Underage/pedo filter PLEASE

[Growly]

I really, really, really don't dig seeing pictures of underaged characters in sexual situations. Can you please make a filter for this? I know I am not the only one who feels this way... I know a few that have even left FA for good because this sort of art is allowed and isn't filtered.

[Damaratus]

I really, really, really don't dig seeing pictures of underaged characters in sexual situations. Can you please make a filter for this? I know I am not the only one who feels this way... I know a few that have even left FA for good because this sort of art is allowed and isn't filtered.


This filter as well as several other ones were already suggested and have been taken into consideration.

[Growly]

Alright, I didn't know. :) Thanks!

[Kanga274]

Suggestion. You could aways put No to see Mature works

[Pilchard_Tha_Fox]

I have to agree with Frowly on this one.
Since I'm a anti-pedo, it would be nice to see that kind of stuff banned from FA.

[Spatsbear]

No filter, just ban it from FA.

[Damaratus]

Ahh, here we go again. It is amazing today how there can be people who consider themselves, at least in part, "furry". I'm not saying that everyone who joins Fur Affinity happens to be furry, just the majority of them.

Many spend time on this website each day, they pick what they like; images both sexual and nonsexual in nature, but most all of them involving anthropomophized characters, covered in fur, scales, etc. Some out there even don suits that better portray their own character which are, that's right, covered in fur (or other material). The whole of this site covers a huge range of unusual likes and kinks: babyfur, chubby, inflation, gore, vore, crossdressing, cub, macro, micro, the list goes on. Amazingly enough, the furry genre has enough space to house all of these things, and allow you, the user, to be able to find those things that you find most enjoyable

Keep in mind, that if seen beyond the scope of this website, by those who are not part of the genre, there are many who would think you are weird, sexually deviant, even in need of psychiatric help. They would judge you harshly, say you have sex with animals, and call for the removal of this kind if site and its material from the web. I'm pretty sure most on this site would be outraged by that kind of reaction.

So this is where I reiterate what has been stated in every other thread involving cub artwork: if you can manage the state of mind to comprehend the difference between an image created by someone and real life, in terms of every picture that you look at, draw, favorite, or appreciate on this site; then surely you have the competent state of mind to be able to dissociate an image that you find distasteful. There are near 40,000 users on this site, and just because you do not like something does not mean that it should be outright banned from Fur Affinity. If we followed that logic there would be very little left that could be posted on this site.

The call for a working filter on this, means that you can turn it on and forget that you'd ever have to see such images, while still allowing those who like such things - just like you like some things - on this site to be able to see them.

There will almost always be some things on Fur Affinity that any one or multiple users will not want to look at. It's just the way things happen to work, but the obliteration of a selection of artwork because some people don't like it (especially since it breaks no laws) is out of the question, and it would be best if you sit back for a moment and comprehend how silly and almost hypocritical it is to be intolerant within a genre that is already not tollerated at certain levels by "normal" society.

Growly showed some level-headedness by asking for a filter for something he didn't want to see, rather than simply calling for the outright removal of such things.

As I said before, this filter as well as several others have been considered and will probably be implemented.

[Kanga274]

Damaratus is right, pretty much on all Furry sites that show Mature art has underage furs in it. A filter would work well in this. But, trying to get it banned. No, Never gonna happen. There is only a 1% chance of it ever becoming banned. and there is a 99% chance that it will stay forever. Me, I like the underage furs. I think they are cute. Maybe not the very hardcore stuff. But you have a more likely chance of being banned before the underage stuff is. If you dont want to see the underage/ pedo stuff Go to your control panel and put NO on the want to see Mature stuff. Its that easy. Problem solved. Either that or dont come on FA anymore. <--- not being mean --- But seeing as you are here on FA. You must like being a furry then. You have to accept what you will see here and anywhere else that does have Underage/ pedo stuff. It will never go away

[Spatsbear]

So, according to your mentality, I'm supposed to accept everything and anything within the fandom no matter how wrong it is, for fear of being intolerant, etc.

Look, I am a very tolerant person. But the fact that you people find absolutely nothing wrong with pedophilia or people getting off to cub porn disturbs me. And I will voice my opinion on this: Filter or no filter, I do not want this stuff on FA

This cub porn and pedophilia stuff sets me off, and I'm quite sure a good # of others as well as they find out about it.

And pedophilia is classified as a mental disorder as well, so yes, the pedophiles do need psychiatric help.

[Damaratus]

So, according to your mentality, I'm supposed to accept everything and anything within the fandom no matter how wrong it is, for fear of being intolerant, etc.

Look, I am a very tolerant person. But the fact that you people find absolutely nothing wrong with pedophilia or people getting off to cub porn disturbs me. And I will voice my opinion on this: Filter or no filter, I do not want this stuff on FA

This cub porn and pedophilia stuff sets me off, and I'm quite sure a good # of others as well as they find out about it.

And pedophilia is classified as a mental disorder as well, so yes, the pedophiles do need psychiatric help.


You are allowed to voice your opinion. Never said you couldn't, and you are being intolerant, no fear of being so, you just are, but that is also your right.

No one has to accept things within the fandom, but when you choose to become part of a site that welcomes art forms and wants to show tollerance toward everyone (as long as it's legal), then you also agree to such things on the same level. If you don't like it, you do not have to stay, even though we would prefer if you would and simply use the site to appreciate what you like, rather then have problems with what you don't like.

As has also been stated previously, pedophilia is not the same as cub artwork. One of them involves completely fictional characters that cannot, in fact, be harmed in any manner. The other involves actual live children and is completely illegal and not tollerated on this site as well as around the rest of the world. Apparently that distinction is lost to some.

It is true that there are many who are "set off" by cub artwork, and there are equal numbers who are not, and actually like it, as well as some who really don't care. Except they choose to be tollerant about what everyone else likes without calling for the removal of what offends them.

Since this thread is falling away from its discussion I'm going to ask that if you wish to continue this level of argument that you contact me in PMs. The initial question has been answered, but for the sake of further discussion it will remain unlocked. If it goes any further off topic or gets any more heated it will be locked since we have already had this kind of discussion previously on other threads.

[Fox Amoore]

Doesn't matter whether I or anyone else likes it or not. Pedo is against the law in most countries, if furry allows such things in the community, it can grow and become a serious problem for everyone in the fandom. FA is putting itself at risk by allowing such material. Don't give the law an excuse. Ban it.

[Damaratus]

Ban it. Doesn't matter whether I like it or not. Pedo is against the law in most countries, FA is putting itself at risk by allowing such material. Don't give the law an excuse.



Fur Affinity is well aware of what the laws state and what is legal and what is not. Cub artwork is, in fact, not illegal. There is no way that a picture of an anthropomporphized animal cub can ever be confused with an actual living, breathing, human child.

Once again, this thread is about the creation of a filter, not the legality of cub images. Any further discussion on legality should be done in a separate thread or through PMs.

[Fox Amoore]

Ban it. Doesn't matter whether I like it or not. Pedo is against the law in most countries, FA is putting itself at risk by allowing such material. Don't give the law an excuse.



Fur Affinity is well aware of what the laws state and what is legal and what is not.**Cub artwork is, in fact, not illegal.**There is no way that a picture of an anthropomporphized animal cub can ever be confused with an actual living, breathing, human child.

Once again, this thread is about the creation of a filter, not the legality of cub images.**Any further discussion on legality should be done in a separate thread or through PMs.


I'm aware of that dude. I'm just concerned that if people do ever see this, people that are not furry, seeing a young drawn anthro having sex with a mature anthro, these people and the law could class it as "Pedo" or at least Pedo Artwork. The law is easily changed, and what we have here could ultimately force it to change, just so it can be made illegal. The Furry fandom has already got a reputation for porn, I'd hate to see it get an even bigger reputation, one which wouldn't do any good to us at all =) I'll stop abusing the thread now!

Thanks,

Fox Amoore.

[blackdragoon]

the problem with this is that there is a filter already. if you check your filter settings you should see the baby fur filter. it's the same exact thing as what you want. it's just that so many people miss label their art as something other than that.

[Spatsbear]

How is my post off topic?

It was on topic with the subject matter.

Second of all, yes, cub porn is fictional, but IT IS STILL PEDOPHILIA! What can't you comprehend about that?!

[Damaratus]

the problem with this is that there is a filter already. if you check your filter settings you should see the baby fur filter. it's the same exact thing as what you want. it's just that so many people miss label their art as something other than that.


Babyfur is actually a different genre, usually involving an adult fur in diapers. Or just the roleplaying of baby furs, usually less sexual in nature and more of innocence.

http://furry.wikia.com/wiki/Babyfur

[Damaratus]

How is my post off topic?

It was on topic with the subject matter.

Second of all, yes, cub porn is fictional, but IT IS STILL PEDOPHILIA! What can't you comprehend about that?!


It is not pedophilia according to the laws of the U.S. What can you not comprehend about that?

Child pornography and pedophilia, according to the current laws, all involve an actual living child, or imagery that is indistinguishable from a living child.

How is an anthropomorphic cub anywhere close to that? Yes, in your eyes, in your definition it is pedophilia, that's your opinion, but not the opinion of U.S. law or of this website.

[Spatsbear]

Forget U.S. laws. Here is the dictionary definition:

The act or fantasy on the part of an adult of engaging in sexual activity with a child or children.

And just what is cub porn? Children! May be anthropomorphic animals, but it is the same thing. It involves fantasizing about an underage anthropomorphic child.

[Damaratus]

Forget U.S. laws. Here is the dictionary definition:

The act or fantasy on the part of an adult of engaging in sexual activity with a child or children.

And just what is cub porn? Children! May be anthropomorphic animals, but it is the same thing. It involves fantasizing about an underage anthropomorphic child.



U.S. Law is what binds this site as to what can be placed on it. Not the dictionary. "Child or children" is a term used for the most part for humans, not for animals of any sort. As I said before, this is your interpretation, and your opinion. Not that of the government or of this site.

[Spatsbear]

Well, I will also say you believe what you want to believe as well.

I'm stating a fact.




I think I've my say on this subject matter, I don't have anything else to try to argue. But I will follow up by saying that I think that some of the administration at FA downright sucks... Especially when and if this type of material is going to be allowed to be posted.

Good day.

[Damaratus]

Well, I will also say you believe what you want to believe as well.

I'm stating a fact.


Well actually, my statement of U.S. law is also fact.


Well, I think I've had enough to say on this subject matter. But I will follow up by saying that I think that some of the administration at FA downright sucks.

Good day.


We can't always play the part of the friendly person always willing to bend to the will of a few opinions on a debatable topic.

Now folks, back to the actual topic. Filters and the fact that they will be put in place for certain things.

[Sparkle_demon]

I think Fox Amoore put it rather elegantly.

I remember when I first joined FA back in May, there was a very strict rule against cub porn, and that was why I decided to become a part of the gallery. I was attracted to this no-cub stance very much, as I am not very into the furry fandom aside from the anthro art side, and I'll admit that as a future mother to be and one who works with children, if underaged pictures are allowed in full force, I would leave immediately. Adult art I am fine with and can just ignore if it's not my cup-of-tea, but not anything that is supposed to represent children, and I should not be forced to take off my "mature" setting filter, when I am a full adult, just so I don't have to see these types of pictures. They morally shouldn't be allowed in the first place.

I'm not being a matyr or hoping that it would change anything, I just want to voice that in the minds of many, anything that represents children is pedophilia art, because the only ones who draw and appareciate it are most likely pedophiles themselves. Anything that represents children in any mature or adult form disgusts me, personally, and as a human and caretaker of children, there has to be a line drawn somewhere. It just upsets me because I otherwise enjoy FA.

It saddens me that the ones with fantasies, maybe not fully illegal, but sketchy at best, are the ones catered to in this fandom. That is why it has the reputation it does.

Thank you,
Sparkle

[Damaratus]

I think Fox Amoore put it rather elegantly.

I remember when I first joined FA back in May, there was a very strict rule against cub porn, and that was why I decided to become a part of the gallery. I was attracted to this no-cub stance very much, as I am not very into the furry fandom aside from the anthro art side, and I'll admit that as a future mother to be and one who works with children, if underaged pictures are allowed in full force, I would leave immediately. Adult art I am fine with and can just ignore if it's not my cup-of-tea, but not anything that is supposed to represent children, and I should not be forced to take off my "mature" setting filter, when I am a full adult, just so I don't have to see these types of pictures. They morally shouldn't be allowed in the first place.


If a filter is put in place you would just turn that on and never have to see such things again. Ergo, you would not be "forced" to turn off mature works. As a future mother you probably wouldn't want to subject your child to the mature images on this site until they were fit to comprehend them in the first place.

Morality is a subjective term that is bound by the person viewing things, and at times by law.


I'm not being a matyr or hoping that it would change anything, I just want to voice that in the minds of many, anything that represents children is pedophilia art, because the only ones who draw and appareciate it are most likely pedophiles themselves. Anything that represents children in any mature or adult form disgusts me, personally, and as a human and caretaker of children, there has to be a line drawn somewhere. It just upsets me because I otherwise enjoy FA.


This argument has been done before. The fact remains that you cannot actually jump to this conclusion. If you followed that logic, then those people who drew violent imagery would be terribly violent as well, those who drew vore would be cannibals, and heck those who drew homosexual images would also be homosexual. This isn't always (or often) the case.

The power of filters makes sure that you never have to worry about dealing with the lines that you do not want to cross.


It saddens me that the ones with fantasies, maybe not fully illegal, but sketchy at best, are the ones catered to in this fandom. That is why it has the reputation it does.

Thank you,
Sparkle


We aren't catering to one particular group, we're trying to be able to accept everyone. That is why filters would be put in place, we already know that there are images that you and others would not like, but we don't want to turn people away because a subsection of people have a moral problem with it.

Obviously, if the inclusion of morally (to you) objectionable material on this site (even if you never have to see it) is enough to make you leave, we will not stop you from doing so, that would be your choice.

It is sometimes the sacrifices one must make to allow a greater number of users to appreciate the site for what it's meant to be.

[Arshes Nei]

Suggestion. You could aways put No to see Mature works


Mature isn't adult though.

They need to be separated. Nudity is different than sex. Also sex isn't = underage porn so what suggestion is this?

[Arshes Nei]

Damaratus is correct. There isn't a law against fictional imagery of "child porn". I am confused by the fact that "cub porn" is allowed yet loli and shota is not. They're all fictional and in some cases there is humanoid, human, alien and furry. So trying to nitpick which is ok merely because it is "Fur Affinity" when it allows other forms of artwork is rather ridiculous. It's all art.

Please understand though, I do not particularly care for underage artwork, as someone who has seen many cases of actual pedophiles using people's artwork to groom children into actually engaging in actual sex churns my stomach. Of course no one wants to acknowledge that or even think responsibly on it. I also understand that those pictures are fantasy and not really harming any actual children directly (though I still stand by the grooming statement).

However, while there is a correlation between pedophiles and those artworks, it would be making the same jump to conclusions like that one Canadian study showed.

http://www.macleans.ca/topstories/justice/article.jsp?content=20050530_106573_106573

May sex abusers were Star Trek fans, but does that mean all Star Trek fans are pedophiles?

If people jump to that conclusion immediately (but it's ok to take note of those habits) I suppose anyone who draws Furry Porn or sexually charged Furry characters really wants to have sex with animals?

On a side note responses like this: http://www.furaffinityforums.net/showthread.php?tid=4027&pid=55059#pid55059
really do not help either.

[Sparkle_demon]

Oh no, I agree. That's why I said that I'm not trying to be a matyr and I realize that because I am not a part of the fandom fully, I obviously cannot see the "bigger picture" of what this site was intended for, nor can I get beyond my personal moral stances. And obviously, when I am actually a mother, I will not have mature content around where my children could see, thank you.

I was just upset that FA's initial stance no longer holds, as a personal opinion. For whatever reason, obviously FA felt the same way I did way back when, which just made me question the legality of it all.

I said I was not trying to change anything, or anyone's minds- just voicing an opinion that I know others besides me had. I realize I have no clout, no law to go behind, am not an admin, and am welcome to leave at any time.

However, on that note, please get on with the filtering if that is going to be your new stance, for everyone else's sake.

Thank you.

[Damaratus]

Oh no, I agree. That's why I said that I'm not trying to be a matyr and I realize that because I am not a part of the fandom fully, I obviously cannot see the "bigger picture" of what this site was intended for, nor can I get beyond my personal moral stances. And obviously, when I am actually a mother, I will not have mature content around where my children could see, thank you.

I was just upset that FA's initial stance no longer holds, as a personal opinion. For whatever reason, obviously FA felt the same way I did way back when, which just made me question the legality of it all.

I said I was not trying to change anything, or anyone's minds- just voicing an opinion that I know others besides me had. I realize I have no clout, no law to go behind, am not an admin, and am welcome to leave at any time.

However, on that note, please get on with the filtering if that is going to be your new stance, for everyone else's sake.

Thank you.


Hey, we're open to the opinions of others. It's good to know where people stand on things. Even if it doesn't change the outcome, it at least helps us to be able to make sure that the people who would take the most offense don't get hit across the face.

Thank you for understanding the reasoning behind things at the moment. We are trying to make sure that if there are things that are going to bother users on the site but will not be against policy, that they are introduced in the least abrassive fashion.

[Tinintri]

I think the statement "To each their own" needs to be implied here.

It's just artwork folks, a lot of it pretty shoddy work..**It's not like they're shoving it in your face.**Quite the contrary.**You've evidently clicked on it to inspect it further, therefore introduced yourself into it.**No one made you click that thumbnail or search through the "pedo art", as you call it.

A filter sounds like a valuable solution, then everyone who is against it will have no excuse as to why they clicked that little picture other than of their own will.

[nobuyuki]

I hereby deem this thread "ironic to a high caliber" and will state that the sooner you guys put up filters in place, the sooner we can -hopefully- not have to hear these kinds of complaints anymore. It's been pretty clear sailing lately for most all artists on FA regarding their content, but crap like this flares up from time to time and it does get rather annoying and frustrating for all parties involved... even those doing the bitchin' 8)

[M-Fox]

I do respect any fetishes what people seem to have - I have already seen the most disgusting and kind of insane images on this site, also real dicks seem not to concern people in a negative way. But adults having sex with little children... you won't tell me that is a normal and totally acceptable thing, would you? Doesn't matter if that child is a fur or a kid, it shows an adult person having sex with an underaged one. That is against laws, and nobody of you (though not many are having children here already I guess) would like the idea if an adult person would have sex with your child, you would hate him, and probably kill him! That is how the general society thinks, and it has all it's reason.
Sure images don't already have something real to do with reality, but it makes people think somebody who draws such a thing would do this in real. And if a general, non-furry person would get to know about all such things, furries are seen as totally insane people - well actually they all are already, just not in such a bad way without all this. Porn already is totally against all my likings, but I respect the "normal" porn. Porn actually only is some kind of unusual and special likings of one or several people in sexual way, I don't care about this. but baby-porn doesn't need to be there.

The biggest parts of society see a really bad thing in baby-porn, with reasons. That is why it is forbidden. It would be really good if FA banned such things from here. You would probably loose a few members, but you would earn a better credit. FA currently seems to allow anything, doesn't matter what it is. I wouldn't dare to mention to bann everything what makes me puke on this site, that wuld mean to erase 75% of all images on the site. But also FA should take at least some limits.

[Tinintri]

But adults having sex with little children... you won't tell me that is a normal and totally acceptable thing, would you? Doesn't matter if that child is a fur or a kid, it shows an adult person having sex with an underaged one. That is against laws, and nobody of you (though not many are having children here already I guess) would like the idea if an adult person would have sex with your child, you would hate him, and probably kill him! That is how the general society thinks, and it has all it's reason.


Alright...

1. Furrydom is not normal society, thus why we stay closeted for the most part in our daily human lives. We stretch the imagination in too many ways for you to pick merely on this one subject.

2. It's not your child. Never will be. The point of all furrydom and anthro art is to express one's imagination.

3. Again, no one MAKES you click the thumbnail to view the big piece. Just ignore it. No one is shoving it in your face to view unless they spam FA with it... which they don't.


And for the record, I'm not an advocate of such art nor would I ever participate in making it. I believe in free expression, including baby fur and cub art of any genre.

[Dragoneer]

If we feel the image in question is based off/meant to represent a real kid we will take action on it. The main "qualm" of this entire issue, even from an admin side, is that these are fictional characters that don't exist. I'm not justifying or defending that in anyway, mind you.

The law is written in such a way to defend that - you can't hold a person for having a really vivid imagination. However, once that imagination overflows into reality... that's where things change, and that's where my feathers start to get ruffled.

And for the record, this issue has come up multiple times in admin discussion and, again, is currently being discussed. We are aware of people's feelings towards this issue. We do see both sides of the problem.

[ulbandi]

Leaving aside any arguments on the morality of it, I just want to butt in and say I would really, REALLY appreciate the incorporation of an underage filter if you're going to officially allow underage art.

(Not that my filters actually work, but yeah.)

[Ahkahna]

I'm really not quite certain how drawing two underage furry characters is any different than drawing two fictional underage human characters?

I personally don't approve of either. With all the crazy furry fetishes around already, there's a time when one has to stop and just say No. This is one of those times. Screw a filter, ban it.

[dave hyena]

I think it should be allowed with filters.

If we're talking about morals, what about all those macro pictures where some rampaging giant furry destroys a city.

Are thousands of deaths of innocent people worse or just as bad? Should we ban those images too?

It's a rhetorical question mind, since I don't want to argue, just voice my opinion, but it makes you think. :-?

[Hanazawa]

If we're talking about morals, what about all those macro pictures where some rampaging giant furry destroys a city.

Are thousands of deaths of innocent people worse or just as bad? Should we ban those images too?

It's a rhetorical question mind, since I don't want to argue, just voice my opinion, but it makes you think. :-?


I think that comparing pedophilia to bestiality would be more appropriate, since both of those things are actually physically possible.

[Alchera]

1. Furrydom is not normal society, thus why we stay closeted for the most part in our daily human lives.

2. It's not your child.**Never will be.**The point of all furrydom and anthro art is to express one's imagination.

*


Before you go claiming 'Furrydom' is not normal, you may want to rethink this. Define 'normal.' There are so many bogus things out there considered 'normal' and the FC is no different.

On it not being 'your' child. Well, the character does belong to someone, and it is a child. In a way, a child character is the child of the artist. Don't forget that.

Second, I thought cub art was ordained absolutely forbidden. If you want my opinion, we should not start allowing it. The next thing you know, some of the people who take live photos already and try to pass them off as Fur will start doing it to pictures of younger people, and then everyone will be in deep shit with the Feds.

Third, while I am against the pedophilia, there is another issue here. Define what is "moral." Morality is chosen by a culture, and some cultures have morals others would see as immoral.**I think the term you're looking for is "Applicable." What does FA gain by having cub porn? Sure, it may gain members, but it also may gain a huge notoriety. Remember, sadly, most of the people here seem to be here for porn alone. That has to change, you know. Porn is not what the FC is about.

[Arshes Nei]

[font=Times New Roman]Before you go claiming 'Furrydom' is not normal, you may want to rethink this. Define 'normal.' There are so many bogus things out there considered 'normal' and the FC is no different.


What does the community have to gain by having anthro art either? What does any community have to gain?

[Damaratus]

Second, I thought cub art was ordained absolutely forbidden. If you want my opinion, we should not start allowing it. The next thing you know, some of the people who take live photos already and try to pass them off as Fur will start doing it to pictures of younger peopl, and then everyone will be in deep shit with the Feds.


It is not ordained (the church has nothing to do with this) forbidden. There is nothing legally wrong with it (according to U.S. Law). Additionally you are making an assumption of something that might happen in the future.

Lets stick to the here and now in terms of filters and not start trying to guess what someone might do. It's too vague and too many invalid concepts will come from it.

[Alchera]

Second, I thought cub art was ordained absolutely forbidden. If you want my opinion, we should not start allowing it. The next thing you know, some of the people who take live photos already and try to pass them off as Fur will start doing it to pictures of younger peopl, and then everyone will be in deep shit with the Feds.


It is not ordained (the church has nothing to do with this) forbidden.**There is nothing legally wrong with it (according to U.S. Law).**Additionally you are making an assumption of something that might happen in the future.

Lets stick to the here and now in terms of filters and not start trying to guess what someone might do.**It's too vague and too many invalid concepts will come from it.


I use 'ordained' for my own reason, though not religious. I am not merely speculating what might happen. Given enough time, it would happen at least once. I believe, as many others do, that cub porn should be banned. As I stated above it, it would be too risky; if not for actual photo manipulations, then notoriety. We are not FChan, nor are we Yiffstar. If people want that kind of thing, they can go there. But, as Ahkahna said, there comes a time when there should be a definate 'No.' This is one of those times.

[Ahkahna]

...
It is not ordained (the church has nothing to do with this) forbidden....


Just to enlighten you, ordain also means to Establish/Impose. You know, like, laying down the law.

[Damaratus]

Just to enlighten you, ordain also means to Establish/Impose. You know, like, laying down the law.


Being condescending is not necessary, I was utilizing the primary definition. You are correct though, there is a secondary one meaning the enactment of law.

[Ahkahna]

Just to enlighten you, ordain also means to Establish/Impose. You know, like, laying down the law.


Being condescending is not necessary, I was utilizing the primary definition. You are correct though, there is a secondary one meaning the enactment of law.



You can assume me being condescending to your hearts desire, I was in fact clearing up the fact that you could have easily not made the comment yourself unless using it's exact meaning or it's multiples. ;)

[Damaratus]

You can assume me being condescending to your hearts desire, I was in fact clearing up the fact that you could have easily not made the comment yourself unless using it's exact meaning or it's multiples. ;)


Very well.

[Damaratus]

In any case, this subject has fallen way off topic, and really needs to be closed off, which it will be now. Please take a look at this thread:

http://www.furaffinityforums.net/showthread.php?tid=4092

Put in your opinions on it, and lets keep trying to be progressive rather than returning to the same old things to bicker about.