• Fur Affinity Forums are governed by Fur Affinity's Rules and Policies. Links and additional information can be accessed in the Site Information Forum.

If given the choice would you become a permanent anthropomorph?

Attaman

"I say we forget this business and run."

Grunnolf

Raver
I would press the button just to watch people go wtf. lol
 

Toshabi

Banned
Banned
I would then the humans will push you out of society for being different.

That's to get you guys into an enclosed, island-like environment. Then I'd sell tickets to big game hunters to have a chance to hunt you guys for good sport. I'd make a killing, we'd have a new method of entertainment, and we'd finally have a use for the furries that could benefit modern day society.


Think of it like deadman's wonderland.
 

benignBiotic

Banned
Banned
I hate humanity as a species. The transgressions we've made against nature are appalling and they make me feel guilty just belonging to the species. Having said that if I was to become a furry I'd miss my human life on some level. I guess if everyone would be changing I could get used to it. It would be nice to have attractive creatures everywhere 'sted of just overweight suburban people.
 

Attaman

"I say we forget this business and run."
I hate humanity as a species. The transgressions we've made against nature
What transgressions? I challenge you to name one "crime" - outside of nuclear power, which is a scientific understanding - that we have committed that is not matched in any way, shape, or form in nature. Go on, I dare you. Remember that this means thievery, rape, murder, genocide, ecological destruction, intentionally and unintentionally causing extinctions, upsetting foodchains, introducing invasive species, and so-on are all invalid answers as they're extremely handily shown in nature. Fuck, we have examples of zoophilia in nature even with what I believe was either a Walrus or a Seal mounting an unfortunate penguin out of sexual frustration. So you'd have to try pretty hard to come up with something that comes off as a reasonable excuse to hate "humans" for their crimes that doesn't make you hate the rest of the globe's species.

It would be nice to have attractive creatures everywhere 'sted of just overweight suburban people.
Oh god, you're one of "those people" who honestly think that physically being human is what makes someone evil, lazy, ugly, and / or so on, and that just changing their physique would suddenly make MORALLY UPSTANDING HIVE MIND.
 

benignBiotic

Banned
Banned
What transgressions? I challenge you to name one "crime" - outside of nuclear power, which is a scientific understanding - that we have committed that is not matched in any way, shape, or form in nature.
Two words: Factory. Farming. Predators cause suffering in their prey and 'murder' for their food yes. But what no other animal on Earth does is raise their food animals in horrifying, deplorable, confined conditions only for them to finally be granted death. No other animal de-beaks their chickens to keep them from attacking one another out of anxiety. But of course anesthesia would be expensive in that case right? So the workers just lop it off. And then there's veal...

It has been said that the meat industry is responsible for more suffering than any other human institution. Hell in the US alone "the meat industry kills 100 million mammals and 5 billion birds annually" (Animal rights: A Short Introduction). Make sure you give the enormity of those numbers a chance to settle in. If there is any other single species that routinely causes as much suffering as we do I don't know what it is. Don't get upset meat eaters. I do not blame you for eating meat. Honestly, almost all my loved ones eat meat and I don't think any less of them for it. I blame the factory farming industry for being manipulative, underhanded and above all cruel.

Of course if factory farming isn't a satisfactory example there's the mass clubbings of baby seals for fashion clothing or the culling of the wolves in Yellowstone Park to near extinction. Other animals kill for food, self defense, and yes some even murder. Lions gladly kill the cubs of rival males. Some animal species have even been known to have little 'wars' with rival groups. But none are so wildly destructive as we are. There's the matter of our much more permanent and damaging pollution also.

Now to clarify... I've never done all that. I'm a vegetarian (working on going vegan). I've been out tagging turtles and volunteering at wild animal hospitals. However it is humans who have perpetrated these crimes and I feel guilt for it. Animals are moral agents and as such they have rights in and of themselves. I don't believe we have a right to mistreat them so egregiously. In my eyes humans are doing wrong and I make it my job to abate the damage as much as possible. I've come to realize that as my purpose in life.

Oh god, you're one of "those people" who honestly think that physically being human is what makes someone evil, lazy, ugly, and / or so on, and that just changing their physique would suddenly make MORALLY UPSTANDING HIVE MIND.
Incorrect assumption. What you quoted was an afterthought which I might rephrase to: "I find furries hotter than humans so if they ere all over the place I wouldn't have a problem with that." No moral presumptions to speak of in my statement.

I'm not sure this is a discussion we need to continue in this thread, but I'd be happy to talk with you via PM.
 

Attaman

"I say we forget this business and run."
Predators cause suffering in their prey and 'murder' for their food yes.
And for fun. And to rape a mother to have more babies (by killing her old ones). And because they aren't their kids. And sometimes even just 'cause.

But what no other animal on Earth does is raise their food animals in horrifying, deplorable, confined conditions only for them to finally be granted death.
Well, seeing as you're justifying murder for food, I'd say we're in the clear here. Unless you're going for the combination of torture before consumption, which, erm, is still done by a lot of things naturally. Often times a favored trick in the natural kingdom is to chase weaker animals to the point of exhaustion then rip 'em apart and eat them alive. And if you think most slaughter is done slowly / painfully in meat industries, fun fact: It isn't. Meat you sell and plan to eat doesn't come from slowly killed animals left to bleed out over several minutes as their innards are devoured.

No other animal de-beaks their chickens to keep them from attacking one another out of anxiety.
Nope, they'll just do shit like dunk it in a vat of acid and wait until it either drowns or dissolves enough to finally have vital organs vanish. Or maybe repeatedly drop them from very large heights until they explode open to release all the delicious goodness within. Or sometimes for fun you'll see a feline do something like flay an animal alive, not even eat it, just skin a rabbit and leave the carcass.

It has been said that the meat industry is responsible for more suffering than any other human institution.
You know what else is? Mother Nature.

Hell in the US alone "the meat industry kills 100 million mammals and 5 billion birds annually"
Hrm, if you want to play this game, it's fine by me. Let's just compare the total kill count of the US - recall that it's about 320 million people - to what some other animal populations go through in a similar period of time. After all, if you're condemning us for an average of about .33 mammal and 16 bird kills (on average) per person per year, any species that matches or surpasses must be even worse.

About how often is the common, mouse-eating snake supposed to be fed again? From what I can find of the Corn Snake, it's about 1 Mouse / Week. This puts them at an average kill count - without over or under feeding, mind - of about... oh my. 52 mice / year. That's a little over three times the number of industry kills per year per Corn Snake.

Make sure you give the enormity of those numbers a chance to settle in.
Would you like me to pull up the numbers of damage for invasive species such as Snakeheads, Zebra Mussels, Cane Toads, and so-on?

If there is any other single species that routinely causes as much suffering as we do I don't know what it is.
Well, I've kinda just shown that cane snakes have a direct ratio three times higher than the average consumer of the US meat industry. That was with about ten seconds of Google searching. Looking up Cane Toads in Australia, they've dropped the Argus Monitor population by some 90% in ~70 years, threaten some 75 crocodile and turtle species' in Australia alone (they have become invasive in more spaces), etc. Zebra Mussels - something barely more than muscle, shell, and gills - have killed some tens of thousands of birds in the last generation alone simply by filtering water.

I blame the factory farming industry for being manipulative, underhanded and above all cruel.
I'll note that, often times, the conditions of factory farming (at least in the US) are exaggerated when it comes to how common some behaviors are. Extremely unsanitary farms are a disaster waiting to happen when the FDA comes to visit (since they'll crack down on anything that'll lead to products being unfit for general consumption).

Of course if factory farming isn't a satisfactory example there's the mass clubbings of baby seals for fashion clothing or the culling of the wolves in Yellowstone Park to near extinction.
So, if I brought up that Dolphins will frequently gang up on a recent mother's calf, isolate her while the rest of the pod bludgeons the pup to death, then come back and take turns raping her, you'd agree that they are horrific beings too? Or maybe if we tried to look up the numbers for how many lion cubs have been slaughtered by wandering males? How about Orcas tossing about previously-living-now-carcass animals like beanbags? Chimps declaring less-mechanized manners of war against neighboring tribes? Any of these work for ya?

Other animals kill for food, self defense, and yes some even murder.
Many hundreds of animal species murder, that I can think of off the top of my head, for a variety of reasons ranging from "being a dick" and "shits and giggles" all the way to "Eh, it's what I do". Outside those the numbers range easily into the many, many thousands, if not millions (or even low billions, since we don't know the full arthropod or aquatic species count by anywhere near its total amount).

But none are so wildly destructive as we are.
Oh yes, they are. Unless you're going to condemn every single person for the entire race's killcount, in which case we're working on averages (and as shown very early on, down that road you're talking about mass genocide of most predatory species and invasive species), you're not going to win this argument.

There's the matter of our much more permanent and damaging pollution also.
Zebra Mussels, again, as an example. Furthermore, while pollution on the atmosphere is a concern, damaging ecosystems in and of themselves is - once more - readily matched in nature.

I'm not arguing that humans are flawless. I'm saying that by your logic you should hate the vast majority of the natural kingdom and anything more malevolent than the common maple.

Animals are moral agents
What.

I'm sorry, I just... what.

Incorrect assumption. What you quoted was an afterthought which I might rephrase to: "I find furries hotter than humans so if they ere all over the place I wouldn't have a problem with that." No moral presumptions to speak of in my statement.
So, your issue is less that humans are monsters (which is generally shown to be false unless considering a vast portion of nature to be similarly / further monstrous), but that they aren't sexy enough.

I'm not sure this is a discussion we need to continue in this thread, but I'd be happy to talk with you via PM.
It's been done a few times before. Misanthropy is a very common topic in this thread.
 

Kit H. Ruppell

Exterminieren! Exterminieren!
BB is taking this to an irrational level. The point remains that, as a highly intelligent and technologized as we supposedly are, we have no good reason to consciously mistreat other species.
 
Last edited:

benignBiotic

Banned
Banned
First of all I meant that animals have moral status, not that they are moral agents. My mistake. 'Moral Status' implies that a being has value in and of itself (IE: Regardless of usefulness to humans). In other words, sentient animals have the right to live unconfined and free of suffering.

Well, seeing as you're justifying murder for food, I'd say we're in the clear here. Unless you're going for the combination of torture before consumption, which, erm, is still done by a lot of things naturally. Often times a favored trick in the natural kingdom is to chase weaker animals to the point of exhaustion then rip 'em apart and eat them alive. And if you think most slaughter is done slowly / painfully in meat industries, fun fact: It isn't. Meat you sell and plan to eat doesn't come from slowly killed animals left to bleed out over several minutes as their innards are devoured.
All animals (including humans) can murder for their food yes. Humans though could end a tremendous amount of suffering by not paying into factory farming.
With a few passages you described the manifold acts of cruelty other animals commit. Let me illustrate my point (that humans are guilty of worse acts than other animals) by drawing a difference in degree and kind with regard to causing suffering. All of the instances of animal-caused suffering you put forth take place in the victims last moments or hours. Before the victim is caught or trapped it is living a presumably normal life engaging its natural instincts. Skip over to a chicken 'farm' where, from hatching, the animals live the extent of their lives in awful conditions. Alternatively imagine you were in the natural world fending for yourself. A lion catches you, hamstrings you, and suffocates you. Dead. Or you could be raised, mutilated, in a 7x7 cage filled with dozens of other humans for X years. It sounds extreme, but that's what we're dealing with. Forcing an animal to live an unnatural life, in suffering. You say that 'Mother Nature' is cruel and I'll grant that it certainly isn't forgiving, but the fact of human-caused suffering is that we can do something to stop it. We can do things to stop natural suffering too. Humans with our tools, medicine, and 7 billions are very influential. Like Kit says there's no reason why we should have to cause the kind of suffering observed in the factory farming process.

Would you like me to pull up the numbers of damage for invasive species such as Snakeheads, Zebra Mussels, Cane Toads, and so-on?
Are you using invasive as another example of animal-caused suffering? I'll give you that. Invasives, when they arrive in their new habitat, will follow their instincts and might ravage the new evirons causing famine, decreased life quality, and suffering for the natives. Here's the difference between invasive-caused suffering and human-caused: We can choose. An invasive is like "Oh sweet I can eat all this greenery and no one around here can compete with me." So it does. But humans don't need to eat meat. We don't have to make billions of animal live in suffering.

Oh yes, they are. Unless you're going to condemn every single person for the entire race's killcount, in which case we're working on averages (and as shown very early on, down that road you're talking about mass genocide of most predatory species and invasive species), you're not going to win this argument.
What I am saying is that humans have done, and continue to do many bad things. That is one thing I take for granted in life. Whether other people take the guilt for that, or not, is their prerogative. I for one can't stand the guilt which is why I take action.

I'm not arguing that humans are flawless. I'm saying that by your logic you should hate the vast majority of the natural kingdom and anything more malevolent than the common maple.
OK so when I said I hate humanity I was being a bit extreme. I don't hate humanity, I hate what we've done to the planet and want to fix it. Naturally I don't hate the actions of the rest of the animal kingdom because, as I have said, I think we do worse.

So, your issue is less that humans are monsters (which is generally shown to be false unless considering a vast portion of nature to be similarly / further monstrous), but that they aren't sexy enough.
Completely missed the point again. I am attracted to furries more than humans so if myself and the humans around me were furries I'd be jazzed. That's all the statement that I made meant. That's it.
 

Attaman

"I say we forget this business and run."
First of all I meant that animals have moral status, not that they are moral agents. My mistake. 'Moral Status' implies that a being has value in and of itself (IE: Regardless of usefulness to humans). In other words, sentient animals have the right to live unconfined and free of suffering.
Good luck having them live free of suffering. Unconfined is possible, yes (though at the same time you'd be looking at hundreds of millions of range-animals slaughtered within very short order so as to allow the remainder to survive, let alone having to kill a greater sum to prevent major ecological impact). Free of suffering, though? You'd have to have humanity play World Police to every animal they could. There's a reason Human Rights often times aren't even enforced globally, let alone everything in nature being watched and protected to such a degree.

With a few passages you described the manifold acts of cruelty other animals commit. Let me illustrate my point (that humans are guilty of worse acts than other animals) by drawing a difference in degree and kind with regard to causing suffering. All of the instances of animal-caused suffering you put forth take place in the victims last moments or hours.
So you're saying suffering is fine, so long as it's in their last few moments of life. Thus, for example, I could take someone and flay them alive for a few hours before murdering them, and I'd be better than a person who kidnaps another human and forces them to live in a hole for a few weeks before putting them down. Disregard that in both cases someone died, and that in the former scenario there was a sharper sensation of pain for their last few moments (a minor point compared to the both still dying bit, though), I'm the lesser evil because my kill was faster.

Alternatively imagine you were in the natural world fending for yourself. A lion catches you, hamstrings you, and suffocates you. Dead.
If you're lucky. If you're unlucky you'll be torn apart limb-by-limb while still alive. Or you might be only severely crippled and left to die from either bloodloss, infection, or from the next predatory pack that runs into you several hours / days later.

Or you could be raised, mutilated, in a 7x7 cage filled with dozens of other humans for X years.
It's fun when you try and take "Lol animul predator kill in seconds, humans years" as the comparison between suffering. Yes, using this logic, Humans are worse. Similarly, a gunman who practices double-tap and kills a few dozen people painlessly is less morally reprehensible than one who leaves one victim fatally injured and crippled and another to bleed out.

You say that 'Mother Nature' is cruel and I'll grant that it certainly isn't forgiving, but the fact of human-caused suffering is that we can do something to stop it.
Erm, not really. Again, we cannot even properly police our ~7 billion population enough to ensure humane treatment of everyone, let alone provide them with basic needs like food and shelter.

We can do things to stop natural suffering too. Humans with our tools, medicine, and 7 billions are very influential.
Well, yes, if you assume we become a drone-like hivemind we can do amazing stuff. That'd only wind up making things worse ecologically overall, though, as it turns out hiveminds have a very poor tendency for doing things like "acts of kindness" for other species. Seems the good of the hive tends not to include playing global gardner.

Like Kit says there's no reason why we should have to cause the kind of suffering observed in the factory farming process.
Correct, a number of farms could and do need officials to sweep through and pull heads from asses. However, I'd keep in mind that Kit's had some rather, hrm, interesting comments about certain subjects (see my sig-quote about his "solution" to people who have mental illnesses or deficiencies).

Are you using invasive as another example of animal-caused suffering?
Seeing as how pretty much every animal has the potential to be an invasive species in some fashion, merely fails to be presented the opportunity (similar to how you'd probably want to evaluate and observe someone who has expressed a desire to slaughter all [demographic] and merely lacks the capability to), yes.

Invasives, when they arrive in their new habitat, will follow their instincts and might ravage the new evirons causing famine, decreased life quality, and suffering for the natives. Here's the difference between invasive-caused suffering and human-caused: We can choose.
Not entirely. We're still, for all our passings and failings, beings of nature and instinct. Someone angry moves to punch you you'll flinch. If startled bad enough you'll scream. Your fight-or-flight triggers rather quickly, if also only slightly from just the half-punch. A very minor example that we do not have perfect control over our bodies, let alone our minds.

Mind, experiments have been done in regards to things such as lying amongst animals and robots. Generally, if the animal is smart enough to actively make any choice or present any thought, you'll see them be a dick and try to keep an extra slice of pie for themselves. Was a rather recent robot-"evolution" experiment which basically lead to the conclusion "Never trust a robot with your life" seeing as how they'd actively lie about which food was bad and which was good to reduce competition and increase their own odds of survival.

An invasive is like "Oh sweet I can eat all this greenery and no one around here can compete with me." So it does. But humans don't need to eat meat. We don't have to make billions of animal live in suffering.
We don't need to eat meat, but that's similar to saying we don't need to have plumbing or need to have medicine. It's still extremely helpful - and healthy - to utilize. Heck, it should be kept in mind that it has only been in recent years we've recovered from the dip in health going from Hunter-Gatherer to Agricultural. This isn't to say Hunter-Gatherers had it easy, but their diet obtained from "Go around constantly killing shit and snatching the occasional plant" tended to lead to better health than "Work the fields and enjoy your potato and wheat diet".

OK so when I said I hate humanity I was being a bit extreme. I don't hate humanity, I hate what we've done to the planet and want to fix it.
A perfectly fine choice. Just don't state that it's only Humanity that does it and that how if Humanity were just more "natural" Earth would be a hunky happy-dory place.

Naturally I don't hate the actions of the rest of the animal kingdom because, as I have said, I think we do worse.
And Fox thought Romney would win by 300+ electoral votes and hold the majority vote. Odd how that worked out with the facts. We do worse in some fields, and hilariously better in others. It'd be great if we could honestly say we do better in every field (that one would want to be better in, anyways), but I'm fine with admitting "Hey, we have flaws, but nature's flawed too".

Completely missed the point again. I am attracted to furries more than humans so if myself and the humans around me were furries I'd be jazzed. That's all the statement that I made meant. That's it.
Which again implies that sexual attraction is at least slightly comparable in terms of values to you as behavior. Otherwise it wouldn't matter to you if the species destroying stuff looked like us, like the average Furry, or like an anthropomorphic blob of cow dung (Hiya Schlock!), it'd still draw ire / concern because of the damage it's causing. It's akin to saying "Well yeah I may be in a room full of rapists, but they look fabulous."
 

Fallowfox

Are we moomin, or are we dancer?
Perhaps benignbiotic originally made a comment that associated the physical form of animals with the balance of nature which humans have disrupted.

Whilst that's a fairytale-like assumption that's pretty much the whole schebang if you're discussing turning everyone into cwoot fwuffy cweatures.



Further curiosities: Nuclear power was suggested as an stricly anthropogenic power. Whilst obviously excluding stars and the heating of the crust and mantle from fissile isotopes it should also be noted that NUCLEAR REACTORS ACTUALLY OCCUR IN NATURE ON EARTH: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_nuclear_fission_reactor

I was amazed and surprised when I discovered this.
 
Last edited:

benignBiotic

Banned
Banned
Attaman I'm done arguing. I'm not going to change my mind and I'm thinking you won't change yours. Bottom line: Yes if I could change myself and everyone around me into furries I would go for it.
 

Kit H. Ruppell

Exterminieren! Exterminieren!
Further curiosities: Nuclear power was suggested as an stricly anthropogenic power. Whilst obviously excluding stars and the heating of the crust and mantle from fissile isotopes it should also be noted that NUCLEAR REACTORS ACTUALLY OCCUR IN NATURE ON EARTH: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_nuclear_fission_reactor

I was amazed and surprised when I discovered this.

Da fuqqing fuq? That might explain some famous 'disappearances' of stuff in ancient history.
 

Rukani

Member
I'd love to become my fursona, but if I was any other anthro I doubt I would enjoy it nearly as much, I'd just love to walk around on digitigrade legs and have a tail and a long beak and I'd just stare at myself in the mirror all dayomg I'm so vain.
 
Da fuqqing fuq? That might explain some famous 'disappearances' of stuff in ancient history.

Had about the same reaction when I first heard about these myself. Fortunately, I think that the last known one of these went dark millions maybe even billions of years ago. There are no known active ones now, that I'm aware of anyways, could be wrong.
 

DarrylWolf

Banned
Banned
Let's see: struggling WASPy college student in the human world with no job, no girlfriend, and outdated musical tastes.

Or I could be a multi-millionaire wolf from Philadelphia with a six or seven-figure income who "scores" like Wilt Chamberlain and could bring back the 1970's if he wanted.

Hmmm, that's a real tough choice.
 

Furryjones

Member
I'd press the button, I find I belong more as my fursona then in my own human skin. And I wouldn't even mind if I was the only one affected. I crave uniqueness in the world.
 

Ruastin

The IdaFur
You know... This a tough one.. We created ourselves in a different body, so I do not see how it would be different. For the first few days it would be like OMG then what? back to the same life doing the same thing


(I would press it, I like my Sona better than me)
 
Top