedom of speech", then you don't have the right to complain when someone has a opinion opposite of your own.



Keep your two cents, I've got a quarter!

Clamoring on about the first amendment does not forfeit the right to free speech, a person who supports people's right to speak still has the right to say how they feel about someone's opinions. Your statement is appealing to some folks because it implies the idea that they can start jawing unchallenged, and a passive way to call someone a hypocrite, but it just does not work like that.


----------



## Verin Asper (Aug 29, 2011)

time to deal with this issue

@Clayton: Shay have long admitted to the fact they understand there is a box if not rules on this site is within this sites right to have such rules, they also know of that its the person job to stop and take responsibility of what they say, if not be smart about it. A white person can say "I hate black people"....but is it really smart to say it around black folks?

@Cannon: Why are you here? you often dont give enough stuff towards topics these days anyway. Anyway you can freely say what you want, attacking folks is just another WBC is just skirting around the edges but they have been hit several times


----------



## CannonFodder (Aug 29, 2011)

Shay Feral said:


> Keep your two cents, I've got a quarter!
> 
> Clamoring on about the first amendment does not forfeit the right to free speech, a person who supports people's right to speak still has the right to say how they feel about someone's opinions. Your statement is appealing to some folks because it implies the idea that they can start jawing unchallenged, and a passive way to call someone a hypocrite, but it just does not work like that.



The thing is this is not public domain, freedom of speech legally only applies to public domain.  Freedom of speech does not apply to-
1)Your place of work
2)Places of private business
3)Other's property
4)Promotion of illegal activities
5)Slander
6)Libel
-------pagebreak-------
9001)Private domain

In reality the only reason why freedom of speech has gotten to the levels that it currently is because the majority of people do not know all the places that it doesn't apply to, therefore they enforce it as if it applied anyhow and since the majority rule in society enforce it they act as if it was a law in that area.

tl;dr: freedom of speech doesn't apply to a website, but because the majority of individuals don't know this they act as if it does, therefor either way it doesn't matter because the individuals create a unwritten societal rule of universal freedom of speech rather than a legal one.


----------



## Shay Feral (Aug 29, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> The thing is this is not public domain, freedom of speech legally only applies to public domain.  Freedom of speech does not apply to-
> 1)Your place of work
> 2)Places of private business
> 3)Other's property
> ...



I am really not in the mood to repeat myself. Do us both a favor and start reading my posts from page three onward.


----------



## Verin Asper (Aug 29, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> The thing is this is not public domain, freedom of speech legally only applies to public domain.  Freedom of speech does not apply to-
> 1)Your place of work
> 2)Places of private business
> 3)Other's property
> ...


and here lies Cannon, who failed to realize...that Shay did know that..


----------



## CannonFodder (Aug 29, 2011)

Crysix Fousen said:


> and here lies Cannon, who failed to realize...that Shay did know that..


But then I would be contributing to the conversation, and I've spent 15k posts and two years being the biggest waste of space imaginable.

If you really want me to contribute to the conversation, then I think it's iffy in a legal sense cause of what the zoofurs group discusses.  Which might eventually land FA into hot water if drama surrounding one of it's members happens.  For example, hypothetically if one of the members gets caught for said activity and when the cops go through his computers and bam FA, then that's taking a ride to hell in a handbasket level of legal issues.  Until then I'll be enjoying the show, and when something like this happens I'll make enough popcorn to enjoy the show.  If zoofurs just quoted the tos of fa in their group on zoophilia for the members to see then there might be less drama and less threads about it.  Then again if zoofurs quoted the tos we'd probably just end up seeing people complain about the rules.


----------



## Volkodav (Aug 29, 2011)

Crysix Fousen said:


> time to deal with this issue
> 
> @Clayton: Shay have long admitted to the fact they understand there is a box if not rules on this site is within this sites right to have such rules, they also know of that its the person job to stop and take responsibility of what they say, if not be smart about it. A white person can say "I hate black people"....but is it really smart to say it around black folks?


Westboro Baptist Church does that shit all the time.
If you attack em, you get hit with the law too. They're pretty smart if you think about it!


----------



## Verin Asper (Aug 30, 2011)

Clayton said:


> Westboro Baptist Church does that shit all the time.
> If you attack em, you get hit with the law too. They're pretty smart if you think about it!


problem is folks try to temp WBC to fuck up first


----------



## Shay Feral (Aug 30, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> For example, hypothetically if one of the members gets caught for said activity and when the cops go through his computers and bam FA, then that's taking a ride to hell in a handbasket level of legal issues.



Chances are cops won't press FA, but would likely just use media stored on the computer as evidence, if they even took the investigation that far. To be charged for bestiality you'd have to be caught in the act, or have done a considerable amount of harm to the animal to warrant some sort of attention. In that case they've pretty much already have the person nailed to the wall or they wouldn't be charging them.

Police precincts aren't going to blow their budget on a crime as trivial as a person getting humped by an animal, unless the case has some significance; like Mr. Hands and the only reason why that got so much attention was because he died.

But hypothetically if the situation did occur where someone who is being charged for bestiality or animal sexual abuse, chances are the user in question visits multiple bestiality specific sites, and that is what they will be looking for. Fur affinity will likely just get glanced over due to the fact that it's an art site that doesn't even allow nude photos.


----------



## Verin Asper (Aug 30, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> But then I would be contributing to the conversation, and I've spent 15k posts and two years being the biggest waste of space imaginable.
> 
> If you really want me to contribute to the conversation, then I think it's iffy in a legal sense cause of what the zoofurs group discusses.  Which might eventually land FA into hot water if drama surrounding one of it's members happens.  For example, hypothetically if one of the members gets caught for said activity and when the cops go through his computers and bam FA, then that's taking a ride to hell in a handbasket level of legal issues.  Until then I'll be enjoying the show, and when something like this happens I'll make enough popcorn to enjoy the show.  If zoofurs just quoted the tos of fa in their group on zoophilia for the members to see then there might be less drama and less threads about it.  Then again if zoofurs quoted the tos we'd probably just end up seeing people complain about the rules.


"Cannon also failed to do math"
It has ALREADY been pointed out that the original owner of the Zoofurs group was towards just the art of Anthros with Ferals, just like how the 420 group is mostly towards the art depiction of drug usage. If the 420 group was to get a new owner and did the similar though like what happen to the zoofur group then the 420 group would also get shut down as the group is OPENLY promoting/advertising that the members should actually do drugs.
If you just gonna enjoy your popcorn then please do not get on stage and stay in the audience.


----------



## Volkodav (Aug 30, 2011)

Crysix Fousen said:


> problem is folks try to temp WBC to fuck up first


WBC knows that they can't be touched. They know that they're 100% legal to call people faggots and celebrate soldier deaths. They know nobody can do a damn thing about it.



Shay Feral said:


> Chances are cops won't press FA


You'd be surprised.
The day FA allows users to spout off "I have 7 folders of child porn" or "I fucked my dog last night" is the day people will start hunting these members down and reporting FA for harboring animal abusers and child abusers. There ARE people who will try to get FA taken down if that happens. [Hell, there are people who consistently try to get FA taken down for no apparent reason whatsoever!]

As for the rest, I know for a fact it isn't true but I'm not going to get into that here. FA has been in the news before because of dogmonglers. [well, I remember seeing the site banner in the news covering a dogmongler story] and child rapists. Law enforcement *does* know about FA.


----------



## Devious Bane (Aug 30, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> But then I would be contributing to the conversation, and I've spent 15k posts and two years being the biggest waste of space imaginable.


Don't worry, the 15 or so posts Shay has made say the same exact thing over and over, expecting it to make any more difference how many times the same thing is said.


----------



## Trpdwarf (Aug 30, 2011)

Shay Feral said:


> Chances are cops won't press FA, but would likely just use media stored on the computer as evidence, if they even took the investigation that far. To be charged for bestiality you'd have to be caught in the act, or have done a considerable amount of harm to the animal to warrant some sort of attention. In that case they've pretty much already have the person nailed to the wall or they wouldn't be charging them.
> 
> Police precincts aren't going to blow their budget on a crime as trivial as a person getting humped by an animal, unless the case has some significance; like Mr. Hands and the only reason why that got so much attention was because he died.
> 
> But hypothetically if the situation did occur where someone who is being charged for bestiality or animal sexual abuse, chances are the user in question visits multiple bestiality specific sites, and that is what they will be looking for. Fur affinity will likely just get glanced over due to the fact that it's an art site that doesn't even allow nude photos.



I'd like to point out animal control precincts will. There are people out there who pretty much fall into an "Animal cop" category and the enforce laws dealing with animals and sniff out and take out animal abusers/rehome/retrain/put-down abused animals. Many of such people will spend a lot of time and tax payer money to handle people who like to use animals that way.


----------



## Shay Feral (Aug 30, 2011)

Clayton said:


> You'd be surprised.
> The day FA allows users to spout off "I have 7 folders of child porn" or "I fucked my dog last night" is the day people will start hunting these members down and reporting FA for harboring animal abusers and child abusers. There ARE people who will try to get FA taken down if that happens. [Hell, there are people who consistently try to get FA taken down for no apparent reason whatsoever!]
> 
> As for the rest, I know for a fact it isn't true but I'm not going to get into that here. FA has been in the news before because of dogmonglers. [well, I remember seeing the site banner in the news covering a dogmongler story] and child rapists. Law enforcement *does* know about FA.



There's a difference between being known and having action taken against you, I'm able to tell the difference because _I'm not paranoid_. Hell the story you assists my point, FA ended up in the _news_, not a squad car. The media has a tendency just to grab whatever they can to make headlines, and FA being one of the most popular if not THE most popular furry site almost guarantees a lot of people will read it.



Trpdwarf said:


> I'd like to point out animal control precincts will. There are people out there who pretty much fall into an "Animal cop" category and the enforce laws dealing with animals and sniff out and take out animal abusers/rehome/retrain/put-down abused animals. Many of such people will spend a lot of time and tax payer money to handle *people who like to use animals that way*.



Seems like a waste of taxpayer money if they're focusing primarily on people who have sex with their animals. lol



Devious Bane said:


> Don't worry, the 15 or so posts Shay has  made say the same exact thing over and over, expecting it to make any  more difference how many times the same thing is said.



Looks like someone is resorting to personal attacks due to their inability to make counter-arguments.


----------



## Verin Asper (Aug 30, 2011)

Clayton said:


> You'd be surprised.
> The day FA allows users to spout off "I have 7 folders of child porn" or "I fucked my dog last night" is the day people will start hunting these members down and reporting FA for harboring animal abusers and child abusers. There ARE people who will try to get FA taken down if that happens. [Hell, there are people who consistently try to get FA taken down for no apparent reason whatsoever!]
> 
> As for the rest, I know for a fact it isn't true but I'm not going to get into that here. FA has been in the news before because of dogmonglers. [well, I remember seeing the site banner in the news covering a dogmongler story] and child rapists. Law enforcement *does* know about FA.


just like law enforcement know about the social networks, and yet nothing happen to the social net works but to the person who stupidly talk about something they did illegally. They would most likly just trawl the site just like they do to the social networks, if not just request information of said user. Also stop being on paranoid levels for too long.



Trpdwarf said:


> I'd like to point out animal control precincts  will. There are people out there who pretty much fall into an "Animal  cop" category and the enforce laws dealing with animals and sniff out  and take out animal abusers/rehome/retrain/put-down abused animals. Many  of such people will spend a lot of time and tax payer money to handle  people who like to use animals that way.


but again FA would be glanced over due to being an art site, the only thing they might take into consideration is the persons own journals and notes....problem is when FA gets knowledge of one of their user did something illegal they oddly just clear out all the information if not al the times the user talked about illegal acts. Like how one user on FA posted a suicide note, the proceed to kill themselves via driving into the opposite direction traffic. The journal was removed leaving behind the old one that was similar but wasnt as bad.


----------



## CannonFodder (Aug 30, 2011)

Trpdwarf said:


> I'd like to point out animal control precincts will. There are people out there who pretty much fall into an "Animal cop" category and the enforce laws dealing with animals and sniff out and take out animal abusers/rehome/retrain/put-down abused animals. Many of such people will spend a lot of time and tax payer money to handle people who like to use animals that way.


That's a pretty good point actually: for example here in Texas there isn't necessarily laws against bestiality, however the cops don't give a shit and arrest the person on animal abuse charges instead.


----------



## Shay Feral (Aug 30, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> That's a pretty good point actually: for example here in Texas there isn't necessarily laws against bestiality, however the cops don't give a shit and arrest the person on animal abuse charges instead.



That's a quick way to pick up some law suits, without proof of _harm_ to the animal there is no proof of abuse and would be a false charge. There have been instances where law enforcement have tried to pull that stunt in areas where bestiality is legal, but ultimately dropped charged due to the inability to prove there was any harm done to the animal.


----------



## Trpdwarf (Aug 30, 2011)

Shay Feral said:


> That's a quick way to pick up some law suits, without proof of _harm_ to the animal there is no proof of abuse and would be a false charge. There have been instances where law enforcement have tried to pull that stunt in areas where bestiality is legal, but ultimately dropped charged due to the inability to prove there was any harm done to the animal.



In response to both you and Cannon, cannon first. Around here Bestiality is illegal. There are some pretty stiff penalties too. To Shay Feral, I like to call Bestiality a game of Russian roulette. You may not hurt or get hurt every time but it doesn't mean it's an okay game to play considering the risks. That said in the current atmosphere of things many states are beginning to look into drafting Anti-Bestiality laws due to pressure from people who want to see those laws go into effect.

EDIT: It is also worth noting that state that Fur Affinity's server's are located in is also a state that considered Bestiality a crime, and it falls under animal abuse. Just food for thought, facts if you will.


----------



## CannonFodder (Aug 30, 2011)

Shay Feral said:


> That's a quick way to pick up some law suits, without proof of _harm_ to the animal there is no proof of abuse and would be a false charge. There have been instances where law enforcement have tried to pull that stunt in areas where bestiality is legal, but ultimately dropped charged due to the inability to prove there was any harm done to the animal.


...Think about it for a few seconds, I'M IN TEXAS.


----------



## Shay Feral (Aug 30, 2011)

Trpdwarf said:


> In response to both you and Cannon, cannon first. Around here Bestiality is illegal. There are some pretty stiff penalties too. To Shay Feral, I like to call Bestiality a game of Russian roulette. You may not hurt or get hurt every time but it doesn't mean it's an okay game to play considering the risks. That said in the current atmosphere of things many states are beginning to look into drafting Anti-Bestiality laws due to pressure from people who want to see those laws go into effect.



I'm well aware of the laws in which the state the server is located.

Risks however, we all take them on a daily basis and it's really not our position to say what risks other people can take in their own lives.

The anti-bestiality laws are both a waste of time and taxpayer money, implementing the laws isn't going to change much of anything. Most people who do participate in bestiality already do it under the radar even in areas in which it's legal. It'll be less effective than drug laws and equally appalling as sodomy laws.



CannonFodder said:


> ...Think about it for a few seconds, I'M IN TEXAS.



I've lived in Texas too, and Texas still has sodomy on the books. If you've performed or received oral or anal sex while in Texas, you've committed a crime.


----------



## CannonFodder (Aug 30, 2011)

Shay Feral said:


> and equally appalling as sodomy laws.


You do realize sodomy laws were created in response to homosexuality right?


----------



## Shay Feral (Aug 30, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> You do realize sodomy laws were created in response to homosexuality right?



Yes I do. What it was created in response to and what it applies to can be different. Sodomy is a blanket term and isn't specific to homosexuality.


----------



## Xenke (Aug 30, 2011)

Shay Feral said:


> I've lived in Texas too, and Texas still has sodomy on the books. If you've performed or received oral or anal sex while in Texas, you've committed a crime.



All sodomy laws in the US have been rendered invalid.

So no, you haven't.


----------



## Shay Feral (Aug 30, 2011)

Xenke said:


> All sodomy laws in the US have been rendered invalid.



Only recently


----------



## Xenke (Aug 30, 2011)

Shay Feral said:


> Only recently



8 years.


----------



## Shay Feral (Aug 30, 2011)

Xenke said:


> 8 years.



Still recent


----------



## CannonFodder (Aug 30, 2011)

Shay Feral said:


> Still recent


Not really, after all on average people live 77 years in the USA, so that was over a tenth of your estimated lifespan ago.


----------



## Shay Feral (Aug 30, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> Not really, after all on average people live 77 years in the USA, so that was over a tenth of your estimated lifespan ago.



It still happened within a decade, making it a recent event.


----------



## Xenke (Aug 30, 2011)

Shay Feral said:


> It still happened within a decade, making it a recent event.



Oh my god, just stop.

You're the one throwing around an outdated law to childishly try to prove a point without bothering to check to see if it even holds water.

You've had 8 years, that's 2920 days, where you could have checked your facts, but didn't.

It's not recent.


----------



## CannonFodder (Aug 30, 2011)

Xenke said:


> Oh my god, just stop.
> 
> You're the one throwing around an outdated law to childishly try to prove a point without bothering to check to see if it even holds water.
> 
> ...


Don't forget part of his argument is trying to draw a parallel between a law created against homosexuals and comparing it to laws against bestiality -_-


----------



## Shay Feral (Aug 30, 2011)

Xenke said:


> Oh my god, just stop.
> 
> You're the one throwing around an outdated law to childishly try to prove a point without bothering to check to see if it even holds water.



Opinions aren't a satisfactory rebuttal, Xenke. You consider it childish, but my argument serves two points.

A: Laws that we currently find appalling were considered justified at the point of their creation.

B: Through our social evolution we've determined these laws to be unjust and have repealed them.

You call it childish, I call you opinionated.



Xenke said:


> You've had 8 years, that's 2920 days, where you could have checked your facts, but didn't.
> 
> It's not recent.



And you'd be wrong, yet again on both accounts. You're making these statements based solely upon your distaste of my posting, the thing is on average; events that happen are considered recent events if it happened within a 10 year period. You'd be right to say I was wrong if I were referencing a state that abolished sodomy laws in 1976 or even 1986.



CannonFodder said:


> Don't forget part of his argument is trying to draw a parallel between a law created against homosexuals and comparing it to laws against bestiality -_-



There is a parallel, just in case you haven't noticed. Many of the same arguments made against homosexuality years ago are being repeated against bestiality, at one point being homosexual labeled you as a predator, feeding on helpless little boys. You can ignore it if you like, and most certainly will.


----------



## CannonFodder (Aug 30, 2011)

Shay Feral said:


> There is a parallel, just in case you haven't noticed. Many of the same arguments made against homosexuality years ago are being repeated against bestiality, at one point being homosexual labeled you as a predator, feeding on helpless little boys. You can ignore it if you like, and most certainly will.


The difference is one has a partner that can consent, the other can only bark or yelp.


----------



## Shay Feral (Aug 30, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> The difference is one has a partner that can consent, the other can only bark or yelp.



Another difference is that it's okay to hunt one and not okay to hunt the other. Your point is invalid as it is based around unjustifiable morality.


----------



## CannonFodder (Aug 30, 2011)

Shay Feral said:


> Another difference is that it's okay to hunt one and not okay to hunt the other. Your point is invalid *as it is based around unjustifiable morality.*


Buck up nancy pants, that is how society works by


----------



## Xenke (Aug 30, 2011)

Shay Feral said:


> Opinions aren't a satisfactory rebuttal, Xenke. You consider it childish, but my argument serves two points.
> 
> A: Laws that we currently find appalling were considered justified at the point of their creation.
> 
> ...



So essentially you're saying "fuck you, my flawed argument using outdated laws is still valid because I think you're just picking on me"? Well fucking guess again. I decided to point out that sodomy laws are invalid because I'm personally sick of people trying to use them as an argument for whatever thing they're trying to justify. It's been 8 fucking years, that's long enough for anyone who bothers to check facts before they use them to see that they've been annulled by the supreme court.

If I was truly picking on you, I wouldn't have to wait for you to bring up sodomy law, there are plenty of other, frankly more damaging things, I could harass you about. So fine, if you think that you're right even though you're wrong, be my guest, it only proves how incompetent you are.

I'm not here to argue that zoophilia/beastiality/whatever isn't one of those things that society will grow out of hating. That's not what the point of this thread is at all. I Just came here to point out that you were _factually incorrect_ at which point you decided that you had to defend yourself to make you point stick.


----------



## Shay Feral (Aug 30, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> Buck up nancy pants, that is how society works by



If you truly believe that, then I suppose you wouldn't mind if American society re-instated slavery? I mean, that's pretty unjustifiable to say it's okay to own a slave.



Xenke said:


> So essentially you're saying "fuck you, my flawed argument using outdated laws is still valid because I think you're just picking on me"? Well fucking guess again. I decided to point out that sodomy laws are invalid because I'm personally sick of people trying to use them as an argument for whatever thing they're trying to justify. It's been 8 fucking years, that's long enough for anyone who bothers to check facts before they use them to see that they've been annulled by the supreme court.



No, I'm not saying your argument is invalid because you're "picking on me", I'm saying your argument is invalid because your own personal admission. "I'm personally sick of people trying to use them as an argument for whatever they're trying to justify." it seems your whole argument is based around that entire idea. You're being sick and tired of an argument doesn't magically remove it's validity.

And the fact you've targeted me personally multiple times, and the willingness to use personal insults or information to sway a disagreement in your favor only signifies weakness in your ability to make acceptable counter arguments.

If you're wanting to counter the argument you are going to have to make a statement beyond "they're old and abolished", because it is the fact that they existed that assists my argument.


----------



## Trpdwarf (Aug 30, 2011)

Shay Feral said:


> I'm well aware of the laws in which the state the server is located.
> 
> Risks however, we all take them on a daily basis and it's really not our position to say what risks other people can take in their own lives.
> 
> ...



People do take risks every day. There are some risks that should not be taken, and some that should be down right criminal. This is not really the time or the place however to break out this old argument again. No one changes sides, people just yell at each other till their fingers are sore.


----------



## Shay Feral (Aug 30, 2011)

Trpdwarf said:


> People do take risks every day. There are some risks that should not be taken, and some that should be down right criminal. This is not really the time or the place however to break out this old argument again. No one changes sides, people just yell at each other till their fingers are sore.



Risks that are criminal usually involve unwilling or misinformed people.


----------



## Trpdwarf (Aug 30, 2011)

I must say that people who want to champion certain things as okay tend to be misinformed or willfully ignorant. It is a pattern I have seen over and over. That said I am not going to waste time trying to get into a discussion about this and I urge others to do the same. Not here at least. This is what happens. No one changes sides. I suggest everyone drop it and if they really care to argue further they can take it to the PM's. 

Right now this thread has gone so far out off topic. We know why Zoo furs was banned. We know why the other two groups were banned. We know why 420 furs is still up. We also know that for those people who want to take a stance against animal cruelty/mistreatment of animals in a form of discussion and sharing of knowledge there is place for that. There is little to nothing left to discuss.


----------



## Ozriel (Aug 30, 2011)

Shay Feral said:


> Risks that are criminal usually involve unwilling or misinformed people.



Everyone takes risks, despite being well-informed or informed, criminal or non.


----------



## Devious Bane (Aug 30, 2011)

Shay Feral said:


> Looks like someone is resorting to personal attacks due to their inability to make counter-arguments.


Here's a personal attack: Your inability to dispute my counter-arguments without saying the same exact thing over and over may have something to do with why I'm not going to care to further dispute to it.
There's a pretty good reason I was able to copy and paste this same statement 4-5times now, it's because you're being just as ignorant as the people you're complaining about:


> The depth of human  ignorance plays a big role here, so logic such as this is often tossed  out of the thought process.


Which leads me back to referencing


> The Joy of Double Standards


Take your narrow-minded opinions elsewhere.


----------



## Verin Asper (Aug 30, 2011)

Trpdwarf said:


> I must say that people who want to champion certain things as okay tend to be misinformed or willfully ignorant. It is a pattern I have seen over and over. That said I am not going to waste time trying to get into a discussion about this and I urge others to do the same. Not here at least. This is what happens. No one changes sides. I suggest everyone drop it and if they really care to argue further they can take it to the PM's.
> 
> Right now this thread has gone so far out off topic. We know why Zoo furs was banned. We know why the other two groups were banned. We know why 420 furs is still up. We also know that for those people who want to take a stance against animal cruelty/mistreatment of animals in a form of discussion and sharing of knowledge there is place for that. There is little to nothing left to discuss.


Then I request the topic to be locked to show "There is nothing left to discuss" then


----------



## Shay Feral (Aug 30, 2011)

Devious Bane said:


> Here's a personal attack: Your inability to dispute my counter-arguments without saying the same exact thing over and over may have something to do with why I'm not going to care to further dispute to it.
> There's a pretty good reason I was able to copy and paste this same statement 4-5times now, it's because you're being just as ignorant as the people you're complaining about:
> 
> Which leads me back to referencing
> ...



At this point you've found yourself lost in the conversation, or you're just jumping aboard the insult train.



Shay Feral said:


> I think you are failing to understand that I  am accepting the factual concept of your argument that there are  restrictions based upon situations, but I am not accepting your choice  of metaphorical expression.



After this specific post our interactions ended, and even after agreeing to your argument you felt it necessary to attack me personally.

Have a nice day


----------



## CannonFodder (Aug 30, 2011)

I feel sorry for CerberusNL, the sorts of notes he must be receiving from zoofurs blaming him for the group's ban must be unimaginable.


----------



## Devious Bane (Aug 30, 2011)

Shay Feral said:


> At this point you've found yourself lost in the conversation, or you're just jumping aboard the insult train.


At this point, you're just being pathetic.
That is an insult. Now we can continue reaping what you've sown or you can stop making baseless excuses for all the holes in your argument. I would also recommended pulling your head out of your ass, may help.


----------



## jcfynx (Aug 30, 2011)

Shay Feral said:


> After this specific post our interactions ended, and even after agreeing to your argument you felt it necessary to attack me personally.
> 
> Have a nice day



This is why they'll never be kawaii.


----------



## Trpdwarf (Aug 30, 2011)

This thread has outlived it's original purpose. What is said is said, and what needed to be addressed was addressed. I am closing this thread before it goes down the drain any further.

EDIT: And before some cuss decides to accuse me of "Censoring people" please try to recall what has happened with each and every discussion on FAF that deals with this particular topic. Remember what happens. No one changes sides. People get flustered, it turns into a big mess...and the mods have to clean it up. It seems rather appropriate to want to avoid this.


----------



## CerbrusNL (Aug 31, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> I feel sorry for CerberusNL, the sorts of notes he must be receiving from zoofurs blaming him for the group's ban must be unimaginable.


Actually, some of them are pretty amusing.

But there's a lot of "This is cesorship / unjustified" ones, with people thinking we banned zoo art.
To them: read the ban reason. It doesn't specifically mention art.

[edit]
Oh, in after lock, it seems. My bad.


----------

