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

Discussion in 'Fursuiting and Costuming' started by ChromaticRabbit, Oct 9, 2017.

  1. Lcs

    Lcs Well-Known Member

    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.


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

    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.
    Simo, ellaerna and Sarachaga like this.
  2. ChapterAquila92

    ChapterAquila92 Resident Bronze Dragon Kasrkin

    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.
    Sarachaga, Yakamaru and Lcs like this.
  3. Nyashia

    Nyashia New Member

    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 and Yakamaru like this.
  4. ChapterAquila92

    ChapterAquila92 Resident Bronze Dragon Kasrkin

    I recall reading a few People At Wallmart and Not Always Right stories that had a similar theme.
  5. ChromaticRabbit

    ChromaticRabbit lagomorphic

    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?
  6. ChromaticRabbit

    ChromaticRabbit lagomorphic

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

    ChromaticRabbit lagomorphic

    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.
    Last edited: Oct 13, 2017
  8. ChromaticRabbit

    ChromaticRabbit lagomorphic

    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... )
  9. Ginza

    Ginza Just your friendly neighborhood furfag

    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
  10. ChapterAquila92

    ChapterAquila92 Resident Bronze Dragon Kasrkin

    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.
    Last edited: Oct 13, 2017
    Ginza and Yakamaru like this.
  11. ChromaticRabbit

    ChromaticRabbit lagomorphic

    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.
    Last edited: Oct 14, 2017
  12. ellaerna

    ellaerna Sass Master

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    I don't even.
  13. Yakamaru

    Yakamaru Logically chaotic and twice as charming

    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.

    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.
    Last edited: Oct 14, 2017
  14. ChromaticRabbit

    ChromaticRabbit lagomorphic

    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.
    Last edited: Oct 14, 2017
    Simo likes this.
  15. ChromaticRabbit

    ChromaticRabbit lagomorphic

    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
    Last edited: Oct 14, 2017
  16. Mr. Fox

    Mr. Fox Well-Known Member

    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.

  17. ellaerna

    ellaerna Sass Master

    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.
    ChapterAquila92, Ginza and Yakamaru like this.
  18. ChromaticRabbit

    ChromaticRabbit lagomorphic

    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. )
    Last edited: Oct 14, 2017
  19. Simo

    Simo Skunk

    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.
  20. ellaerna

    ellaerna Sass Master

    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.

    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.
    ChapterAquila92, Ginza and Yakamaru like this.
  21. -..Legacy..-

    -..Legacy..- Sergal Mafia :P

    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.
    ChapterAquila92 and Yakamaru like this.
  22. ChromaticRabbit

    ChromaticRabbit lagomorphic

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

    ChromaticRabbit lagomorphic

    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.
  24. -..Legacy..-

    -..Legacy..- Sergal Mafia :P

    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.
    ChapterAquila92, Ginza and Yakamaru like this.
  25. Ginza

    Ginza Just your friendly neighborhood furfag

    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?
    ChapterAquila92 and Yakamaru like this.

Share This Page