Acceptance

ReconToaster wrote:

Felix wrote:

That's how the chain starts. One person thinks he/she's normal, tells another person he/she is normal, and they pass it on, thinking they are normal.

And by my definition, I know it's a little "odd", but that's how I think of it.

ok.... but in order for one to think that they are normal, they must first have a definition for the word "normal."

The definition of normal cannot be "thinking you are normal."

That's like if I said that the definition of 'Stupid' is "thinking you are stupid." It just doesn't make sense.

Thinking you are normal might be an EXAMPLE of normal behavior, but it is not the definition of the term.

Thinking it's right. That's how I would "define" normal.

ReconToaster wrote:

Felix wrote:

That's how the chain starts. One person thinks he/she's normal, tells another person he/she is normal, and they pass it on, thinking they are normal.

And by my definition, I know it's a little "odd", but that's how I think of it.

ok.... but in order for one to think that they are normal, they must first have a definition for the word "normal."

The definition of normal cannot be "thinking you are normal."

That's like if I said that the definition of 'Stupid' is "thinking you are stupid." It just doesn't make sense.

Thinking you are normal might be an EXAMPLE of normal behavior, but it is not the definition of the term.

FTW!

Felix wrote:

Death no more wrote:

Felix wrote:I talked to a furry once, he was nice, so I don't see the problem with them.

Also, not all furries are "fags"

People have many personas, I never talked to one my self, as all the people that I surround my self have normal tastes in most things. Eh I probably shouldn't have used the word fag as it didnt really pertain to them...

And your definition of normal is...?

Not being a furry?

Hell, according to the U.S. Census, it means being a white christian male, age 25-42, with black hair, and brown eyes.

So no, I'm not normal either.

Pie wrote:Hell, according to the U.S. Census, it means being a white christian male, age 25-42, with black hair, and brown eyes.

There are more men than women in the US? odd...

ReconToaster wrote:

Pie wrote:Hell, according to the U.S. Census, it means being a white christian male, age 25-42, with black hair, and brown eyes.

There are more men than women in the US? odd...

Everyone knows women don't count!

(in b4 shitstorm)

ReconToaster wrote:

Pie wrote:Hell, according to the U.S. Census, it means being a white christian male, age 25-42, with black hair, and brown eyes.

There are more men than women in the US? odd...

lol I know, in school girls out number boys 3 to 1... but maybe all of those "girls" arent really girls... I would hate to find that out the hard way.

Normal is just a more patronising version of the word 'boring'.

Death no more wrote:Hypocritical bastard, you accuse me of being ignorant when you scorn EVERYONE ELSE FOR GIVING NT WHAT HE DESERVES! He tried to make a argument of why praying when god isnt real, while kis was in the hospital, and INJURED, and you just stand by him, I mean dear god! This hypocrisy at its pinnacle! And if someone did hate me for being christian, I wouldn't care thats there opinion and my opinion is that yiff is disgusting. Dont you think rape is disgusting? isn't it?, but some people mights not think so, thats there opinion and this is mine: I hate yiff, I hate furries, my opinion, you have yours I'll speak my mind, and you can speak yours.

Yes...

I am a hypocrite, although that is just your excuse to avoid the answer.
Either way, you are still being ignorant, it doesn't make you any less ignorant that hypocrite is calling your ignorant. Im getting my point trhough so it seems...

Death no more wrote:

Felix wrote:

Death no more wrote:

Felix wrote:I talked to a furry once, he was nice, so I don't see the problem with them.

Also, not all furries are "fags"

People have many personas, I never talked to one my self, as all the people that I surround my self have normal tastes in most things. Eh I probably shouldn't have used the word fag as it didnt really pertain to them...

And your definition of normal is...?

Sharing the same tastes of the main populace.

That still doesn't make it normal

Normal: According with, constituting, or not deviating from a norm, rule, or principle
b: conforming to a type, standard, or regular pattern

The entirity of the 'main populace' does not follow a regular patter. Not everyone is the same therefore meaning in life (Amongst humans atleast) nothing is normal. Therefore, a furry is no different or stranger than you are. Besides, the 'main populace' is a very vauge term I believe. Please define 'main populace' to make your theory valid.

Gauz wrote:That still doesn't make it normal

Normal: According with, constituting, or not deviating from a norm, rule, or principle
b: conforming to a type, standard, or regular pattern

The entirity of the 'main populace' does not follow a regular patter. Not everyone is the same therefore meaning in life (Amongst humans atleast) nothing is normal. Therefore, a furry is no different or stranger than you are. Besides, the 'main populace' is a very vauge term I believe. Please define 'main populace' to make your theory valid.

The majority of Americans are Christian, therefore, if you are American, being Christian is "Normal."

x Gauz x wrote:

Death no more wrote:Hypocritical bastard, you accuse me of being ignorant when you scorn EVERYONE ELSE FOR GIVING NT WHAT HE DESERVES! He tried to make a argument of why praying when god isnt real, while kis was in the hospital, and INJURED, and you just stand by him, I mean dear god! This hypocrisy at its pinnacle! And if someone did hate me for being christian, I wouldn't care thats there opinion and my opinion is that yiff is disgusting. Dont you think rape is disgusting? isn't it?, but some people mights not think so, thats there opinion and this is mine: I hate yiff, I hate furries, my opinion, you have yours I'll speak my mind, and you can speak yours.

Yes...

I am a hypocrite, although that is just your excuse to avoid the answer.
Either way, you are still being ignorant, it doesn't make you any less ignorant that hypocrite is calling your ignorant. Im getting my point trhough so it seems...

Death no more wrote:

Felix wrote:

Death no more wrote:

Felix wrote:I talked to a furry once, he was nice, so I don't see the problem with them.

Also, not all furries are "fags"

People have many personas, I never talked to one my self, as all the people that I surround my self have normal tastes in most things. Eh I probably shouldn't have used the word fag as it didnt really pertain to them...

And your definition of normal is...?

Sharing the same tastes of the main populace.

That still doesn't make it normal

Normal: According with, constituting, or not deviating from a norm, rule, or principle
b: conforming to a type, standard, or regular pattern

The entirity of the 'main populace' does not follow a regular patter. Not everyone is the same therefore meaning in life (Amongst humans atleast) nothing is normal. Therefore, a furry is no different or stranger than you are. Besides, the 'main populace' is a very vauge term I believe. Please define 'main populace' to make your theory valid.

I did answer you question gauz if you take the time to read it, I said if someone hated me for being christian I wouldnt care, thats their opinion ther choice of hating Christianity. Shows your reading skills are top notch. Main populace refers to the over all population of region, therefore it is not vague if used in the correct terms.

Gauz wrote: Not everyone is the same therefore meaning in life (Amongst humans atleast) nothing is normal. Therefore, a furry is no different or stranger than you are.

If nothing is normal than everything is different, and if furry or a stranger are no different than me then they are the same(normal) Contradictions after contradictions, give up cut your loses short.

ReconToaster wrote:

The majority of Americans are Christian, therefore, if you are American, being Christian is "Normal."

Correct, although that is totally irrelevant to wether or not furries are 'normal'. A furry is a fetish, and in the US there is not a dominate fetish. Meaning there is no specificly 'normal' fetish meaning targeting furries is a stupid hate crime. Why not make fun of people with ballon fetishes?

BTW, whose side are you on? Because it seems like you are trying to validate death no more's answers, and he is against you.

Death no more wrote:I did answer you question gauz if you take the time to read it, I said if someone hated me for being christian I wouldnt care, thats their opinion ther choice of hating Christianity. Shows your reading skills are top notch.
^ Totally irrelevant
Main populace refers to the over all population of region, therefore it is not vague if used in the correct terms.

Oh it is totally vague...
In the way that furries are apart of the main populace meaning the 'main populace' is not normal. The USA is a region, and it has a population. This is going to be our 'main populace'. The 'main populace' in the USA is full of people with varying sexual and non-sexual fetishes that are far and wide in idea and practice. Furries, for example, are one of them. They are among the 'main populace' meaning that your use of the word 'main populace' has no effect because it is irrelevant. You need to be more specific, possibly to naming every individual that is apart of the 'normal' populace.

Death no more wrote:

Gauz wrote: Not everyone is the same therefore meaning in life (Amongst humans atleast) nothing is normal. Therefore, a furry is no different or stranger than you are.

If nothing is normal than everything is different, and if furry or a stranger are no different than me then they are the same(normal) Contradictions after contradictions, give up cut your loses short.

I won't give up, because you aren't doing so much better anyways...

And because this is a contradiction, this means that you admitted to being with equal standards as a furry. Maybe you should give up, eh death?

Adressing something else, that is still on topic nonetheless..
Death no more's signature, it has a yiff stamp. The stamp say: "Yiff, it might as well be bnestiality"

Totally absurd, as yiff and furry sexual fetishes are not in any way bestiallity. A stereotype that is in every way, stupid. Please explain to me how yiff is bestiality?

Gauz wrote:Correct, although that is totally irrelevant to wether or not furries are 'normal'. A furry is a fetish, and in the US there is not a dominate fetish. Meaning there is no specificly 'normal' fetish meaning targeting furries is a stupid hate crime. Why not make fun of people with ballon fetishes?

BTW, whose side are you on? Because it seems like you are trying to validate death no more's answers, and he is against you.

While I obviously am extremely supportive of Furries, and find their social persecution to be quite sickening, I don't think that they are 'normal.'

The vast majority of people are not furries, and thus being one is somewhat abnormal. Still, I get what you're saying in that it is no less normal than most fetishes.

Still, I think the term 'Fetish,' in and of itself, is a word that describes an "abnormal sexual fantasy/desire." For example, how is being sexually aroused by feet any different from being sexually aroused by breasts? The only real difference is that while the latter is EXTREMELY normal, the other is less common, and is often referred to as a 'fetish.' I've never heard anyone claim that they have a 'boob fetish.'

So furry interests are.... different, but there's nothing wrong with being different.

ReconToaster wrote:

While I obviously am extremely supportive of Furries, and find their social persecution to be quite sickening, I don't think that they are 'normal.'

I see, although I will challenge you on this..
How is it not normal? We have to set the basis of what we are evaluating to be 'normal'. Are we evaluating fetishes? Because in that case, I really don't think that there is a normal in terms of fetish.

ReconToaster wrote: The vast majority of people are not furries, and thus being one is somewhat abnormal. Still, I get what you're saying in that it is no less normal than most fetishes.

Quite true that furries do not outnumber people with other fetishes, but, you also have to count those other fetishes. Think of each fetish in a catagoery seperate from each other. These groups will range in size, and probably end up with furries, not being the most abnormal of fetishes. In fact, it is one of the most common fetishes, I believe it is more normal of a fetish than most due to its popularity and how many people are furries.

Meaning thus, furries are being target for a reason other than being 'not normal'. I believe it is because of peoples beliefs on the actual concept of two anthromorphic beings having intercourse is why it is attacked. Not only for that reason, but the reason that so many people hate on them, most just 'go with the flow'.

ReconToaster wrote: Still, I think the term 'Fetish,' in and of itself, is a word that describes an "abnormal sexual fantasy/desire." For example, how is being sexually aroused by feet any different from being sexually aroused by breasts?

In this case, how is being sexually aroused by breasts any different then being aroused by fur/ any other animalistic traits. Now it sounds absurd, but think this way. All fetishes are defined by traits..

Ballon fetish = Ballons
Foot fetish = Feet
S&M fetish = authoritarian

Now... how is a furry fetish any different?

Furry fetish = animalistic features
It is a trait, and said traits I believe cannot be singled out. Although people will try, someone will say "Thats weird". Then someone else can say about their fetish "No, thats weird!". It all comes down to personall dicresion. Meaning this argument cannot be resolved, but thats not my point. I am trying to prove that all people who hate on furries are ignorant. I can prove that, and in that statement alone I did.

ReconToaster wrote:The only real difference is that while the latter is EXTREMELY normal, the other is less common, and is often referred to as a 'fetish.' I've never heard anyone claim that they have a 'boob fetish.'

So furry interests are.... different, but there's nothing wrong with being different.

Not at all, different is good. The term 'normal' can be applied in some areas, and not at all in others. Like fetishes, you can not put a normal title on a fetish, in fact, no fetish has a chance at being normal because what would be 'normal' is to not have a fetish technically.

Or you could look at it that your normal, and everyone else isn't.

Gauz wrote:what would be 'normal' is to not have a fetish technically.

Right, because fetishes are, by definition, abnormal sexual desires.

It's also very relative to the culture you are analyzing. In some cultures, it is abnormal to find breasts sexually attractive. They think of them simply as being 'nurturing' and are not aroused by them in the least.

Mind you, these are the same places wherein the womens' breasts are down to their knees.

Oh yeah...

*achem*

Well... I win

I dont hate anyone really, everyone is entitled to their own oppinion on a topic I suppose, but I feel that Discriminating against someone for their sexual preferance is among the same lines of hating someone for their skin color or religion. More over if you don't like something about someone you havent even really met you shouldnt judge them all the same way because of it, I know someone who was a former furry and they are a good well rounded person, infact if they wouldn't have told you that they were a furry, you wouldn't even really know that is what they prefered.

Who would have guessed a topic about furries would have generated such controversy!!?

I don't really know all to much about furries but anyhew. In Spain at like 3 in the morning me and my mate had the tv on and there was this documentary about the 'squish' fetish.

Naw, this is basically when people get turned on by seeing people with insect crawling about somebody's feet like worms or milipedes or whatever. But that's just a tease - the real pleasure is when they squish the insects with their feet.

By this point we were repulsed to the point of actually watching, and found this fetish usually starts when you're a kid, and your mum saves you from an insect by stepping on them - which added yet another level of weird for me.

So if I met someone who told me they were into this I'd probably be like, 'Heh, gross,' and not really judge them, but from my vague understanding of furries this one seems a lot weirder.

Also guys who get their nuts trod on... Noooo thanks.

x Gauz x wrote:

ReconToaster wrote:

The majority of Americans are Christian, therefore, if you are American, being Christian is "Normal."

Correct, although that is totally irrelevant to wether or not furries are 'normal'. A furry is a fetish, and in the US there is not a dominate fetish. Meaning there is no specificly 'normal' fetish meaning targeting furries is a stupid hate crime. Why not make fun of people with ballon fetishes?

BTW, whose side are you on? Because it seems like you are trying to validate death no more's answers, and he is against you.

Death no more wrote:I did answer you question gauz if you take the time to read it, I said if someone hated me for being christian I wouldnt care, thats their opinion ther choice of hating Christianity. Shows your reading skills are top notch.
^ Totally irrelevant
Main populace refers to the over all population of region, therefore it is not vague if used in the correct terms.

Oh it is totally vague...
In the way that furries are apart of the main populace meaning the 'main populace' is not normal. The USA is a region, and it has a population. This is going to be our 'main populace'. The 'main populace' in the USA is full of people with varying sexual and non-sexual fetishes that are far and wide in idea and practice. Furries, for example, are one of them. They are among the 'main populace' meaning that your use of the word 'main populace' has no effect because it is irrelevant. You need to be more specific, possibly to naming every individual that is apart of the 'normal' populace.

Death no more wrote:

Gauz wrote: Not everyone is the same therefore meaning in life (Amongst humans atleast) nothing is normal. Therefore, a furry is no different or stranger than you are.

If nothing is normal than everything is different, and if furry or a stranger are no different than me then they are the same(normal) Contradictions after contradictions, give up cut your loses short.

I won't give up, because you aren't doing so much better anyways...

And because this is a contradiction, this means that you admitted to being with equal standards as a furry. Maybe you should give up, eh death?

Adressing something else, that is still on topic nonetheless..
Death no more's signature, it has a yiff stamp. The stamp say: "Yiff, it might as well be bnestiality"

Totally absurd, as yiff and furry sexual fetishes are not in any way bestiallity. A stereotype that is in every way, stupid. Please explain to me how yiff is bestiality?

lol arrogance loses again Im neutral now to this argument, I could argue but im to much of lazy fuck to carry it on.

Just to get it straight, you are defending people who look at the chick fox from "Star Fox" who say "I would hit that"?

LP wrote:Just to get it straight, you are defending people who look at the chick fox from "Star Fox" who say "I would hit that"?

If you mean Chrystal... dude... she is kinda hot.

ReconToaster wrote:

LP wrote:Just to get it straight, you are defending people who look at the chick fox from "Star Fox" who say "I would hit that"?

If you mean Chrystal... dude... she is kinda hot.

And don't tell me one's not called 'Slippy' for a reason.



Ewww...

I'll like to put a few defensive statements before I'm thrown into this argument.

I don't care about Furries. To each their own. I have no problem with what they believe and what they stand for, I may not agree with it, but I have no Ill hatred for them, like I have no problem with Homosexuals, transvestities etc.

They just have a sexual preference I don't share and that's about it.

I'd hit that...

ReconToaster wrote:The vast majority of people are not furries, and thus being one is somewhat abnormal. Still, I get what you're saying in that it is no less normal than most fetishes.

Exactly. Gauz seems to be entirely ignorant of statistics.
Because there is no "Normal" number in a sequence, an average, mode, or median is taken.
I believe that I can safely assume that most Americans are not furries. And I am quite unsure as to how to apply median to sexual fetishes, and I believe it does not apply.

ReconToaster wrote:The only real difference is that while the latter is EXTREMELY normal, the other is less common, and is often referred to as a 'fetish.' I've never heard anyone claim that they have a 'boob fetish.'

A quick and rapidly aborted internet search revealed the following for "Boob fetish": Expansion, absence, branding.
Do NOT make me repeat that search.

ReconToaster wrote:

Gauz wrote:what would be 'normal' is to not have a fetish technically.

Right, because fetishes are, by definition, abnormal sexual desires.

It's also very relative to the culture you are analyzing. In some cultures, it is abnormal to find breasts sexually attractive. They think of them simply as being 'nurturing' and are not aroused by them in the least.

So, what cultures would this be?

x Gauz x wrote:Oh yeah...

*achem*

Well... I win

Unless, of course, I say that "Normal" would apply to people without fetishes. People who are attracted to 'child bearing' traits, such as breast-hip size and general health.

ReconToaster wrote:So furry interests are.... different, but there's nothing wrong with being different.

I would have to do more studying before I can evaluate the last part of that statement, but I am pretty sure that furries are outside of the standard of deviation.

In any case, I find human-animal hybrids, catgirls, w/e to be deeply disturbing, but this is probably best attributed to xenophobia on my part.

ReconToaster wrote:

LP wrote:Just to get it straight, you are defending people who look at the chick fox from "Star Fox" who say "I would hit that"?

If you mean Chrystal... dude... she is kinda hot.

*Looks at picture...

ReconToaster wrote:

I'd hit that...

*Suppresses involuntary gag.

Im not being ignorant on the statistics of furries to 'normal' americans. Because there aren't any statistics of that nature to my knowledge.

Either way, if a furry still isn't considered 'normal', it is still okay to deviate from the 'normal' people. Different is good

And while it is safe to assume most aren't furries, you also have to count all of the other people with fetishses apart of the 'not normal' group. I have no idea of the number this group of peple generates, or wether it is larger than the 'normal' populace, but if it is that would mean no one is noraml when it comes to sexual deviency. Because if people with any sort of fetishes out number the people without fetishes, those people without fetishes are not normal due to not following the regular pattern of most Americans. And because a fetish is a abnormal sexual attraction, they are also not normal.

But, we don't have these statistics, meaning we can't prove or disprove my theory.