Zoness said:
There's an ongoing belief that child porn can be used by pedophiles to condition children into thinking sex with an adult is ok. Thus preying on them.

Children are highly impressionable which is why, while we don't ban gore we still keep it from minors.

And if you cry about what a privately owned site disallows, you're entitled as fuck.

Gore can condition children into thinking people being cut apart is acceptable. It's still a 2-way street.

Furrin_Gok said:
Gore can condition children into thinking people being cut apart is acceptable. It's still a 2-way street.

I can condition children into thinking anything if I just beat them enough.

Children are impressionable, they will naturally believe whatever their parent-figures or persons of authority tell them. That is why a large part of religious children follow the religion of their parents, or that they show interest into whatever their parents show interest in.

As such, I am for banning children from experiencing anything. We can't have these little crotch goblins get impressed by things until they are able to employ critical thinking skills.

NotMeNotYou said:

crotch goblins

http://i0.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/facebook/000/016/729/large.jpg

NotMeNotYou said:
Children are impressionable, they will naturally believe whatever their parent-figures or persons of authority tell them. That is why a large part of religious children follow the religion of their parents, or that they show interest into whatever their parents show interest in.

i read about a study that says teens usually have the same political leanings as their parents, only slightly more radical
which is funny when you consider that people interested in politics usually take pride in how they "think for themselves"

NotMeNotYou said:
I can condition children into thinking anything if I just beat them enough.

Children are impressionable, they will naturally believe whatever their parent-figures or persons of authority tell them.

"safe schools" are indoctrination camps. but...we all already knew that...right?

That is why a large part of religious children follow the religion of their parents

...i shall keep comments of that particular topic to myself and PM's alone. ;) i know what doing otherwise would lead to and don't want more red.

So basically Furry Network, which I never planned to join in the first place, is just another Website just like FA, Weasyl, and the rest. How many of these fucking places do we need?

"By far the most-reported concern recently was people’s discomfort in knowing that the content is permitted and present on the site (even if they can’t see it), and legitimate concerns about being guilty by association or otherwise directly associated with it, particularly through ‘outing’ actions by its vocal detractors. Furry Network is a site which is intended to aid the fandom’s growth and evolution, and to lead to a better future for the community as a whole (See our formal mission statement) – and as such, this concern is one that no technical solution could solve."

This is really stupid. Do people really have a big fuckin' deal with being associated with something they don't like, even though you've already considered yourself a God damn furry in the first place? If you want to be a furry artist that draws SFW, then be that guy/gal. Those people shouldn't have to care about NSFW in the first place.

This is all bullshit that people make up. They claim to "analyze" the furry community. Well, that's not the only thing that's anal about that statement, but anyway...

Well good, have another furry clone Site, and I don't want to be associated with nigger-retarded faggots who think that cub porn means the end of the fucking world or some shit like that. If you don't like it, you don't have to view it. It's as simple as that.

I get really pissed off when I see more Websites who can't get a fucking clue about how to be more unique and help out a more niche community. Instead they are so selfish, and only care about what's most profitable. Well good, so who's left to really care about the furry community, right? That would be e621, Inkbunny, and maybe a few others, like 8chan's Discord channel. FFS.

RubisDrake said:

Well good, have another furry clone Site, and I don't want to be associated with [!!!] who think that cub porn means the end of the fucking world or some shit like that.

You guys ever read a post that's going real smoothly and then suddenly crashes and burns out of nowhere?

Holy shit did this topic rise from the grave.

Tanukiyasha said:
Holy shit did this topic rise from the grave.

multiple times by now yet not as many times or as frequently as the slur tag thread.

hmmm...i wonder how many times you can necro something before theres nothing left to "necro". well, that thought probably doesn't apply to forum threads much.

treos said:
multiple times by now yet not as many times or as frequently as the slur tag thread.

hmmm...i wonder how many times you can necro something before theres nothing left to "necro". well, that thought probably doesn't apply to forum threads much.

Well, i still find it an interesting discussion, being an artist who mostly draws cub themed art.

On a political thread, there is no necromancy. The thread is born a zombie. A zombie made of spiders.

RubisDrake said:
So basically Furry Network, which I never planned to join in the first place, is just another Website just like FA, Weasyl, and the rest. How many of these fucking places do we need?

Furry Network supposedly (I haven't checked if they actual do) enforces tags, similar to InkBunny, but with humans permitted and cubs not. If you try to find something on Furaffinity, good luck! Most artists barely add any tags, if any at all.

If a comment bump has something useful to add and isn't just pointless, it's fine to do.

RE: sites; Each site is good at one/some thing(s) while lacking in others. If there was only a single, all-encompassing website, these other sites would likely not appear in the first place.

savageorange said:
On a political thread, there is no necromancy. The thread is born a zombie. A zombie made of spiders.

demonic spiders in some cases.

So what does demonic represent? Getting stuck in your brain so you never forget it?

(Zombie should be obvious. Spiders for the sudden attacks of utter stupidity that happen to you if you're not prepared, and sometimes even if you are prepared, when your brain says BUT MUH SIDE IS LOSING HERE.)

savageorange said:
So what does demonic represent? Getting stuck in your brain so you never forget it?

(Zombie should be obvious. Spiders for the sudden attacks of utter stupidity that happen to you if you're not prepared, and sometimes even if you are prepared, when your brain says BUT MUH SIDE IS LOSING HERE.)

nope, i was actually referring to this. which in "The thread is born a zombie. A zombie made of spiders." this case would be the opposition having an unfair advantage right from the start.

huh...you know, now that i think about it, that's basically what the anti-cub side of that vote was. since they held the unfair advantage of most people not knowing about the debate when it happened.

Here's the thing.

Most people in this world think that they're the center of attention and the main character of EVERYTHING. and of course along with this, they think that everyone will care about their opinion, and they don't even think about their moral mistakes, because they think others will change because of them. Basically people complain because they think they'll make a difference, but in a more vain way.

I mean, pretty much everyone is like that in some way. In fact, I only wrote this because I think that I know people enough to understand anyone. And even then, eventually I will deny this and all of this will turn into a great big SHIT SHOW OF ARGUING ABOUT WHO IS MORE CORRECT ABOUT THE WORLD AND SHIT LIKE THAT THAT'LL JUST GET EVERYONE TRIGGERED OUT OFF THEIR MINDS AND BASICALLY COMMIT MENTAL SUICIDE OVER

A SINGLE POST THEY COULD HAVE AVOIDED SEEING AGAIN

(I barely even understand what I said as well, so I should just stop now before this gets any worse)

FibS said:

WHY PEOPLE HATE THE SHIT ANYWAY

Ironically, because they are babies.

• Small children are not able to discern anything beyond the superficial. If you show a young child an abstract drawing of an animal, he/she will pick the closest animal they already know and adamantly state that the drawing is of that exact animal. Subsequently, whatever they expect to be traits of that animal will be irrevocably assigned to the creature in the drawing as well. In short, "The closest thing to x I understand is y, therefore x is y".
• Small children also think that everything in the world is divided into two teams: the good guys and the bad guys. Everyone who likes what they like is a good guy and anyone who isn't clearly a good guy must be a bad guy.

Immature adults are no different. Despite the REASONS THE FUCK WHY sex with real children is virtually always abusive and sickly, anti-cubs do not and cannot comprehend them, instead presuming that everything that looks enough like a child literally is a child no tag-backs and therefore automatically off-limits end of discussion.

To even consider otherwise would mean they were not on the GOOD GUY team which would instantly make them BAD GUYS. This means they will go out of their way to stretch what constitutes a child in order to avoid bad guy-ness as much as possible.

These mechanics are also responsible for:

• "Furry is the same as zoophilia"
• "Natural is good and artificial is bad" / "Vaccines give u autism!!"
• "Um wow furry artist try being ~anatomically correct~ where's the [udder / cloaca / etc.]"

Hmmm, except grooming is an actual thing that exists
Abusive, reprehensible people regularly show impressionable young children drawn CP to condition them into thinking it's a normal thing, that everyone does it, and that effectively brainwashes them
This of course leads to trauma and development of mental illness, and later in life can even start a cycle of abuse where they repeat what happened to them to other innocent children
And no, this ISN'T a double standard re: violent media because science has studied whether violent themes in music, television, and video games amplify childrens' aggression since Columbine happened, and the results have always been inconclusive, as opposed to being exposed to sexual content which is literally CONFIRMED to fuck up development. Of course, that isn't to say violence doesn't effect children at all, but unless it's being inflicted upon them by a parent or a bully or something, it's not going to do much to them, as opposed to being shown pornography and/or being raped.

This next paragraph is just my personal belief and I have read no actual evidence regarding it, but I think some of it might have to do with the context of how it's introduced. Let me explain: In, say, a video game or movie, there's almost always a plot, an explanation of what's happening and why it's happening. Children might not understand the sociopolitical implications of war, but they DO get that the enemies are "bad" (from their point of view, at least) and need to be stopped. Whether they're playing the game/watching the movie, watching someone else playing the game/watching the movie, or they walk in at the wrong time, catch a glimpse of it, and their big sibling/parent tells them it's not for kids, it's a simple enough thing. Meanwhile, if a child accesses pornography, there's only three realistic situations where that'd take place: 1. Snooping around dad's room/the internet, stumbling across it, and being freaked out by it and running away; 2. As above, walking in at the wrong time and catching a glimpse of it, leading whoever was watching it to hastily shove them out and have an awkward talk about it later; or 3. Being intentionally shown it by someone else, either a pedophile or another child who's been groomed by a pedophile, and being told that it's a "cool/fun/natural" thing that everybody does beforehand to keep them somewhat calmer.

THIS paragraph, on the other hand, is based entirely in fact. This (i.e. sex, and by extension images portraying it) is something that a child would have no actual experience with or knowledge of, and only in the event where they're being actively preyed upon are they given any "information" at the time, which is deliberately an attempt to manipulate them. And if that actually happens, the kid really has no choice but to believe what they're told because if they're at that point where someone is showing them something like that, they clearly trust the predator in question. On-the-street kidnappings are such an astronomically rare occurrence that it'd pretty much have to be a relative or someone they consider a "friend". And more convincing than showing actual, completely legal images of two consenting adults, would be of an adult and a child, or of just children, making the kid more likely to submit because of the other child, just like them, involved in it. They could also be enticed by, say, a drawing of their favorite cartoon character(s) having sex, if the child is still apprehensive. This is safer on a molester's moral compass because the child could be made to "consent", which is less risky than straight-up assault. (Never mind that it would still count as statutory rape even if by some miracle the kid was NOT manipulated and coerced, and in fact even in the absolutely implausible scenario that the CHILD came onto them first. It's an easy way for a self-described "child lover" (笑) to detach themselves from other rapists and assuage the guilt, despite it still being clear-cut abuse either way.)

You could argue, of course, that access to fictional underage sexual content would stop people from raping children. That may very well be a valid point. But this doesn't change the fact that actual IRL child pornography is still being produced and distributed, and I would wager that many of the victimized children have been exposed to loli, shota, and/or cub to convince them to agree to it. Believe what you want to, but that's undeniable.

Anyways I'm gonna hop out of this thread forever because I want to forget all about the fact that this is even something people debate about so don't bother trying to sealion me

ohmanwhatsthis said:
Hmmm, except grooming is an actual thing that exists
Abusive, reprehensible people regularly show impressionable young children drawn CP to condition them into thinking it's a normal thing, that everyone does it, and that effectively brainwashes them

Citation needed.

This of course leads to trauma and development of mental illness, and later in life can even start a cycle of abuse where they repeat what happened to them to other innocent children

Again, citation needed.

And no, this ISN'T a double standard re: violent media because science has studied whether violent themes in music, television, and video games amplify childrens' aggression since Columbine happened, and the results have always been inconclusive, as opposed to being exposed to sexual content which is literally CONFIRMED to fuck up development.

"Literally CONFIRMED" by whom?

THIS paragraph, on the other hand, is based entirely in fact. This (i.e. sex, and by extension images portraying it) is something that a child would have no actual experience with or knowledge of, and only in the event where they're being actively preyed upon are they given any "information" at the time, which is deliberately an attempt to manipulate them.

So, schools with sex ed classes are actually grooming facilities for child molesters? Also, kids who tell each other dirty jokes are actually somehow magically adults with really devious ulterior motives? And what happens if Little Tommy finds Daddy's Playboy magazine collection and starts flipping through looking at the pretty pictures? Is Daddy manipulating him by proxy? Or is Hugh Hefner doing it instead?

And more convincing than showing actual, completely legal images of two consenting adults

It's actually not legal to show kids images of two consenting adults. It's called "contributing to the delinquence of a minor," and it most certainly is NOT legal.

would be of an adult and a child, or of just children, making the kid more likely to submit because of the other child, just like them, involved in it. They could also be enticed by, say, a drawing of their favorite cartoon character(s) having sex, if the child is still apprehensive. This is safer on a molester's moral compass because the child could be made to "consent", which is less risky than straight-up assault. (Never mind that it would still count as statutory rape even if by some miracle the kid was NOT manipulated and coerced, and in fact even in the absolutely implausible scenario that the CHILD came onto them first. It's an easy way for a self-described "child lover" (笑) to detach themselves from other rapists and assuage the guilt, despite it still being clear-cut abuse either way.)

Could. Might. Potentially. Maybe. Possibly. Your post is filled with this kind of wording. So far, your post, which you have claimed is "based entirely in fact," is in fact pure speculation. And what a person might do with loli or cub is not a valid reason to ban loli or cub. An angry driver might potentially possibly maybe decide to run the guy who just cut him off on the freeway off the side of a bridge, but what he might do is no excuse to ban all automobiles.

You could argue, of course, that access to fictional underage sexual content would stop people from raping children. That may very well be a valid point. But this doesn't change the fact that actual IRL child pornography is still being produced and distributed, and I would wager that many of the victimized children have been exposed to loli, shota, and/or cub to convince them to agree to it. Believe what you want to, but that's undeniable.

Again, a child molester using loli/shota/cub to entice a child into allowing them to molest them is not a reason to claim cub/loli/shota is itself a bad thing. Blame the child molester for his actions, not the media he uses to try to entice the kid into letting him do it. You can't even blame the real life CP for his actions, his actions are his own.

Anyways I'm gonna hop out of this thread forever because I want to forget all about the fact that this is even something people debate about so don't bother trying to sealion me

And this paragraph is precisely the reason I posted this response. You posted this big long comment here that's chock full of baseless assertions, logical fallacies, and personal opinion which you've stated as though it were absolute proven fact, and yet you somehow expect people not to respond? Uh, that's not how it works.

And one more thing: don't try to cop out on me here by saying "Google it" or "educate yourself" in response to my requests for evidence that backs your claims up. It is not my job to prove your point for you; that job goes squarely to you, and only to you.

Don't feed the troll. The very fact that they came out with all those unsupported assertions and finished it by implying objections == sealioning, says quite clearly to me they are not interested in being reasonable or truthful.

ohmanwhatsthis said:
Hmmm, except grooming is an actual thing that exists
Abusive, reprehensible people regularly show impressionable young children drawn CP to condition them into thinking it's a normal thing, that everyone does it, and that effectively brainwashes them

maybe but would the artist really be at fault so much as those using the resulting art to perform such acts?

And no, this ISN'T a double standard re: violent media because science has studied whether violent themes in music, television, and video games amplify childrens' aggression since Columbine happened, and the results have always been inconclusive, as opposed to being exposed to sexual content which is literally CONFIRMED to fuck up development.

don't know about the other stuff but no, violent video games do not lead to more violence. do NOT listen to mainstream media on this BS as they're wrong. if anything violent video games can help reduce the chances of violent activity.

Of course, that isn't to say violence doesn't effect children at all, but unless it's being inflicted upon them by a parent or a bully or something, it's not going to do much to them, as opposed to being shown pornography and/or being raped.

agreed with InannaEloah.

You could argue, of course, that access to fictional underage sexual content would stop people from raping children. That may very well be a valid point. But this doesn't change the fact that actual IRL child pornography is still being produced and distributed, and I would wager that many of the victimized children have been exposed to loli, shota, and/or cub to convince them to agree to it. Believe what you want to, but that's undeniable.

again, agreed with what InannaEloah said. " Blame the child molester for his actions, not the media he uses to try to entice the kid into letting him do it."

InannaEloah: "And one more thing: don't try to cop out on me here by saying "Google it" or "educate yourself" in response to my requests for evidence that backs your claims up. It is not my job to prove your point for you; that job goes squarely to you, and only to you."

ugh, boy do i hate when people try to do that. provide proof yourself when it's requested. don't try to get others to prove your point for you. and don't try to twist words around so that we prove your point just by arguing with you.

So what i learned from another thread:

1: FN did nothing wrong.

2: Nobody gave a shit about the ban.

3: I'm fucking retarded.

Serperior09876 said:
So what i learned from another thread:

1: FN did nothing wrong.

2: Nobody gave a shit about the ban.

3: I'm fucking retarded.

It's not that no one gave a shit, it's that you were sorta acting like a high and mighty jerk. :<

HypnoBitch said:
It's not that no one gave a shit, it's that you were sorta acting like a high and mighty jerk. :<

I can only ask for forgiveness.

I'm fucking dumb.

Serperior09876 said:
So what i learned from another thread:

1: FN did nothing wrong.

2: Nobody gave a shit about the ban.

3: I'm fucking retarded.

Ugh... I'm gonna try my best to settle this.

1. FN did what was in THEIR best interest, as a site wanting to progress/be successful. They took a gamble by allowing cub at first, and for a while, it went unchallenged, but the moment someone began to rally people against it, it had to go. Why? Because the merchant system the site was based around doesn't really care about the specifics of themes in art, and how they don't actually apply to real world counterparts. They care about making money and being successful, and when you have people taking to various sites and putting FN on blast saying they allow CP, is full of pedophiles, etc, they're gonna drop FN like it's hot, which will result in the site's death. In the end cub art/artists are a minute fraction of the fandom, so in the face of odds that were stacked against them, ultimately keeping cub art wasn't worth it.

2. Plenty of people gave a shit about the ban, and were rightfully angry about it, but in the end what can they really do? You can put forward the most well thought out, researched, and put together argument possible for defending cub art, but at the end of the day all it takes is one message/tweet/etc saying "OMG they're defending CP! Wadda pedo!" and everything's thrown out the window and the majority's going to take the side of the person opposing. Because ultimately the subject of "underage nudity/porn" is a considerably touchy and taboo subject in society/general, not just furry art, and not many want to be seen openly defending it, regardless of whether or not it's actually "wrong" in said circumstance.

3. And no, but you were rather dense in the face of people giving you the facts of why things are the way they are. They might not be the answers you wanted to hear, but they're answers none the less.

Serperior09876 said:
I can only ask for forgiveness.

I'm fucking dumb.

Well, if it eases you, I forgive you at least.

http://bit.ly/2glCcpL

werewolfscanbegaytoo said:
//bit.ly/2glCcpL

oo that's a good one.

werewolfscanbegaytoo said:
http://bit.ly/2glCcpL

Not really a necro, the thread wasn't that old.

Furrin_Gok said:
Not really a necro, the thread wasn't that old.

Bumping a thread almost a month old when a living and identical one got locked hours beforehand isn't a necro? It wasn't super old, but it was still dead

I doubt "lock evasion" is technically a thing, but I'd be surprised if this didn't annoy the mods.

werewolfscanbegaytoo said:
Bumping a thread almost a month old when a living and identical one got locked hours beforehand isn't a necro?

Once again, 'necroposting' isn't something we care about.
There's no rules against bumping old threads. If it isn't locked and you have something relevant to say, feel free to reply.

(Complaining about necroposting, on the other hand, is never relevant.)

Sup guys just necroing this thread because somebody mentioned necroing this thread.

Facts are sad but art travels fast. We can get our imaginary cp elsewhere.