fchan

>>34

lol, he doesn't like pedophile art so that makes him ignorant!

>>36

in other words, Canada only has the ILLUSION of creative expresion, and can't seperate that from non-fiction.

What gives government the right to dictate fiction? I'm proud to live in a country that despite all the politcal BS, allows for popular and unpopular forms of expression. unlike the PC craziness up north, people here have to deal with the fact that they don't HAVE to like anything, but it will still exist.

Canada can't take the bad with the good, and the banning of hate-speech and certian forms of fiction prove it and limit freedoms. There's no way to prove otherwise.

wow, how off topic was thaT?

>>39
Same as our illusion of free speech and right to gather in peaceful protest. Both guaranteed by the constitution, but both can land you in jail.

>>41
don't get all extreme on me, the protestors that land in jail are either violent, or block streets

>>43
Who's getting extreme?

Your statement:

>>34

Fuck you.

So just because I state /my/ opinion, you automatically had a stereotype all ready to go. Yep, I must be an idiot, must be ignorant and stupid, I disagree with you!

Thanks for taking the time to reply, I was just about to go shave my head and join the clan. Dues are more than the nazi group down the street, but much cooler costumes.

Now that I've got my annoyance and snide remarks out of the way, why should I care what you think? Why shouldn't I be angry over something I view to be wrong? The key words are what /I/ view to be wrong.

You think I'm just some 4chan bastard that has nothing to do other than pick on teh poor furries? Grow up. I asked a serious question, which you evaded nicely. Fine, you don't want to give your side of the argument, I understand. Like you said, humanity tries to understand what they cannot, or haven't yet. Maybe I wonder what some of these folks on Cops are thinking when they pick up that eight year old from the playground. Maybe I wonder why people get a hard on for a young wolf pup crying while getting rammed up the ass by his father. It boggles my mind, disturbes the hell out of me.

But no one wants to actually discuss, it's all like cable news. Just talking points, just their fragment of cool, snide remarks (And I am no different.) If all the posts are going to be like this, I'll just suggest this thread be deleted.

I don't even know why I bothered, it's the fucking internet. No one's accountable for anything.

>>47
"So just because I state /my/ opinion, you automatically had a stereotype all ready to go. Yep, I must be an idiot, must be ignorant and stupid, I disagree with you!"

HELLO, you're stereotyping everyone that likes cub porn as sick child molestors who're unable to 'defend' some kink

>>47

Oh come on now.  Look at who slammed you.  He's an "in your face" internet freedom fighter.  He has no power.  You, however, are part of the moral majority, and laws that would make this kind of stuff illegal is just one rich guy's tragedy away from happening.  Some Oil Baron's or Celebrity's daughter will be abducted by a pedophile, and they'll find cub art on his computer, and then a whole bunch of ammendments will be made.

I can't see the opposite happening.  I mean, the average person will cringe, if not flip out if shown that kind of art, so there's no way it'll become openly accepted.  If nothing else, the powerful christian backbone of america will make sure that never happens. :)

>>44
Finding a comic to be a thinly disquised racial slur hardly sets a precedent about the entire legal systems collective view of anthropomorphic art as being the 'same as pictures of people', that can then be translated to an assumption that 'furry cub porn' would be considered the same as 'child porn' and therefore 'illegal in Canada'.

Especially given that the Criminal Code itself contradicts that assumption.  Even if the 'art' stipulation somehow miraculously failed to fly because the judge was having a bad hair day or something, the "does not pose an undue risk of harm to persons under the age of eighteen years" clause is most certainly relavent.  No actual child = no actual harm. 

My comments in  >>26 still apply:  Haha, whatever. 

As for being an 'angry man', well...  Yeah.  :)

>>51
>>52

Christians are all about pedophilia.  They just downright looooove protecting those priests.

>>54

Well, I'll quote my roommate on this one. "It's not worth the risk."  Us Canadians are really uptight about child molesting, and for most, I think that it's a mixture of "Maybe it does encourage it" and "Who the fuck cares what THOSE kind of people want".  It's easier to ban it all than police it in moderation, and I sympathize to that effect.  The fact that I can sit around and blabber about that kind of thing tells me that Canada's doing a pretty good job of things.  What with the computer and the clean water and the electricity... much better than most places in the world.  Maybe not the best... but we can't all live in Sweden (or Denmark, or whatever country it was that was dubbed "Best Place to Live").

>>47
I didn't stereotype you, I just pointed out your failings.  You original post was exceedingly, unabashedly judgmental, and then you went on to demand an explanation.  That's ignorant, plain and simple. 

You didn't ask a serious question, and you didn't ask it in a way that suggested you'd take any answer seriously.  You asked in a way that puts folks on the defensive.  That's ignorant. 

And then crying because I called you on it.  Well now, big surprise...  I'd say that was ignorant, but it'd just be rubbing it in.  ;)

As for why you should 'care what I think', I think you already know the answer...  Other than the fact you want to fuck me (no thanks, I'll pass, no offence...) there's not really a good reason other than 'because you feel like it'. 

Especially as what >>51 says is mostly true (short of the 'internet freedom fighter' thing - I'm hardly so noble or naive as that) - You are part of the moral majority, and I'm just the bored intellectual that's questioning openly (ohnoes! as you said) whether the 'moral majority' is automatically 'right'. 

I don't think so.  I don't think that just because something, anything, makes the vast majority of people recoil in distaste, that it should automatically be consrtued as 'wrong' or that people of fragile sensitivity should be protected from what they (or their guardians) don't have the sense to avoid exposure to.  I don't think that people who like what the vast majority of people dislike should be stigmatized, prejudged,  or mistreated by virtue of preference alone.  If nobody gets hurt, or will get hurt (and pwecious widdle feelings don't count) then live and let live. 

So why shouldn't you get angry at what 'you' feel is 'wrong'?  Because you're not the only person in the world, big surprise!  As long as other people exist, then you'll have stuff around that you dislike, and if you get angry and rant about it on the 'interwebs' one of 'teh furries' might call you an idiot for it...

On the other hand, had you just asked, 'Hey, guys, I'm not into it, but what's the appeal of cub porn?' you just might have got that discussion and, potentially, that understanding you were looking for. 

But as you say, it's the internet.  There's million of people using it, and none of them are accountable, and a whole lot of them are pretty fucked up.  Cope. 

(And if you can cope with that, I'll try to cope with all 'the stupid' I see...  Deal?)  :P

>>56
Hi, I'm 'angry man' and I *am* Canadian (though Molson beer still sucks). 

My beef isn't with people that dislike cub porn, my beef is with *stupid* people that haven't got a clue what they're talking about citing pathetic 'evidence' to support the fallacy that cub porn is considered the same as ACTUAL child porn and thus is illegal in Canada. 

It's not.  There is nothing to suggest it is.  If there was, somebody would likely just point it out to me.  Since they can't, and my own research finds nothing to indicate that cub porn (drawn cartoon characters fucking, of any implied age) is illegal, I assume they're full of shit and/or just fear mongering in an effort to somehow 'fight' cub porn by making dumb Canadians think it's true. 

This bugs me because I thought our education system was better than that.  But really, I guess anyone dumb enough to believe their Cub Central archive on their computer is enough to get them sentenced to jail time as a child-rapist likely deserves whatever unwarranted fear they feel about it. 

>>60

I dunno, to me this stuff is pretty much on-par with kiddie porn, and I don't think that you can discount the immorality of what's being depicted in these pictures simply because the actors in the pictures are furs intsead of humans.  The underlying concept is the same -- these are pictures of adults raping toddlers.  It's unnatural, immoral by almost all standards, and to me, it's just sick and should have no place on this board.  It's not an issue of creative freedom, it's an issue of having some sort of moral standards for an online art gallery.  If you ran a poll on this site for those for/against cub porn on this board, I'm pretty sure you could guess which side would win.

But I guess we have to be "sensitive" to the people that "need" to view this stuff, for whatever excuse they give themselves.  I'm not going to pretend like this is something that should be tolerated, but the least the people running this board could do is put it in a section all to itself, so that those who choose to avoid it can do so.

"If you don't like the way my house looks, then get the fuck out of my property".

Think of it that way.

>>65

um yea that's good and all, except the fact that this isn't just one person's property, it's kind of a shared thing.  you could make the argument that the mods own this place and what they say is as good as given, but the images are uploaded by the users, not the mods, and this place wouldn't be worth dick without 'em.

I see you're trying to be all cool with a quote and all, but it doesn't really apply. this is more of a group effort than anything...

>>66

Well, it's not magic that makes people have sex with kids, and it's not technology, so it must be natural.  Peverse nature, but nature nonetheless.  Diseases are natural, hurricanes are natural, natural doesn't mean "good", it means natural.  Try not to read more into word than there is there.  It distracts from the actual point, which I assume is to protect kids.

Pedophilia, like most strange sexual preferances, is a mixture of "you're born with it" and how you grew up. I really don't remember when I started feeling it, and I also know for a fact that I wasn't molested or anything when I was growing up. But I know that as soon as I started learning about sex, I felt it. Mind you, I've enver acted out on this feeling, or looked at the real stuff.

What I'm trying to say is, I didn't make myself into a pedophile, I've been one as long as I can remember, since before I really knew what sex was. I agree it's a mental disease, but one that you're born with the inclination towards, not one that you condition yourself to have. It's also probably the hardest to seek counseling for, hence why no one does. Everyone assumes that you molest children if you're a pedophile, but I have enver even thought about real children in a very sexual way to where I would do that.

>>62
Refer to the latter part of >>26

And 'haha, whatever' to you too. 

Unless you care to actually find this astounding precedent established by 'R. v. Sharpe', cause really, I've read all I care to about it and find nothing to support your position.  If anything, the case itself was an example where you're position was *weakened* because Shaw dismissed Sharpes personal writtings as evidence, claiming they were protected by a very broad interpretation of 'artistic merit':  He was convicted on possesion of regular, photographic child-porn.  Real children, actual harm. 

There's a lot of *talk* about how the changes to the Criminal Code *inspired* by the case can limit the effective defense of 'artistic merit' but no where does anyone ever make claim that illustrations are illegal (nore does the Criminal Code list illustrations as illegal), especially ones as ambiguous as most furry cub porn.  A crime comic, being very limited in definition and scope, being the closest mention.  (*Writings*, on the other hand, seem to be slammed pretty harshly now, compared to before...)

So really, get a decent argument, drop the feeble 'smart guy' attitude (cuz' I do it *way* better than you) and start citing evidence, or again, STFU.  :)

And if you *do* find some document to support your position, that doesn't require extensive stretches of imagination and selective interpretation to apply, even  vaguely, to 'cub art', then I'll happily follow Eh's example and admit 'you win'. 

Closing this since i doubt that the discussion will actually reach a meaningful conclusion.