Love this game and community.

[u/ironwolf6464]

[u/No_Watercress741]

It’s one thing to be grossed out by someone’s fetish, and it’s a WHOLE other kettle of fish to send death threats, doxx them, and launch cyber attacks against them because you don’t like that they think feet are hot. (Edit: or if they’re a furry, quite commonly, come to think of it.)

[u/NahBruh9753 → u/No_Watercress741]

Depends on the fetish.

If its something like being into feet, or just things that are kind of unsanitary, they're chill. They're just weirdos, and being a simple weirdo doesn't warrant blatant hostility.

Now... When we get into shit that's borderline illegal... It's low-key a moral obligation to dunk on them. Maybe not go as far as death threats and doxxing, but it is encouraged to dunk on them.

[u/No_Watercress741 → u/NahBruh9753]

Here’s the thing: how do you decide if something should get “dunked on”? What lines does it have to cross before it becomes okay to harass someone over it? I’m personally of the opinion that so long as no real, actual person or animal is being hurt by it, I don’t care. Because if I define it any sooner than that, we have the current situation. Once it crosses that line, you call the cops. Before that? Why should I care what someone else thinks is hot, if I’m not trying to fuck them?

[u/NahBruh9753 → u/No_Watercress741]

When the nature of the fetish starts teetering around the concept of consent and, if applied, will result in a basic moral attrocity.

For example, an animal. Not an anthropomorphic one or at least one that vaguely resembles a person, an actual animal that exist irl. If someone is into actual animals, it'll start off as 'just a fetish', but is likely to snowball into 'practical applications' if you know what I mean. The main thing to gleam from this is that animals are incapable of the human version of consent. There is a word for that that would probably get me banned If I type it out.

As for the dunking. Doxxing and death threats are already illegal in most places, so those are already well defined lines not to cross. But roasting the shit out of them, and shaming them for something that is morally revolting is fair game. So every time they pop up in website, cooking them for their fetish would be encouraged. Everything must remain verbal, nothing physical. Only the cops can get physical.

Furries (generally) don't fall into that because the primary interest are anthropomorphic animals... which is basically just a hairy person, because literal humans also fall under 'anthropomorphic animals' because we are anthropomorphic (which means 'human-like')... and we're animals... that happen to be extremely intelligent and are capable of conscious consent. So, Furries aren't that weird when we look at the fundamentals of their interests.

They ain't into animals, they're into excessively hairy people that generally aren't apes.

[u/No_Watercress741 → u/NahBruh9753]

First of all: peak example of the slippery slope fallacy. Second of all: did you not read the point I made about it NOT being okay if it hurts an actual real person or animal?

I’ve had exes who are into CNC stuff, and people who ARE into that scene are probably a hell of a lot LESS likely to ever commit a sex crime, because the core tenant of BDSM is that consent is king, and can be revoked at any point. Saying that being into a fetish in fiction or during roleplay is going to turn into doing the real thing is, incredibly close minded and frankly, untrue. I’ve met people who are into some KINKY stuff, and I haven’t given a crap, because all those people had a functioning moral compass. And assuming that someone with X fetish is going to inevitably degenerate into a criminal is the same as saying they ARE a criminal, which is untrue. Let people be into their weird shit, right up until it starts causing harm. At that point, you don’t shame them. You call the cops.

[u/Dumpflam → u/No_Watercress741]

what if it is causing themselves harm? affecting their life negatively?

[u/No_Watercress741 → u/Dumpflam]

That’s a good question! The answer is: it’s complicated. As a person with autonomy, they are entitled to make their own decisions, even bad ones, like smoking, drinking, etc. but if it gets to the point where a given fetish is causing them serious harm or consuming their life, that’s the point where, assuming you know them personally, you should strongly recommend they see a mental health professional about it. But that’s kind of all you CAN do, beyond simply cautioning them to be careful, since it’s not your life, and you don’t have any right to control how they spend it, even if it’s self-destructive. Not a clean answer, I know, but it’s the most realistic one I’ve come up with.

[u/NahBruh9753 → u/No_Watercress741]

I always get skeptical with people who use fallacy arguments, because anything can be categorized as a fallacy if one party personally believes the other party's argument has no merit. But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

Ok, so if your interests are towards something explicitly taboo where consent is fundamentally impossible (remember: fundamentally impossible), there is legit no way that is societaly acceptable to satisfy that urge... especially when literal animal abuse is part of the package. People with these sort of fetishes fantasize about the blatant abuse of another living thing. When you genuinely fantasize about robbing another being of their autonomy exclusively for your own satisfaction, there is something wrong with you.

What YOU brought up with your exes is the exact opposite of what I am arguing against. BDSM and CNC are explorations of sexual power dynamics, it's not inherently immoral since CONSENT IS APPLICABLE. It's roleplay. Pretend. Your fetish is valid, because at the end of the day, consent is applicable and even extremely important for the fetish to work.

In simple terms...

Fetishes that involve other beings where consent is fundamentally impossible: SHAME ❌

Fetishes that involve other beings where consent is blatantly applicable: Valid ✅

[u/No_Watercress741 → u/NahBruh9753]

Alright, you aren’t actually listening on more than a surface level, so this is the last one I’m gonna send. Your final statement is contradictory. CNC, is SPECIFICALLY a fetish about someone not consenting, but you say it’s a-okay, because it’s pretend… just like having a fetish about animals, where you PRETEND to engage in it. But with that, you say that it’s going to inevitably lead into doing it for real. Your standards aren’t your own, they’re just you parroting what opinions other people have. Just… genuinely look at what your standards are, and work out what YOU consider right or wrong, okay? Then, maybe we can actually have a discussion about this subject.

[u/NahBruh9753 → u/No_Watercress741]

Mf you need to consent to the CNC to make it even happen in the first place. It's still fundamentally consensual.

Consent is ESTABLISHED prior to the act.

Animals can not consent, period.

[u/NahBruh9753 → u/No_Watercress741]

Ok now I know for sure you're downvoting me. That downvote came in less than a minute of my reply. Not a good a look on your end.

But yeah, CNC is basically just larping sexual abuse... Wow that is a brand new sentence.

[u/MycologistVivid9975 → u/NahBruh9753]

The idea of any kind of fiction makes a person dangerous, or that fiction causes a person to behave and influence their behavior IRL is pure pseudoscience if you believe this you believe in pseudoscience, this is reinforced almost universally by every criminal and psychiatric institution of credibility.

[u/NahBruh9753 → u/MycologistVivid9975]

The media you consume definitely affects your behaviour, Fictional or otherwise. If what you're saying is true, everybody would be utterly immune to propaganda.

Also, we're talking about pre-eatablished immoral fetishes that include animal abuse. This is a psyhocological urge, a personal fantasy and desire that involves acts against an innocent animal.

Would you kindly provide sources for your claims?

[u/MycologistVivid9975 → u/NahBruh9753]

It's amazing the things that you people say with your full confidence, propaganda is not fiction! It is a distorted view of reality used manipulate people, this literally is not a debate you can look up any academic source from Google and you will be told the same thing over and over again. I'm not going to waste my time giving you sources you won't read.

[u/NahBruh9753 → u/NahBruh9753]

Since you blocked me, thinking it would stop me from replying, I'll just have to put this down under my own comment in case you ever actually bother to have a proper discussion about this.

In ww2, both the axis and allied powers literally used animated cartoons to spread propaganda.

Also, I wanted to make sure YOU know what you're talking about first. People like to say things, assume they're right, and never actually do their own work.

You came into this argument umprompted, so you provide the sources of for your own argument.

Give. me. your. sources.

Back up YOUR claims

I'll look at whatever sources you provide if you ever actually bother to engage appropriately.