What bothers you the most about the furry fandom?

[Rustic Fox Akio]

Sorry if I mistranslated.

The words of the Minority tends to speak louder than the majority which becomes an issue in the future.
Reminds me of when I First saw "Anna meets the Furries" documentary. It made me laugh and disappointed at the same time.

Hahaha, I'll have to look it up. And no worries.

 

[PriestRevan]

If it makes you feel better I hate you for it :V .

Thanks. <3

 

[Verin Asper]

SPARKLEDOGS....*goes back to reading

 

[Gavrill]

There's a pretty big difference between 4-12 year olds and teenagers :1
Age of consent for sex-type stuff in Australia is 16 :V Most problems caused by underage sex really come down to lack of education in the matter rather than the age of the people doing it. The main reason I've got to resent cub yiff is because it appears to be mostly glorifying the rape of children.

However, let me point out from the side of someone who actually likes it.

I can make the distinction between a character that doesn't exist and a real child. Most everyone who draws/likes it can. I know someone who likes lolicon and teaches preschool children, and she hates them all with a passion. Because there's a distinction.

That's why it's a fetish. Most people can't help what they find arousing, be it furry, lolicon, or hell, even handcuffs and blindfolds. But if someone say, finds handcuffs and blindfolds arousing, that doesn't mean they're going to walk around in handcuffs or try to blindfold people.

What you're saying is that people who draw it have no self-control or distinction to real-world children. However, that's simply not true. Take Oneechan or Desuchan for example. Two sites that put lolicon up almost every day. I've been on both these sites for a long time, and only once was there a "true pedophile". He was immediately banned.

 

[Verin Asper]

However, let me point out from the side of someone who actually likes it.

I can make the distinction between a character that doesn't exist and a real child. Most everyone who draws/likes it can. I know someone who likes lolicon and teaches preschool children, and she hates them all with a passion. Because there's a distinction.

That's why it's a fetish. Most people can't help what they find arousing, be it furry, lolicon, or hell, even handcuffs and blindfolds. But if someone say, finds handcuffs and blindfolds arousing, that doesn't mean they're going to walk around in handcuffs or try to blindfold people.

What you're saying is that people who draw it have no self-control or distinction to real-world children. However, that's simply not true. Take Oneechan or Desuchan for example. Two sites that put lolicon up almost every day. I've been on both these sites for a long time, and only once was there a "true pedophile". He was immediately banned.

was he happen to be from 4chan?

 

[Gavrill]

was he happen to be from 4chan?

Yeah, that dude who got a Fry combo in response. :V

 

[Ozriel]

Hahaha, I'll have to look it up. And no worries.

To save you time.

 

[Kanin]

lol, at 2:52 she says she's like a rabbit because she can run really fast, but just a second before that you saw her walking, she could barely walk. That was the dumbest video EVER.

 

[Ozriel]

lol, at 2:52 she says she's like a rabbit because she can run really fast, but just a second before that you saw her walking, she could barely walk. That was the dumbest video EVER.

I know.
It's funny, but at the same time makes me wanna purge the fandom with fire.


Second Part
Resist...urge...to....purge undesirables.

 

[Ro4dk1ll]

However, let me point out from the side of someone who actually likes it.

I can make the distinction between a character that doesn't exist and a real child. Most everyone who draws/likes it can. I know someone who likes lolicon and teaches preschool children, and she hates them all with a passion. Because there's a distinction.

That's why it's a fetish. Most people can't help what they find arousing, be it furry, lolicon, or hell, even handcuffs and blindfolds. But if someone say, finds handcuffs and blindfolds arousing, that doesn't mean they're going to walk around in handcuffs or try to blindfold people.

What you're saying is that people who draw it have no self-control or distinction to real-world children. However, that's simply not true. Take Oneechan or Desuchan for example. Two sites that put lolicon up almost every day. I've been on both these sites for a long time, and only once was there a "true pedophile". He was immediately banned.

The art is still glorifying the concept of raping children, and absolutely nothing justifies it :1

 

[Gavrill]

The art is still glorifying the concept of raping children, and absolutely nothing justifies it :1

They're not real kids, Christ. Did you even bother to read that? You're basically saying that art is somehow justifying the raping of children when it's not.

Does this justify or glorify suicide?

Does Sublime glorify sex with kids and date rape?

Keep in mind that Lolita is a best-selling novel, Sublime is an award-winning band, and the photographer who published that picture got a huge sum of cash for it.
Because it's art. And if you can't read Lolita because "Omg pedophiles", then you know nothing of how art works.

Tl;dr of any argument I make from now on:
ART =/= REAL LIFE
ART =/= REAL LIFE
ART =/= JUSTIFICATION
ART = AESTHETICS

 

[Ro4dk1ll]

They're not real kids, Christ. Did you even bother to read that? You're basically saying that art is somehow justifying the raping of children when it's not.

Does this justify or glorify suicide?

Does Sublime glorify sex with kids and date rape?

Keep in mind that Lolita is a best-selling novel, Sublime is an award-winning band, and the photographer who published that picture got a huge sum of cash for it.
Because it's art. And if you can't read Lolita because "Omg pedophiles", then you know nothing of how art works.

Neither of those are porn :1 The book is something exploring the topic(In a way other than presenting pictures of kids getting dicked drawn for the sake of acting as a masturbatory aid), and you could argue that the music does but yet again, it's not porn, and can mean something other than "This is great and absolutely sexual, have a wank to it."

 

[Gavrill]

Neither of those are porn :1 The book is something exploring the topic(In a way other than presenting pictures of kids getting dicked drawn for the sake of acting as a masturbatory aid), and you could argue that the music does but yet again, it's not porn, and can mean something other than "This is great and absolutely sexual, have a wank to it."

Well that's why they're called fetishes. They're meant to be extravagant and unusual. And although I do know that the line blurs occasionally, most human beings can make the distinction between real life and what they're drawing.

The point I'm trying to make is that it doesn't justify or glorify anything. You fap/squish to it, then leave it at that. Most people who look at freaky porn don't go "Hey, you know what? Sticking a knife into my penor looks sexy. Maybe I should do it."

Most people are simply aware of the consequences, so even if they do like it in real life, they have their self control.

 

[Ro4dk1ll]

Well that's why they're called fetishes. They're meant to be extravagant and unusual. And although I do know that the line blurs occasionally, most human beings can make the distinction between real life and what they're drawing.

The point I'm trying to make is that it doesn't justify or glorify anything. You fap/squish to it, then leave it at that. Most people who look at freaky porn don't go "Hey, you know what? Sticking a knife into my penor looks sexy. Maybe I should do it."

Most people are simply aware of the consequences, so even if they do like it in real life, they have their self control.

So you've got things I was already completely aware of covered, then :1

I never said porn could justify pedophilia, but porn art is completely different to art itself. Art is used to convey a meaning or as a form of storytelling most of the time, while porn, whether it is drawn or not, is made for the sole purpose of glorifying some sexual subject. And there's absolutely no way you're going to convince me that drawing something that glorifies the rape of children isn't completely and totally morally disgusting and could possibly be justified. I don't give a fuck if the person who's drawing it actually dicks children or not.

 

[Gavrill]

So you've got things I was already completely aware of covered, then :1

I never said porn could justify pedophilia, but porn art is completely different to art itself. Art is used to convey a meaning or as a form of storytelling most of the time, while porn, whether it is drawn or not, is made for the sole purpose of glorifying some sexual subject. And there's absolutely no way you're going to convince me that drawing something that glorifies the rape of children isn't completely and totally morally disgusting and could possibly be justified. I don't give a fuck if the person who's drawing it actually dicks children or not.

It doesn't glorify anything. It's for whacking to. That's it.

Edit: I apologize for being so scattered and not making much sense. I should be asleep @.@

 

[Rustic Fox Akio]

To save you time.

o-o

Thank you, sir.
That first 30 seconds of that was interesting... I should be asleep. -.-

 

[Kanin]

I know.
It's funny, but at the same time makes me wanna purge the fandom with fire.


Second Part
Resist...urge...to....purge undesirables.

1. Why does she always find those creepy old guys?
2. Did you that first guy's hair for the top. lol

 

[Verin Asper]

Bandwagons....darn those otters >[

 

[Ozriel]

1. Why does she always find those creepy old guys?
2. Did you that first guy's hair for the top. lol

I am wondering myself.
I guess for ratings pruposes, they have to find the strangest and most odd people they can find in the furry fandom.

No, I didn't. LOL