Nice game, but...

I think not, countless ancient societies had anthropomorphic figures as part of their culture. Satyrs and centaurs are ancient greek figures. Many of the gods of ancient egypt were also half animal, half human, such as Horus who was human with the head of a falcon. There are many other examples....

Some have even speculated that the great sphinx (half human/half lion) is over 10,000 years old.

At the very least they coincide with the legends of elves and pixies.

If you've placed the tree yourself and it isn't placed by LL you just go into edit and set all the rotations to 0.... it straightens it out then.

General anthropomorphic characters and furries are not the same, however. Anyway, such characters are also abnormal and freakish.

As is...

The platypus!



But we still love it.

You might; I don't. Anyway, stop being stupid and stick to the discussion and don't troll.

You started it.

Um, no. I didn't mention non-furries; I simply replied to someone who did.

To insist someone must stop what they are doing because you disagree with it is intolerant.

To target someone for harrassment because you disagree with what they are doing is intolerant.

To tell someone over and over that what they are doing is wrong because you disagree with it is intolerant.

Congratulations, you've only committed one out of three. The shoe fits, you're wearing it.

I so totally wasn't talking about that.

I've really gotta leave this thread before I loose all the cool points I gained from my first post.

No, what you need to do is learn how to communicate better and more effectively by not being so vague.

Its intolerant for me to have the definition of furry as part animal and human, and thus draw the definition of beastiality into it?

No, its not. Whats intolerant is not accepting that the other side has its own opinion, and its not always intolerant just because they see your 'lifestyle' differently than you do. So no, I'm not wearing the intolerant shoe. Get your facts straight.

edit: heres a challenge:

show me where I define the following

To insist someone must stop what they are doing because you disagree with it is intolerant. - I never said they had to stop

To target someone for harrassment because you disagree with what they are doing is intolerant. - I never targetted them for harrassment. If you can prove me wrong do so.

To tell someone over and over that what they are doing is wrong because you disagree with it is intolerant. - I never said it was wrong, I merely said that I defined it as beastiality. If I ever said that it was wrong, feel free to post a quote.

Yes, you heard me right.. I don't care if you are having intercourse with an animal -thats your own choice- just don't hurt the animal and Ill have no issue. But don't whine if it hurts you too, there was a case in the US recently where one of the one having intercourse with a horse suffered from internal bleeding that eld to his death. I have no sympathy for him.

Read my post again.... I said you committed ONE of the three..... if you don't know which one maybe you should go back and read your own posts.

You said you define furries as people who engage in beastiality. Ok so thats your definition as one who has no actual experience in BEING a furry. Yet the people who ARE furries are saying your definition is innacurate.

Since I have never actually been a man, I can't very well go around telling people what men are all about now can I? My definition would be skewed by my complete lack of experience.

My uncle who was gay stated that he was born gay, that he had always been attracted to other men instead of women and that it wasn't something he could "fix". His brother who is not gay insisted that he was wrong, that it was a choice and he could simply choose to be straight. I tend to accept the opinion of the person who actually lived as a gay man to define one for me.

You and the small faction who agree with you have been told over and over again that ...
A) Furries are not animals nor humans, the are furries... fantasy creatures created in a fantasy world.
B) Not all furries are furries for the purpose of having sex with other furries just as not all people are people for the sake of having sex with other people..... sex may be an aspect of it for some but it is not the primary focus for all.
C) Sexual activity when it occurs between furry characters is not beastiality because.... refer to point A... no beasts involved.
Now who has been telling you these points over and over again? The actual furries themselves... the ones with the actual experience and knowledge.

The fact that you choose not to accept their own definitions of themselves does not make them wrong. I for one will choose the explanation that comes with the most knowledge and experience to back it up.



To Jonas as well as Eep..... by judging others without actually learning about them you really do miss out on getting to know some interesting charachters. You say "freak".... I say unique individual.

If groups get to be the ones to make the legal definition on themselves we'd have the KKK as a 'happy chrsitian group battling for the good of man.' Sorry, others definition are require din the world. I don't care what the furries define themselves as. I'm my own person, not a sheep who follows others 100% of the time. And yes I have played furries (of the non yiffing manner mind you), so don't assume anything.

I also never said I define furries as people who engage in beastiality. Only the ones that cybersex as furries.




The fact that they disagree with me means nothing, I will choose the explanation that comes with my own, direct, experience. Again the fact that they disagree with me does not make me wrong.

I see furries as part animal and part human..thus the beastiality applies. That is from MY OWN experience.

You can say whatever you want; still won't change my view of furries as freaks. Yes, it's stereotypical but, I don't care--every single furry I've come into contact with has been either: egotistical, stupid, moronic, freaky, annoying, idiotic, and/or repulsive. Furries also tend to be griefers and laggers (since they just HAVE to model practically every FREAKIN' hair strand outta prims--flex prims will only make the lagging worse).

I even know a "furry" who actually doesn't LIKE being called a furry--despite him looking just like one. WhatEVER! Fine, not a furry but just a freak.

I have a problem with people who can't identify with themselves and must act out a facade to hide their true personality, feelings, and/or self. It's pathetic and annoying.

"My definition is part human part animal. Therefore yiffing is beastiality."

Real human part + imaginary animal part = no animal involved = not bestiality.

Please explain to us where the real flesh and blood non-human animal is, and its involvement in, the act of yiffing.

"You can say whatever you want; still won't change my view of furries as freaks."

And adults pretending to be smurfs aren't? ^_^

"Yes, it's stereotypical but, I don't care--every single furry I've come into contact with has been either: egotistical, stupid, moronic, freaky, annoying, idiotic, and/or repulsive."

I find this is true for most people of any kind, not specifically furries.

And I really adore how you think your own limited personal experience defines an entire group. This really is THE definition of prejudice: forming judgements about a person based on past experience, without knowing anything about that person first.

"I have a problem with people who can't identify with themselves and must act out a facade to hide their true personality, feelings, and/or self. It's pathetic and annoying."

Like someone pretending to be a smurf?

How is someone wearing what is essentially a set of clothes expressing traits in their personality a "facade"?

I've said it before and I'll say it again: it's not them expressing said traits that bothers you...it's that those traits exist in the first place. You don't like it that some people like taking an anthropomorphic role in a virtual fantasy environment, do you smurf boy? You are the angry little man watching a pride parade wishing that there weren't so many gay people in the world.

So far, being a feline in Second Life has never caused me to hide my personality, feelings or self. Only occasional civility causes me to do that.

Musuko.

I never called anyone a freak on the grounds of being a furry

Musuko, you have issues...hell, you have issues with your issues.

Nowhere did I say anything against gays.

Yes, I role-play a smurf (actually, smurfS) at times (it comes and goes) but I can easily drop out of character and be me. However, I'm not a smurf ALL the time in SL. Smurfs aren't freaks because they don't "yif"--baby smurfs come from the stork once in a blue moon. Smurfs are wholesome creatures. Furries are, well, freakish. I don't really give a shit if you think I'm predjucided against furries; I don't think they're a group worth giving rights to since they are just made-up fandom (like, if not apart of, cosplayers). I used to play pen-and-paper RPGs when I was younger and searching for an identity. I no longer need to. Identity is relative. I can be anything I want at any time. However, I don't LIMIT myself to that identification.

Get over it and simply accept the fact that I don't particularly like, or understand, furries. You won't change me so stop trying.

That was me, Jonas. Apparently, Musuko has a problem using the built-in forum quoting which indicates who said what. And he wonders why he has problems with communication...

"Nowhere did I say anything against gays."

It's "gay people" not "gays". Gay is an adjective, not a noun. You don't say "blacks", you say "black people". You don't say "blinds", you say "blind people".

And you didn't say anything about gay people. But you said something that I likened to bigotry against gay people in an effort to point out the character of your comments to you. You must have no concept of simile.

"Musuko, you have issues...hell, you have issues with your issues."

Well, yes. Mild OCD and a fear of dog barks, but that's really not what we're talking about here.

"Yes, I role-play a smurf (actually, smurfS) at times (it comes and goes) but I can easily drop out of character and be me."

And furries can't? I don't think I've yet to mewl at anyone outside of SL.

Well...unless you count those happy sounds I make during sex. ^_^

"Smurfs aren't freaks because they don't "yif"--baby smurfs come from the stork once in a blue moon. Smurfs are wholesome creatures. Furries are, well, freakish."

Ah, the old "my fetish is better than your fetish".

"I don't think they're a group worth giving rights to since they are just made-up fandom"

Unlike...smurfs?

"Identity is relative. I can be anything I want at any time."

But people being furries when they want to be isn't okay? Why are you okay to don a relative identity when you want, but we can't?

"However, I don't LIMIT myself to that identification."

And furries in SL do? Have you bothered asking any of them how many different avatars they use on a regular basis?

So how is it that you can take on a fantasy persona in Second Life, and that's perfectly okay and non-freaky, but when other people take on a fantasy persona that you don't particularly like, it's abnormal and wrong?

How do you justify this double-standard?

Musuko.

I could really care less WHAT you liken what I say to, Musuko. I have a problem with ANY group that tries to impose its views/attitudes/beliefs onto me, or gets upset when even the TINIEST negative thing is said about them. These groups include, but are in no way limited to, gays, blacks (any ethnic group), women (or men), children, teens, goths/mods, punks, ravers, gangsters (and their wanna-be counterparts--usually one in the same) and, of course, furries.

And you have no concept of quoting correctly. Wee.

Your OCD is apparent in your incessant need to reply with screwed up quoted text and stupid arguments. This will be my last post to you as I tire of dealing with your idiocy.

Too much information, freak.

Smurfs aren't a fetish.

Psst, I'm not advocating "smurf rights".

I never said you couldn't. Start READING THOROUGHLY and stop ASSUMING.

That's another issue.

I never said role-playing smurfs isn't freaky--hell, it is to me at times too, but I like it and I don't "yif" while being a smurf. I don't have invisible private smurf parts. My smurf avs aren't incessantly prim-heavy full of bling and whatever other crap furries slap onto their avs.

How do you justify your continued misextrapolation? Buh-bye, troll.

Good heavens. That last reply had almost no substance whatsoever Eep. I'll try to respond to what I can.

"Musuko. I have a problem with ANY group that tries to impose its views/attitudes/beliefs onto me, or gets upset when even the TINIEST negative thing is said about them."

The only thing we are trying to impose upon you is that you leave us alone to enjoy our lives how we want to. Nobody is forcing a cock into your mouth or a tail onto your behind.

"These groups include, but are in no way limited to, gays, blacks (any ethnic group), women (or men), children, teens, goths/mods, punks, ravers, gangsters (and their wanna-be counterparts--usually one in the same) and, of course, furries."

Sounds like you pretty much hate anyone who lives their life differently to yours.

"Your OCD is apparent in your incessant need to reply with screwed up quoted text and stupid arguments."

Nope. It usually manifests itself in needing to step on a ridge (like a curb, or the edge of a step) with my other foot if I do it with my first to make the feeling of pressure equal on both sides. That, and getting bugged out when CDs aren't the right way up in their cases.

And recently, a new one I discovered: being made more uncomfortable by having one arm shackled slightly higher than the other than by the paddling I'm recieving at the time.

"This will be my last post to you as I tire of dealing with your idiocy."

I doubt that.

"Too much information, freak."

Making happy noises during sex is freaky? I never knew that.

"Smurfs aren't a fetish."

Then neither is pretending you're an anthropomorphic animal.

"Psst, I'm not advocating "smurf rights"."

Psst, the air is leaking from my tyres.

"I never said you couldn't. Start READING THOROUGHLY and stop ASSUMING."

So I'm wrong to assume that you wish these things that annoy you didn't exist?

"That's another issue."

You have a problem with people having lots of avatars? I'm sure the avatar-makers would disagree with you.

"I never said role-playing smurfs isn't freaky--hell, it is to me at times too, but I like it and I don't "yif" while being a smurf. I don't have invisible private smurf parts. My smurf avs aren't incessantly prim-heavy full of bling and whatever other crap furries slap onto their avs."

Oh I SEEEEE. Being freaky is okay...just as long as you're not freaky in a way that outfreaks you out specifically. Gotcha.

Sounds to me like you're just a prude. You don't like anyone enjoying their sexual sides. You really, REALLY should stay away from the internet, Mister Smurf. It's full of things like that.

"How do you justify your continued misextrapolation?"

By referencing 9/11.

"Buh-bye, troll."

Bye bye Mister Smurf!

Musuko.

I think we've already covered that everyone on SL fits the definition of freak. Unless their avatar is an accurate representation of themselves, their choice of toned bar-star is not "Average" and thus a freak.

So then you make assumptions that furrries can't? What other amazing psychic abilities do you have?

I've seen some pictures that would beg to differ.

And you've just invalidated everything you have to say. Its quite obvious you're bias and prejudice and not capable of taking part in an objective debate.

I don't see anyone trying to impose views on you here. I saw someone being intolerant and a few individuals defending tolerance. Your persistence would indicate you're trying to impose your views.

Quite. You're trying to define a group you're obviously not a part of and do so in a very negative way with no basis. Are there some bad apples? Yes. But why don't we talk about the norm then? Lets talk about Catholic Priests...ooo better yet. Lets talk about female teachers in the US. I sure wish I had me some of them when I Was in high school like they've had the last few months. Simply based on that, I'd have to say all the female educators in the US must be whores.

To define it as bestiality is to tell them its wrong because of the connotation of bestiality. Someone takes a picture of their newborn in the bath and they take it to Wal-mart, wal-mart doesn't tell them they've done anything wrong, they call it child porn and call the cops. They don't have to come right and say "What you did or doing is wrong".

And the catholics would say they're just a division of christianity, not a clearing house for child molesters..oh wait.. The school boards would claim they're there to educate children. Seems to me like they're simply brothels for the male and occasionally female student. You can sit around all day and take extreme examples. The KKK is an easy one because they're ALL like that, they're also a hate group. I don't see anything in furry as being a "hate" group.

Really? You were more than happy to follow the bastardized definition of pedophile then look it up yourself. Seems like you're more interested in spewing intolerance and hate then learning the facts.

So you say, you've already shown yourself to be less than accurate and thorough, so really we'll take that with a grain of salt.

And you can't even get that right, we're still waiting for you to show us which one is a human, which one is an animal and your logic for obviously invalidating someone's roleplaying over the other person.

Your own direct experience? Well your definition of bestiality doesn't rely on logic, so that must mean you have some experience in that regard?

No it doesn't, becuase the definition is clearly between an individual human and an individual animal. What you do is just make stuff up to try and justify your intolerance and hate simply because there is no reason for it, and that must just be what you like to do. You wouldn't be the first.

Ive bene entirely honest and accurate..unlike some others who try to define a culture for others, whithout considering the others experiences or views.

So really, I'll leave your pile of crap as what it is.

entirely accurate? like referring to an adult who likes teens as a pedophile? no you haven't. You can't even pretend to be.