# whoa.. is fursuiting is now 'terrorism' to Australian law enforcement?



## ChromaticRabbit (Oct 9, 2017)

EDIT: Whoops, that should have been AUSTRIAN. Sorry Aussies. My bad.








Man dressed as a shark is arrested under Austria's burka ban laws while working as a mascot outside a shop

    The employee was standing outside a computer store called McShark in Vienna 
    Officers told him to remove the shark head and he was arrested when he refused
    Protested he was 'just doing his job' but Austrian police slapped him with a fine ...

( www.dailymail.co.uk: Man dressed as shark arrested under Austria's burka ban | Daily Mail Online )

See, this is no good, is it.


----------



## SSJ3Mewtwo (Oct 9, 2017)

Austria, not Australia


----------



## ChapterAquila92 (Oct 9, 2017)

News at 11: Australia or Austria? Furries have trouble identifying which is which.

Joking aside, from what little I've been able to gather, the Prohibition on the Covering of the Face also places restrictions on such things as medical face masks and clown make-up.

As for the individual in question, I can't say that his refusal to comply with police, solely on the grounds of "just doing my job", was worth the €150 fine.


----------



## Yakamaru (Oct 9, 2017)

Covering up your face in public is considered illegal in Austria. The burqa ban is included.

Hell, even ISIS have banned the burqa after a couple of women fucked some of their leaders over by smuggling in AK's, come grenades and handguns UNDER their burqas and then mowing them down. 

Though it's sad to see the guy getting fined for this shit.


----------



## Sagt (Oct 9, 2017)

From what I've read, it seems as if the law bans all full-face coverings, which would explain why the police thought to make the man take off his shark costume, and I guess this would potentially mean that fursuiting is banned in Austria now. To be fair though, there's supposedly an exemption for covering ones face if it's part of a persons job, so the man probably shouldn't have been stopped by the police. See here:

"'This law does not apply to professionals who need to cover their faces due to their jobs', said police spokesman Harald Sörös, who acknowledged certain shortcomings in the law."​


----------



## Sagt (Oct 9, 2017)

Thought of mine: Does this mean that people will be restricted in what costumes they can wear for Halloween? If so, then lol.


----------



## Water Draco (Oct 9, 2017)

This is the problem with laws that are brought in as a kneejerk reaction without adequate thought as to how it should be applied.

The guy probably did not help the situation by his first refusal to take the head off. Although the store manager should have taken reasonable steps to notify the local police that they were running a promotion where they would have an employee in a mascot suit outside the store. It may have also helped if the store had had an additional employee with him in store uniform as a handler.

It does seem to be a standard rule of thumb if you intend to go public fursuiting that you should lease with local authorities including police and private land owners (shopping centres, parks ect) where you intend to go, ahead of time to seek the necessary permissions. Once you have those permissions then and carry written copies of these permissions with you.

Also carry photo ID. Always be polite with the authorities and if they tell you to take your fursuit head off then do it.

It can go a long way with the authorities if you happen to have a written risk assessment for your activity with you. Also you may consider having some form of liability insurance cover for your activity. Your home insurance may already cover you but don’t assume it does. So check. To get cover independently I would expect it not to cost too much. Again having a copy of liability insurance cover with you can help with appeasing the authorities.

If challenged, proving that you have thought out the activity you are doing and that you have taken reasonable precautions can go a long way.


----------



## ChromaticRabbit (Oct 9, 2017)

Whoops, sorry Australians, my error. 



Water Draco said:


> It does seem to be a standard rule of thumb if you intend to go public fursuiting that you should lease with local authorities including police and private land owners (shopping centres, parks ect) where you intend to go, ahead of time to seek the necessary permissions. Once you have those permissions then and carry written copies of these permissions with you.


That certainly doesn't sound like freedom or liberty to me. It seems authoritarian to the point of being an intolerable affront. That sounds utterly stifling and oppressive. Asking for permission before doing something that people have been doing for decades without issue? Obviously, this is going to vary from locale to locale, but I would deeply resent any interference in this harmless artful activity... if I actually owned a fursuit. c_c 

These memes of fear are not rational. They're meant to condition and control populations. This is bad, divisive, stuff. The fact that our fandom could run afoul of it is sort of like a mineshaft canary or a precursory warning sign that something is not right. Nothing has changed in the world that could justify this sort of contraction of liberty. Nothing. Anyone who says otherwise is the actual terrorist as far as I am concerned., and they are not legitimate nor credible to me.


----------



## ChapterAquila92 (Oct 10, 2017)

ChromaticRabbit said:


> That certainly doesn't sound like freedom or liberty to me. It seems authoritarian to the point of being an intolerable affront. That sounds utterly stifling and oppressive. Asking for permission before doing something that people have been doing for decades without issue? Obviously, this is going to vary from locale to locale, but I would deeply resent any interference in this harmless artful activity... if I actually owned a fursuit. c_c


If you don't want to put up with the legalities in order to do something, just don't do it within that jurisdiction.

I don't know. Maybe it's just the fact that I'm the kind of guy who thinks that Singapore is a fine role model for lawmaking, further skewed by a military background which involved _voluntarily_ giving up some liberties for accountability purposes in exchange for the capacity to defend a nation using up to and including lethal force as required.


> These memes of fear are not rational. They're meant to condition and control populations. This is bad, divisive, stuff. The fact that our fandom could run afoul of it is sort of like a mineshaft canary or a precursory warning sign that something is not right. Nothing has changed in the world that could justify this sort of contraction of liberty. Nothing. Anyone who says otherwise is the actual terrorist as far as I am concerned., and they are not legitimate nor credible to me.


Fear of a violent death, regardless of whether the threat is foreign or domestic, real or imagined, is enough to get people to abandon liberties as a principle matter of survival; liberties are only beneficial insofar as they can be defended. You talk of conditioning and controlling populations, yet civilization itself was built on such coercion. For that matter, your current 'liberties' - or more correctly,_ privileges_ - are about as contractual as you are conditioned to believe them to be, whether or not you realize that it's only due to the _authority_ that backs their existence that they have any significant value.


----------



## ChromaticRabbit (Oct 12, 2017)

The psychotic male cultic people who destroy the world are the selfsame people who say you must subscribe to their pathological ideology in order to save it. It's BS. It's a protection racket that men baked up millennia ago to enslave women and raze as heretical all matriarchal Gods. It's time to correct thousands of years of wrongful history and restore civilization long subverted and cut low with these endless acts of genocide, again and again. This is the 21st century, and the sun has finally arisen upon all the old male evil cultic affronts against the world and will of God for the world, for she is the pure true good.

Just sayin'.


----------



## ChapterAquila92 (Oct 12, 2017)

ChromaticRabbit said:


> *The psychotic male cultic people who destroy the world are the selfsame people who say you must subscribe to their pathological ideology in order to save it*. It's BS. It's a protection racket that men baked up millennia ago to enslave women and raze as heretical all matriarchal Gods. *It's time to correct thousands of years of wrongful history and civilization subverted and cut low with genocide again and again*. This is the 21st century, and the sun has finally arisen upon all the old male evil cultic of the world.


And so the road to Hell is paved with good intentions. Yet again.

Good luck in your endeavors, and take care not to burn down everything you touch.


----------



## Ginza (Oct 12, 2017)

ChromaticRabbit said:


> The psychotic male cultic people who destroy the world are the selfsame people who say you must subscribe to their pathological ideology in order to save it. It's BS. It's a protection racket that men baked up millennia ago to enslave women and raze as heretical all matriarchal Gods. It's time to correct thousands of years of wrongful history and restore civilization long subverted and cut low with these endless acts of genocide, again and again. This is the 21st century, and the sun has finally arisen upon all the old male evil cultic affronts against the world and will of God for the world, for she is the pure true good.
> 
> Just sayin'.



What does this have to do with men? In any way at all? I mean, literally all this is, is a story about someone forced to take off the head of a mascot. Which by the way, if an officer asked him to do so, regardless of how dumb it is, he should have complied without hesistation. So why has this turned to men somehow enslaving women? Sure, *a long time ago* society may have been dominated by men, but it most certainly isn't now. I guess I'm just confused as to how exactly your post was relevant or logical in any way at all?


----------



## Deleted member 82554 (Oct 12, 2017)

Fursuiting is now terrorism?


Spoiler: My Response








No but seriously this is appalling.


----------



## ellaerna (Oct 12, 2017)

Where to start with this...

Okay, first, your title is baity as fuck. Aside from the unfortunate country mix up, you're making a lot of logical leaps. The article you linked isn't about Furries or terrorism. A guy in a mascot costume got fined by police under a new law. They certainly didn't think he was a terrorist or that what he was doing was terrorism or else the encounter would have gone a much different way with more than just a fine slapped on him. Which sounds like it was more in response to his failure to comply than the actual wearing of the costume. Also he was on the street and not at a gathering like a fur con that would likely get permissions under the new law. So no, Furries are not now terrorists in Austria.

Does the law suck? Yes. Were these cops being dicks? Definitely. No matter how they want to word it, this is a burka ban which is discriminatory and knee jerk legislation. And if there's a clause about masks for work being okay, then the cops should have backed off. But this still isn't about Furries suddenly being put on the list of known terror groups.



ChromaticRabbit said:


> Whoops, sorry Australians, my error.
> 
> 
> That certainly doesn't sound like freedom or liberty to me. It seems authoritarian to the point of being an intolerable affront. That sounds utterly stifling and oppressive. Asking for permission before doing something that people have been doing for decades without issue? Obviously, this is going to vary from locale to locale, but I would deeply resent any interference in this harmless artful activity... if I actually owned a fursuit. c_c
> ...


...
You do realize that we have laws about getting permission to do lots of things right? Things that originally we could do willy nilly. For example, people need to get hunting and fishing licenses. That's asking the government for permission to do the things that kept our ancestors fed. Why? Because times change and rules need to be put in place to account for those changes.

As I said, I'm no fan of the ban, but it's a reach for you to say all regulations like this are authoritarian affronts to freedom.

And I'll restate that our fandom has run no more afoul than it already was. A guy at work got fined in Austria. This is not the world declaring war on Furries.


----------



## Sagt (Oct 12, 2017)

ellaerna said:


> The article you linked isn't about Furries or terrorism.





ellaerna said:


> And I'll restate that our fandom has run no more afoul than it already was. A guy at work got fined in Austria. This is not the world declaring war on Furries.


I think the intended purpose of linking furries to the news article was to bring up that an implication of the full-face covering ban law is that fursuiting is now potentially, in effect, banned in Austria now.

I otherwise agree with you though.


----------



## ellaerna (Oct 12, 2017)

Lcs said:


> I think the intended purpose of linking furries to the news article was to bring up that an implication of the full-face covering ban law is that fursuiting is now potentially, in effect, banned in Austria now.
> 
> I otherwise agree with you though.


Sure. I get that. But that's not what they were saying with their posts. They could have said "this new law can affect furs, just look at this article" as opposed to "the Austrian gov has declared furries to be terrorists!" Like, the title makes it sound like cops busted up a furry meet and arrested them all as suspected terrorists as opposed to people not being able to walk around with their face covered.


----------



## Water Draco (Oct 12, 2017)

Although if you would like a conspiracy theory to add to all of this.

According to the article it was a member of the public who called the police to complain about there being a person in a mascot suit. (apparently to highlight the problems with the new law). 
So a most lightly a low payed employee argues with the police about taking a mascot head off. 
So is it possible this was a setup to either hilight the problems with the new law or a publicity stunt for the store.


----------



## ChromaticRabbit (Oct 12, 2017)

ellaerna said:


> The article you linked isn't about Furries or terrorism.


Bans against burkas are discriminatory and divisive against an entire type of spirituality, an individual's right to self-identity, and, ironically, it appears to be every bit as extreme as Sharia law whose fearsomeness supposedly inspired it. That's the problem, any time you place this default restriction upon the freedom of expression, you're creating dystopia where once peace and freedom stood. That's the attack we should all be terrorized by.



> A guy in a mascot costume got fined by police under a new law. They certainly didn't think he was a terrorist or that what he was doing was terrorism or else the encounter would have gone a much different way with more than just a fine slapped on him. Which sounds like it was more in response to his failure to comply than the actual wearing of the costume. Also he was on the street and not at a gathering like a fur con that would likely get permissions under the new law. So no, Furries are not now terrorists in Austria.


If the guy isn't doing something wrong, why is a law being applied to restrict his activity in this novel way? If they didn't think he was a terrorist, they shouldn't have molested him. They don't have a right to molest people, that's not the kind of world we choose to create for ourselves, where cultural freedom is delegated to dudes with vested authority and a psychotic desire to dominate the things that don't conform to their personal and arbitrary sense of order.



> Does the law suck? Yes. Were these cops being dicks? Definitely. No matter how they want to word it, this is a burka ban which is discriminatory and knee jerk legislation. And if there's a clause about masks for work being okay, then the cops should have backed off. But this still isn't about Furries suddenly being put on the list of known terror groups.


No. It doesn't "suck." It is in fact utterly indefensible and xenophobic in a western civilized society. Cops being dicks should be qualification for civil rights lawsuits and abruptly ended public service careers, full stop. I never said that furries were being put on lists. Why bother when you can simply make fursuiting unlawful because of the implications of Dick Cheney's wrongful war of terror? In fact, I posit this whole thing is just the actualization of some sick men's far-reaching dark vision for the world. Way to be credulous and defend it?



> You do realize that we have laws about getting permission to do lots of things right? Things that originally we could do willy nilly. For example, people need to get hunting and fishing licenses. That's asking the government for permission to do the things that kept our ancestors fed. Why? Because times change and rules need to be put in place to account for those changes.


Are you equivocating killing things or helping yourself to finite resources with the wearing of a fursuit or a burka for that matter? How is it now that art must be licensed by the government in your world? How is that now an existential issue like staying fed? How has time changed in your opinion with respect to our inalienable natural rights granted by the creator in her infinite benevolence?



> I'm no fan of the ban, but it's a reach for you to say all regulations like this are authoritarian affronts to freedom.


Is it really?


----------



## ellaerna (Oct 12, 2017)

ChromaticRabbit said:


> Bans against burkas are discriminatory and divisive against an entire type of spirituality, an individual's right to self-identity, and, ironically, it appears to be every bit as extreme as Sharia law whose fearsomeness supposedly inspired it. That's the problem, any time you place this default restriction upon the freedom of expression, you're creating dystopia where once peace and freedom stood. That's the attack we should all be terrorized by.
> 
> 
> If the guy isn't doing something wrong, why is a law being applied to restrict his activity in this novel way? If they didn't think he was a terrorist, they shouldn't have molested him. They don't have a right to molest people, that's not the kind of world we choose to create for ourselves, where cultural freedom is delegated to dudes with vested authority and a psychotic desire to dominate the things that don't conform to their personal and arbitrary sense of order.
> ...


So, my entire first post was about you misrepresenting the issue, exaggerating what happened, and using click-baity/fear mongering titling in your post. It was not about the legality or morality of burka bans. Your response to me has been similarly exaggerated and overzealous, misrepresenting what I said and my own beliefs. I suggest you take a step back, take a breath, and cool off before posting next time.

Let me make this excruciatingly clear to you. I DO NOT support burka bans or other discriminatory measures against Muslims or any other peoples. I even stated in the text you quoted that burka bans are knee jerk legislation that, in a word, sucks. Austria made their law super broad so as not to sound racist/xenophobic, but that's what it is. I am in no way trying to defend it, but rather put accurate and adequate context to the situation presented by yourself and the article. 

The article itself talked about a guy getting fined by Austrian police under this new law that bans all forms of head covering. Even if the law was made in response to terrorism fears, NOWHERE did it mention the man was being labelled a terrorist, being suspected of terrorism (if he was, more would have happened than some "molestation" and a fine), or that somehow this law was made to target furs or decry them as terrorists. So yeah, your title of "fursuiting is terrorism?!" is click-baity as fuck and incredibly misleading. The law is stupid, discriminatory, overly broad, and the whole situation was a mess to put it lightly; but it's not the anti-fur hoopla you make it out to be. A law this broad can have adverse affects on furries, definitely, but furry activities like fursuiting are not suddenly being seen as terrorist acts which your post implies. 

As for the fishing and hunting licences that I mentioned, that was in response to your blanket statement that "Asking for permission before doing something that people have been doing for decades without issue" was "authoritarian to the point of being an intolerable affront". Being part of a society means sometimes having to ask permission for things, and sometimes the things that we once did all the time have to be reevaluated to account for cultural changes and advances. We once hunted and fished all the time but now we see the danger in that and put regulations on it. We make people get building permits and driver's licenses and certifications to do all kinds of things. Again, I want to make clear that I do not support the burka ban or any legislation that discriminates against a group of people, but saying that_ all _legislation which calls for the obtainment of legal permission is authoritarian and an affront to liberty is a gross oversimplification of how government and society works. 

Also, I'd just like to add, that for all your attacks on me for supposedly supporting discrimination against Muslims by pointing out the flaws in your rhetoric, this is the first you've actually deigned to mention Muslim oppression in all this. The most you make mention of it before this post was to call the law a "burka ban", but otherwise, all of your opposition to the laws seemed to be based around furs being inconvenienced by it. I was even tempted to point that out earlier, as it rubbed me the wrong way that you would focus so much on the _implied_ discrimination against furs rather than the _overt_ discrimination against Muslims. 

Priorities, I guess.


----------



## ChromaticRabbit (Oct 12, 2017)

This isn't about you or me or even fursuiting per se. 

I continue to feel this has crossed the line into an intolerable affront against self-expression of identity and artistic license. 

I hope that I speak clearly enough. I felt that this example would prompt some discussion and I'm glad that it has. I think it exposes two jarringly different views, one liberal, the other illiberal.


----------



## ChapterAquila92 (Oct 12, 2017)

ChromaticRabbit said:


> This isn't about you or me or even fursuiting per se.
> 
> I continue to feel this has crossed the line into an intolerable affront against self-expression of identity and artistic license.
> 
> I hope that I speak clearly enough. I felt that this example would prompt some discussion and I'm glad that it has. I think it exposes two jarringly different views, one liberal, the other illiberal.


Sorry, but I'm not seeing this dichotomous polarization you're referring to.

What has been demonstrated however is that you're all too willing to go off on a wild and speculative tangent that has very little to do with the very post _you_ started this thread with.

Seeing as you are currently unable to keep to the original topic of _your own thread_, I highly recommend you call it a day.


----------



## Elf-cat (Oct 13, 2017)

I believe the oposite is going to be happening, if burquas, hajabs, and veils start being accepted in public and in government buildings, then fursuiters will be accepted too IF we make being a fursuiter apart of a religious culture. (crosses all fingers)


----------



## ChapterAquila92 (Oct 13, 2017)

Elf-cat said:


> I believe the opposite is going to be happening, if burqas, hijabs, and veils start being accepted in public and in government buildings, then fursuiters will be accepted too IF we make being a fursuiter apart of a religious culture. (crosses all fingers)


Safety first, for your sake and mine. I for one do not want to be sharing the road with someone who, for the sake of self-expression, impairs their own ability to drive safely by obstructing their vision, in much the same way that you should not be wearing jewelry while working around moving parts of a mechanical system (many a finger has been lost in a saw, press, or lathe because someone didn't take off their wedding band).

Simply put, taking unnecessary risks - even if just to express yourself - is grounds to render you liable as a danger to yourself and/or everyone around you, particularly if you do not take the necessary precautions to alleviate that risk according to the situation. For conservative Muslim female drivers, I'd recommend a hijab* (which doesn't cover the face, by the way) over a burqa or niqab while driving. For fursuiters and mascots in public, at the very least have a handler nearby at all times.

*I actually wouldn't mind seeing this conservative headdress more often as it also does double-duty as a very effective hair net, making it very beneficial in a wide range of professions from culinary to mechanical.


----------



## Yakamaru (Oct 13, 2017)

Elf-cat said:


> IF we make being a fursuiter apart of a religious culture. (crosses all fingers)


Wanna start your own Furry cult religion, go right ahead. Just don't expect anyone with an ounce of sanity left intact to want to associate themselves with it.



ChromaticRabbit said:


> This isn't about you or me or even fursuiting per se.
> 
> I continue to feel this has crossed the line into an intolerable affront against self-expression of identity and artistic license.
> 
> I hope that I speak clearly enough. I felt that this example would prompt some discussion and I'm glad that it has. I think it exposes two jarringly different views, one liberal, the other illiberal.


The fuck you rambling on about, mate? 

This title is insanely misleading, and the article you're linking is literally only about some moron in a fursuit who didn't listen to the police the first time. This whole article could've been avoided not to mention the fine if he had just taken off the head the first time.

Like ChapterAquila mentioned, there is a time and place for everything. Wearing a burqa as a taxi driver, in mechanical engineering, and/or any other fields where your attire CAN be the the death of you or cause you a lot of injuries, should not be allowed. It's for your own safety as well as others. Your false feeling of moral and religious superiority does not trump the safety nor the well-being of others.

Quite frankly religious facilities should ALL have their government funding withdrawn. The government is not required to fund ANY religious belief let alone facility. If your local religious facility can't survive on its own, then too bad. Also, tax them, like any other organization!


----------



## Ginza (Oct 13, 2017)

Elf-cat said:


> I believe the oposite is going to be happening, if burquas, hajabs, and veils start being accepted in public and in government buildings, then fursuiters will be accepted too IF we make being a fursuiter apart of a religious culture. (crosses all fingers)



Are you being serious? Furries are terrible as it is, please don't make it worse. Wearing a fursuit is *a privilege, not a right*. We do not "deserve" to wear them, and if taking it off is what's needed for people's safety, so be it. Besides that, nobody needs to accept fursuiters. Tolerate them, sure, but accept? Absolutely not


----------



## Sagt (Oct 13, 2017)

ChapterAquila92 said:


> Safety first, for your sake and mine. I for one do not want to be sharing the road with someone who, for the sake of self-expression, impairs their own ability to drive safely by obstructing their vision, in much the same way that you should not be wearing jewelry while working around moving parts of a mechanical system (many a finger has been lost in a saw, press, or lathe because someone didn't take off their wedding band).
> 
> Simply put, taking unnecessary risks just to express yourself is grounds to render you liable as a danger to yourself and/or everyone around you, particularly if you do not take the necessary precautions to alleviate that risk according to the situation. For conservative Muslim female drivers, I'd recommend a hijab* (which doesn't cover the face, by the way) over a burqa or niqab while driving. For fursuiters and mascots in public, at the very least have a handler nearby at all times.
> 
> *I actually wouldn't mind seeing this conservative headdress more often as it also does double-duty as a very effective hair net, making it very beneficial in a wide range of professions, from culinary to mechanical.


This seems disingenuous.

The stated purpose of the ban was "integration" of migrants, not driver safety. And anyways, if driver safety was the justification for the law, I don't see why an outright ban for public wearing was necessary.



Yakamaru said:


> Quite frankly religious facilities should ALL have their government funding withdrawn. The government is not required to fund ANY religious belief let alone facility. If your local religious facility can't survive on its own, then too bad. Also, tax them, like any other organization!


Amen.

(Except under some circumstances, for instance if the building, such as a famous cathedral, holds cultural value.)



Ginza said:


> Are you being serious? Furries are terrible as it is, please don't make it worse. Wearing a fursuit is *a privilege, not a right*. We do not "deserve" to wear them, and if taking it off is what's needed for people's safety, so be it. Besides that, nobody needs to accept fursuiters. Tolerate them, sure, but accept? Absolutely not


Owning a fursuit is a privilege, though wearing one certainly should be allowed under law, or at least in any decent country. If we're really going to be citing safety as a reason to justify a ban on fursuiting, then I can't help but think that America should be revising its second amendment.


----------



## ChapterAquila92 (Oct 13, 2017)

Lcs said:


> This seems disingenuous.
> 
> The stated purpose of the ban was "integration" for migrants, not driver safety. And anyways, if driver safety was the justification for the law, I don't see why an outright ban for public wearing was necessary.


Fair point. I was admittedly thinking of a general matter that wasn't inherently specific to the ban on that one.

With that said, the law has also been described earlier as a ham-fisted knee-jerk reaction that was myopic in scope when finally implemented. I wouldn't put it past the lawmakers to retroactively add mission creep as justification in hindsight.


----------



## Nyashia (Oct 13, 2017)

This reminds me of a case in Germany, where a furry refused to take off his fursuit head in a bank. Seriously, what are these people thinking? Why is it so hard to just show the police (or whoever has the authority) who you are? It's just a matter of minutes.


----------



## ChapterAquila92 (Oct 13, 2017)

Nyashia said:


> This reminds me of a case in Germany, where a furry refused to take off his fursuit head in a bank. Seriously, what are these people thinking? Why is it so hard to just show the police (or whoever has the authority) who you are? It's just a matter of minutes.


I recall reading a few _People At Wallmart_ and _Not Always Right_ stories that had a similar theme.


----------



## ChromaticRabbit (Oct 13, 2017)

ChapterAquila92 said:


> Safety first, for your sake and mine. I for one do not want to be sharing the road with someone who, for the sake of self-expression, impairs their own ability to drive safely by obstructing their vision, in much the same way that you should not be wearing jewelry while working around moving parts of a mechanical system (many a finger has been lost in a saw, press, or lathe because someone didn't take off their wedding band).
> 
> Simply put, taking unnecessary risks - even if just to express yourself - is grounds to render you liable as a danger to yourself and/or everyone around you, particularly if you do not take the necessary precautions to alleviate that risk according to the situation. For conservative Muslim female drivers, I'd recommend a hijab* (which doesn't cover the face, by the way) over a burqa or niqab while driving. For fursuiters and mascots in public, at the very least have a handler nearby at all times.
> 
> *I actually wouldn't mind seeing this conservative headdress more often as it also does double-duty as a very effective hair net, making it very beneficial in a wide range of professions from culinary to mechanical.


You're just full of demagoguery, aren't you? You lead the conversation to such interesting dead ends. Who the heck thinks fursuiting and driving go together? Why would you introduce such a preposterous thought? Don't you feel a little bit silly about that, now?


----------



## ChromaticRabbit (Oct 13, 2017)

Ginza said:


> Besides that, nobody needs to accept fursuiters. Tolerate them, sure, but accept? Absolutely not


Dude. I think you may have taken a wrong turn somewhere. How did you wind up on this furry fandom website?


----------



## ChromaticRabbit (Oct 13, 2017)

Yakamaru said:


> Your false feeling of moral and religious superiority does not trump the safety nor the well-being of others.


None of what you say adds up to an argument against artistic license and an inalienable natural right and freedom to express one's identity.


----------



## ChromaticRabbit (Oct 13, 2017)

Elf-cat said:


> ... fursuiters will be accepted too IF we make being a fursuiter apart of a religious culture. (crosses all fingers)


It's an interesting thought. What would be the parameters of this spirituality? I can think of many concurrent with facets of the fandom. Clearly, this is an art-oriented spirituality, visual art, imagination, projecting self into these different shapes and forms and mindsets, tolerance and nurturing love of others in the body of faith, affinity with animal spirits and the natural world...

Really, there's no need to found a religion, I'm pretty sure there are several from the ancient and classic period that would well-embody the best attributes of the fandom. Why not build a body of faith around Artemis, for example, modernizing syncretically for the 21st century? Seems a bit overdue, really, when you think about it. We of the 21st century obviously need a matriarchal spirituality in order to better offset these old evils we spy around us.

(Paternalistic beat down in 3... 2... 1... )


----------



## Ginza (Oct 13, 2017)

ChromaticRabbit said:


> Dude. I think you may have taken a wrong turn somewhere. How did you wind up on this furry fandom website?



lol I don't think you understand. I can call people out on their bullshit and cringe, yet still be a furry myself. I'm such a furry, it's not even funny. However, I can still point out the fandom's shortcomings. To reiterate, I wasn't saying I didn't like fursuiting. Heck, if I get the money someday, maybe I'll even get one. However, I was simply saying that suiting is a luxury, and a privilege, not at all a right. 

I also love how you failed to answer my main question, as to how this pertained to men and them enslaving women. Seriously though dude, don't just make a wild claim then never back it up or explain yourself


----------



## ChapterAquila92 (Oct 13, 2017)

ChromaticRabbit said:


> You're just full of demagoguery, aren't you? You lead the conversation to such interesting dead ends. Who the heck thinks fursuiting and driving go together? Why would you introduce such a preposterous thought? Don't you feel a little bit silly about that, now?


Actually, I'm rather amused that you're jumping to such assumptions, as it's quite clear that you're grasping at straws to attack others, including myself, and not the arguments being posed.

I would have gladly obliged to elaborate on anything I've said if you had but merely asked for context. Insofar as you have instead presumed it worth your time to demonize anyone who appears to disagree with you, and especially since your own reactions suggest that this conversation isn't going the way you wanted it to, I see no reason to take you seriously nor do I have any real incentive to give you so much as the time of day.


----------



## ChromaticRabbit (Oct 14, 2017)

ChapterAquila92: a bit defensive, aren't we? Why not engage with the merits of the question instead? Could it be your position is exposed?

Ginza: you seem to me as one who is far too overeager to declare what others don't have liberty to do. Specifically, when you wrote, "...Besides that, nobody needs to accept fursuiters. Tolerate them, sure, but accept? Absolutely not." You took a hard position against freedom of self-expression by saying there exists this space where people may "absolutely not" "accept" others for being who they are. There is no such place whatsoever for that ideology to stand in a civilized liberal democratic society.

*smiles* See, we don't have to use a lot of words or feelings to discredit bad ideas. Sometimes, jiu-jitsu is more economical and artful.


----------



## ellaerna (Oct 14, 2017)

ChromaticRabbit said:


> This isn't about you or me or even fursuiting per se.


If it's not about you or me, then why did you make it about me by attacking me without engaging in my points? If it's not about fursuiting, then why have you made this entire thread about it? It's in the title, referenced in nearly all of your posts. 
Whatever your intent was with this thread, it is lost by your own behavior.



ChromaticRabbit said:


> I continue to feel this has crossed the line into an intolerable affront against self-expression of identity and artistic license.


Did it cross the line for you before or after a guy in a fursuit got fined? Cause again, this all reads to me like you care more about "artistry" as a furry than the rights of Muslims. The ban on fursuiting is only a by-product of the larger problem. This is literally not about us. No one had furries in mind when they made this law. That would be like saying Austria hates clowns since their makeup is also included under the ban. But you seem to prioritize art and attacking others in this thread rather than religious freedoms.



ChapterAquila92 said:


> Safety first, for your sake and mine. I for one do not want to be sharing the road with someone who, for the sake of self-expression, impairs their own ability to drive safely by obstructing their vision, in much the same way that you should not be wearing jewelry while working around moving parts of a mechanical system (many a finger has been lost in a saw, press, or lathe because someone didn't take off their wedding band).





Lcs said:


> This seems disingenuous.
> 
> The stated purpose of the ban was "integration" of migrants, not driver safety. And anyways, if driver safety was the justification for the law, I don't see why an outright ban for public wearing was necessary.





ChapterAquila92 said:


> Fair point. I was admittedly thinking of a general matter that wasn't inherently specific to the ban on that one.
> 
> With that said, the law has also been described earlier as a ham-fisted knee-jerk reaction that was myopic in scope when finally implemented. I wouldn't put it past the lawmakers to retroactively add mission creep as justification in hindsight.


I agree with Lcs, that this is a little bit of a tangent. Yeah, no one should be driving with a fur head on, but that's somewhat of a separate issue when we're talking about country wide bans. But you both seemed to have resolved this rather nicely. I can't tell you how pleased I am that there was actually a civil discussion somewhere in this thread. 



Yakamaru said:


> Quite frankly religious facilities should ALL have their government funding withdrawn. The government is not required to fund ANY religious belief let alone facility. If your local religious facility can't survive on its own, then too bad. Also, tax them, like any other organization!


Not that I'm disagreeing with you, but for the sake of internal consistency, I feel like I should point this out as also being a tangent. When speaking about bans on religious dress, it's a bit out of left field to mention government funding of religious buildings. Unless it's to point out the hypocrisy of supporting one while discriminating against the other.



Lcs said:


> Owning a fursuit is a privilege, though wearing one certainly should be allowed under law, or at least in any decent country. If we're really going to be citing safety as a reason to justify a ban on fursuiting, then I can't help but think that America should be revising its second amendment.


I can see suiting being regulated under certain circumstances (i.e., no face coverings when at a bank or while doing visually difficult tasks like driving) but generally, yes, it should be allowed. An outright ban would be rather silly, particularly if safety was a core reason. 



ChromaticRabbit said:


> You're just full of demagoguery, aren't you? You lead the conversation to such interesting dead ends. Who the heck thinks fursuiting and driving go together? Why would you introduce such a preposterous thought? Don't you feel a little bit silly about that, now?


Do you feel a bit silly, seeing as this whole thing was resolved just a few posts before this one? Aquila spoke his piece, got corrected by Lcs, and they moved on. Perhaps you should take notes. 
Also you're using demagoguery wrong. Demagoguery is an appeal to emotions and prejudices rather than rationality, whereas Aquila was purely appealing to logic, albeit in a very narrow scenario. 



ChromaticRabbit said:


> It's an interesting thought. What would be the parameters of this spirituality? I can think of many concurrent with facets of the fandom. Clearly, this is an art-oriented spirituality, visual art, imagination, projecting self into these different shapes and forms and mindsets, tolerance and nurturing love of others in the body of faith, affinity with animal spirits and the natural world...
> 
> Really, there's no need to found a religion, I'm pretty sure there are several from the ancient and classic period that would well-embody the best attributes of the fandom. Why not build a body of faith around Artemis, for example, modernizing syncretically for the 21st century? Seems a bit overdue, really, when you think about it. We of the 21st century obviously need a matriarchal spirituality in order to better offset these old evils we spy around us.
> 
> (Paternalistic beat down in 3... 2... 1... )


First, I think you missed the joke. No one is seriously suggesting a furry religion. And maybe you were joking too, but at this point I can legitimately not tell.
Second, while I'm no fan of the patriarchy, men and male-based religions aren't the basis for xenophobia. All of this matriarchy talk is frankly odd in this discussion. It's fine that you believe in a mother goddess and want to see a shift towards more female based spirituality, but we're talking about real people who are facing discrimination at the hands of more than just men. There are women who vote for burka bans, who believe Muslims to be terrorists, who happily discriminate against those who do not look like themselves. It's true that ladies have been banned from modern government for a long time (I specify modern, since there have been some pretty rad lady rulers in ancient times), but now we have a say, and some are saying just as horrible things as some of the men.
Third, if you're going to call out potential responses to your post, that says to me that you don't have a lot of faith in what you're saying. It's lazy online debate strategy.



ChromaticRabbit said:


> ChapterAquila92: a bit defensive, aren't we? Why not engage with the merits of the question instead? Could it be your position is exposed?


How about _you_ engage with the questions instead? All you really do is shout about others being horrible and demand they _convince_ you without you having to back up your position at all. And in general, it's a position I share with you, but you're doing a very poor job of participating in the discussion you so hoped you would spark. And before you ask me to engage and defend my position- read literally any post that I've made thus far.



ChromaticRabbit said:


> Ginza: you seem to me as one who is far too overeager to declare what others don't have liberty to do. Specifically, when you wrote, "...Besides that, nobody needs to accept fursuiters. Tolerate them, sure, but accept? Absolutely not." You took a hard position against freedom of self-expression by saying there exists this space where people may "absolutely not" "accept" others for being who they are. There is no such place whatsoever for that ideology to stand in a civilized liberal democratic society.


www.dictionary.com: the definition of tolerance
www.dictionary.com: the definition of tolerate
www.dictionary.com: the definition of accept
No, one does not have to accept anything they don't want to, but tolerance is key. My jewish boyfriend doesn't need to accept Christianity, but it is important that he tolerates it since that is the religion I'm coming from. A devout catholic doesn't have to accept homosexuality as it is against their religion, but it's important that they tolerate other's right to love who they want to love. 
I get that "tolerate" can have a bit of a bad connotation, but Ginza is right. You can't force anyone to like something you like, or accept something that goes against their beliefs or ideals. But you can require them to be tolerant of others and not impede their rights. 



ChromaticRabbit said:


> *smiles* See, we don't have to use a lot of words to discredit bad ideas. Sometimes, jiu-jitsu is more economical and artful.


...
I...
I don't even.


----------



## Yakamaru (Oct 14, 2017)

ellaerna said:


> Not that I'm disagreeing with you, but for the sake of internal consistency, I feel like I should point this out as also being a tangent. When speaking about bans on religious dress, it's a bit out of left field to mention government funding of religious buildings. Unless it's to point out the hypocrisy of supporting one while discriminating against the other.


It's a bit left field, yes, though it's a related topic.

Religious attire have no place in the workplace, unless you work in a religious building. Period. If someone end up losing an arm, a leg or a head over it, I will simply have to laugh at your dumbassery.

If you value more expressing yourself with your ideology than your safety, not to mention other people's safety, you are to own it if or when shit happens.

Lets just say I've seen videos where someone else ended up being severely hurt as a result of religious moral grand standing in the workplace. Shit wasn't pretty.



ChromaticRabbit said:


> None of what you say adds up to an argument against artistic license and an inalienable natural right and freedom to express one's identity.


Your identity/beliefs/opinions don't trump your safety let alone the safety and well-being of others. 

We have work ethics and clothing standards and restrictions for a reason. Well, several, actually.

I don't give a shit about what you believe in, as long as you keep that shit to yourself and out of the workplace.


----------



## ChromaticRabbit (Oct 14, 2017)

Yakamaru said:


> Your identity/beliefs/opinions don't trump your safety let alone the safety and well-being of others.
> 
> We have work ethics and clothing standards and restrictions for a reason. Well, several, actually.
> 
> I don't give a shit about what you believe in, as long as you keep that shit to yourself and out of the workplace.


At no point was anyone's safety and wellbeing challenged by a shark suit. That's the problem, you speak as if there was some credible threat there, there was not, just as there's no credible threat with Muslims generally. It's a beastly ideological lie, propaganda being strewn about civilization like so much rat poison. It is an affront.


----------



## ChromaticRabbit (Oct 14, 2017)

ellaerna said:


> But you seem to prioritize art and attacking others in this thread rather than religious freedoms.


Wow, like a deluge of words. Let's boil this down to a teaspoon, shall we?

You seem to speak as though you believe that furry fandom isn't at its very best an esoteric spiritual activity like other bodies of faith, but I believe this fandom is in fact a secular cover for protected spirituality. It's a disorganized artistic culture, and what is artistic culture if not of the body of faith associated with Artemis and other matriarchal Gods or gods (aka Celestia from MLP) et al? On this basis, protecting furry is equivalent to protecting any other religious minority. Not because of MLP, but because these threads in the fandom relate generally to the old cultic multilateral spiritual world of good. You probably don't agree with me, but all it would take is one person who believes what I just said to make it valid, and here she is, standing before you.

See also: Furry spirituality - WikiFur, the furry encyclopedia


----------



## Deleted member 82554 (Oct 14, 2017)

In addition to my last post, passing a legislation as ridiculous as this is akin to saying it's illegal to be a sign twirler because it poses a potential health hazard. Really, what the fuck is this world coming to? Are we in a SJW manchild era or something? I thought this is the information age.

Lol!


----------



## ellaerna (Oct 14, 2017)

ChromaticRabbit said:


> Wow, like a deluge of words. Let's boil this down to a teaspoon, shall we?
> 
> You seem to speak as though you believe that furry fandom isn't at its most esoteric a spiritual activity, like other bodies of faith, but I believe this fandom is in fact a secular cover for protected spirituality. It's a disorganized artistic culture, and what is artistic culture if not of the body of faith associated with Artemis and other matriarchal God or gods (aka Celestia from MLP) et al? On this basis, protecting furry is equivalent to protecting any other religious minority. You probably don't agree with me, but all it would take is one person who believes what I just said to make it valid, and here she is, standing before you.
> 
> See also: Furry spirituality - WikiFur, the furry encyclopedia


Wow. What a complete dismissal of all the points I was making in response to _your_ deluge of words. Let's boil this down to you dodging the issues, shall we?

You are correct. I do not believe the furry fandom is a spiritual activity. It _can_ be for some, sure. Clearly it is this way for you. However, the fandom itself is not a faith or spirituality. At it's core, it's a fandom based around anthropomorphic animal characters. I, personally, enjoy the art and creativity, but it does not play into my own faith or religious ideologies. Same for many others. Just as you cite yourself as "enough" to justify calling the fandom a religion, I can cite myself to call it not. Even the article you link recognizes that there is differing of opinions on this issue and that furs can identify as other religions, not merely as spiritual furs.

Also, this does not change the fact that you have consistently been toting "artistic freedom" and "creative liberties" as your core argument rather than religious freedom, particularly towards the people, Muslims, that the law in question is primarily against.


----------



## ChromaticRabbit (Oct 14, 2017)

ellaerna said:


> However, the fandom itself is not a faith or spirituality.


That's not actually up to you. Any of us may elevate this as spirituality, and nobody can deny or strip that away.

We're not founding a religion or spirituality. We're merely extending a very ancient one syncretically.

This is the way of the world and we stand at this unique moment, a historical crossroads, that has in its infinite grace granted us this liberty to do so. This is an inalienable human right that will never again be suppressed by the ideology, arrogance, and genocide of zealous psychotic male cults.






( digital.library.upenn.edu: The Heavenly Tenants. )


----------



## Simo (Oct 14, 2017)

Call me patriotic, but I recall a certain passage in the US declaration of Independence about 'life, liberty, & the pursuit of happiness'.

We have the 'right' to wear fursuits in public, and I can't see anything inherently dangerous about it, so long one isn't, say driving, or operating heavy machinery. It's a 'privilege' to be able to afford one, but the right to wear one? To challenge that is almost as ridicules as the right _not_ to wear one. I don't see that the government should be making choices about my wardrobe, especially in a case in which I'm fully clothed.

But this is not about wearing fursuits while driving, or going to a bank; It's about wearing fur-suits, say, to a park, or walking down the sidewalk on a sunny day, and having fun, and the freedom and joy in expressing oneself, and I find bans of what one can wear in public a patent affront to our basic rights. To wit:

"We hold these truths to be sacred & undeniable; that all men are created equal & independent, that from that equal creation they derive rights inherent & inalienable, among which are the preservation of life, & liberty, *& the pursuit of happiness*; ..." (T. Jefferson)

edited to:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

So: if my idea of the pursuit of happiness is to prance about the city in a fluffy skunk suit, and others have similar flights of fancy in their pursuit of happiness, I think it is an affront to the values of humankind, and the founding of this nation in general, to try to stop people from such pursuits.


----------



## ellaerna (Oct 14, 2017)

ChromaticRabbit said:


> That's not actually up to you. Any of us may elevate this as spirituality, and nobody can deny or strip that away.
> 
> We're not founding a religion or spirituality. We're merely extending a very ancient one syncretically.
> 
> This is the way of the world and we stand at this unique moment, a historical crossroads, that has in its infinite grace granted us this liberty to do so. This is an inalienable human right that will never again be suppressed by the ideology, arrogance, and genocide of zealous psychotic male cults.


Reread my post. Rethink your response. 
At the end of the day, you and I are not even on opposite sides of this issue. 
But you keep changing what the issue is, keep ignoring valid points from all sides.
This is no longer a discussion. It never really was.



Simo said:


> Call me patriotic, but I recall a certain passage in the US declaration of Independence about 'life, liberty, & the pursuit of happiness'.
> 
> We have the 'right' to wear fursuits in public, and I can't see anything inherently dangerous about it, so long one isn't, say driving, or operating heavy machinery. It's a 'privilege' to be able to afford one, but the right to wear one? To challenge that is almost as ridicules as the right _not_ to wear one. I don't see that the government should be making choices about my wardrobe, especially in a case in which I'm fully clothed.
> 
> ...


i may have read that in Jefferson's voice from the Hamilton musical...
This makes a lot of sense. I do hope that the US doesn't follow Austria's lead on this. 
While I don't think that furries were the target of all this, it is an unfortunate side effect and it should encourage us to examine the broader issues here.


----------



## -..Legacy..- (Oct 14, 2017)

As Chapter is, I also have a military background.  Thus, I have a specific viewpoint associated with embracing that type of environment.  You give up a few freedoms, but it's strictly to establish order and discipline.  It's not to establish power over another.   

You can get your "full" freedoms, but you then have to live in fear of another's view of freedom.  Is there a balance of what we can all agree upon? Probably not.  Someone somewhere will always be dissatisfied with another's choice. Utopia, in the discussed sense, is impossible with human nature.  Attempted Utopia is unfortunately no freedoms at all, for anyone.  Here's the kicker: you then get no utopia anyways in the end, because you still have two sides.  Those that accept it, and those who do not.  The movie "Equilibrium" touched on this quite well. 

It's sad it works this way, and it's unfortunate that fear of others have created this environment in the first place.


----------



## ChromaticRabbit (Oct 14, 2017)

ellaerna said:


> Reread my post. Rethink your response.


No. I will be completely intransigent. I'm sorry you don't like how I developed this and drew you in, no offense intended.


----------



## ChromaticRabbit (Oct 14, 2017)

-..Legacy..- said:


> As Chapter is, I also have a military background.  Thus, I have a specific viewpoint associated with embracing that type of environment.  You give up a few freedoms, but it's strictly to establish order and discipline.  It's not to establish power over another.


We are neither a militaristic nor are we a police state. We are a liberal democracy. We are the dog that wags the tail of public service, and we are not the subjects of some figurative or literal monarchical, oligarchical, and/or aristocratic system.


----------



## -..Legacy..- (Oct 14, 2017)

ChromaticRabbit said:


> We are neither a militaristic nor are we a police state. We are a liberal democracy. We are the dog that wags the tail of public service, and we are not the subjects of some figurative or literal monarchical, oligarchical, and/or aristocratic system.



Technically (if you are from the US) we are a Republic by our Constitution. 

There was no mention of the government being militaristic, nor a police state.  It was an example of how "rules" are put in place to benefit the general welfare of a group. 

If we were a democracy, then popular votes would win.  They do not, as we have a few states of population densities that can overwhelm the votes of 40+ other states. 

I do digress, though.  This shouldn't get into a discussion of the current Geo-political climate.  Nothing good will come of it.


----------



## Ginza (Oct 14, 2017)

ChromaticRabbit said:


> At no point was anyone safety and wellbeing challenged by a shark suit. That's the problem, you speak as if there was some credible threat there, there was not, just as there's no credible thread with Muslims generally. It's a beastly ideological lie, propaganda being strewn about civilization like so much rat poison. It is an affront.



Again, the point wasn't that he was in a shark suit. The point was, a police officer asked him to take the head of his suit off. The whole incident could have been avoided had he just listened and taken it off. 

And no, nobody has to accept fursuiters. Nobody has to accept anything. We must tolerate it surely, but we don't need to accept it. Again though, what exactly do you mean by it not being something allowed in a civilized society? What, I'm not allowed to have opinions? Who are you to determine what is or isn't acceptable for a society?


----------



## ChromaticRabbit (Oct 14, 2017)

-..Legacy..- said:


> Technically (if you are from the US) we are a Republic by our Constitution.


"Liberal Democracy and Constitutional Republic are not the same thing." -- illiberal talking point

Hasn't this false meme been beaten back enough to slink away with its tail between its legs YET? 

And so, here we go:

"Liberal democracy is a liberal political ideology and a form of government in which representative democracy operates under the principles of classical liberalism. Also called western democracy...  it may be a constitutional monarchy (Australia, Belgium, Canada, Japan, Norway, Spain and the United Kingdom) or a republic (France, India, Ireland, the United States). It may have a parliamentary system (Australia, Canada, India, Ireland and the United Kingdom), a presidential system (Indonesia and the United States), or a semi-presidential system (France)." ( Liberal democracy - Wikipedia )

There was once a reason good people fled to the United States of America, and many of us still consider this our home. It seems we have some trash to take out, some tired old exploitative memes seem to have sprung up like so many feral weeds.

"In the United States, liberalism took a strong root because it had little opposition to its ideals, whereas in Europe liberalism was opposed by many reactionary or feudal interests such as the nobility, the aristocracy, the landed gentry, the established church and the aristocratic army officers..." ( Classical liberalism - Wikipedia )

Sorry if I sound irritated, you'd think pointing this out once would be sufficient for the world, but it seems one has to mow the law or swim against a current just to stay in place. As if by design. Thanks for being their tool and wasting our time with their false memes.


----------



## ChromaticRabbit (Oct 14, 2017)

Ginza said:


> Again, the point wasn't that he was in a shark suit. The point was, a police officer asked him to take the head of his suit off. The whole incident could have been avoided had he just listened and taken it off.
> 
> And no, nobody has to accept fursuiters. Nobody has to accept anything. We must tolerate it surely, but we don't need to accept it.



Well, you're being clear enough.  I think that's a completely-reprehensible ideology you've got on display there. You seem to believe some non-credible dude with a chip on his shoulder and some inadvisably-delegated vested authority can just magically sweep aside all civil liberty and the principles that stand behind them like a psycho believes they may rape a woman. You subscribe to the false premise that someone peacefully executing their liberties can be lawfully targeted for intimidation, bullying, and coercion. 

You do need to accept it, just like you need to accept religious minority, gender equity, and an individual's right to self-identity. You must adhere to the morality of humanism because this is the 21st century, after all.


----------



## -..Legacy..- (Oct 14, 2017)

You should quote actual educational sources, instead of Wikipedia. 

Or maybe quote our actual constitution, which says Republic, and never mentions democracy at all.


----------



## ChromaticRabbit (Oct 14, 2017)

-..Legacy..- said:


> You should quote actual educational sources, instead of Wikipedia.
> 
> Or maybe quote our actual constitution, which says Republic, and never mentions democracy at all.


Dude.

You should bring ideas to the table or sit down and stop disparaging that which is true.


----------



## ellaerna (Oct 14, 2017)

This thread is a dumpster fire.
The OP is a troll.
I will not be part of this farce of a discussion any longer.


----------



## ChromaticRabbit (Oct 14, 2017)

ellaerna said:


> This thread is a dumpster fire.
> The OP is a troll.
> I will not be part of this farce of a discussion any longer.


What do you find so threatening about any of this? What are you afraid of?


----------



## -..Legacy..- (Oct 14, 2017)

ChromaticRabbit said:


> Dude.
> 
> You should bring ideas to the table or sit down and stop disparaging that which is true.



I'm not bringing ideas, just facts.  

Our constitution says we are a republic, our laws are all weighed against the constitution for legitimacy.  

We are a constitutional republic, it's that simple.  Literally, 6th grade social studies simple. 

I'm done here, it's not even worth it.


----------



## ChromaticRabbit (Oct 14, 2017)

-..Legacy..- said:


> I'm not bringing ideas, just facts.
> 
> Our constitution says we are a republic, our laws are all weighed against the constitution for legitimacy.
> 
> ...


You are being ridiculous because if you scroll backwards in this very thread, you will see that what you asserted has already been established to be in fact completely kooky demagoguery. A liberal democracy and a constitutional republic are the same thing, but please, don't take my word for it. Go see for yourself.


----------



## Ginza (Oct 14, 2017)

ChromaticRabbit said:


> Well, you're being clear enough.  I think that's a completely-reprehensible ideology you've got on display there. You seem to believe some non-credible dude with a chip on his shoulder and some inadvisably-delegated vested authority can just magically sweep aside all civil liberty and the principles that stand behind them like a psycho believes they may rape a woman. You subscribe to the false premise that someone peacefully executing their liberties can be lawfully targeted for intimidation, bullying, and coercion.
> 
> You do need to accept it, just like you need to accept religious minority, gender equity, and an individual's right to self-identity. You must adhere to the morality of humanism because this is the 21st century, after all.



I won't be replying further as you've yet to state one relevant or logical point at all. What confuses me this time is your absolute unwillingness to hear my opinions. Simply telling me my opinions are wrong and cruel somehow. While police abusing their power is real and happens quite often, they're needed in a civilized society. Next time you're being robbed or attacked, I hope you can still spit these same lines out. Let's hope your self defense skills are good. Since when is having to bend laws for the safety of others at all equivalent to rape? In any way, at all? You go off on these irrelevant tangents and I have literally no idea what you're saying or trying to point out. By the way, no, that's not what I subscribe to. However, when a figure of authority asks you to do something reasonable like this, you comply. That's the way I was raised, and the way I will live. Nothing wrong with that. It's kind of closed minded of you to tell me I'm wrong and support a "brutal" ideology. Funny.

Again, no. You don't need to accept anything in life. You may not attack or haggle anyone of those groups, but you don't have to see them as legitimate either. Sorry, you just don't. The morality of humanism is subjective at best, and as long as you're tolerant, and just generally not a dick, I'd say you're fine.

It was fun having this conversation, hope you find someone who will feed your insanity and random claims xx


----------



## ChromaticRabbit (Oct 14, 2017)

Let's break this down as you had a lot to say, fast.



Ginza said:


> ...you've yet to state one relevant or logical point at all.


Fallacy: Argumentum ad lapidem. ( Appeal to the stone - Wikipedia ). You didn't address the merits. You didn't even try.



Ginza said:


> ...your absolute unwillingness to hear my opinions. Simply telling me my opinions are wrong and cruel...


To be honest, I am not actually sure what your opinions may be, but I am stating some universal and absolute things about the system of the world. I am perfectly willing to hear your opinions, whatever they may be, but these principles I elevate are sacrosanct, and so you should step carefully around them, if you please. Have a care.



Ginza said:


> While police abusing their power is real and happens quite often, they're needed in a civilized society. Next time you're being robbed or attacked, I hope you can still spit these same lines out. Let's hope your self defense skills are good.


I don't believe that anyone here contests assertions that the public must be protected and the public's justice must be served. Why do you assume I've ever been robbed or attacked? Is this a misanthropic world view that you now espouse? Is my assertion that there's no role for the law in regulating freedoms of art, culture, identity, or spirituality tantamount to saying there must be anarchy and chaos and no police whatsoever in your view? Doesn't that exclude a rather large and much more livable pragmatic middle? The real world doesn't break down to such a Boolean quantum often. We can't exclude the middle, can we? Aristotle's logic had its limits and is a bit lost in the the 20th and especially now in this 21st century of known quantum phenomena and cultural liberty. Maybe the old dualisms don't fit all of today's problems.
( Many-valued logic - Wikipedia )
Anyway, it's kind of preposterous for you to suggest that anything I have discussed is the logical business of the police or constitutes some credible public safety concern.



Ginza said:


> having to bend laws ... rape? ...figure of authority asks ... something reasonable like this, you comply.


It's obscene for them to even arrogantly menace that they may interfere with spiritual or artistic freedom. In fact, it creates a chilling effect-- most people aren't going to be as fearless as I may sound. And so the whole thing is by design a subtle and wrongful act of suppression, just another tool in a toolbox of enslavement to deplorable paternalism in lieu of Enlightened liberty.



Ginza said:


> Again, no. You don't need to accept anything in life.


There are some cosmic absolutes, friend. And you will be called upon them if you violate or encroach. We've seen all this before, you know. Never again. Never again.


----------



## ChapterAquila92 (Oct 14, 2017)

ChromaticRabbit said:


> You do need to accept it, just like you need to accept religious minority, gender equity, and an individual's right to self-identity. You must adhere to the morality of humanism because this is the 21st century, after all.


Oh, this is rich. I'm sure that ISIS, a product of the early 21st-Century, would gladly oblige if you asked them so kindly.

Regardless, we're all most likely going to be rendered obsolete by machines anyway. Easier to work with and without the inflated egos associated with meatbaggery.


----------



## ChromaticRabbit (Oct 14, 2017)

ChapterAquila92 said:


> Oh, this is rich. I'm sure that ISIS, a product of the early 21st-Century, would gladly oblige if you asked them so kindly.


All I would need to do is to have the willingness and the means to pay DAESH more than their nation-state or oligarchical masters, don't you know? They're mercenaries concealed under a flag or brand, and they are not some credible religious sect. Way to be the tool of a false narrative? Is this really your best argument against " religious minority, gender equity, and an individual's right to self-identity" ? 

You're being quite visibly silly, at best. Also, don't use Isis's name in vain. She and her faithful could not fail to notice and do not appreciate the disrespect.


----------



## ChapterAquila92 (Oct 14, 2017)

ChromaticRabbit said:


> All I would need to do is to have the willingness and the means to pay DAESH more than their nation-state or oligarchical masters, don't you know? They're mercenaries concealed under a flag or brand, and they are not some credible religious sect. Way to be the tool of a false narrative? Is this really your best argument against " religious minority, gender equity, and an individual's right to self-identity" ?
> 
> You're being quite visibly silly, at best.


The same argument can be levied against you. The hilarity of this is that we're no different in that regard: the force of violence is the only effective means of changing this world, and it walks a very thin and blurry line between victim and victimizer.

Alas, I'm just here because your farce of a discussion is an ideological comedy routine in itself.


----------



## ChromaticRabbit (Oct 14, 2017)

ChapterAquila92 said:


> The same argument can be levied against you.


Can it? Go ahead and so levy. Share with us all the colour of your spiritual light and help us to understand why " religious minority, gender equity, and an individual's right to self-identity " are not both holy and sacrosanct. 



ChapterAquila92 said:


> The hilarity of this is that we're no different in that regard: the force of violence is the only effective means of changing this world, and it walks a very thin and blurry line between victim and victimizer.
> 
> Alas, I'm just here because your farce of a discussion is an ideological comedy routine in itself.


No, we're nothing alike. Violence and fear are the predilection of psychopathy, don't you know? Authoritarianism and paternalism demand primacy and give in return enslavement, malaise, and despoilment right back to the onset of their dominance, each time they invade and subvert a civilization. There's no subtle difference between defending something cultured and nurtured and despoiling it like a raiding Mongul, pirate, emperor, or a concealed psycho male cult.

I'm glad you're amused and appreciate your service.


----------



## ChapterAquila92 (Oct 14, 2017)

ChromaticRabbit said:


> Can it? Go ahead and so levy. Share with us all the colour of your spiritual light and help us to understand why " religious minority, gender equity, and an individual's right to self-identity " are not both holy and sacrosanct


Barring the Saudis being appointed to lead the UN Human Rights Commission, human rights are a myth whose worth lies only in their utility - a happy healthy slave is a productive slave, after all, even if part of that requires giving them the means to rebel or rise to power. Human rights, like currency, nations, deities, and corporations, do not physically exist beyond codified abstractions that we use to imbue a fictitious superhuman authority in a given range of human behaviour (I highly recommend reading _Sapiens: A Brief History of Mankind_ for more on this matter).


> No, we're nothing alike. Violence and fear are the the predilection of psychopathy, don't you know? Authoritarianism and paternalism demand primacy and give in return enslavement, malaise, and despoilment right back to the onset of their dominance, each time they invade and subvert a civilization. There's no subtle difference between defending something cultured and nurtured and despoiling it like a Mogul, pirate, emperor, or a concealed psycho male cult.


Let's go back to what I was referring to with that particular post:


ChromaticRabbit said:


> All I would need to do is to have the willingness and the means to pay DAESH more than their nation-state or oligarchical masters, don't you know? They're mercenaries concealed under a flag or brand, and they are not some credible religious sect.


By paying off mercenaries, you're expressing a desire to be _in command_ of the violence, dictating where, when and how it's to be conducted. Considering that you've also been advocating for rising up and overthrowing the status quo, there isn't any difference between you and the tyrants you claim to stand against; they went by the same playbook to get to where they are now, and their predecessors before them.

There's no use denying that violence is in our very nature as a species. But therein starts our divergence: I'm not so delusional as to think that jumping on the utopian bandwagon of revolution is a good idea, given its extensive track record of installing the very tyrants you claim to stand against and taking fools like yourself out behind the woodshed to be executed once you've outlived your usefulness.

Alas, it's your funeral.


----------



## ChromaticRabbit (Oct 14, 2017)

For the most part, I'm perfectly happy to let what you wrote last stand on its own, but I had to correct one detail in particular since you just could not resist trying,  could you? 


ChromaticRabbit said:


> All I would need to do is to have the willingness and the means to pay DAESH...





ChapterAquila92 said:


> Let's go back to what I was referring to with that particular post:
> 
> By paying off mercenaries, you're expressing a desire... there isn't any difference between you and the tyrants...



I believe that I communicated this in a manner that made it crystal clear I would have to be willing to pay DAESH and I am not, because they and their patrons are anathema to the good. You mention 'overthrowing' the status quo, but that makes no sense. I'm alluding to protecting the desperately fragile status quo that enable things like the furry fandom or people such as myself to emerge in the first place. This spiritual freedom is essential to modern life. Otherwise, I think that pretty much wraps up our open exchange of positions.


----------

