This is an archive page, covering general talk on my user talk page from 11 September to 3 November 2005. Please do not edit this page - if you wish to bring up a topic, copy the relevant portion into a new section on the current page. Thanks! --GreenReaper(talk)
Trying to start a new chat with GreenReaper!
GreenReaper! THANK YOU SO MUCH for helping me figure this place out! And for cleaning up my article, I'm still figuring out how the formatting and stuff works...
--Gavinfox 02:56, 10 Sep 2005 (UTC)
- You're welcome! We all had to learn it at some point, so don't be too concerned if you don't get things looking perfect to start with. The important thing is contributing the information, which only you can do - other people can worry about formatting if they care. :-) --GreenReaper(talk) 02:59, 10 Sep 2005 (UTC)
- Well... I made a WHOLE LOT of changes...uhm, why is it that KYFurs and KyFurs are different articles? is there any way to make it non case sensitive? Also, something that would help the wikifur search FIND articles when people are looking to find furries in kentucky would be useful... any help?--Gavinfox 03:37, 10 Sep 2005 (UTC)
- There is not a way to make it case-insensitive (in some cases, it matters) - you just have to redirect one page to the other. Not really sure what you can do about the finding, other than ensure that it is linked appropriately from other pages. Hopefully if they search for kentucky they should find a few links (or if they go through the regional category.
- well, should I put my questions here or in the chat you sent me? I put some in the other one... I'm still not great at formatting, but I've tried to change as many articles that could reference kyfurs as possible.. including the mailing lists, which STILL listed fuzzky as the primary kentucky furry mailing list. :( --Gavinfox 03:47, 10 Sep 2005 (UTC)
Who are you on FM?
What is your username on FurryMUCK? There is no user named "GreenReaper" on FM and I wished to speak to you. Could you please send a pagemail to "Rackety" on FM? I wanted to ask you a few questions. I might also be able to provide you with some images to use. Thank you. :)
Burned Furs/Furrlough/Barr Wars Etc
Hey there, just wanted to say thanks for the consideration...yes, I admit to being biased somewhat in favor of the Burned Furs, but then again I was in the thick of all that. At one point, 10% of AFF traffic was just me. Fielding attacks from people bound and determined to paint the lot of us as anti-gay, pro-Nazi psuedofascists became an all-time job. So I'm a bit biased there. -;>
Also glad to have been able to add to the other bits: again, I'm a long-time furfan (about 12 years going now) and have witnessed or been directly involved in a lot of this stuff. --126.96.36.199
- No problem! I have the opposite situation - I know very little of the history of the furry fandom. Fortunately, I can rely on those within it to fill in the details or adjust things if they are incorrect - all I have to do is help them with the technical issues of doing it, or (occasionally) mediate when they cannot agree. It seems to work out, so far at least. :-) --GreenReaper(talk) 07:11, 14 Sep 2005 (UTC)
- I do need to point out, though, that Burned Fur was never, at any time, "anti furry". We were anti-bad-press. Our entire point was that using common sense and a little discretion would solve pretty much the entire problem. We did not advocate "running people out of the fandom". But there are easily a dozen posts to WikiFur alleging various acts or intents on our part which exist only in the minds of those making the allegations.
- For example, the section on FAASA refers to that group's desire to "remove bestialists and zoophiles from Furry Fandom", then goes on to suggest the problem FAASA raises is one of "sinful" activities --- as opposed to out and out illegal activities, which bestiality and zoophilia are. There's no issue of "sin" here; it's a crime being talked about. For that matter, Burned Fur never talks about "sin" at all nor does it couch any of its arguments in religious terms, yet the article on FAASA claims that "all Anti-Furries" of the period shared the religious angle. In the following section, both FAASA and Burned Fur are specifically listed as Anti-Furry (as opposed to just being referred to in the previous link) --- which is essentially an advocation that bestiality and zoophilia ARE part and parcel of Furry Fandom.
- I will state, however, that complaints were in fact lodged with the Alt.* hierarchy regarding alt.lifestyle.furry, expressly because threads promoting the bestiality and zoophile lifestyles appeared there. The promotion of illegal activities is against the Usenet charter, so we simply informed the Usenet authorities that the system was being abused. They warned the posters, who took down the thread, and that was that...just as it's supposed to work whenever anyone anywhere on the Usenet abuses it to promote illegality. No one contacted any carriers to have the group yanked, and it would have been an extensive waste of time and effort to even try calling a tiny percentage of the necessary carriers.
- All in all, it looks like the article was written by someone on the opposing side. For example, it's true that "only" two members of the fandom were defending the group --- which amounted to any given standard for an AFF flamewar; you generally only had two or three dedicated people per side, with maybe a handful of kibitzers chiming in at odd intervals. Manawolf's linked "counteressay" starts right off attacking "hate and intolerance" --- against bestiality and zoophilia.
- Although Manawolf makes clear she understands the issue is ONLY over these two issues, she calls for "an effort to understand and accept". This is illegal activity. It can't lawfully be condoned. She appears to be ignorant of this, but ironically throws in the accusation that FAASA is "ignorant". Of what, she doesn't say. She DOES, however, argue in a separate essay for the presumption of morality concerning bestiality. Assuming one were to accept this at face value, it still wouldn't address the illegality. She also claims that no one's ever assaulted her idea of trying to moralize the act of sexually brutalizing an animal, which is false: I have. She simply ignored it.
- These errors and presumptions should be corrected.
- Whew. That's a long post. Here's an equally long reply:
- Firstly, I would say that overall (and in my view), the Burned Furs were, in fact, intolerant of specific people or groups who considered themselves within the furry fandom. If their members were tolerant, they would have tolerated the state of affairs. The point is that they did not wish to tolerate it, and instead called for action to dissuade people from representing themselves as members of the fandom - or optionally, to create a whole new fandom without them. When there are documented examples of Squee Rat using phrases like "nutballs", "expel every last wacko from the fanbase" and "twitching crack babies", it is hard to believe that at least some Burned Furs did not, in fact, want these people to leave the fandom. This is not a case of just getting them to be more discreet. It is a case of not associating with them at all.
- I understand your position regarding illegality being the motivation (although, again, the above statements suggest that there's a certain about of moral judgement in there as well). It is a valid concern. However, I disagree with your statements that seem to imply that zoophilia (or, indeed, bestiality) is universally an illegal act. It is true to say that it is illegal in many areas, either specifically or under the guise of animal abuse (though I'd say that abuse would have to be proven).
- It is possible that the contributors who wrote the article up until that point were "against" the Burned Fur movement, or at least saw it in a detrimental light. This may simply reflect the average community view (which is not to say that it is the correct state for the article, but it is understandable).
- I'm not sure where you get the "against the usenet charter" from. Each newsgroup has its own charter - the alt.lifestyle.furry one is here. I agree that such posts might be against acceptable use policies.
- I can't comment on Manawolf's actions, either, as I do not know the history behind them. If you can provide her stated assertions and the evidence refuting them (assumably you made your statements at a prior date to hers), that might be useful information. Note that WikiFur isn't intended to continue conflicts, it might have relevance to the Burned Fur article, if she was involved with the Burned Furs.
- I would however say that an argument for the morality of bestiality is also an argument against the illegality of acts related to them, and that if the essay were accepted by readers it would address both moralistic and legalistic dilemma. That is, if people accepted that such acts were morally justified, they would be in support of repealing such laws as there were (and if such laws existed, they wouldn't be supported). Thus, the article attempts to indirectly affects the legal view by appealing to a change in the moralistic values. This is exactly what she means by "an effort to understand and accept". It is the same argument that marijuana users might make, despite the fact that in some areas the use of marijuana is illegal - that it shouldn't be, and that people should accept that some people want to use it.
- To take a more related example, it might be illegal to have sex with another person of the same gender, but perhaps it should be legal to advocate it, in the hopes that if people agree with your right to do so, you won't get a bad reputation anymore. Obviously bestiality/zoophilia is not at this point yet, but then nor was homosexuality 60 years ago. Opinions can change, though laws are slower to do so. --GreenReaper(talk) 09:05, 14 Sep 2005 (UTC)
I will remind you that I did not claim that Burned Furs were "tolerant" of those things they spoke against. I specifically said they were not. And no, I have not said that there was not a desire for certain people to leave the fandom. If I believe a President should be impeached for specific reasons, this does not amount to anything wrong --- it is simply my opinion. Even if I call for other people to join me in that impeachment call, neither is that wrong. We are not talking about a lynch mob here.
"Not associating" with the aforementioned people neither created nor solved the problem. The problem was that many furries found themselves hounded from the fandom by their friends, family, and sometimes even their employers, because of the poor word of mouth --- and later, press coverage --- the fandom obtained. Every scrap of that bad coverage and poor word of mouth has concerned people who refuse to be discreet in their sexual lifestyles. Going right back to your own quote of Squee Rat, I note that "expelling every last wacko from the fan base" comes up as a matter of idle fantasy, not a matter of actual intent. Sure, and I'd like to see the Republican and Democrat Parties as a whole rise up and throw out all the scumbags, but I don't think you're about to suggest that I'm going to base a political movement on this premise.
The simple fact is that, if Furries with alternate lifestyles did not try to press upon the rest of the world just exactly what their lifestyles ARE, there would not be a problem.
And why do ANY of us HAVE to know? It was never my business to know that the friendly gryphon down the street masturbates to Road Rover pics off the Internet, so if he MAKES it my business, do I not have the right to be offended? Why am I not allowed to accept someone without having to know that he swings both ways and screws a stuffed pig named Mimi on Saturdays? This is the problem --- there are people in the fandom who are not satisfied with having a sexual lifestyle different from others. For these people, it must be made public, and more importantly must be ACCEPTED, as though my opinion meant a damn to him in the first place. And if I don't accept, if I have any kind of problem with any given thing he does, I'M the one attacked for being "hateful".
"However, I disagree with your statements that seem to imply that zoophilia (or, indeed, bestiality) is universally an illegal act."
I may have wound up clipping it out, but I thought I noted that bestiality is not yet illegal in a handful of states. Nonetheless, it does not have to be universally illegal for it to be opposed where appropriate. The reason I included the term "zoophilia" is because the original article defended it under the same terms as bestiality, and in zoo circles the two terms are often interchangeable.
That said, it's also a fact that one can be a zoophile and NOT break any laws. Drawing a picture of a man raping a sheep isn't illegal, for instance. Nor is selling it. As long as the animal in question is entirely fictitious, no laws are being broken. Of course, the same is true of someone who draws pictures of babies being strangled. If someone is offended by any of this, they certainly have the right to voice their disapproval. That is neither censorship nor fascism of any stripe, but FAASA and BFs were routinely accused of such by their opposition.
I mention Manawolf, and her views, because they are directly linked right from the FAASA article, and presented as a core point of the opposition to FAASA.
"This is exactly what she means by "an effort to understand and accept"."
I'm sorry, but that's not a logical statement and must be taken out of context to effect the meaning you seem to wish to attribute. What Manawolf said, specifically, was that bestiality and zoophilia should be understood AND ACCEPTED. You cannot make an "effort" to "accept" something; either you do or you don't. I cannot make an "effort" to enjoy refried beans or asparagus. The only thing I can do is make an "effort" to wolf them down and try not to taste them while I'm at it. You can eventually change your mind as to what you will or won't accept, but if my opinion in FAVOR of bestiality would be respected, then my opinion AGAINST bestiality should likewise be respected, even if not agreed with, and Manawolf has made clear she does not respect any opinion which does not approve of it.
Manawolf certainly has every right to call for a revisitation of the issue, and make her case, and if she does not convince enough people that the law should be changed, then she has lost and that's that. To date, she has not won her case, but you seem to be suggesting that until she does, I should act as though she already has.
There can be no legitimate comparison of homosexuality and bestiality for this singular reason: animals are not sapient, and as such cannot give consent. Manawolf's argument, that an animal can indicate a desire for sex (and thus consent) ignores the fact that a human child may do the same and yet remain legally incapable of giving consent. The capacity for consent is not based in law upon whether or not someone is technically capable of signaling a desire for it --- it is based on the presumption that a person will, over time, develop the capacity to use calculated judgement in deciding where, when and how they will have sex. Animals never develop that calculated judgement, and thus cannot give consent.
Thus, bestiality will always be exactly what it is: abuse of animals for sexual gratification, and animal abuse should not be tolerated. If society is to say differently 60 years down the road, fine, but society does not say that now, nor does the law where applicable. --188.8.131.52
Just so you know (DMFA)
You are right in believing that the Wikipedia article Dan and Mab's Furry Adventures, which was copied onto the Wikifur article Dan and Mab's Furry Adventures, was created by fans of the series. Actually, it was initially started by me before realizing I hadn't logged in. ^^; Poofyspikes 01:46, 16 Sep 2005 (UTC)
- Hehe, yeah - I seem to remember the forum thread on The Nice. That's how the system's meant to work, so it's good to know it is. :-) --GreenReaper(talk) 04:25, 16 Sep 2005 (UTC)
And enjoy your cake. :) Almafeta 13:01, 19 Sep 2005 (UTC)
(From User Talk:JSB) - "You know, you can always revert it yourself! Just click History, then click the date and time prior to the vandal's edit, then click Edit, then save, and it's back where it started from. :-)" I think this should be in a nice, prominent place - the "Help" page, for instance? :) Tevildo 21:26, 2 Oct 2005 (UTC)