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

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

  1. ChapterAquila92

    ChapterAquila92 Resident Bronze Dragon Kasrkin

    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.
     
    Yakamaru and Ginza like this.
  2. Elf-cat

    Elf-cat I judge a book by it's cover, & I'm 75% correct!

    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)
     
    Simo likes this.
  3. ChapterAquila92

    ChapterAquila92 Resident Bronze Dragon Kasrkin

    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.
     
    Last edited: Oct 13, 2017 at 9:03 AM
    Sarachaga and Yakamaru like this.
  4. Yakamaru

    Yakamaru Mein Gott

    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.

    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, Sarachaga and ChapterAquila92 like this.
  5. Ginza

    Ginza Unironically Ironic

    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
     
    Nyashia, Yakamaru and ChapterAquila92 like this.
  6. 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.

    Amen.

    (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.
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. ChapterAquila92

    ChapterAquila92 Resident Bronze Dragon Kasrkin

    I recall reading a few People At Wallmart and Not Always Right stories that had a similar theme.
     
  10. 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?
     
  11. ChromaticRabbit

    ChromaticRabbit lagomorphic

    Dude. I think you may have taken a wrong turn somewhere. How did you wind up on this furry fandom website?
     
  12. 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 at 1:43 PM
  13. 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... )
     
  14. Ginza

    Ginza Unironically Ironic

    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
     
  15. 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 at 6:51 PM
    Ginza and Yakamaru like this.
  16. 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 at 11:21 AM
  17. 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...
    I don't even.
     
  18. Yakamaru

    Yakamaru Mein Gott

    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 at 12:46 PM
  19. 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 at 3:13 PM
    Simo likes this.
  20. 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 at 1:12 PM

Share This Page