Leave a comment

lordperrin July 20 2005, 14:08:08 UTC
Otherkin are dumb.

Reply

tigermaggot July 20 2005, 14:11:15 UTC
And furries are a subset of otherkin.

Reply

lordperrin July 20 2005, 14:28:42 UTC
Umm. No.

Reply

tigermaggot July 20 2005, 14:31:00 UTC
Um, yes. Both groups are havens for delusional retards who think they aren't human. Furries are more focused, making them a subset.

Incidentally, where's your vaunted furry tolerance? What, dogfuckers are OK, but not otherkin? OMG OTHERSECUTION!!!!!!!!!!11!!!!ONE!

Reply

lordperrin July 20 2005, 14:53:18 UTC
How are furries more focused? I described to you some many threads back just how UNfocused furries are. Otherkin are at least united by a similar set of beliefs, while furries are merely many different semi-similar subcultures mashed into one.

Also, I never said otherkin weren't 'ok'. I said they were dumb. I also never claimed to be a good example of furry tolerance. There are alot of subcultures in the furry fandom that I think are disgusting such as babyfurs. Just because I am a furry doesn't automatically make me tolerant of all other furry's idiosyncrasies.

Reply

tigermaggot July 20 2005, 14:57:24 UTC
Are you being deliberately obtuse?

Otherkin encompasses pretty much any nonhuman-wannabes. Furries are animal-wannabes. More focused.

"I never said otherkin weren't 'ok'. I said they were dumb."

Nice backpedal. Nice contradiction too.

"Just because I am a furry doesn't automatically make me tolerant of all other furry's idiosyncrasies."

Then why aren't you doing your damnedest to purge the dogfuckers, pedophiles and other fuckups from what you keep claiming is an acceptable subculture?

Reply

lordperrin July 20 2005, 15:06:45 UTC
Your comparison of otherkin and furries shows once again that you never read my description of what furry is. that's ok, I never really expected you to.

Contradiction? It's the difference between my personal opinion of them and what I feel is acceptable (personal feelings aside) which are two very different things. 'OK' isn't exactly great terminology, but I was only working with what you gave me.

More proof that you dont listen to my responces. I've mentioned to you on numerous occasions that I have NEVER encountered a pedophile in the furry fandom. As for dogfucking, I personaly don't give a shit about that since I feel it doesnt hurt anybody. It also has nothing to do with the furry fandom, so I don't care. Take that arguement up with the zoophile community.

Reply

tigermaggot July 20 2005, 15:10:56 UTC
I read your "description." It was so vague as to encompass pretty much anything. As I and others have stated already.

"As for dogfucking, I personaly don't give a shit about that since I feel it doesnt hurt anybody."

Wow. Dogfucking "doesn't hurt anybody." You're even more diseased than I thought.

"It also has nothing to do with the furry fandom, so I don't care."

Nevermind that we keep showing dogfuckers being accepted with open arms into the community, and their perversion celebrated.

Reply

lordperrin July 20 2005, 15:20:33 UTC
My description encompased the many facets of the furry community. Im sorry you dont like the truth, but furries are NOT easy to pidegon-hole. We're quite a diverse group.

And who does dog fucking hurt?

Reply

jsingood July 20 2005, 15:22:53 UTC
Well, first off, it hurts anybody who fucks a dog, deeply, psychologically. As well as anyone else in society who has to live around these pathetic, sick fucks.

Reply

tigermaggot July 20 2005, 15:24:49 UTC
I am actually stunned by this fuckup's line of reasoning. Dogfucking is a nonissue because it doesn't hurt anybody? Wow.

Reply

jsingood July 20 2005, 15:35:50 UTC
Yeah, what a COMPLETE idiot... jesus. It saddens me that not only are there some sick fucks out there, there are people jumping to defend them.

Reply

lordperrin July 20 2005, 15:28:44 UTC
That's debatable. I've heard quite a few psychiatrists who have decided that zoophilia is no longer a mental disease, and a number os psychologists who do not discourage the bahavior. Even if you disagree with these professionals, which you obviously do, you could use your same line of thought here to say that homosexuality hurts the homosexual.

Reply

tigermaggot July 20 2005, 15:31:45 UTC
And we have a winner! I wondered how long it would take to use the "if you support gay rights (and everyone knows how unhip it is to NOT support gay rights) you have to support dogfucking because they're equivalent" dodge.

Reply

lordperrin July 20 2005, 15:34:42 UTC
I never compared the two. I said her arguement was SO broad that it could encompas virtualy any act that is not encouraged by society at large, homosexuality beinga prime example.

Reply

tigermaggot July 20 2005, 15:36:48 UTC
And you do it again!

Reply


Leave a comment

Up