# So about saying you have sex with dogs...



## AshleyAshes (Apr 28, 2010)

Over the last year FurAffinity has demonstrated a rather clear history that if users on FA admit on FA that they engage in bestiality they will be promptly banned from FA.  A couple of days ago a FAF user with an FA account repeatidly used FAF as his venue to admit to having sex with animals and while he was banned from FAF his FA account remains active.  Heck, I've seen one case of an admin using someone's ED page as reason to ban him.

So, does this mean that if you admit to having sex with your dog on FAF you can't get banned from FA for it?  More over does the same apply to admitting you have sex with children or threatening to sue FA?  Two things which would surely get you banned from FA if you did it on FA.


----------



## xcliber (Apr 28, 2010)

Liking something and participating in it are 2 totally different things. Most people can't help liking or being turned on by something.

Take vore/murder/rape fetishes for example. We have thousands of fetishists for these on FA. How many of those do you think actually eat, kill, or rape people IRL?

If we banned people for being zoophiles without them admitting to comitting the act we'd also have to ban just about every other fetish that would be illegal/immoral to do IRL. In fact, zoophilia is rather tame in comparison.


----------



## ~Genesis~ (Apr 28, 2010)

You know, if I wasn't so lazy (and if I wouldn't get banned for posting them) I'd go find those pictures of Xanderiffic and his "doggy adventures" just to prove a point. I'm sure they're still available on lulz.net, if you ask them nicely.


----------



## Verin Asper (Apr 28, 2010)

AshleyAshes said:


> Over the last year FurAffinity has demonstrated a rather clear history that if users on FA admit on FA that they engage in bestiality they will be promptly banned from FA.  A couple of days ago a FAF user with an FA account repeatidly used FAF as his venue to admit to having sex with animals and while he was banned from FAF his FA account remains active.  Heck, I've seen one case of an admin using someone's ED page as reason to ban him.
> 
> So, does this mean that if you admit to having sex with your dog on FAF you can't get banned from FA for it?  More over does the same apply to admitting you have sex with children or threatening to sue FA?  Two things which would surely get you banned from FA if you did it on FA.


the two areas are seperate thats how the Admins made it like.


I choose to stop there cause if I continue further it will just devolved into the same shit about drawn child/loli/shota porn vs real life.


----------



## Kusatsu (Apr 29, 2010)

xcliber said:


> Liking something and participating in it are 2 totally different things. Most people can't help liking or being turned on by something.
> 
> Take vore/murder/rape fetishes for example. We have thousands of fetishists for these on FA. How many of those do you think actually eat, kill, or rape people IRL?
> 
> If we banned people for being zoophiles without them admitting to comitting the act we'd also have to ban just about every other fetish that would be illegal/immoral to do IRL. In fact, zoophilia is rather tame in comparison.


The user made it clear he has sex with his dog irl


----------



## xcliber (Apr 29, 2010)

Kusatsu said:


> The user made it clear he has sex with his dog irl


Oh THAT guy! Yeah, I don't know why it took so long to ban him on FAF. Has he been banned on the mainsite yet?

My post is still relevant in response to ~Genesis~'s post.


----------



## rodox_video (Apr 30, 2010)

In before ten billion WHITEKNIGHT DEFENDERS rush in and the thread gets closed.

The policy on admitting to RL sex crimes/animal abuse needs to be updated. Badly. The individuals who are obviously using the same handle on zoo sites (or have been positively identified as posting on zoo sites) should have been banned YEARS ago. No questions asked. There's no valid reason not to; it makes the site a safer, better place for furries.

Also, the current method of choosing administrators is plagued with favoritism and repels people who might actually do a decent job. The entire staff is in need of a shakedown, and badly.


----------



## Corto (Apr 30, 2010)

rodox_video said:


> The individuals who are obviously using the same handle on zoo sites should have been banned YEARS ago.


Dangerous territory, your nick is not like a real life name, anyone can use it. I wouldnt be suprised if somewhere a pedophile or dog fucker or whatever is using the nickname "Corto". I've seen other nicks I use all over the web, used by other people. Even beyond that, banning for off-site comments is, in my view, wrong (unless the guy goes to jail or something). I'm all for banning zoophiles that admit it on the site or forums, but I wouldn't ban you if, for example, someone casually chose the nick "Rodox_video" when registering over at dog rape dot com.


----------



## Ricky (Apr 30, 2010)

rodox_video said:


> Also, the current method of choosing administrators is plagued with favoritism and repels people who might actually do a decent job. The entire staff is in need of a shakedown, and badly.



Are you guys _still_ butthurt you can't be an admin here?

Just sayin'


----------



## rodox_video (Apr 30, 2010)

Corto said:


> Dangerous territory, your nick is not like a real life name, anyone can use it. I wouldnt be suprised if somewhere a pedophile or dog fucker or whatever is using the nickname "Corto". I've seen other nicks I use all over the web, used by other people. Even beyond that, banning for off-site comments is, in my view, wrong (unless the guy goes to jail or something). I'm all for banning zoophiles that admit it on the site or forums, but I wouldn't ban you if, for example, someone casually chose the nick "Rodox_video" when registering over at dog rape dot com.



Well, obviously just having the same nick doesn't count as proof. I'm talking about real obvious cases such as java or mobianfox, where the admins refused to take action on the technicality that the activity didn't take place on the site in spite of overwhelming off-site proof that the people in question were molesting animals. That shit is what needs to stop.



Ricky said:


> Are you guys _still_ butthurt you can't be an admin here?
> 
> Just sayin'



To be honest, no. God no.


----------



## Xaerun (Apr 30, 2010)

rodox_video said:


> Well, obviously just having the same nick doesn't count as proof



Wow 'cause uh
Your previous post was implying pretty strongly that you DID think it counts as proof.

Just sayin'

*EDIT*
Outright said so, in fact.


rodox_video said:


> The individuals who are obviously using the same handle on zoo sites [...] should have been banned YEARS ago. No questions asked



---

There is a policy for dealing with these matters but hey, you guys go on presuming you see and know of all admin action on the site, it's cool~


----------



## Armaetus (Apr 30, 2010)

I am not surprised why he is still admin, let alone not banned for admitting to animalmongling. The average Joe Furry would be banned (Like Alu_Wolf was), so are we playing favoritism now because of his status?

http://www.furaffinity.net/journal/1371355/

Let me highlight a small sentence..

_"I did experiment with an animal."_

Is this clear enough for you folks? He admitted to this that he did it in the past, so where's the action? (or lack thereof)


----------



## Irreverent (Apr 30, 2010)

Glaice said:


> The average Joe Furry would be banned (Like Alu_Wolf was), so are we playing favoritism now because of his status?



While it would be inappropriate for me to comment on the specifics, Alu_wolf was banned for several reasons.


----------



## xcliber (Apr 30, 2010)

Glaice said:


> I am not surprised why he is still admin, let alone not banned for admitting to animalmongling. The average Joe Furry would be banned (Like Alu_Wolf was), so are we playing favoritism now because of his status?
> 
> http://www.furaffinity.net/journal/1371355/
> 
> ...


 
I don't know much about this admin, but did you read his entire journal? Yes he "experimented" but it was when he was a stupid little teenager, and he goes on to say, " it wasn't an enjoyable experience and I have no desire to ever do it again."

I believe he made it clear that he is NOT into zoophilia. He regrets doing it and I really don't see the point in banning such a person. He is not a "danger to the fandom/site."

Now, it'd be a different story if he actually liked it and had the potential to do it again.

That said, you need to understand the importance of weighing the situation on a case by case basis.


----------



## rodox_video (Apr 30, 2010)

Xaerun said:


> Wow 'cause uh
> Your previous post was implying pretty strongly that you DID think it counts as proof.
> 
> Just sayin'
> ...



Yeah um, oops. C'mon, you know what I meant.

There's not many who recycle nicks anyway, the zoo sites scream at them not to use the same nicks or ones that could be traced to legitimate activity.


----------



## Ricky (Apr 30, 2010)

I think it's a lot more simple of an issue.

People simply don't care enough to start a witch hunt against zoos.  They are not going to try to dig up information or try to validate information others have dug up in order to ban these people.  In fact, it was never even against the rules here _to be a zoo_ but the administrators decided they didn't want people posting information about their criminal acts of bestiality which only makes sense for legal reasons among others.

I'm not sure where people lose the distinction, here.  If someone admits on another site they did something I don't see why FA should care.  As far as the OP, I would guess maybe it was overlooked?  The site has usually banned people on both from what I've seen -- if they get banned from one the other usually follows.  (edit: well, I guess this isn't always the case, for example if someone is posting garbage they wouldn't usually get banned from FA but for stuff like this I've usually seen them do both)

Also, I'd like to point out saying you did something in the past is not the same as admitting you are currently engaging in a criminal act.  One is legally relevant for the site and the other isn't.


----------



## Dragoneer (Apr 30, 2010)

Ricky said:


> People simply don't care enough to start a witch hunt against zoos.


You must not Ashley or Clayton's reputations well enough. =)


----------



## Ricky (Apr 30, 2010)

Dragoneer said:


> You must not Ashley or Clayton's reputations well enough. =)



There are extremes to every side of an argument.  You give them an inch and they'll try to take a mile.

I was pretty much just stating the obvious.

I'm not sure why some people get so worked up over this shit.  I think a lot can be attributed to boredom and lack of enough direction in their own life.  Everyone needs to feel like they've accomplished something and everyone loves to talk down to people to try and feel better about themselves.  After all, we always seem to judge ourselves in terms of the others around us.  They end up trying to start a tirade assuming some sort of moral high ground and displace their own feelings of self-worthlessness on these other people and fail to realize in doing this they are setting the bar extremely low and not accomplishing a goddamned thing.

That's just my take on it, though.  People are weird.


----------



## ~Genesis~ (Apr 30, 2010)

xcliber said:


> Has he been banned on the mainsite yet?


 *One* (out of God knows how many) of his user names was.


rodox_video said:


> In before ten billion WHITEKNIGHT DEFENDERS rush in and the thread gets closed.
> 
> The policy on admitting to RL sex crimes/animal abuse needs to be updated. Badly. The individuals who are obviously using the same handle on zoo sites (or have been positively identified as posting on zoo sites) should have been banned YEARS ago. No questions asked. There's no valid reason not to; it makes the site a safer, better place for furries.
> 
> Also, the current method of choosing administrators is plagued with favoritism and repels people who might actually do a decent job. The entire staff is in need of a shakedown, and badly.


  You took the words right out of my mouth (or rather, off of my fingers).


Xaerun said:


> There is a policy for dealing with these matters but hey, you guys go on presuming you see and know of all admin action on the site, it's cool~


 Well, obviously, the policy is flawed and should be reviewed. In the examples of the people that I posted, both Itreyu and Xander were caught and called out on it. Did anything happen? Not that anybody could see. There were even pictures of Xander doing his thing (which were screenshots taken from a webcam session) and nothing happened because Xander was like "LOL SRY DUDES IT WAS A JOKE I WAS MAKING FUN OF DOGFUCKERS LOLOLOLOL THOSE ARE ALL PHOTOSHOPS BY SUM DUDE LOLOLOL"


xcliber said:


> I don't know much about this admin, but did you read his entire journal? Yes he "experimented" but it was when he was a stupid little teenager, and he goes on to say, " it wasn't an enjoyable experience and I have no desire to ever do it again."
> 
> I believe he made it clear that he is NOT into zoophilia. He regrets doing it and I really don't see the point in banning such a person. He is not a "danger to the fandom/site."
> 
> ...


Yes. Because a journal is really proof that he "changed his ways" as it were. Stop kissing admin-ass.

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

All that aside: I say we hunt down all these dirty animal fuckers and burn them at the stake (metaphorically). People like this should not be allowed on FA, period.


----------



## xcliber (Apr 30, 2010)

~Genesis~ said:


> Yes. Because a journal is really proof that he "changed his ways" as it were. Stop kissing admin-ass.


I suppose his journal also "proves" that he is a dog fucker. Both are just his word, but naturally we are going to believe the negative things he says about himself over the positive.

I say we need proof that he currently still is a zoophile (or at least something that said he's done it again since his initial "experiment") before dropping the ban hammer.


----------



## ~Genesis~ (Apr 30, 2010)

xcliber said:


> I suppose his journal also "proves" that he is a dog fucker. Both are just his word, but naturally we are going to believe the negative things he says about himself over the positive.
> 
> I say we need proof that he currently still is a zoophile (or at least something recent) before dropping the ban hammer.


My point is that his journal doesn't prove ANYTHING.

I could make a journal saying that I rape kids and force them to suck dog dick, but that doesn't make it true.


----------



## xcliber (Apr 30, 2010)

~Genesis~ said:


> My point is that his journal doesn't prove ANYTHING.
> 
> I could make a journal saying that I rape kids and force them to suck dog dick, but that doesn't make it true.


 Which is kinda the same thing I'm saying.

So where does that leave us?


----------



## Ricky (Apr 30, 2010)

~Genesis~ said:


> All that aside: I say we hunt down all these dirty animal fuckers and burn them at the stake (metaphorically). People like this should not be allowed on FA, period.



I've got a better idea...

Why don't we be a bit more proactive?

I think everyone should be required to pass a background check before they join.  Anyone convicted of a sex offense or any other serious offense should not be allowed to join in the first place.


----------



## ~Genesis~ (Apr 30, 2010)

xcliber said:


> Which is kinda the same thing I'm saying.
> 
> So where does that leave us?


With a gun in the mouth.


Ricky said:


> I've got a better idea...
> 
> Why don't we be a bit more proactive?
> 
> I think everyone should be required to pass a background check before they join. Anyone convicted of a sex offense or any other serious offense should not be allowed to join in the first place.


The day before... Current Users Online: 254,263
The day after... Current Users Online: 1 (Dragoneer: Hello...? Hello...? Where'd everybody go?)

//EDIT::What the hell am I saying? If we got rid of all the "zoophiles" (aka. animal fuckers), we'd probably lose over half the active members on FA.

I wonder if that's a bad thing...


----------



## Carenath (Apr 30, 2010)

~Genesis~ said:


> All that aside: I say we hunt down all these dirty animal fuckers and burn them at the stake (metaphorically). People like this should not be allowed on FA, period.


And if you do that, the way you seem to be going about it, and the way the OP does go about it, you'll find yourselves on the receiving end of a ban-hammer because, to be blunt, you make yourselves more trouble than the people you target.
However.. if you present evidence to us (trouble-tickets work, I read *politely* written emails and notes and respond to them too), then the users in question will receive (under current policy) a one-time warning to keep that shit off the site, if they breach that warning, then bans can be issued. 



~Genesis~ said:


> I could make a journal saying that I rape kids and force them to suck dog dick, but that doesn't make it true.


The irony, is that, if you had made up and posted such a journal, people would be calling for your ban.



~Genesis~ said:


> What the hell am I saying? If we got rid of all the "zoophiles" (aka. animal fuckers), we'd probably lose over half the active members on FA.


And you know what's sad about that? Non-furries would call you animal fuckers and hypocrites and tell you to stop hiding behind 'anthro' as an excuse to draw yourselves having sex with (half) animals.



Ricky said:


> I'm not sure why some people get so worked up over this shit.  I think a lot can be attributed to boredom and lack of enough direction in their own life.  Everyone needs to feel like they've accomplished something and everyone loves to talk down to people to try and feel better about themselves.  After all, we always seem to judge ourselves in terms of the others around us.  They end up trying to start a tirade assuming some sort of moral high ground and displace their own feelings of self-worthlessness on these other people and fail to realize in doing this they are setting the bar extremely low and not accomplishing a goddamned thing.


A lot of it probably has something to do with one of the following:
1. They've been called/accused of being, dogfuckers themselves upon it being known that they're furries and in the fandom, because the furry fandom is perpetually associated with it. This has them being particularly sick of the association and feeling a tad bitter about it.
2. They're into some sick shit themselves and don't want to be called on it, so, they deflect onto easier targets that enough people will get riled up over and throw logic out the window.

If they were not such hypocrites and behaved more like trpdwarf, more people might listen to them. Any issue I have with them, is down to, their attitude and hypocrisy, even though I agree with their goal, they're going about it arse over head.


----------



## Cervidanti (Apr 30, 2010)

When I first joined FA I saw someone I was watching make a journal about zoophilia.

They mentioned they had tried it once in the past but never again. They were banned shortly thereafter.

So what excuse is there, exactly, for the admin who does exactly the same? No true reason has been given.


----------



## Ricky (Apr 30, 2010)

Carenath said:


> A lot of it probably has something to do with one of the following:
> 1. They've been called/accused of being, dogfuckers themselves upon it being known that they're furries and in the fandom, because the furry fandom is perpetually associated with it. This has them being particularly sick of the association and feeling a tad bitter about it.
> 2. They're into some sick shit themselves and don't want to be called on it, so, they deflect onto easier targets that enough people will get riled up over and throw logic out the window.
> 
> If they were not such hypocrites and behaved more like trpdwarf, more people might listen to them. Any issue I have with them, is down to, their attitude and hypocrisy, even though I agree with their goal, they're going about it arse over head.



Pretty much.  I think having sex with a dog is pretty sick and twisted and probably even abuse but let's be honest, here...  *FAR* more people beat the shit out of their pets or neglect them or do much worse things for me to really care about someone who sucked one off.

Like one time when I used to work as a vet technician someone brought in a carrier cage of small kittens (no more than a few weeks old) that had been left outside in the Florida heat, probably all day on the side of the road.  They were all covered in their own shit and once we cleaned them off we realized they all had upper respiratory infections too except one of them.  They probably would have died that day had someone not brought them in.

So maybe call me jaded but I simply fail to see the whole zoo thing as that big of a deal compared to other things that happen that are much worse.  I am against animal abuse and although I'm sure at least some of these cases could be considered as such, most zoos claim they don't harm the animal and in at least some cases I think it remains unclear.

I'm not saying I think dogfucking is A-OK but this is why I'm not going to jump on this bandwagon.


----------



## AshleyAshes (Apr 30, 2010)

Ricky said:


> Pretty much. I think having sex with a dog is pretty sick and twisted and probably even abuse but let's be honest, here... *FAR* more people beat the shit out of their pets or neglect them or do much worse things for me to really care about someone who sucked one off.


 
Actually there have been incidents where those who have admitted to flat out animal cruelty have also had 'the hoard' set loose on them.  ...It just seems the fandom doesn't have that many people openly admitting they *kick* puppies as opposed to say, *fuck* them.

...Which I have to admit, is kinda puzzleing as to why that is.

There certianly have been such incidents but they are rare.  There was some kid who beat up a cat on YouTube and the entire internet hunted him down: http://encyclopediadramatica.com/Kenny_Glenn_The_Animal_Abuser


----------



## Ricky (Apr 30, 2010)

AshleyAshes said:


> Actually there have been incidents where those who have admitted to flat out animal cruelty have also had 'the hoard' set loose on them.  ...It just seems the fandom doesn't have that many people openly admitting they *kick* puppies as opposed to say, *fuck* them.
> 
> ...Which I have to admit, is kinda puzzleing as to why that is.



People like to tell everyone about their fetishes and sexual escapades on FA because you can say you're into just about *anything* here and other people will reply "_O MURR, ME TOO!_"

I think we really agree on this whole thing.  You just care a lot more than I do.


----------



## Taralack (May 1, 2010)

AshleyAshes said:


> There certianly have been such incidents but they are rare.  There was some kid who beat up a cat on YouTube and the entire internet hunted him down: http://encyclopediadramatica.com/Kenny_Glenn_The_Animal_Abuser



Once in a while, /b/ is made of win.


----------



## Lobar (May 1, 2010)

I'm starting to think FA will make any excuse for dogfuckers and pedos.


----------



## Taren Fox (May 1, 2010)

Lobar said:


> I'm starting to think FA will make any excuse for dogfuckers and pedos.


At least I'm not the only one who's against these sickos. ):


----------



## Dragoneer (May 1, 2010)

Lobar said:


> I'm starting to think FA will make any excuse for dogfuckers and pedos.


Uhm, not entirely. 

I could very much direct you to some real life furs who we've contacted the authorities on over various issues.


----------



## Taren Fox (May 1, 2010)

Dragoneer said:


> Uhm, not entirely.
> 
> I could very much direct you to some real life furs who we've contacted the authorities on over various issues.


I'm glad to hear that.


----------



## Volkodav (May 1, 2010)

Dragoneer said:


> You must not Ashley or Clayton's reputations well enough. =)


Why you gotta hate on a brother, man
I don't hate on you



AshleyAshes said:


> It just seems the fandom doesn't have that many people openly admitting they *kick* puppies as opposed to say, *fuck* them.


I hate the people say that just because it hasn't torn the asshole of the dog, it's not cruel.
My uncle bought his dog off of a man that worked at a junkyard. I think the dog was beaten [not by my uncle] but I'm not sure.

The dog has been living with my uncle for like 8 years now and has a jillion. fucking. issues.
He hasn't been hit or yelled at or anything since he lived with the previous owner but now he's mopey, depressed, scared, submissive and hides a lot.
Likes to run and hide outside for days at random.
Mopes around and looks all sad and won't look at anybody.
Will hide inside and REFUSE to go outside, all while standing perfectly still and looking around all
;n; BAWWWW

What I'm getting at is
Just because the animal may not be PHYSICALLY injured, doesn't mean that doesn't fuck them up royally in the head.


----------



## Ben (May 1, 2010)

Clayton, Ashley, I think the issue is this: No matter what way you look at it, being an anti-bestiality crusader on a furry website has far more cons to it than it does pros.

1. It's an incredible waste of your own time to militantly hunt for evidence that proves someone stuck their dick in a dog once, and only makes everyone question what you're doing with your lives. 

2. There's so many more productive things you could do to help animals, like working at a shelter, and yet you choose to sit behind your computer all day getting furries banned from a website, which only makes it look like you're trying to boost your egos instead of genuinely wanting to help.

3. The issue with the fandom isn't that it's full of sexless perverts, it's that it's full of socially challenged, insecure people. You'd do better to get over your "guilt by association" that you most likely feel from "sharing a fandom" with zoophiles than trying pathetically to kick them all out. Getting zoophiles banned does absolutely nothing to clean up the image of the furry fandom, because there will always be plenty of feral porn artists who either never commit bestiality, or never admit to it. 


Should admitting to having sex with an animal or a small child be against the rules? Absolutely. But to go on some dumb crusade to have all these people banned so you can have your cred boosted in an internet community just makes you look retarded.


----------



## Irreverent (May 1, 2010)

Lobar said:


> I'm starting to think FA will make any excuse for dogfuckers and pedos.



As Dragoneer stated, there is a policy and action has been taken in the past.  Ironically, we do seem to make any excuse for drug users, underage drinking, speeding, vore, diaper, music sharing etc.  The synthetic outrage generated around zoophilia seems disproportionate, likely because its not one of _the average furry's_ sacred cows that is being gored.   Banning user for generalized admissions of illegality would wipe out half the users of FA faster than going after the zoo's.



Ben said:


> Should admitting to having sex with an animal or a small child be against the rules? Absolutely. But to go on some dumb crusade to have all these people banned so you can have your cred boosted in an internet community just makes you look retarded.



I really have no issue with the fandom being self policing to certain extent.    But there needs to be a standard of evidence that would be admissible in court.  "Fred said he diddled dogs 4 years ago on some (now offline) forum" is hearsay at best.   Which makes enforcement somewhat problematic.    Additionally, most legal jurisdictions and systems allow for different standard depending on what side of the age of majority you are.  14 year old criminals and 21 year old criminals are held to different levels of accountability.  And then there's the issue of grandfathering.  Acts that might have been permissible in the past can be forbidden at some time in the future.  So there is an expectation of grandfathering in some cases.

Sadly, the crusaders seem to grasp none of this.


----------



## Volkodav (May 1, 2010)

Ben said:


> 1. It's an incredible waste of your own time to militantly hunt for evidence that proves someone stuck their dick in a dog once, and only makes everyone question what you're doing with your lives.


I am doing nothing with my life.



Ben said:


> 2. There's so many more productive things you could do to help animals, like working at a shelter, and yet you choose to sit behind your computer all day getting furries banned from a website, which only makes it look like you're trying to boost your egos instead of genuinely wanting to help.


I used to walk dogs and gave every dime to the Humane Society.
I'm going to volunteer at the animal hospital by my house.
I've caught many stray dogs/cats and returned them to their owners.
etc



Ben said:


> 3. The issue with the fandom isn't that it's full of sexless perverts, it's that it's full of socially challenged, insecure people. You'd do better to get over your "guilt by association" that you most likely feel from "sharing a fandom" with zoophiles than trying pathetically to kick them all out. Getting zoophiles banned does absolutely nothing to clean up the image of the furry fandom, because there will always be plenty of feral porn artists who either never commit bestiality, or never admit to it.


I have little to no "guilt by association". It's moreso a hatred towards animal abusers.
Though.. the moment my friend found out I was a furry, he asked if I fucked dogs.
That was his very. first. question.


----------



## Carenath (May 1, 2010)

Clayton said:


> I don't hate on you
> 
> I hate the people say that just because it hasn't torn the asshole of the dog, it's not cruel.
> ;n; BAWWWW


You sure don't come off that way. That aside, I still consider you a self-serving hypocrite that cares less about animals and more about your reputation in the community. The same for the OP and his sock puppet friend.

It's been established, and trpdwarf has posted a lot of evidence before in previous threads, that, it can lead to psychological damage. Still, hating on these people is one thing.. but do read my previous thread.



Irreverent said:


> As Dragoneer stated, there is a policy and action has been taken in the past.  Ironically, we do seem to make any excuse for drug users, underage drinking, speeding, vore, diaper, music sharing etc.  The synthetic outrage generated around zoophilia seems disproportionate, likely because its not one of _the average furry's_ sacred cows that is being gored.   Banning user for generalized admissions of illegality would wipe out half the users of FA faster than going after the zoo's.
> 
> I really have no issue with the fandom being self policing to certain extent.    But there needs to be a standard of evidence that would be admissible in court.  "Fred said he diddled dogs 4 years ago on some (now offline) forum" is hearsay at best.   Which makes enforcement somewhat problematic.    Additionally, most legal jurisdictions and systems allow for different standard depending on what side of the age of majority you are.  14 year old criminals and 21 year old criminals are held to different levels of accountability.  And then there's the issue of grandfathering.  Acts that might have been permissible in the past can be forbidden at some time in the future.  So there is an expectation of grandfathering in some cases.
> 
> Sadly, the crusaders seem to grasp none of this.


Again.. I have pointed this out.. but these crusaders are as I've highlighted many times, self-serving hypocrites who just don't "get it".



Clayton said:


> Though.. the moment my friend found out I was a furry, he asked if I fucked dogs.
> That was his very. first. question.


And that is because furry is associated with bestiality in perpetuity you can never change that, none of us can, it's nothing to do with the presence of zoos in the fandom, it is because furry characters are (half) animals fucking other (half) animals or humans. Joe Soap won't accept "but it's anthro" or "its fantasy" as an excuse, they won't look past the fact that, the characters you have as your 'sona is a half-animal like depiction.
That's just the reality of it, and the sooner furries grow a fucking pair and accept that, the better they'll be.
Hunting zoos out of the fandom won't remove that association, but, keeping animal abusers away from animals is a good thing, you just go about it wrong, and as a result, you just drew attention to stuff you've done in the past, that a lot of us feel deserved a jail term.


----------



## Dragoneer (May 1, 2010)

Clayton said:


> I am doing nothing with my life.


And let me be the first to say if you continue the witch hunt like this I'll ban you, no questions asked. And anybody else involved for that matter. And no, I don't care if your mob of supporters protests again, you're openly witch hunting people, admitting it, and trying to cause problems.

If somebody is obviously a zoo, posting blatant comments or images, that's one thing. _That needs to be handled. _But seeing people scouring logs, journals, comments, etc. is getting out of hand, then when questioned, the reason they do it is "I have nothing to do with my life." It's getting bad when the witch hunt is getting so bad addresses, phone numbers and other private information is being posted publicly on various sites.

If you have nothing to do with you life then that's fine, but don't make a pathetic career of trying to out everybody you can. Do some deserve it? Yes. Go after those. But I've seen simple comments go way out of hand over this crap. Because whenever this shit comes up, you and your crew come out, flame the fuck out of these people and trounce over the TOS and everything else.

And if the flaming continues, if the reposting on other sites continues that leads to lil' invasions on their sites, profiles... then you know where that will lead.

If there's a legitimate issue, let us know, but this "I have no life, so instead, I spend my life trying to go after other people's lives" thing is retarded.


----------



## Smelge (May 1, 2010)

Carenath said:


> And that is because furry is associated with bestiality in perpetuity you can never change that, none of us can



Doesn't mean we shouldn't try.

See, if people had just gone "well, fuck. It ain't never gonna change." and stopped trying, we'd still be stuck with women not getting the vote, blacks being restricted to the backs of buses, and they'd never have built that island with the dinosaurs down in Costa Rica.

Personally, I think it's better to show you're trying than not trying at all to make a change.

[edit]Just to point out, I am talking in general, not saying "LETS HUNT PEOPLE" (though, let's face it, that'd be pretty awesome. Except I can't ride horses, so I couldn't join in.), just disagreeing in general with Caernath and the apathy vote.[/edit]


----------



## Ben (May 1, 2010)

Voidrunners said:


> See, if people had just gone "well, fuck. It ain't never gonna change." and stopped trying, we'd still be stuck with women not getting the vote, blacks being restricted to the backs of buses, and they'd never have built that island with the dinosaurs down in Costa Rica.



Can we have a button to compliment the "This" button for posts like this? Preferrably titled "You're stupid as hell."

Nobody's encouraging apathy-- we're encouraging people to _get their goddamn priorities straight._ This is a furry website on the internet, not a serious civil rights issue that threatened to tear a country apart. Seriously, fuck off with that kind of talk.


----------



## Browder (May 1, 2010)

Irreverent said:


> As Dragoneer stated, there is a policy and action has been taken in the past.  *Ironically, we do seem to make any excuse for drug users, underage drinking, speeding, vore, diaper, music sharing etc.*  The synthetic outrage generated around zoophilia seems disproportionate, likely because its not one of _the average furry's_ sacred cows that is being gored.   Banning user for generalized admissions of illegality would wipe out half the users of FA faster than going after the zoo's.



I've noticed this and I consider it a problem. What individual user's do on there own time is their problem, however I don't want a website I'm a part of to be even peripherally associated with _any_ illegalities, zoophilia or otherwise.


----------



## Smelge (May 1, 2010)

Ben said:


> Nobody's encouraging apathy-- we're encouraging people to _get their goddamn priorities straight._



Actually, I think the message was "get your priorities straight before being apathetic".

I shall now spend 5 minutes glaring at your post in the hopes your face will catch fire.


----------



## Dragoneer (May 1, 2010)

Browder said:


> I've noticed this and I consider it a problem. What individual user's do on there own time is their problem, however I don't want a website I'm a part of to be even peripherally associated with _any_ illegalities, zoophilia or otherwise.


When it comes to issues like this we give people a one time warning -- keep your real life crap off the site. It doesn't belong here. This goes for journals, submissions, pirating, drugs, sex, whatever.


----------



## Ben (May 1, 2010)

Voidrunners said:


> Actually, I think the message was "get your priorities straight before being apathetic".
> 
> I shall now spend 5 minutes glaring at your post in the hopes your face will catch fire.



I'm not apathetic, I just have enough of a brain to know that having zoophiles and pedophiles banned from a furry website is not an important issue, and no way in hell should be compared with racism or sexism to any degree.


----------



## Smelge (May 1, 2010)

Ben said:


> I'm not apathetic, I just have enough of a brain to know that having zoophiles and pedophiles banned from a furry website is not an important issue, and no way in hell should be compared with racism or sexism to any degree.



They were examples. Not comparisons. Just, y'know saying that if everyone had adopted the "fuck it my opinion doesn't matter" approach, we'd still be sat in caves. It's all progression.

Just saying "it doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things" is incorrect. The beastiality thing is one of the main bugbears of this whole place. It's an automatic assumption when the fandom is mentioned. You have an undisclosed number of people getting shit for what a minority do.

Now, what you're saying is that it doesn't really matter in the grand scale of things, so we should be warm and accepting. Maybe not hunt them down aggressively, but sort them out as and when they slip up and make it known.

Just the act of showing we want to clean house does a lot more than sitting on our hands and occasionally passing them a nice flexible puppy to "love".


----------



## Volkodav (May 1, 2010)

Carenath said:


> You sure don't come off that way. That aside, I still consider you a self-serving hypocrite that cares less about animals and more about your reputation in the community. The same for the OP and his sock puppet friend.


Animals are and have been the most important thing in my life for years.



Dragoneer said:


> And let me be the first to say if you continue the witch hunt like this I'll ban you, no questions asked. And anybody else involved for that matter. And no, I don't care if your mob of supporters protests again, you're openly witch hunting people, admitting it, and trying to cause problems.


What exactly do you mean by "witchunt"? I never really understood that term.



Dragoneer said:


> _That needs to be handled. _But seeing people scouring logs, journals, comments, etc. is getting out of hand, then when questioned, the reason they do it is "I have nothing to do with my life." It's getting bad when the witch hunt is getting so bad addresses, phone numbers and other private information is being posted publicly on various sites.


I have reported many people openly admitting shit.
I have either not received a real answer/reply or the comments were just swept under the rug [deleted] and shrugged off.
I don't do this shit because "I have nothing to do with my life".
He asked me what I'm doing with my life - sitting on the internet all day and I answered it.
& no, I don't dox. I don't even know how to.
So if there's addresses/numbers flying around it aint me.



Dragoneer said:


> And if the flaming continues, if the reposting on other sites continues that leads to lil' invasions on their sites, profiles... then you know where that will lead.


How can I control what other sites do? I'm not the only person against this shit. Other people screencap this shit. I am not the only person with a PrntScn button when it comes to this zoo crap.



Dragoneer said:


> If there's a legitimate issue, let us know, but this "I have no life, so instead, I spend my life trying to go after other people's lives" thing is retarded.


I explained what I meant up there.
That's not what I meant.


----------



## Browder (May 1, 2010)

Clayton said:


> What exactly do you mean by "witchunt"? I never really understood that term.



In this context, he means actively harass and/or sanction people who make stray comments or misunderstood comments as zoophiles. He's afraid that people will no longer be able to state any sort of preferences on his site without a mob of users calling for one users removal when the mob has little to no evidence. In some cases it's just a misunderstanding and unless there is clear and present proof he doesn't want FA to explode with drama.

The rest he'll have to answer himself. Also read The Crucible, and study the Cold War.


----------



## Volkodav (May 1, 2010)

Browder said:


> In this context, he means actively harass and/or sanction people who make stray comments or misunderstood comments as zoophiles. He's afraid that people will no longer be able to state any sort of preferences on his site without a mob of users calling for one users removal when the mob has little to no evidence. In some cases it's just a misunderstanding and unless there is clear and present proof he doesn't want FA to explode with drama.
> 
> The rest he'll have to answer himself. Also read The Crucible, and study the Cold War.



Ohh okay I get it
So no saying meaniehead comments to the zoos! |: <

I'm not the only person that makes meaniehead comments when a zoo says "yeah i fuk my dog hehe ^^"


----------



## Browder (May 1, 2010)

Clayton said:


> Ohh okay I get it
> So no saying meaniehead comments to the zoos! |: <
> 
> I'm not the only person that makes meaniehead comments when a zoo says "yeah i fuk my dog hehe ^^"



That's just the point. It might not even be someone who's participated in zoophilia. It could be sarcasm, humor, or idiocy. Policing people's words, _especially_ on an art site, is a slippery slope.


----------



## Carenath (May 1, 2010)

Voidrunners said:


> Doesn't mean we shouldn't try.
> 
> See, if people had just gone "well, fuck. It ain't never gonna change." and stopped trying, we'd still be stuck with women not getting the vote, blacks being restricted to the backs of buses, and they'd never have built that island with the dinosaurs down in Costa Rica.
> 
> ...


But you're completely missing the point and fail to realise that you're only targeting a tiny part of the bigger picture. As long as furry ( a fandom for half *animal* characters ), is  associated with sex in any way/shape/form its mambers will always bee seen as zoos and beasties in denial using 'anthro' as an excuse. But none of you seem to realise that.. you all seem to think, just eliminating zoos, is enough, but it is not.

Users on FAF, like my running example (trpdwarf) are more than capable of showing that they want zoos out of the fandom and don't associate themselves with them, without witchunting. I should point out that what's started here may well result in a ban for the members involved, irrespective of what one idiotic member posted on the forums that got himself k-lined.


----------



## Volkodav (May 1, 2010)

Browder said:


> That's just the point. It might not even be someone who's participated in zoophilia. It could be sarcasm, humor, or idiocy. Policing people's words, _especially_ on an art site, is a slippery slope.



If they come out and say it was joking [I can usually tell] I leave them alone.
"Policing people's words"
hm..
Wasn't the cubprotest group recently banned..??


----------



## Ben (May 1, 2010)

Voidrunners said:


> They were examples. Not comparisons. Just, y'know saying that if everyone had adopted the "fuck it my opinion doesn't matter" approach, we'd still be sat in caves. It's all progression.



And what we're saying is, just because we see the stupidity in trying to actively kick out all practicing zoophiles from an internet community, does not mean someone has a generally apathetic view towards life.



> Just saying "it doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things" is incorrect. The beastiality thing is one of the main bugbears of this whole place. It's an automatic assumption when the fandom is mentioned. You have an undisclosed number of people getting shit for what a minority do.



You do realize that even if you get rid of the people who admit to fucking dogs, there will always be porn of four-legged animals getting it on, right? Nobody who has this conviction about furries being animal rapists has it because of some few disparging comments-- it's because of the porn that they draw. And as long as they keep their mouths shut, the stigma will always stand. You don't seem to understand that as long as these people admit to nothing, it will always be there (and even then, not all bestiality artists really do it). 



> Now, what you're saying is that it doesn't really matter in the grand scale of things, so we should be warm and accepting. Maybe not hunt them down aggressively, but sort them out as and when they slip up and make it known.
> 
> Just the act of showing we want to clean house does a lot more than sitting on our hands and occasionally passing them a nice flexible puppy to "love".



I'm not saying we should be warm and accepting, I'm saying you need to find something better to do with your life, and stop giving a shit about something so idiotic, trivial, and ultimately meaningless.


----------



## Browder (May 1, 2010)

Clayton said:


> If they come out and say it was joking [I can usually tell] I leave them alone.
> "Policing people's words"
> hm..
> Wasn't the cubprotest group recently banned..??



I wouldn't know. I tend to ignore that corner of the fandom. I'm assuming that it was banned because it was trying to do some witch hunting of its own, and the people who run the site got miffed, as they are now in this thread.


----------



## Volkodav (May 1, 2010)

Browder said:


> I wouldn't know. I tend to ignore that corner of the fandom. I'm assuming that it was banned because it was trying to do some witch hunting of its own, and the people who run the site got miffed, as they are now in this thread.


There was no witchhunting going on. The owner of the group specifically said the group was not for that and that he would delete all "cub artists = pedo!!!!" comments.

*But ya, i dont want this thread to get closed so im not derailing the thread
back to the sex animal thing*


----------



## Browder (May 1, 2010)

Clayton said:


> There was no witchhunting going on. The owner of the group specifically said the group was not for that and that he would delete all "cub artists = pedo!!!!" comments.



Hmm. If this is indeed the case then I'm none to happy with the site. However, a I said earlier, I wasn't there and can't pass judgement from here. I am curious about why a group that was just protesting something was banned.


----------



## Tails The Fox (May 1, 2010)

Here's a stroke of genius! Instead of whining and complaining about getting banned for saying "I fuck dogs", why not just NOT say you do it? Save everyone a whole bunch of trouble?


----------



## Volkodav (May 1, 2010)

Tails The Fox said:


> Here's a stroke of genius! Instead of whining and complaining about getting banned for saying "I fuck dogs", why not just NOT say you do it? Save everyone a whole bunch of trouble?



Wake up.
You're dreamin some crazy shit there, boy.


----------



## Ben (May 1, 2010)

Tails The Fox said:


> Here's a stroke of genius! Instead of whining and complaining about getting banned for saying "I fuck dogs", why not just NOT say you do it? Save everyone a whole bunch of trouble?



And that's why this effort is entirely pointless-- because that's all it takes for it to fail. Sure, some people will be too dumb to keep their mouths shut, but a significant portion obviously know not to talk about it.


----------



## Carenath (May 1, 2010)

Tails The Fox said:


> Here's a stroke of genius! Instead of whining and complaining about getting banned for saying "I fuck dogs", why not just NOT say you do it? Save everyone a whole bunch of trouble?


Because some of those people are not the brightest pennies in the fountain and expect furry to be open and accepting.. because just like Joe Soap, they also think furries are zoophiles.
It escapes them, that, many furries are quite against it. In part because of the jaded auto-association.

@Clayton: Any derailing commentary will be deleted, this thread will stay open so long as the discussion runs and stays civil.
Edit: In so far as I'm concerned.


----------



## Volkodav (May 1, 2010)

Carenath said:


> @Clayton: Any derailing commentary will be deleted, this thread will stay open so long as the discussion runs and stays civil.




Ohh okay thanks!


----------



## Lobar (May 1, 2010)

Remember kids, use an alt when reporting dogfuckers.


----------



## Taren Fox (May 1, 2010)

Lobar said:


> Remember kids, use an alt when reporting dogfuckers.


----------



## Carenath (May 1, 2010)

Taren Fox said:


> snip


I think this one is better..




.. now stay on topic please.. off-topic posts will be removed.


----------



## Negatiiv (May 1, 2010)

Some people have an unhealthy fixation on this topic. They remind me those loud and violent homophobes, who are in fact latent homosexuals in denial. Not to mention their inflation fetish: they want to make an elephant from a flea. The other side is not quite innocent, of course: the private life should remain private, especially when it's not accepted in most countries. But these witch-hunting zealots make themselves ridiculous, and I think they harm their own cause.


----------



## Smelge (May 1, 2010)

Negatiiv said:


> Some people have an unhealthy fixation on this topic. They remind me those loud and violent homophobes, who are in fact latent homosexuals in denial. Not to mention their inflation fetish: they want to make an elephant from a flea. The other side is not quite innocent, of course: the private life should remain private, especially when it's not accepted in most countries. But these witch-hunting zealots make themselves ridiculous, and I think they harm their own cause.



Wait, wait, wait...

Did you just use your first post to say that people who complain about others having sex with animals obviously want to try it themselves?

I'm intrigued by your "not quite innocent" comment. I'm pretty certain that sticking parts of your body in parts of an animal constitutes slightly more than not quite innocent.


----------



## Ricky (May 1, 2010)

Voidrunners said:


> Wait, wait, wait...
> 
> Did you just use your first post to say that people who complain about others having sex with animals obviously want to try it themselves?
> 
> I'm intrigued by your "not quite innocent" comment. I'm pretty certain that sticking parts of your body in parts of an animal constitutes slightly more than not quite innocent.



He would actually have a valid point, but I lost it somewhere around "inflation fetish".

But like...  When someone is obsessed over a certain topic it leads me to believe there's a reason they are thinking about it so much.  It doesn't mean they have latent repressed desires (though I'm sure that is one cause) but there's some reason they care about the topic so much.

Bad personal experiences, insecurity issues, etc.


----------



## Negatiiv (May 1, 2010)

By "not quite innocent" I mean that they should keep it private. Private means not public, you know. What they do may be illegal or not, depending on their country, forbidden, discouraged, neutral, or encouraged depending on their culture, and morally not unquestionable, but generally considered bad taste in most cultures. So they should not rub it under other people's noses. It's their business, not mine. I don't want to hear about it.


----------



## Ricky (May 1, 2010)

Negatiiv said:


> By "not quite innocent" I mean that they should keep it private. Private means not public, you know. What they do may be illegal or not, depending on their country, forbidden, discouraged, neutral, or encouraged depending on their culture, and morally not unquestionable, but generally considered bad taste in most cultures. So they should not rub it under other people's noses. It's their business, not mine. I don't want to hear about it.



But what the fuck does an inflation fetish have to do with...  anything?


----------



## Carenath (May 1, 2010)

Ricky said:


> But like...  When someone is obsessed over a certain topic it leads me to believe there's a reason they are thinking about it so much.  It doesn't mean they have latent repressed desires (though I'm sure that is one cause) but there's some reason they care about the topic so much.
> 
> Bad personal experiences, insecurity issues, etc.


And you wonder why I refer to these people as self-serving hypocrites


----------



## Volkodav (May 2, 2010)

Ricky said:


> But like...  When someone is obsessed over a certain topic it leads me to believe there's a reason they are thinking about it so much.  It doesn't mean they have latent repressed desires (though I'm sure that is one cause) but there's some reason they care about the topic so much.
> 
> Bad personal experiences, insecurity issues, etc.


Women's rights groups really just wanted to be treated like shit.
The Nazi's wanted to be Jewish/gay/black/etc.
Peta wants to eat meat, beat animals and gas rats in labs.
Blacks/slaved who rallied against slavery really did like it.
Christians and other religious groups really do like anal sex and they're all gay in disguise.

Okay.


----------



## Ricky (May 2, 2010)

Clayton said:


> Women's rights groups really just wanted to be treated like shit.
> The Nazi's wanted to be Jewish/gay/black/etc.
> Peta wants to eat meat, beat animals and gas rats in labs.
> Blacks/slaved who rallied against slavery really did like it.
> ...



These are all strawmen.

Obviously not all Christians are repressed homosexuals but people who are extremely homophobic are often closet cases.  I could attack these analogies one by one but every one is an example of a large group of people forming an opinion and not a couple of overzealous morons who care way too much and are probably close to as bat shit crazy as the people fucking dogs.

People just need to chill out.


----------



## rodox_video (May 2, 2010)

To be honest, Chasevrocket shouldn't be banned. He shouldn't be trusted with an administrative position though, because his beliefs could create a potential conflict of interest. 

The way he handled what happened doesn't bode well, either. Anyone dumb enough to admit to screwing the pooch on a furry site, even if it was a zillion years ago, is probably not going to do too good a job as an admin. Just a thought.

It's not like there isn't anyone less likely to cause controversy, either.


----------



## Irreverent (May 2, 2010)

rodox_video said:


> To be honest, Chasevrocket shouldn't be banned. He shouldn't be trusted with an administrative position though, because his beliefs could create a potential conflict of interest.



There could be the hint of a conflict of interest, I'll concede that point.  Its sort of like letting an ex-smoker moderate an anti-smoking forum.  Or maybe, that's the point.  People change; not always for the worst.  Sometimes the most passionate champions come from the reformed.

In addition to FA staff, its my understanding that Chase is also a Convention staff member and runs/admins an Orlando area furmeet/society.  They seem to have no issues with his accountability and professionalism.



> is probably not going to do too good a job as an admin. Just a thought.



The empirical evidence to date suggests that Chase is doing an excellent, diligent and professional job tackling the trouble-ticket queue. So it would appear that he is, in fact, doing a good job as an admin.  On must wonder if this whole episode is just a backlash by some butt-hurt drama-llama reacting badly to one of his rulings or a gripe about a trouble ticket.


----------



## AshleyAshes (May 2, 2010)

So, I've barely participated in this thread really, and it's nice to see admins, forum mods and even the site owner participating.

*So would any of you actually like to address the original post* and just explain why the user who admitted to having sex with animals was banned from the forums but not from the main site itself?

Previous precedent set on FA clearly establishes that if you say on FA that you diddle dogs, you get banned.  So could someone just clear up why he's not banned?

Ya know, as much fun as it has been to see you try to accuse people agianst zoophilia of secretly being zoophiles themselves.   It seems more like an attempt to distract from the issue at hand of 'Why isn't set policy on FA being followed?'


----------



## Ricky (May 2, 2010)

AshleyAshes said:


> Ya know, as much fun as it has been to see you try to accuse people agianst zoophilia of secretly being zoophiles themselves.   It seems more like an attempt to distract from the issue at hand of 'Why isn't set policy on FA being followed?'



Are you referring to my post?

I don't think you're a closet _zoophile_.  Just wanted to clarify that.


----------



## AshleyAshes (May 2, 2010)

Ricky said:


> Are you referring to my post?
> 
> I don't think you're a closet _zoophile_. Just wanted to clarify that.


 
I think that the things I *am* into don't get you up to ten years in prison in my country.  Though I was mostly refering to Caranath.  Honestly, I think that what fetishes people want to engage in are fine so long as they understand that there is an appropriate time and place for anything.  The exclusion to this would be children, corpses, and animals.


----------



## Trpdwarf (May 2, 2010)

AshleyAshes said:


> So, I've barely participated in this thread really, and it's nice to see admins, forum mods and even the site owner participating.
> 
> *So would any of you actually like to address the original post* and just explain why the user who admitted to having sex with animals was banned from the forums but not from the main site itself?
> 
> ...



Personally I'd like to see an answer too. After all, when EL was banned for the whole zoophile thing, he came here asking "Why was I banned" and that account was banned too.

Why it is not working vice versa with this case interests me. I'd like to see consistency after all with the ban hammer.


----------



## Ricky (May 3, 2010)

AshleyAshes said:


> I think that the things I *am* into don't get you up to ten years in prison in my country.  Though I was mostly refering to Caranath.  Honestly, I think that what fetishes people want to engage in are fine so long as they understand that there is an appropriate time and place for anything.  The exclusion to this would be children, corpses, and animals.



Oh, I agree with you 100%

I just think some people are getting sick of all the drama.


----------



## AshleyAshes (May 3, 2010)

Ricky said:


> Oh, I agree with you 100%
> 
> I just think some people are getting sick of all the drama.


 
Well, really, I think FA would be just as up in arms over people having had sex with dead people (Adding in the morbid means needed to aquire such a partner) or children.  It's just the zoophiles are the ones dumb enough to admit it most often so they get the lime light.

Heck, if some group of 'pro-pedophiles' suddenly got active on FA, you'd probably see the zoophiles suddenly ignored.


----------



## Ricky (May 3, 2010)

My ethical stance on sex with dead people is unclear.

I mean...  Is it really wrong?

I don't think I would care if people had sex with my corpse after I died.


----------



## Ben (May 3, 2010)

Ricky said:


> My ethical stance on sex with dead people is unclear.
> 
> I mean...  Is it really wrong?
> 
> I don't think I would care if people had sex with my corpse after I died.



I think the bigger issue is, what sorts of diseases can someone get from doing that? The possibilities are _endless!_


----------



## Ricky (May 3, 2010)

Ben said:


> I think the bigger issue is, what sorts of diseases can someone get from doing that? The possibilities are _endless!_



Yeah.

If I remember correctly, Jeffery Dahmer wore a condom.


----------



## Xaerun (May 3, 2010)

AshleyAshes said:


> *So would any of you actually like to address the original post* and just explain why the user who admitted to having sex with animals was banned from the forums but not from the main site itself?
> 
> Previous precedent set on FA clearly establishes that if you say on FA that you diddle dogs, you get banned.  So could someone just clear up why he's not banned?



Oh, absolutely. That person was banned for reasons beyond that, in fact that wasn't all that relevant in their ban IIRC- they received their warning and didn't bring it up after that.

And previous precedent nothing- as 'neer said, one warning then they're gone. You just don't see the warning.


----------



## rodox_video (May 3, 2010)

You won't see NAMBLA and friends setting up shop here because, well, child molestation is illegal EVERYWHERE. So when people like that DO pop up, they get busted quick. They don't have to be blatant about it at all - look at Frank Gembeck. His arrest was a complete and total suprise.

Animal molestation is NOT illegal everywhere. Not even close. It's legal in Germany, Sweden, and huge swaths of the US. So until the rest of the civilized and not-so-civilized world gets it's act together, some people are going to have to pick up some of the slack.



Dragoneer said:


> And let me be the first to say if you continue the witch hunt like this I'll ban you, no questions asked. And anybody else involved for that matter. And no, I don't care if your mob of supporters protests again, you're openly witch hunting people, admitting it, and trying to cause problems.



TBH, calling what Clayton's doing a witch hunt is an insult to witch hunts. The smarter zoophiles who make an effort to avoid leaving any traceable evidence of their activities outnumber idiots who blatantly admit to screwing the pooch by a factor of 4 to 1. Or more. They're got nothing to worry about and are probably laughing their asses off at all of this right now. Just combing through FA for suspicious comments is getting drastically diminishing returns; I can't imagine him going on like this for long.


----------



## Taren Fox (May 3, 2010)

rodox_video said:


> child molestation is illegal EVERYWHERE.


Not in the fictional worlds that "cub art" takes place in.


----------



## rodox_video (May 3, 2010)

Another thing: I'm not even sure if Chase's personal beliefs are something to worry about anymore. It's not like they're unusual or anything.

There are just so many bigger fish to fry that the argument is just getting more and more frivolous.



Taren Fox said:


> Not in the fictional worlds that "cub art" takes place in.



THINK OF THE FICTIONAL CHILDREN

(the concept of mindcrime is disgusting)


----------



## Carenath (May 3, 2010)

AshleyAshes said:


> I think that the things I *am* into don't get you up to ten years in prison in my country.  Though I was mostly refering to Caranath.
> 
> Honestly, I think that what fetishes people want to engage in are fine so long as they understand that there is an appropriate time and place for anything.  The exclusion to this would be children, corpses, and animals.


If 10 years is the yardstick to measure appropriate punishment by, then the UK must be incredibly lax. Under the UK Sexual Offenses Act of 2003, it's 2 years, but that's a non-issue.
You won't escape the fact that, you, Glaice and Clayton are well known to the staff, for harassing, hunting down and rallying up mobs against (witchhunting) suspected zoophiles. Because for a reason that escaped me at the time, the three of you have a very unhealthy obsession with it.
None of you has any credibility and as I said before, the three of you are more trouble than the people you target.



Trpdwarf said:


> Personally I'd like to see an answer too. After all, when EL was banned for the whole zoophile thing, he came here asking "Why was I banned" and that account was banned too.
> 
> Why it is not working vice versa with this case interests me. I'd like to see consistency after all with the ban hammer.


The way EL was handled was before my time, but that precedent no longer applies. One-time warnings are now issued and bans are issued only after they ignore the warning.

FA and FAF are also two seperate entities insofar as bans issued on FA don't automatically apply on FAF and vice/versa.
The user was banned for reasons other than his admittence of abuse, though that was a contributing factor when he was banned from the forums. Users banned from the forums are not necessarily banned from FA and vice/versa.


----------



## rodox_video (May 3, 2010)

What intrigues me about the EL banning was not that he was banned on both the forums and site, but that his request to have his account wiped was granted. This usually doesn't happen with bannings, and the only reason why I imagine his request was fulfilled was that it was much easier than having to deal with a DMCA notice (he has been known to (ab)use them in the past).

What I really don't get is why EbonLupus wasn't banned much, much earlier. Here we have the ultimate dogfucking demagogue, an extremely toxic individual who brings a mountain of shit everywhere he goes, and for nearly four years the administration seemed to bend over backwards to accommodate him. The fucker would go out of his way to piss people off, (it's all he really does after all) and those who he managed to bait into harassing him met swift punishment.


----------



## Volkodav (May 3, 2010)

rodox_video said:


> TBH, calling what Clayton's doing a witch hunt is an insult to witch hunts. The smarter zoophiles who make an effort to avoid leaving any traceable evidence of their activities outnumber idiots who blatantly admit to screwing the pooch by a factor of 4 to 1.


I agree.
If finding and reporting "lol i finger my dogz ass " means a witchunt, then I am the witchiest witch ever.




			
				Carenath said:
			
		

> Glaice and Clayton are well known to the staff, for harassing, hunting down and rallying up mobs against (witchhunting) suspected zoophiles.


I don't rally any mobs up.
This reminds me of the time TaraSwiftClaw called me Leader of The Trolls.
People need to talk to me before they assume I just hunt down zoos on FA.


----------



## Ben (May 3, 2010)

Clayton said:


> I agree.
> If finding and reporting "lol i finger my dogz ass " means a witchunt, then I am the witchiest witch ever.



I don't think leading a witch hunt makes you the witch, Clay. :V


----------



## Volkodav (May 3, 2010)

Ben said:


> I don't think leading a witch hunt makes you the witch, Clay. :V



It does in my world.


----------



## Ricky (May 3, 2010)

Clayton said:


> I agree.
> If finding and reporting "lol i finger my dogz ass " means a witchunt, then I am the witchiest witch ever.



Well, it's good to know you care enough to spend a significant amount of time patrolling the internet and keeping furry websites safe from comments like these.

You are obviously a martyr, a gentleman and a saint.

My hat's off to you, sir -- _HOW DO YOU DO IT_


----------



## Volkodav (May 3, 2010)

Ricky said:


> Well, it's good to know you care enough to spend a significant amount of time patrolling the internet and keeping furry websites safe from comments like these.
> 
> You are obviously a martyr, a gentleman and a saint.
> 
> My hat's off to you, sir -- _HOW DO YOU DO IT_



Well, my friend. Not everybody is born with such skills as I am.
It takes a lot of practice. I regret to inform you that you are too old to just now be getting into the Internet Police force.
I joined years ago and we aren't accepting any more people.

Sorry!


----------



## Ricky (May 3, 2010)

Clayton said:


> Well, my friend. Not everybody is born with such skills as I am.
> It takes a lot of practice. I regret to inform you that you are too old to just now be getting into the Internet Police force.
> I joined years ago and we aren't accepting any more people.
> 
> Sorry!



I was being sarcastic.

I'd much rather just laugh at them (and you).


----------



## Volkodav (May 3, 2010)

Ricky said:


> I was being sarcastic.
> 
> I'd much rather just laugh at them (and you).



I still take it as a compliment!


----------



## AshleyAshes (May 3, 2010)

Carenath said:


> You won't escape the fact that, you, Glaice and Clayton are well known to the staff, for harassing, hunting down and rallying up mobs against (witchhunting) suspected zoophiles.


 
Carenath, you give me far, far, FAR more credit than I deserve. The worst I have done is brought information to the attention of admins which was presented on communities like WTF_FA, FurryDrama_2 and in once case Encycopedia Dramatica. I have never rallied up any such mob, I've just been rallied into the mobs. 

The closest I've come to harassment or hunting down, is taking the photos and information presented on an Enyclopedia Dramatica and contacting (BTW, other individuals did too, and they wern't Glaice or Clayton) the local authorities in that individual's region. I wasn't the one who got that video of that user and posted an arrangement of screenshots onto his ED page. (It's not like you can't just check, it's a freakin' Wiki and it logs all of that and the logs are openly viewable.)

I'll admit that I have made some FA threads in R&R in the past focusing on Zoophiles, including a delightful thread from one zoophile community where they talk about how FurAffinity is now 'Anti-Zoophile'. But agian, I'm not the one found this information and I meerly copied it from another community.  My sources of information are effectively the equivalent of 'The TV News' in the furry fandom.

So, if you considder me to be the witch hunter, rallying mobs, and harrasser... What do you call the guys that actually dig up the information, research up the details coming up with photos, obscure comments from FA, videos, and then dump it into Lulz and everywhere else to get the locomotive started? Cause it seems to me that you are wrongfully taking credit away from them.


----------



## Rakuen Growlithe (May 3, 2010)

Irreverant said:
			
		

> There could be the hint of a conflict of interest, I'll concede that  point.  Its sort of like letting an ex-smoker moderate an anti-smoking  forum.  Or maybe, that's the point.  People change; not always for the  worst.  Sometimes the most passionate champions come from the reformed.



There isn't really a conflict of interest, this is a furry site, not an anti-fur site. In any case you don't have to personally agree with every rule to be a good admin/moderator as long as you are prepared to follow them on the site. 



			
				Ben said:
			
		

> I think the bigger issue is, what sorts of diseases can someone get from  doing that? The possibilities are _endless!_



Just because something died doesn't mean it's suddenly full of diseases. Unless the person died because of a disease you're no more likely to get one than if they were alive. The Red Cross actually made an announcement about bodies being safe after the earthquake in Haiti. They were worried about people burning and burying bodies before they could be identified. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/8465464.stm)


----------



## Irreverent (May 3, 2010)

AshleyAshes said:


> It seems more like an attempt to distract from the issue at hand of 'Why isn't set policy on FA being followed?'



Its not so much an issue of failure to enforce policy as it is an issue of  difference in policy sets between FA and FAF. They are governed by different rule sets, appropriate to the nature of their content.   Once the AUP/TOS  for FA is in place, we can start a review of the FAF-mod policy guide and implement some common policies.

That's not to suggest that FA policies and rules will always be overarching. For example, an artist that traces art might be deemed a "plagiarist" on FA, but in reality is only a "crappy artist" on FAF; artistic skill has never been an issue on FAF. 

Compounding the current gap is that fact that few FAF mods have admin powers on FA and very few FA admins have any powers on FAF.  So there is a communications issue to be addressed when serious, ban-able infractions need to be handled across the FA/FAF domain.   Its on our radar and it will be addressed.


----------



## Ricky (May 3, 2010)

Rakuen Growlithe said:


> Just because something died doesn't mean it's suddenly full of diseases. Unless the person died because of a disease you're no more likely to get one than if they were alive. The Red Cross actually made an announcement about bodies being safe after the earthquake in Haiti. They were worried about people burning and burying bodies before they could be identified. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/8465464.stm)



er...  I don't know.  Once somebody dies, the body will be overrun by bacteria, fungi and other microorganisms.  These aren't necessarily pathogenic; the vast majority will be benign, usually found in the body anyway.

The problem is the ones that are will also start multiplying and can definitely be a potential vector to anyone in contact with the body.  I see what they are trying to do but the fact that Haiti has a large percent of people infected with HIV, the bodies actually do pose a significant health risk so the article is wrong.  People who come in contact with any blood or bodily fluids are not only at risk for contacting HIV (which isn't really a significant vector unless they are cut or have a condition such as eczema where the skin could be broken) but also any opportunistic parasites which are very common in immunocompromised people and these can pose a much more significant threat.

So I'd actually disagree with the article.


----------



## Volkodav (May 3, 2010)

Rakuen Growlithe said:


> Just because something died doesn't mean it's suddenly full of diseases. Unless the person died because of a disease you're no more likely to get one than if they were alive. The Red Cross actually made an announcement about bodies being safe after the earthquake in Haiti. They were worried about people burning and burying bodies before they could be identified.



Uhmm yeah sorry.
Gonna' have to point out that picking up/carrying/moving a dead body is not the same as sticking your penis in it.


----------



## Ricky (May 3, 2010)

Clayton said:


> Uhmm yeah sorry.
> Gonna' have to point out that picking up/carrying/moving a dead body is not the same as sticking your penis in it.



There has to at least be some potential here for UTI's :roll:


----------



## Fire (May 3, 2010)

I  haven't been around since like last year and I'm supposed to be gone, not that anybody noticed.
But oh goody the drama keeps luring me back.

I logged in now just to post this:

Page 1 - relevant, hot on topic debate
Page 2 - peak, the admin is ready to unleash dual wield banhammers
Page 3 - still on topic but dull
Page 4 - derailed already
Page 5 - um...haiti... corpses... biology...

i_like_where_this_thread_is_going.jpg


----------



## Ricky (May 3, 2010)

FireRaider said:


> I  haven't been around since like last year and I'm supposed to be gone, not that anybody noticed.
> But oh goody the drama keeps luring me back.
> 
> I logged in now just to post this:
> ...



You have to understand the psychology of this forum.

It works kind of like a kindergarten class or maybe a lower-grade class in elementary school.

Keeping that in mind, you'll notice it started with that annoying kid who's always tattling on the other kids to the teachers.  Other kids joined in and the teachers listened but were slightly annoyed since the tattle-tales are almost as annoying as the ones breaking the rules.  The conversation eventually devolved into inane comments and eventaully turned into banter about having sex with corpses.

You can see why I post here so often


----------



## Firepyro (May 3, 2010)

OP posted about fucking animals.

And it looks like half the people in this thread are fucking a dead horse trying to drag this shit as long as long as they can.


----------



## Ricky (May 3, 2010)

Firepyro said:


> OP posted about fucking animals.
> 
> And it looks like half the people in this thread are fucking a dead horse trying to drag this shit as long as long as they can.



With or without a condom?


----------

