Talk:Furries Against Animal Sexual Abuse

From WikiFur, the furry encyclopedia.
(Redirected from Talk:FAASA)
Jump to: navigation, search

The sections I have added on FAASA are factual.

Do you have any evidence of that? Likewise, you've written the text as though its a rebuttle. WikiFur contains articles, not discussions over subjects. Finally, please remember to sign your edits on talk pages. --Nidonocu - talk Nidonocu 09:28, 14 Sep 2005 (UTC)

From Calbeck: Insofar as anyone can prove a negative, yes. What has already been posted is largely a collection of unsubstantiated claims...they just happen to be claims made against, rather than in favor of, FAASA and Burned Fur.

1) It is a fact that neither FAASA nor Burned Fur during their existence published any tract that attacked bestiality or zoophilia on any religious level. In fact, there is exactly ONE "source" listed on the collected "Anti-Furry Group" page which uses such terminology as "sinful". It was long ago exposed as a hoax created by a website which itself parodies the extremes of Christian evangelism. Using this term has no practical function save to suggest that groups such as Burned Fur and FAASA had religious motivations.

2) The original author does in fact use overgeneralizations marked by quotes to claim the objective is to "take back" the fandom from "them". Normally when this technique is used in fiction, the objective is to suggest to the reader that ulterior (and presumably nasty) motives are afoot. It's being used to the same effect here, suggesting (without having to go to the bother of actually making a specific accusation or present proof of such) that FAASA and/or the Burned Furs are up to something rotten.

3) Bestiality IS illegal in all but a handful of states, and amounts to nothing less than sexual abuse of animals. The fandom should not be used to expedite or endorse such activity. And yes, three zoos talked to a reporter and had their comments on boinking animals published in a British magazine called "Loaded". Taken directly from that article at ...

" 'Bestiality is a one-night stand... This is consensual sex. We have intimate loving relationships with our pets,' says a charming and articulate young man hidden away in the bar with two fellow zoophiles, or 'zoos' as they are sometimes known. LOADED: What are the practicalities of having sex with a horse? ZOOPHILE 1: The physics can be a little challenging but they are by no means insurmountable... you can use a bucket or a bale of hay and just climb up behind them."

The convention was ConFurence 9. Which I attended.

4) Again, WikiFur has accepted at face value the claim that Usenet carriers were called to try and drop the newsgroup. There is no evidence that this ever happened, and the original author does not provide any. I was a member of Burned Fur at the time and entirely aware of the "plot", which in actuality was simply to report certain zoophile posters on for promoting illegal activities. It was simple, took one email, and did not involve having to contact a thousand or so ISPs to have the same effect. You might simply want to apply Ockham's Razor here: between two unprovable positions, the simplest and most direct is most likely to be correct. Plus, as I said, I was a witness. Aside from cadging together a bunch of other old Burned Furs to say the same thing as co-collaborators, there's nothing else that can reasonably be said. An alternative, of course, would be to simply remove the original claim as being just as unsubstantiated as my own --- more so, in fact.

5) It's a fact that FAASA and Burned Fur had identical views on bestiality: illegal and just plain wrong. Likewise that Manawolf's essays defend bestiality as a legitimate alternative lifestyle on par with homosexuality and worthy of the same social considerations. I don't think anyone is going to deny any of these points as being factual.

6)It's a fact that the original author only names one opponent to FAASA but two supporters of same, while simultaneously calling FAASA's support "almost nil" and the anti-FAASA opposition "fierce". The author's stated facts are directly in contest with her stated conclusions.

7) Not even the original author actually accuses Daphne Lage of having "masterminded" FAASA, but she throws in the unsubstantiated allegation anyway, along with another unsubstantiated allegation that Burned Fur created the whole thing from whole cloth.

Now, what out of all this do you have disagreements with?

Article Improvements[edit]

I don't have disagreements, but we have to ensure that all view points are neutral. Therefor, the fact the previous view point existed at all suggests there are people who think that about the group. There is also the major problem that this currently isn't an article, its two conflicting view points written by two authors. It needs to be written in the style that all other articles on the wiki are, a third person look at the subject. Therefor, since you appear to have knowledge in the subject I suggest scrapping the article as it is and rewriting to include and answer the following points:
  • An opening summary, what was the group, when did it exist, what did it stand for?
  • An extended section talking about its ideologies, who ran it, why it was started, what it did while it was active.
  • Another section, this time saying what others thought of the group, both for and against, why did they think that. What groups existed to oppose it. How is it similar/dissimilar to other groups?
  • A final External Links links linking to any mirrors, 'ruins' old posts etc relating to the group.
Remember, you should write as though it is an historical account of the group, not an advert that everything it believed was true or not true. --Nidonocu - talk Nidonocu 11:13, 14 Sep 2005 (UTC)

From Calbeck: Done and done. I understand Wiki's desire and goal to be as neutral as possible, and applaud that goal. I think that as the facts fall out, things will become much clearer and less subject to "he said she said".

Thanks muchly, I've removed the NPOV tag and just fixed a few links. All looks good. :) --Nidonocu - talk Nidonocu 11:34, 14 Sep 2005 (UTC)

The article is about FAASA, not Manawolf[edit]

"One of those opposed to FAASA, Manawolf, wrote an extended essay claiming that the group was "the next permutation of hate and intolerance within furry fandom". Much of Manawolf's opening essay defends the idea of bestiality and zoophilia being present at furry conventions and other events. She goes on to state unequivocably that the idea of shunning, boycotting or otherwise refusing to treat such material as part and parcel of Furry Fandom is "a ludicrous proposition that I'd dismiss as yet more rabid socially-programmed hate-spouting if they weren't so single-mindedly adamant about it."

Instead, says Manawolf, furries as a whole should be "making an effort to understand and accept" the underpinnings of both bestiality and zoophilia. An argument follows by which Manawolf suggests that anyone who could favor women's rights, civil rights, and gay rights must perforce see their way clear to "bestiality rights". In the closing paragraphs of this prelude, she likens FAASA to someone trying to reinstitute slavery.

The essay itself, however, says nothing to address FAASA's central concern: that animals by definition cannot give consent. Manawolf merely directs the reader to a previous tract she has written on that particular subject, which sums up her view as follows: "The relationship between humans and domestic animals is extremely close; with all that emotional intensity, sex can rightly be considered an extension of that relationship." How so? What makes this statement any more correct or incorrect than opining that sex can NOT be "rightly considered an extension of that relationship"? Manawolf's argument, ultimately, amounts to a matter of opinion. Scott Malconson."

I think that Manawolf's essay definatly needs to be included, and possibly even rebutted as it was a core opposition to FAASA and the offering the pros and cons of the issue are not a battleground, but rather might be the only way to reach consensus here. I also think that Manawolf's essay and the rebuttal should stick to logical arguments and main talking points only, no attacks and no POV. It's important to remember that this is a hotbutton issue in Furry to this day. There WILL be people who think this article supports one side or the next regardless of how unbiased the authors attempt to make it.Redcard 18:37, 14 Sep 2005 (UTC)
The article page is not a discussion page on Manawolf's views, instead of an Historical entry of what FAASA was, their Goals, the consequences, the conclusion. Scott's POV Manawolf entry is actually longer that the article on FAASA itself. 18:51, 14 Sep 2005 (UTC)
"I think that Manawolf's essay definatly needs to be included, and possibly even rebutted". Rebuttal and opinions are POVs that can be entered in the "Discussion" page of the article, certainly, but not, as per Wikifur rules, on the article itself. 19:08, 14 Sep 2005 (UTC)
A group's talking points or structural organization are definatly POVs. Every article here has to have SOME pov. The problem is that if you remove a group's talking points as being POV then you are removing the factuality from the article. Manawolf was a key point in the history of FAASA, some would argue its turning point and its downfall. She's definatly of value to this article to some degree. As for Usenet posts, it'd be better to leave those on their original sources so it can be easily verified.Redcard 19:12, 14 Sep 2005 (UTC)
"Manawolf was a key point in the history of FAASA, some would argue its turning point and its downfall." Which would make a great entry to the article,.. But Scott's entry is POVs concerning the contents of the essay itself, which brings nothing about the article's history. 19:22, 14 Sep 2005 (UTC)
Or you may consider starting an Wikifur entry about Manawolf's FAASA Essay. 19:11, 14 Sep 2005 (UTC)
I'm not quite the expert on Manawolf's essay. That'd be more Scott's department. Plus, I tend not to use the "Some would argue" in actual article pieces, as it's more or less a technique to impose an opinion in there. I probably shouldn't have even used it here, but instead should have used "It is my belief that.." Redcard 19:25, 14 Sep 2005 (UTC)
My entry on Manawolf is not POV. It directly quotes her and addresses the logic of her argument as a Euclidean problem, not a personal commentary as seems to have been suggested. It is not opinion, but fact, that Manawolf's response to FAASA was laden with such material, and in fact I could readily have doubled or tripled the length of the article should I have addressed her claims regarding, say, the purported "differences" between zoophile and bestialist (her first counterpoint). In it, she simply invokes the dictionary terms for the two words, but in fact zoophiles themselves are on Internet-accessible record as saying that they had sex with animals and visited Furry conventions to meet people of like ideal as well as their pets. FAASA's argument, that such people were using the fandom as a recruiting zone, is founded on the basis of public record which Manawolf attempts to address by superficially imposing dictionary terms that don't apply to the actual reality on the ground. And that's just Point #1. This is likewise not opinion, but established fact and thus not POV. -- Calbeck 14 Sep 2005
Problem is that this is not the "Manawolf Essay" article, it's the FAASA article. Look, Calbeck, you're not going to use the article page to stump for FAASA and bash manawolf. The article is an encyclopedic reference, not a forum. That's what the talk: pages are for.Redcard 20:23, 14 Sep 2005 (UTC)
Nor have I suggested this is the "Manawolf Essay" article. However, Manawolf is presented as the ONLY named opposition to FAASA (until I introduced Farlo later, and that keeps getting ripped out), and the focus of her opposition is bound up in her essays. Summarizing key points of those essays, since they directly impacted the gist of the arguments surrounding FAASA itself, do not amount to "bashing Manawolf". It's her words, not mine. And the fact is that if she ever chooses to remove her material from the web, Wiki will not be able to get any of it back and no one will have any idea what her position was. --Calbeck

Article change[edit]

Reverted it to a less POV view of it, while added confirmed information provided by Scott Malconson. Returned actual FAASA verbatim quotes that had been dismissed as "false." Admins, if you could please check if article meets criteria on non-POV entry. And, yes,... I was there during that time, and was a former Burner Fur to boot, helping mainly with IRC duties along with Mitch Marmell on the Burned Fur IRC channel. Left group when more "extreme" members started to corrupt the groups original message. just FYI. 19:00, 14 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Later on, for Historical purposes, I will post the entry where the accusations against Daphne Lange were leveled against her. it's short, but the intended message is clear. 19:04, 14 Sep 2005 (UTC)
Hmm. I wish if you were going to revert, you'd revert to my edit of 7:37 (CDT) this morning; I'd like to think it was a bit more NPOV but then since I wrote it I'll admit I may be biased. If the item you mentioned as being dismissed as false is the Daphne Lage claim, I figure as long as there's some corroborating evidence we can point to I'm fine with that. For what it's worth, I'm trying to stay scrupulously neutral on this one, so if I missed something or screwed the wording I'd like to know.--Duncan da Husky 19:22, 14 Sep 2005 (UTC)
Reverting to your edit. At least its, as you said, NPOV. 19:33, 14 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Marked NPOV again[edit]

Obviously there's some discussion needing to happen here. Redcard 20:00, 14 Sep 2005 (UTC)

There is no evidence to support the Daphne Lage issue, and it is best left as the rumor it is. The original thread where the claim was made did not reproduce the pertinent document, and the document itself, if it ever existed, did so on a message board that is beyond mortal ken at the moment. Regarding the rest, I am annoyed at these continuing edits that paper over the issue. FAASA was attacked with malice aforethought, shouted down by its opposition, and the primary center of that opposition was Manawolf's essay on the potential of animals to have consenual sex, to which her essay against FAASA directs the reader. Her entire argument, and in essence the entire position of FAASA's opposition, relies on whether or not her argument has at least some form of logical basis.
I believe I have demonstrated beyond reasonable shadow of doubt, that it does not. Manawolf simply inserts her opinion that sex with animals is a "natural extension" of having any kind of close or otherwise intimate relationship. If I ruff my dog fondly behind the ear, Manawolf argues, then it is simply "natural" that I thereafter bed the dog, should said canine be willing. This is not logic, it's opinion, and since the original author of this entry placed the lock, stock, and barrel value of the opposing position on Manawolf alone, it should be properly noted that the position itself is not a reliable one. -- Calbeck 14 Sep 2005
I'm not judging your or her opinions, Calbeck. I'm saying that it's pretty clear with the article bouncing back and forth that we need more discussion on this to reach consensus. Redcard 20:13, 14 Sep 2005 (UTC)
I'm not presenting my opinions. That's my point. It isn't an opinion that she accused FAASA of being similar to someone trying to reinstate slavery, nor is it opinion that she claimed "bestiality rights" should be given serious consideration by anyone who supports women's rights, civil rights, or gay rights. It is not my opinion that the entirety of her rationalization in favor of bestiality is her own opinion that sex with animals is a "natural extension" of any emotional relationship between any human and any animal.
Given that none of these are my opinions, why is my presentation of them --- illustrating in brief the position of her essay against Furries Against Animal Sexual Abuse --- considered POV? -- Calbeck
Because you're not talking about FAASA. You're talking about Manawolf. Seriously, you've used the name Manawolf more in your article than you have FAASA. It's clear you have something against her. It shows through in your writing of the article. Redcard 20:30, 14 Sep 2005 (UTC)
Bravo, Redcard, you illustrated the point better than I could. 20:38, 14 Sep 2005 (UTC)
And, Scott, every new variation you write is becoming more POV, and now biased. It's starting to feel like a AFF thread. 20:42, 14 Sep 2005 (UTC)
Okay, tell me: what have I written that is POV? Specifically. No "All of It"s. Point to something and tell me why you think it's POV, as opposed to confirmably factual. I need to hear this. --Calbeck
Anything where you confront her opinions in a combative manner in an attempt to persuede automatically makes the article lose its Neutrality in your favor. Remove her from the equation and simply outline the tennants of the group's beliefs. FAASA existed before that essay. Why did they exist? Why are you acting now like you need her to exist for FAASA to exist?Redcard 20:56, 14 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • Sigh* Stick to the Factual parts of FAASA, That's FAASA. Not Manawolf's. Manawolf involment was part of the entry, sure, but not the main part of the entry, and specially not her beliefs, right or wrong, which I can easily read in your entry that you did not agree with them, and that's a POV. 21:01, 14 Sep 2005 (UTC)
"Anything where you confront her opinions in a combative manner in an attempt to persuede automatically makes the article lose its Neutrality in your favor. Remove her from the equation and simply outline the tennants of the group's beliefs. FAASA existed before that essay. Why did they exist? Why are you acting now like you need her to exist for FAASA to exist?- Redcard" <- In a nutshell, CalBeck. 21:01, 14 Sep 2005 (UTC)

I'm out[edit]

I am supposed to be on sabatical, anyways, and Admins GreenReaper and Duncan da Husky, along with user Redcard have a good handle on the calm, logic side of this issue. =) 21:07, 14 Sep 2005 (UTC)

FAASA Discusion[edit]

Mm, I see your point in terms of the equation. The problem is that we have next to no information on FAASA, and it's essentially all there already. All that could be added is what happened and why...and the "why", however obvious, requires a POV of some sort. Okay, that's where I'm screwing up then. Have a good sabbatical, and sorry to have delayed you. --Calbeck
  • Sigh* No, Calbeck, I was not trying to harrass, embarrass or f*ck with you. If you feel I was doing so, my apologies. It's just that we are trying to get the point down about any entry as neutral as possible, nothing more. 21:37, 14 Sep 2005 (UTC)
Nah, You're not screwing up. You're coming at this with some set of information and other people are coming with other pieces of information and we're all trying to reach a consensus on what really is going on here in the "furry world." You're doing good by just talking through this. We can get this article worked out. Redcard 21:16, 14 Sep 2005 (UTC)
Well, as it stands I think the current article is servicable. I wouldn't use "whether true or not", simply because it's readily confirmable that the charges being made were a matter of rhetorical hyperbole, but that's the only change I'd make at this point and if no one wants to go for it I don't have a major beef. --User:Calbeck

The Daphne Lage Accusation[edit]

Jeez, I just keep coming back from the sabbatical, over and over agin, just like them plate of Ma's cooked beans XP

Anyways, I was messaged if I could post the entry accusing Ms. Lage of the FAASA deed. Well, for historical reference, here it is (HTML stripped):

  • Part One: The accuser.

Burned Fur - The Message Board Subject: Not So Hard. Thursday, 28-Oct-1999 21:31:00. writes:

Message-ID: <7qbm4n$kjr$> Author: The Egoworks (A) X-Trace:

FAASA posts to Burned Fur - The Message Board from: (B)

Daphne Lage posts to Burned Fur - The Message Board from: (A)

FAASAFurry posts to AFF from: (<7phbcm$3e4$>) (B)


The Light At The End Of The Tunnel (C)

Message thread: The Light At The End Of The Tunnel: Not So Hard (28-Oct-1999 21:31:00) DragonZap: Re: Not So Hard (28-Oct-1999 23:47:40) Squee Rat, Sinnin' Heathen: Well, DUH. (29-Oct-1999 14:26:36) Hangdog: Re: Not So Hard (29-Oct-1999 18:22:56) J. J. Novotny: Re: Not So Hard (29-Oct-1999 23:58:47) S.J.Laitila - Oikeudenmukainen: Re: Not So Hard (01-Nov-1999 04:26:09) The Light At The End Of The Tunnel: Re: Re: Not So Hard (01-Nov-1999 12:35:24) Re: Re: Re: Not So Hard (08-Nov-1999 05:01:07)

Back to main board Prev Page Next Page Now viewing page 1 of 1 (14-Nov-1999 06:23:17 to 28-Oct-1999 14:52:05)"

Saved directly on my hard drive, so it's the real thing. Accuser (C) posted this entry showing what he claimed was proof that FAASAFurry (A), was Daphne Lage (B), posting with her name, or the name of her online venture ("The Egoworks.")

  • Part Two: The Accuser strikes again.

"Burned Fur - The Message Board Subject: Re: Website go bye-bye. Sunday, 10-Oct-1999 18:10:24 (D) writes: Why Ms. Lage decided to discontinue her charade as FAASA is unknown, but it was amusing while it lasted.

The Light at the End of the Tunnel

Message thread: If only you knew: Website go bye-bye (07-Oct-1999 19:54:58) The Light at the End of the Tunnel: Re: Website go bye-bye (10-Oct-1999 18:10:24)

Back to main board Prev Page Next Page Now viewing page 1 of 1 (10-Oct-1999 18:28:22 to 24-Sep-1999 03:39:55)"

This is the second time that The Light at the End of the Tunnel accused Ms. Lage, right after the groups demise.

  • Part Three: The Peanut Gallery.

"From: FromTheDeskOfStukaFox@StukaFox.Com Newsgroups: Subject: Re: FUR: A Final Farewell (LONG) Date: 1 Feb 2001 01:49:16 GMT Message-ID: <95afas$ikc$> NNTP-Posting-Host: NNTP-Posting-Date: 1 Feb 2001 01:49:16 GMT Xref:

Daphne Lage <> wrote: >Yes, I have left furry fandom.

Okay, can you now tell us what the whole "anti-zoo" masqarade thing over on the Burned Fur Message Base was about? Why didn't you just sign the posts as yourself?


As a final dig, on the day Ms. Lage officially left the fandom, Mike Stukafox Beebe tried one last time to try to make the "accusation" (This last post was actually made in So, there it's. there was not ONE "accusation" post, but TWO, and one "insinuation", so, Mr. Richard was not wrong after all, but the "accusation" was. just FYI. Spirou 01:46, 15 Sep 2005 (UTC)