I will start this by saying I don't mean I think we should ban feral art as that artwork isn't people straight up announcing they want to fuck real animals unlike zoophiles.

I believe we should ban artwork that uses the actual zoophile flag/symbol and by admitting that you are a zoophile should be treated just like how TOS currently treats people who talk about irl being paedophiles.
The flag used by zoophiles is more or less a way to try and get a way to get false sympathy (by copying the general design of a real pride flag) similar to what MAPS (pedos) did and sadly in the furry fandom it has worked and I believe if we can ban it then we can nip that issue in the bud before it gets even worse.

You might ask yourself "why should I care let people do what they want?" Well, not only is it giving the furry fandom as a whole a really really bad name as by allowing real animal abuser to make art and upload it onto E621 we are basically saying we support his behaviour, E621 is one of the largest furry NSFW sites if not the biggest so we are always in the spot light and we are expect to represent the NSFW site of the fandom.

corrupted-funk said:
I believe we should ban artwork that portrays zoophile (aka those who are sexual attracted to real animals) in a positive light to be banned

No. If you don't want to see it, you can blacklist it. There are plenty of things here that I don't care to see, but as long as it doesn't directly encourage real-life illegal action, it's not our place to play moral police. Further, it would be extremely difficult to draw a line between feral art and "zoophile art". For some people, furry porn alone is zoophilic in nature already, so where would the line be?

corrupted-funk said:
You might ask yourself "why should I care let people do what they want?" Well, not only is it giving the furry fandom as a whole a really really bad name as by allowing real animal abuser to make art and upload it onto E621

I thought you were talking about zoophilia art, where did real-life animal abusers come into the picture?

watsit said:
No. If you don't want to see it, you can blacklist it. There are plenty of things here that I don't care to see, but as long as it doesn't directly encourage real-life illegal action, it's not our place to play moral police. Further, it would be extremely difficult to draw a line between feral art and "zoophile art". For some people, furry porn alone is zoophilic in nature already, so where would the line be?

I thought you were talking about zoophilia art, where did real-life animal abusers come into the picture?

Did you read anything I said? Zoophiles aka the people who in real have a sexual attraction to real animals. and why should I blacklist it? This isn't something we can ignore! Why should I ignore the fact real world animal rapists are being allowed to post on this site it doesn't make sense.
I was referring to the 'zoo pride' art. Which is currently being used by zoophiles to find each other on e621. - example https://e621.net/posts/3031444 the character is holding the zoophile flag.
Also, I said animal abuse as last i checked people raping real animals is considered animal abuse

corrupted-funk said:
I will start this by saying I don't mean I think we should ban feral art as that artwork has no real life repercussions and doesnt actually straight up annoced you like real animals unlike....

I believe we should ban artwork that uses the actual zoophile flag/symbol

No, artwork is artwork. Use your blacklist. A person drawing nazis does not necessarily support nazis.

corrupted-funk said:
by admitting that you are a zoophile should be treated just like how TOS currently treats people who talk about irl being paedophiles.

Pretty sure that's already a thing. Report users who are admitting to something like that.

furrin_gok said:
No, artwork is artwork. Use your blacklist. A person drawing nazis does not necessarily support nazis.

Pretty sure that's already a thing. Report users who are admitting to something like that.

Did you read anything I said? Also, why should I blacklist? these people actually rape animals, why is wrong to say we should ban post that say shit like 'zoo pride' people are literally admitting to fucking real animals how am I the one in the wrong here?

Currently its not against the rules, they only get in trouble if they admit to actually fucking animals, they can say they are zoophiles all they want (despite the dictionary definition being the sexual attraction to real animals) and they wont be banned.

corrupted-funk said:
Did you read anything I said? Also, why should I blacklist? these people actually rape animals, why is wrong to say we should ban post that say shit like 'zoo pride' people are literally admitting to fucking real animals why am I in the wrong here?
Currently its not against the rules to ban it only if they admit to the actions, they can say they are zoophiles all they want and they wont be banned.

Where did they admitted ever abusing animals? Just because someone has zoophilia (attraction to animals) it doesn't mean they ACT or WILL ACT on it, if you see someone saying that they ACTED ON IT, IRL. Please report them. Otherwise just move on and blacklist.

no

Smells like underage, considering you've already been warned to use your blacklist after bickering over bestiality content... which is weird, considering you commented on a bestiality piece saying you wanted more of it. The passive-aggressive remark in your profile regarding this is also gold.

sieghelm_lockayer said:
Where did they admitted ever abusing animals? Just because someone has zoophilia (attraction to animals) it doesn't mean they ACT or WILL ACT on it, if you see someone saying that they ACTED ON IT, IRL. Please report them. Otherwise just move on and blacklist.

I'm going to guess your a zoophile yourself or something, which case ew get off the e621.
Its not attraction to animals, its sexual attraction to real animals, there's a reason why both paedophile and zoophile have -phile in the name.
Also, why are you telling me to blacklist, the point of this part of the website is to start a conversation, not just to shoot down peoples ideas and concerns.

votp said:
Smells like underage, considering you've already been warned to use your blacklist after bickering over bestiality content... which is weird, considering you commented on a bestiality piece saying you wanted more of it. The passive-aggressive remark in your profile regarding this is also gold.

why do you know what underage smells like lol
you can read peoples profiles yet not the fucking contexts.... that the real comedy gold

Tell ya what, you can go live on Furry Life Online if it bothers you this much, dude. Whooole site has a hardline stance, so you'll never have to every see it again. Except for dragons, for some reason.
Also, it smells like Axe/Lynx.

Looks like people can't read on this site and they get trigged by people using the forums for what they are meant for, that being to share opinions.
I was referring to post like this https://e621.net/posts/3031444 which if you recognise the flag is the zoo 'pride flag' which is people are sexually attracted to real animals. This post and many others is used by zoophiles to normalize their actions and try and integrate into the furry fandom, if your willing to listen then a similar thing happened with LGBTQ as after stonewall pedos tried to use their coat tails and make paedophile legal by pretending to be part of the community and downplaying what they actually were.

now there is a line, example. You have cub content in your favorites. Doesn't mean you want to actually go fuck children.
Is it uncomfortable when people are open about having a irl zoo attraction? Yes. But unless there is proof of them committing animal abuse or someone admitting animal abuse it's meaningless. Particularly because symbolism in art can either be self representation or fantastical depictions. Considering I'm pretty sure this is in reference to the post with the feral with a flag in their mouth that could also just be shitposting on whoever likes the post. Censoring art you don't like and accusing people who don't agree with you of felonies isn't very cash money.

Why should I have to blacklist? precisely because you don't like something and because people don't like seeing people complain about it. no-ones happy in the result of not blacklisting including yourself.

Hell, even with the pedo comment people sayings 'attracted to children' probably would get a record of tmi or some crap for that but I don't think they would get banned as it's not an admittance to child abuse. People can realize their is a problem with the thoughts they have without acting on them.

An example we can all relate to I'm sure is 'I've wanted to commit serious harm to someone' without actually committing great harm to someone because they know it's wrong.

corrupted-funk said:
I'm going to guess your a zoophile yourself or something, which case ew get off the e621.

Now that's just defamation, which is against the TOS.

corrupted-funk said:
Its not attraction to animals, its sexual attraction to real animals, there's a reason why both paedophile and zoophile have -phile in the name.

Cinephile, anglophile, bibliophile... I would recommend looking it up. In any case, as they said, an attraction to something is not equivalent to a desire to have sex with something. A person can have both, or just one, so someone having one of those doesn't inherently mean they have the other too.

corrupted-funk said:
Also, why are you telling me to blacklist, the point of this part of the website is to start a conversation, not just to shoot down peoples ideas and concerns.

Currently it looks like you're falsely equating zoophilia with animal abuse, thus claiming anyone who identifies as a zoophile is actually an animal abuser. Making comments, threads, or statements to cause unrest or defame someone is against the rules.

versperus said:
now there is a line, example. You have cub content in your favorites. Doesn't mean you want to actually go fuck children.
Is it uncomfortable when people are open about having a irl zoo attraction? Yes. But unless there is proof of them committing animal abuse or someone admitting animal abuse it's meaningless. Particularly because symbolism in art can either be self representation or fantastical depictions. Considering I'm pretty sure this is in reference to the post with the feral with a flag in their mouth that could also just be shitposting on whoever likes the post. Censoring art you don't like and accusing people who don't agree with you of felonies isn't very cash money.
Why should I have to blacklist? precisely because you don't like something and because people don't like seeing people complain about it. no-ones happy in the result of not blacklisting including yourself.

A bit confused by what your trying to explain/show with this? and that person isn't shit-posting check their twitter it is disturbing.
This isn't about me not liking something if that's all it was I wouldnt be posting this, I know I come across as childish on this but you have to relize how bad this is the reason the made a 'zoo pride flag' is the same reason maps did (minor attracted person aka pedos) it was to pretend they were part of the LGBTQ+ and try use peoples sympathy for them to get what they want and the thing it IT WORKS, there are people in the furry fandom who think zoos are actually part of the LGBTQ+ and not animal abusers in case in point all the people who arent zoos but actually try to support them as 'alleys'. Also, that's not what that flag or even what the term means, it refers to people who want to commit it not people who fantasize about it.

watsit said:
Currently it looks like you're falsely equating zoophilia with animal abuse

yo wtf. Last I checked being sexually attracted to animals is animal abuse. https://c.tenor.com/Hwt4lu-IAeAAAAAM/memes-meme.gif

Ah yes, because all people who have voraphilia are also cannibals.

I regret posting this as now its considered wrong to see people being sexually attracted in real animals as a bad thing and possibly damming to the websites reputation. Since cant y'all cant be adults and respect other peoples opinions I'll leave this here for people to yell and insult me more idc.

Maybe try not to say stupid shit if you don't want people to roast you.

votp said:
Maybe try not to say stupid shit if you don't want people to roast you.

dude your only favourite is a fox girl shitting out a insect hive. maybe dont look at stupid shit.

corrupted-funk said:
yo wtf. Last I checked being sexually attracted to animals is animal abuse.

I don't know where you checked that, but it's categorically incorrect.

corrupted-funk said:
yo wtf. Last I checked being sexually attracted to animals is animal abuse.

Wow, thought-crime.

corrupted-funk said:
I'm going to guess your a zoophile yourself or something, which case ew get off the e621.
Its not attraction to animals, its sexual attraction to real animals, there's a reason why both paedophile and zoophile have -phile in the name.
Also, why are you telling me to blacklist, the point of this part of the website is to start a conversation, not just to shoot down peoples ideas and concerns.

Yes this is a place of discussion which doesn't seem to be what you want, one of the most fundamental rules of a discussion is that you should be prepared to be the one in the wrong and own it. Instead you started this "discussion" with the preconceived notion on how it should go. I'm not a zoophile and I don't believe someone needs to have sexual attraction to an animal to be one, I'd say romantic attraction would also count that's why I worded as simply "attraction" as it should cover both.

And just because someone is:

• Zoophile it doesn't mean they will act on it and abuse animals.
• Pedophile it doesn't mean they will act on it and abuse children.
• Psychopath it doesn't mean they will act on it and senseless kill people.
• Vorarephile it doesn't mean they will act on it and eat people.

Next time if you truly want a discussion, I'd advise you to listen to everyone's side and not come with all this useless rant.

This is the most fun I've had in weeks.

corrupted-funk said:
I'm going to guess your a zoophile yourself or something, which case ew get off the e621.
Its not attraction to animals, its sexual attraction to real animals, there's a reason why both paedophile and zoophile have -phile in the name.

Zoophilia means literally "Attraction to animals" - which I think would be the case for the majority of the Furry fandom, given the central nature of it (Animal focused artwork in all forms) . The term you mean is called Bestiality (desiring or actually doing "the act" with real / feral animals), which is probably a very small fraction of the fandom anyways.

corrupted-funk said:
yo wtf. Last I checked being sexually attracted to animals is animal abuse. https://c.tenor.com/Hwt4lu-IAeAAAAAM/memes-meme.gif

By your definition you would be an animal abuser, too - According to your favourites which contain sexual depiction of animals

Its sort of worrying how many people don't know how to read or get context nowadays.
Also, kind of funny this is getting so much attention, seems like people are upset at the idea posts that feature the zoo-flag (which exists purely as a way to get false sympathy from people) could be banned. hmm wonder why.

Should we pull a Dragoneer and ban the Nazi flag too?

corrupted-funk said:
Looks like people can't read on this site and they get trigged by people using the forums for what they are meant for, that being to share opinions.
I was referring to post like this https://e621.net/posts/3031444 which if you recognise the flag is the zoo 'pride flag' which is people are sexually attracted to real animals. This post and many others is used by zoophiles to normalize their actions and try and integrate into the furry fandom, if your willing to listen then a similar thing happened with LGBTQ as after stonewall pedos tried to use their coat tails and make paedophile legal by pretending to be part of the community and downplaying what they actually were.

You do have to realize that this is all fictional artwork? How is this differend from Nazi, Confederate or pedophilia flags? Then we get to the topic that should rap songs that talk about raping censored or should video games with guns banned?
This is 18+ website for a reason, we think that people are adult enough to aknowledge that fucking a real life dog is wrong, disgusting and most likely also illegal and we do actually ban people who admit on acting on this kind of stuff in real life.

mairo said:
You do have to realize that this is all fictional artwork? How is this differend from Nazi, Confederate or pedophilia flags? Then we get to the topic that should rap songs that talk about raping censored or should video games with guns banned?
This is 18+ website for a reason, we think that people are adult enough to aknowledge that fucking a real life dog is wrong, disgusting and most likely also illegal and we do actually ban people who admit on acting on this kind of stuff in real life.

I am quite aware with it being fictional artwork, though have you heard of propaganda? The reason it is designed similar to a pride flag is that the majority of people don't hate LGBTQ+, so they try to sublimely get people to be more okay with 'the movement'.
Yes but you don't ban people who say they are zoophiles only people who say they have committed stuff irl which isn't that helpful as most aren't that dumb. That is what the topic was originally about.
Also, aren't you staff why are you trying to being so abrasive?

corrupted-funk said:
Yes but you dont ban people who say they are zoophiles only people who say they have committed stuff irl which isn't that helpful as most aren't that dumb. That is what the topic was originally about.

Because thinking something isn't the same thing as doing it. I'm a teratophile, I have yet to fuck a monster. Can I get an F to pay respects for me?

votp said:
Because thinking something isn't the same thing as doing it. I'm a teratophile, I have yet to fuck a monster. Can I get an F to pay respects for me?

why you still here? Its clear you both dont care about this and only want to piss me off dont you have anything better to do? also monsters arent real but last I checked animals are.

corrupted-funk said:
why you still here? Its clear you both dont care about this and only want to piss me off dont you have anything better to do? also monsters arent real but last I checked animals are.

Last I heard birds aren't real...

corrupted-funk said:
I am quite aware with it being fictional artwork, though have you heard of propaganda? The reason it is designed similar to a pride flag is that the majority of people don't hate LGBTQ+, so they try to sublimely get people to be more okay with 'the movement'.
Yes but you don't ban people who say they are zoophiles only people who say they have committed stuff irl which isn't that helpful as most aren't that dumb. That is what the topic was originally about.
Also, aren't you staff why are you trying to being so abrasive?

He stated two facts. It's only abrasive because you disagree

Also, didnt think I'd have to pull out my ace card at all but in the Uk and Europe it known to make websites illegal if they go against their laws. which one of them being zoophilia and by the website not doing anything about it could result in a ban.
AliExpress literally has a 'UK' mod because if you buy a loli sex doll or a sex doll under a curtain height you could be arrested and over the last year loads of people have been arrested for it. - https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/brit-paedophile-faces-jail-after-24472157
I don't want this website to be banned due to a few rotten apple that the website refuses to deal with even slightly.

corrupted-funk said:
why you still here? Its clear you both dont care about this and only want to piss me off dont you have anything better to do? also monsters arent real but last I checked animals are.

Monsters are totally real, we just need to get out into space and find them, then we can all get that sweet, sweet alien poontang.
Let's use another example; every time I talk to a telemarketer I think about hunting them down, and killing them for annoying me. Magically, I don't, because things that exist in your brain are not reality... if they were I would imagine world peace into existence, and people who double-park out of existence.

the simplest of what I was saying, is that art isn't the problem it's the person if they actually commit an illegal act, now. In regards to what this stems from, are you sure the person who posted the image is the person who owns the twitter?

camkitty said:
He stated two facts. It's only abrasive because you disagree

huh? all he said was its fictional artwork and something about rap music which is completely off topic so only 1 fact.

versperus said:
the simplest of what I was saying, is that art isn't the problem it's the person if they actually commit an illegal act, now. In regards to what this stems from, are you sure the person who posted the image is the person who owns the twitter?

Yes I am sure. I am stupid but I do double check things.

corrupted-funk said:
Also, didnt think I'd have to pull out my ace card at all but in the Uk and Europe it known to make websites illegal if they go against their laws. which one of them being zoophilia and by the website not doing anything about it could result in a ban.
AliExpress literally has a 'UK' mod because if you buy a loli sex doll or a sex doll under a curtain height you could be arrested and over the last year loads of people have been arrested for it. - https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/brit-paedophile-faces-jail-after-24472157
I don't want this website to be banned due to a few rotten apple that the website refuses to deal with even slightly.

"This site that is hosted in one country should conform to the laws of a different country."

Hi Xi Jinping, massacre anyone lately?

corrupted-funk said:
Yes I am sure. I am stupid but I do double check things.

okay, so simply put. Blacklist content you don't like, but if you have proof of a user that a user has broken a law or an offence you report the user with a citation to the proof. As art isn't the problem.

I wonder how many people have noticed that I only said art that features the symbol and the flag should be banned, the people who users keep talking about (aka people who fantasize about it and look at feral art) don't actually commit such things dont identify as zoophiles as zoophilia has to do with sexual attraction with real animals not fictional.

corrupted-funk said:
I wonder how many people have noticed that I only said art that features the symbol and the flag should be banned, the zoos who dont actually commit such things dont identify as zoophiles as zoophilia has to do with sexual attraction with real animals not fictional.

What. The. Fuck.

votp said:
"This site that is hosted in one country should conform to the laws of a different country."

Hi Xi Jinping, massacre anyone lately?

Ah yes because Europe as a whole is one country and the fact that a large part of the fandom is from Europe and if it were banned E621 could get into trouble with lack of funding.

votp said:
What. The. Fuck.

?
whys this the thing that finally makes you get the tip off i don't give a shit anymore?
also, why was that your reaction? people literally more or less said the same thing as me but you were agreeing with them. fucking hypocrite.

versperus said:
okay, so simply put. Blacklist content you don't like, but if you have proof of a user that a user has broken a law or an offence you report the user with a citation to the proof. As art isn't the problem.

...So your response is just ignore it? how am I supposed to ignore the fact people who find real life animals sexually attractive are being given the free ticket to this website and the fandom as a whole? Ignoring a problem doesn't fix it, I can ignore when I am hungry but eventually I'll stave to death. problems need to be stopped before they get worse.
I never said art is the problem the topic is titled 'not feral artwork', the only thing I said about art is that art that features the flag (which is used by zoophiles to find each other on different social medias, similar to what MAPS do) should at least be considered with being put under investigation as if it should be banned.

corrupted-funk said:
the people who users keep talking about (aka people who fantasize about it and look at feral art) don't actually commit such things dont identify as zoophiles as zoophilia has to do with sexual attraction with real animals not fictional.

What does this even mean? People who don't commit the act don't identify as zoophiles because zoophilia is a sexual attraction? You're really hammering in on that "sexual attraction is just like actually doing it" angle, huh?

I think that's enough from everyone for one day and everything productive that was going to be said has been