Lemmy Shitpost

hideshow 28 child comments

parent

[+] Abyssian@lemmy.world -8 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (27 children)

I made my own a while back. Nothing is ever going to convince me that wanting to have sex with roughly human shaped animals is any less creepy and wrong than if they were saying the same about kids.

Some people do. The whole anime girl clearly designed to look and act 10 who it's "ok" to sexualize because she's really thousands of years old. WINKWINK

Coming up with imaginary scenarios where it's suddenly moral to have sex with kids or sheep is super weird and creepy.

Some guy in that thread defended it by saying that some people get off eating shit and it's not alright to make fun of that. Yes, it's definitely fine to say that getting off eating shit is creepy and abnormal. He might have been the same one who said that not all furries are in to kids. It didn't help do anything other than sketch me out even harder.

hideshow 27 child comments

parent

[–] Return_of_Chippy@lemmy.world [S] 6 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (21 children)

I say all of this completely cognizant of where we are having this discussion. I personally am strongly againt lolicon drawings of any kind, to the point I think it should be illegal material. Treated with slightly less severity than CSAM. I don't view that as "kink" I view it as genuine evil and dangerous material. I'm also not personally into anything non human. That said, I think there is a pretty large distinction between a furry drawing two furries fucking and someone drawing a German shepard fucking a lady. The latter maybe could even be classed in the same realm as lolicon. The former though, thats just consenting adults with extra imagination. I'm not seeing the throughline you are between furries and pedophiles. Humans are humans, kids are kids, animals are animals and furries are a fourth who gives a fuck category the way I see it. So, in your estimation, what's okay/Kink and whats not?

hideshow 21 child comments

parent

[–] Abyssian@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (20 children)

I don't really have a list of sexual kinks I'm a fan of or dislike. Anything forcibly involving non-consenting participants, whether they're aware of that fact or not, I definitely see as being wrong.

There are over 8 billion people in the world with tens of thousands of combinations of cultures, ethnicities, religions, regional histories, and socioeconomic backgrounds. We're not all going to agree on the morality of anything. Too many people online have decided to see simple honesty about that from people who feel differently about things than they do as hatred.

hideshow 20 child comments

parent

[–] porous_grey_matter@lemmy.ml 4 points 2 months ago (6 children)

So you are a committed vegan, right? Since imposing confinement, forced impregnation and slaughter on unconsenting animals in real life is clearly a lot worse than wanting to fuck them in a fantasy.

hideshow 6 child comments

parent

[–] Abyssian@lemmy.world -3 points 2 months ago (5 children)

Eating meat is normal human behavior. Fantasizing about fucking nonhuman animals is not.

hideshow 5 child comments

parent

[–] porous_grey_matter@lemmy.ml 5 points 2 months ago (4 children)

That's a real sheep take. If a lot of people do it then it's normal human behaviour. If you wanna apply some prescriptive values to that based on some moral ideas you have and say that common behaviour is wrong you're gonna need to be consistent about the consequences. If you're justifying your idea of its wrongness in terms of sentience and consent you can't just then drop that for the thing that you like to do. Either you've got values or you don't.

hideshow 4 child comments

parent

[–] Abyssian@lemmy.world -3 points 2 months ago (3 children)

Equating a basic necessity to remain alive with getting personal sexual gratification from animals is a view most people in the world would consider strange. Eating meat is historically a normal human activity. Fucking nonhuman animals is not. There is no mysterious conflict in that outside of your own head.

hideshow 3 child comments

parent

[–] porous_grey_matter@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Eating meat isn't a necessity to stay alive, or be healthy in any way, plenty of entire cultures don't do it. Keep deluding yourself my friend. The conflict isn't mysterious, it's just narcissism. You just find post hoc rationalisations for things that you like or don't like, and decide it must be based on some kind of fundamental morality. It's exactly right-wing extremist logic.

hideshow 2 child comments

parent

[–] Abyssian@lemmy.world -4 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 child)

Oh for fuck sake. Plenty of cultures don't and plenty of cultures do. Plenty of people lived places where meat was their only reliable source of sustenance.

I can't stand this lazy, idiot defense of jumping to claiming someone is racist, or homophobic, or right-wing. You're telling an old black man with the display name "Trump Rapes Kids" he's using right-wing extremist logic because he's willing to eat meat but finds it weird and creepy that some people want to fuck the animals. Brilliant.

I'm just going to block you now. Enjoy sticking your dick in a cat or whatever makes you happy and proud of yourself.

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] porous_grey_matter@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

I'm not into that lol, I just don't have pretences that my feelings are based on absolute morality.

parent

[–] Return_of_Chippy@lemmy.world [S] 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (12 children)

Furries don't engage in non consensual acts by and large. It feels like this is just something you don't connect with so it makes you uncomfortable. Because you're uncomfortable you're railing against it extra hard. Claiming people just see what your saying as hatered seems reasonable. You're connecting consenting adults participating in innocuous (admittedly strange) behavior with actual pedophilia/zoophilia. That's an easily hateable position. It's definitely reasonable to push against that.

hideshow 12 child comments

parent

[–] Abyssian@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago* (11 children)

Furries don’t engage in non consensual acts by and large.

You asked "in your estimation, what’s okay/Kink and whats not?" right up there. I was answering that question. I never connected furries to it at all.

I'm not railing against it. It doesn't make me uncomfortable, but it does trigger a disgust response. It's at odds with my values and morals. It seems sort of like seeing people eat dog meat or something. A sexual desire for imaginary beings based on animals is weird as all hell to me. I'm not the one who chose to use animals. They did. When someone is a fan of sexualized images of vaguely human shaped animals that connects itself to zoophilia, it doesn't take a rocket surgeon to do that.

There's a big difference between giving your honest opinion on a thing and actively hating a thing. And a difference again between that and being intolerant and falling to violence against those who don't see the world and the things in it in the same light that you do.

hideshow 11 child comments

parent

[–] Return_of_Chippy@lemmy.world [S] 2 points 2 months ago (10 children)

The only thing you were able to list not being okay with was non consensual acts. I specifically asked the question to understand what about furries is against your moral compass. From what you're saying its just that you think its weird. Which is fine, but a different animal from pedophilia/zoophilia completely. It being weird/not your thing makes sense, it being against your morals/values doesn't. Based on what you've said. Again I really want to understand how you're connecting it to pedophilia/lolicon. Also, I don't understand what you're trying to explain in that last paragraph at all.

hideshow 10 child comments

parent

[–] Abyssian@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago* (9 children)

Even without actual animals I still see it as likely a group that people with certain mental illnesses are attracted to that encourages them to sexualize imaginary animals. It doesn’t seem like there is any healthy outcome from that. At best it’s encouraging sexual attraction to something that doesn’t exist, and at worst those things that don’t exist look like a cross between humans who do exist and animals who do exist and that could cause people to fall on the wrong size of that actual animals part.

The pedophile and animal art are two big things people are often going to encounter on the internet. Sexualized animated images of children, animals, and children-animals are far from uncommon. Go scroll Reddit for a bit and see how many young looking horse-girls or whatever the popular theme of the moment is that you run in to. Neither of them seem like things that could be healthy. The sort of thing that should be discouraged and not encouraged.

I met a 20 something year old in prison who had molested one of his relatives. When he was out after that sentence his parole officer checked his phone and found videos of him fucking the family dog. He went back to prison for that. It would be much more surprising to find out he’d never seen any of that ‘art’ than to find out he had a big stash of it.

hideshow 9 child comments

parent

[–] Return_of_Chippy@lemmy.world [S] 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (8 children)

Which mental illnesses? I haven't used reddit in a long time but I thought lolicon was expressly forbidden there. I've also never seen either randomly on the internet, only inadvertently running into it while looking for porn to watch. So I wouldn't say its an internet thing as much as a porn thing. Would you subscribe to the idea that playing violent video games, listening to heavy metal or watching violent movies makes people engage in violence?

hideshow 8 child comments

parent

[–] Abyssian@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago (7 children)

Which mental illnesses?

Here's a good starter article.

I'm not taking about flat out porn, just the sexualized images. Panty shots of characters clearly drawn to look like children, anthropomorphized animals with huge human breasts, etc.

Would you subscribe to the idea that playing violent video games, listening to heavy metal or watching violent movies makes people engage in violence?

No reasonable person does. However sexual attraction is a thing that very definitely can be influenced and change over time. If you go through your teen years where your biochemistry is pushing you towards sex and you see lots of sexualized animation or furry art then you're going to end up much more likely drawn to that than if it's something you never see until you're in your 30s.

If you spend 10 years only able to access one specific niche of porn that you don't like and you 'make do' with it, by the end of that time it might be the thing you're most drawn to.

hideshow 7 child comments

parent

[–] Return_of_Chippy@lemmy.world [S] 3 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (6 children)

That article doesn't really support anything you're saying or explain what mental illnesses you'd associate with furries. Therianthropy isn't even a recognized mental disorder. You're drawing the same link to if someone consumes X media they will likely engage in Y action. You provided a study that talked about historical cases of therianthropy. You didn't provide anything that showed there is a link or higher likelihood a furry will engage in pedophilia/zoophilia. Aside from the vibe you get. I think engaging with any porn/heavily sexualized material in your early teen years isn't going to be good for your brain or your expectations of healthy sex as an adult. You're describing something it seems like you would have to seek out. It's a caregivers responsibility to make sure a child doesn't have the ability to view something like that at such a young age.

hideshow 6 child comments

parent

[–] Abyssian@lemmy.world -1 points 2 months ago* (5 children)

Associated conditions included psychotic disorders (41 %), psychotic depression (24 %), bipolar disorder (18 %), and Cotard’s syndrome (12 %).

You're hung up on wanting one specific mental disorder. Mental health is a complex topic. People with many disorders can be drawn to the 'furry' group for varying reasons.

You’re drawing the same link to if someone consumes X media they will likely engage in X action.

Neuroplasticity most strongly effects sexual attraction during puberty, however the things we spend time experiencing continue to have effects on that for at least the bulk of our lives. It has nothing to do with claiming video games or rock music make children worship the devil. You're conflating actual neuroscience with scare tactics you see on TV.

You seem defensive, and while I don't mind discussion I have no interest in taking the time to write a dissertation for a social media response. You don't understand my dislike. That's alright. You don't have to. Everyone in the world has their own point of view on all sorts of things. Being honest about that is just being honest about a basic fact of the human condition. It doesn't mean someone's calling for others who do a thing they dislike to be burned alive.

hideshow 5 child comments

parent

[–] Return_of_Chippy@lemmy.world [S] 3 points 2 months ago* (4 children)

So you're just saying furries are drawn to being a furry because they are mentally ill? Or that many furries are mentally ill on top of being a furry. And the evidence for that is soley based on a single very small study. I'm just not sure the relevance. If you wanna make the argument children shouldn't be exposed to porn/highly sexualized content, including furry, I think that's completely reasonable. I don't know anyone who would argue against that. The only thing making me defensive is the connection you're making between furries (consenting adults) with pedophiles. The latter absolutely should be burned alive and the former are just kinda weird people.

hideshow 4 child comments

parent

[–] Abyssian@lemmy.world -1 points 2 months ago (3 children)

So you’re just saying furries are drawn to being a furry because they are mentally ill? And the evidence for that is soley based on a single very small study.

No. I'm trying to provide basic answers to complex questions. You're more than welcome to study the neuroscience and psychology of human sexuality.

The only thing making me defensive is the connection you’re making between furries (consenting adults) with pedophiles. The latter absolutely should be burned alive and the former are just kinda weird people.

Both have a sexual attraction to things considered immoral. Creating fictional anthropomorphized animals who can speak and consent and drawing characters clearly intended to look and act like children but then claiming they're really very, very old are both methods of trying to create a fictional scenario where playing out an immoral attraction could be argued to be moral.

Sexual attraction isn't a thing people really have control of, though it can be influenced by the things we surround ourselves with. While you're not likely going to "fix" someone who's sexually attracted to children or animals by not plastering the internet with porn to fit their desires, having that can increase the attraction.

It's an ongoing debate on whether the attempts to ban all such porn is more beneficial or more harmful, because while having easy access to immoral fetish porn does tend to increase that attraction not having that access as a psychosexual pressure vent could potentially cause someone to go look for a real child or animal instead.

hideshow 3 child comments

parent

[–] A_Wild_Alt_Appears@fedinsfw.app 3 points 2 months ago* (2 children)

I'm trying to provide basic answers to complex questions. You're more than welcome to study the neuroscience and psychology of human sexuality.

Lmao. The case you were making that you aren't a troll ain't lookin so hot chief 😅

hideshow 2 child comments

parent

[–] Abyssian@lemmy.world -2 points 2 months ago* (1 child)

You're also welcome to study if you have a deeper interest in the topic. But I'll be blocking you, because I don't deal with bigots. So many of you trolls actually fit that word completely and yet love to claim it about others. Hopefully you find a bit of self-awareness and notice that for yourself.

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] A_Wild_Alt_Appears@fedinsfw.app 4 points 2 months ago*

You started this whole internet fight by attacking a subculture unprovoked. People aren't trolling you they just think your behavior sucks

parent

[–] A_Wild_Alt_Appears@fedinsfw.app 5 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (4 children)

Coming up with imaginary scenarios where it’s suddenly moral to have sex with kids or sheep is super weird and creepy.

Coming up with imaginary scenarios where being a furry is about wanting to fuck sheep is also weird, and yet here we are. My closest friend is a furry and has zero interest in sexualizing her sonas or other people's, she just likes drawing herself as dog characters. For her it's a way of processing different parts of herself by personifying them as separate characters, and she enjoys anthropomorphic animals as an aesthetic 🤷🏻

The rhetoric you're using is exactly the same harmful stuff folks say about queer folks, complete with the same leap in logic from whats happening (drawing anthro characters in various contexts including sexual ones, having queer relationships including queer sex) to something intrinsically harmful (animal abuse, pedophilia).

Your own post is just you venting that you hate people that seem weird to you. How would anyone learn anything from that when you clearly didn't? You clearly didn't make the post to try and learn anything.

hideshow 4 child comments

parent

[–] Abyssian@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (3 children)

Everyone in the world is never going to condone or be a fan of everything everyone else in the world does.

People who get off to anthropomorphized animals seem to have something wrong with their minds. I'm not going to lie about that or act as though I don't see it that way. There's a massive distinction between being honest that you don't understand or like a thing and it doesn't fit your values and world view, and trying to whip up a mob to kill people who do that thing.

The fall-back to comparing anyone who dislikes anything to racists or homophobes known for intolerant violence is lazy.

hideshow 3 child comments

parent

[–] A_Wild_Alt_Appears@fedinsfw.app 2 points 2 months ago* (2 children)

I make the comparison because as a queer person it directly fits. Your argument and the argument homophobes make are cut from the same rhetorical cloth and have the exact same faulty logic.

Claiming it's hollow without engaging with the argument I'm making is a lazy way to deflect from the need to reflect or rebut anything I'm saying

hideshow 2 child comments

parent

[–] Abyssian@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago (1 child)

No, they're not. This is lazy idiocy. You could take any human complaining about any thing they don't like, replace the thing they actually don't like with "Jew", and scream they antisemitic. It's a pathetic attempt to make anyone who doesn't like anything look like a horrible monster.

The rhetorical cloth only seems to fit because you cut out the most important part and replaced it with something that would work for the picture you're trying to paint. It is hollow.

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] A_Wild_Alt_Appears@fedinsfw.app 2 points 2 months ago

Being a furry isnt about fucking animals, but you're saying its about beasitiality

Being gay or trans isn't about fucking kids, but homophobes say it is.

You are leaping from the thing that makes you uncomfortable to a moral argument that isnt actually supported by the thing you're critiszing.

The arguments have exactly the same flaw. And the fact you can make any critisism into antisemitism doesnt mean that you just shouldn't engage with it when someone's critisism is directly mirroring all the tropes of bigotry

Which to be clear, being a furry isnt a protected class or anything, its a subculture. But your "deviancy" argument is literally just exactly word for word what people say about queer folks complete with the exact same foundational flaw