I recently got into a conversation over a topic with an artist about the community's view of ferals (specially in art) and was curious what other people thought about the subject. Furries are basically just talking animals that stand up right so if you took away the standing upright part, they'd be the average Disney animals (think lion king), right? Now lets go a bit more into it and ask what about Disney animal sidekicks who can not talk but are obviously above "animal" intelligence (like Sven from Frozen or even Meeko from Pocahontas)? How do you view them? Are they on the same level as the talking animals of Bambi or because they lack the ability to "speak" does that make them lesser?
Now for the real question: What level is ok to get adult pictures with? Obviously its fine to get pics of your furry character with "furry" Disney characters (maybe a little off legally, in some cases) but what about with like say adult Nala from lion king? This goes more towards the old consent argument, I think, in that Nala could clearer say yes or no when asked for sex and understand what sex is so despite being a quadruped, there shouldn't be reservations with doing her, right? Now what about the non-vocal critters? They clearly demonstrate a near human level of intelligence as they seem to understand speech and can act in ways "simple" animals couldn't, preforming complex tasks and such. As such they would pass the three checks on the Harkness test: Does it have human level intelligence or greater? Can it talk or otherwise communicate with language (think Ash understanding Pikachu)? Is it of a sexual maturity for its species?
Thoughts?
| Viewed: |
65 times |
| Added: |
3 years, 8 months ago
31 Aug 2020 22:22 CEST
|
|
|
