Welcome to Inkbunny...
Allowed ratings
To view member-only content, create an account. ( Hide )
SilverJackal

Ye ole' art topic

As a middle 20's gay furry, I sometimes cruise all kinds of chan sites and polish my tool to various pics.  Some are good, while others are not.  When looking at these pics, I sometimes read the comments people have posted; and have seen them grow into epic cat fights.  One example is the comic by Sheiuk called A New Kind of Gameplay that was posted on U-18Chan.

For any of you that don't know this, A New Kind of Gameplay is a cub porn comic that stars Dragoneer's alternate fursona Preyfar; and his now ex-lover Chrome.  The comic itself isn't complete due to some kind of reason, and will never see completion.  Despite this, people on the thread for it began whining for the rest of it, which led to other people telling them there isn't anymore to post and will never be anymore, which got more people pointing out that U-18Chan doesn't allow cub porn on their site; that then somehow exploded into an argument about furry porn in general and its views seen by the governing laws throughout the world.  Some quotes from this argument about the laws include "If you took a photo of a 12 year old kid being fucked by a 40 year old man, turned it into a drawing, made the kid look like a fox; then is it still child porn?" and "If you turned a photo of a man fucking a goat into a pic of an anthro wolf fucking a goat, then is it still bestiality?"

The problem with our style of artwork is that it blurs so many boundaries to a point where sitting up guidelines can be a rather difficult challenge to undergo.  An example of this blurring can be a pic of a rather young looking male anthro fox that is strung up by his neck with a noose with cuts all over his body and ribs showing being fucked by an adult male anthro bear, while at the same time a male human is down behind the bear rimming his ass.  This type of pic alone crosses many boundaries:  The fox looks rather young and therefore could be counted as underage, the strikingly obvious point that he is likely dead could count as snuff, the bear fucking him could be seen as crossing the boundaries of pedophilia and necrophilia; and then the human rimming the bear's ass could be counted as bestiality.  However the pic is drawing showing anthro characters and therefore likely fictional, so no real world events of this have occurred.  The type of pic mentioned has a number of philias that are frowned upon and in many cases illegal around the world, yet it being a fictional drawing puts it into that muddy gray area where labeling it and giving it a pass or fail is extremely difficult.  Also you have to deal with other law makers trying to argue over the pic when the acceptable lines are fucked up.  So as you see, the whole thing a is a very big mess...
Viewed: 10 times
Added: 6 years, 8 months ago
 
darkhusky88
6 years, 8 months ago
One word: Intent.
SilverJackal
6 years, 8 months ago
" darkhusky88 wrote:
One word: Intent.

kinda a funny word to use, mainly because people who use it sometimes have no actual proof to support their statement; so they throw "intent" in there to make it seem that they know for a fact.  saying something like "japanese comic artists have the intent of molesting a kid because they draw shotacon." is kinda like saying "furries have the intent of suducing kids because they wear fursuits".  both statements sound reasonable, yet without any actual proof to support your claim; everything you say is nothing more than a vauge guess about something.
darkhusky88
6 years, 8 months ago
Theres a big difference between a person dressing up as an animal and playing with a kid to make them happy and drawing a picture of a 6 year old "cub" being fucked by an adult "furry".
SilverJackal
6 years, 8 months ago
however that doesnt mean that they plan on actually bonking a kid just because they draw or look at cub porn.  if you went to a guy's house and saw that he had paintings of naked cupids and a fountian that had a naked statue of a boy peeing, do these things make the person who lives there a child molestor.  hell for years people called the king of pop a pedo because he had a ferris wheel in his back yard and said he used it to trick termenally ill kids into "playing" with him, yet that was all proven to be false and nothing more than parents coming up stories in order to get their hands on a lot of money.
darkhusky88
6 years, 8 months ago
" SilverJackal wrote:
if you went to a guy's house and saw that he had paintings of naked cupids and a fountian that had a naked statue of a boy peeing, do these things make the person who lives there a child molestor. hell for years people called the king of pop a pedo because he had a ferris wheel in his back yard and said he used it to trick termenally ill kids into "playing" with him, yet that was all proven to be false and nothing more than parents coming up stories in order to get their hands on a lot of money.


Just because you fail to prove something in court it doesn't mean evidence does not exist. Criminals get away with crimes all the time because the prosecutors lack enough evidence or the defendant knows how to play their game. If you will recall when they invaded Neverland Ranch they found love letters MJ wrote to that 12 year old Cancer patient but they couldn't use it as evidence because it was somehow ruled as immiscible in court. That and he paid that one family off on national TV to shut up. There is no doubt in my mind he was guilty.
New Comment:
Move reply box to top
Log in or create an account to comment.