Furry Morality Question

[KimonoBoxFox]

And genetic modification is a million times more dangerous. What's your point? You can't use botox to turn yourself into perfect murder.

My point is simply that there's a health risk to both things, and that both things are done simply for looking a way one wants to look. Why assume the worst, when we're speaking hypothetically?

Believe me, I don't want scientists who play with genetics like a pinball machine either. I want us to know that what we're doing isn't going to needlessly endanger people as much as you do.

To wear my heart on my sleeve, it's certainly a goal of mine to look different, and be stronger. Is that something to hammer down, just because you assume I'd want it so bad as to do careless things to myself?

 

[KhakiHat]

Uh...

Dolphins kill their own kin for shits and giggles. If anything, you'd risk becoming a psychopath.

Hummm...

Pass that dolphin needle. Lets see how far this goes.

Captcha: Emosat Humans

 

[Internet Kraken]

This is not something that society should be tolerant about though. We should not accept rampant genetic modification as a good thing. And there's a world of difference between a botox treatment and becoming a hybrid. The difference being that one is altering a person on the genetic level.

Actually, the comparison is between genetic alteration, and injecting yourself with Botulin toxins, dear. It's the same risk, just different mediums of medical science--toxicology versus genetics.

And genetic modification is a million times more dangerous. What's your point? You can't use botox to turn yourself into perfect murder.

Called that like 6 posts back.

The moment any level of serious genetic mutation becomes available, someone will start trying to use it for evil. Not just the furry mutations. Think Aeon Flux assassin status. And that cat fellow down the hall might just hear something in the vents on inauguration day.

So you agree with me that genetic modification is bad...and yet you spent the last series of posts debating me over it and calling me a racist. What?

 

[artanis_neravar]

snip

http://www.vgcats.com/comics/?strip_id=275

That is not meant to arouse

 

[Torrasque]

Get a +1 to all my abilities but get covered in fur...
Well, considering that I would basically stop being a human, and this would probably lead to a furry vs. human war, then I'd say everyone either gets the serum, or no one gets it.
Yes, the +1 to all stats would be great, but not at the cost of potentially billions of lives.

 

[Ryengu]

AHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAH

Sorry, but deviant arts "no porn" policy is about as legitimate as China's human rights. Deviant Art is flooded with porn.

Then try this one http://www.artspots.com/browse

 

[DanDeFool]

Somehow, I think there would be discrimination even within the furrified faction. After all, if you got your genes spliced with, say, a tortoise, or an iguana, that would definitely be a much bigger change than getting spliced with some kind of mammal's genome. I can imagine there being a great deal of infighting between the lizard-people and the non-primate-mammal people.

Or do reptilian hybrids not count as "furries", on account of the fact that they're not "furry"? I don't really get how broadly furdom is supposed to be defined.

Furry is just the general name. If you want specifics, lizard people would be scalies.

Ah, so there are subcategories.

Hey, I just had another idea. What about the ones that actually do get spliced with other primates, like gorillas and monkeys? They'd be like Barack Obama, in the sense that they're "Not furry enough to be furries."

 

[Janktrio]

I probably wouldn't take the serum. Major changes to ones' DNA is not something to be taken lightly. Also what would happen if the animal a human spliced with was a chimp? Would they just become uglier, hairier versions of themselves with hands for feet?

 

[CptJackRabbit]

Somehow, I think there would be discrimination even within the furrified faction. After all, if you got your genes spliced with, say, a tortoise, or an iguana, that would definitely be a much bigger change than getting spliced with some kind of mammal's genome. I can imagine there being a great deal of infighting between the lizard-people and the non-primate-mammal people.

Or do reptilian hybrids not count as "furries", on account of the fact that they're not "furry"? I don't really get how broadly furdom is supposed to be defined.

Even amongst the furries we have now, there is discrimination, such as some furs think its wrong to be a fictional or mythological animal. I know, its sad.

And someone called CM156 a troll. I wish to dispute this claim. No offense to CM, I would he / she is misinformed, but has every right to dislike the idea of furry. Yiff is the wrong thing to look up, just like the website is going to be horribly biased and also filled with misinformation. But a troll, no sir. I wouldnt hesitate to say from what I read, CM is a more understanding hater, as it were. Such as, isnt going to go searching for somewhere to spread fur hate, but would also prefer it wasnt up in his/her face either.

Also, as far as me being bias, CM, I am a con going suit wearing full fledged fur, 100%. I don't mind who knows, and everyone I know thinks its odd and interesting, so I wasnt trying to be unbiased.

And to furs who are arguing, lets face it, a large majority of fur art is porn.. which is annoying, but it is a representation where one outside of the community would get their views.

OT: Question for poster, as it has been mentioned a couple of times, but I dont know if it was addressed or if I missed it, but, what about offspring, would post serum have potential of producing progeny?

 

[RaDeuX]

Seeing how difficult sex change is, I don't see how an almost-developed human being (late teens, early 20s) could easily mutate themselves into half-beasts. That, and a lot of animals have lower life expectancy than humans in general. I'm sure there are ups and downs for this depending on the animal(s) traits that you take in.

It could be possible to alter DNA before or at birth (and much easier, I bet), but who is going to give you funds for those kinds of crazy experiments? And would you want your future son/daughter to be completely isolated/bullied at school?

 

[Vidi Kitty]

This is not something that society should be tolerant about though. We should not accept rampant genetic modification as a good thing. And there's a world of difference between a botox treatment and becoming a hybrid. The difference being that one is altering a person on the genetic level.

Actually, the comparison is between genetic alteration, and injecting yourself with Botulin toxins, dear. It's the same risk, just different mediums of medical science--toxicology versus genetics.

And genetic modification is a million times more dangerous. What's your point? You can't use botox to turn yourself into perfect murder.

Called that like 6 posts back.

The moment any level of serious genetic mutation becomes available, someone will start trying to use it for evil. Not just the furry mutations. Think Aeon Flux assassin status. And that cat fellow down the hall might just hear something in the vents on inauguration day.

So you agree with me that genetic modification is bad...and yet you spent the last series of posts debating me over it and calling me a racist. What?

Actually I disagree. Genetic mutation isn't and never will be bad.

HOWEVER

Specific applications of genetic mutation can and probably will be very very bad. There is a distinct difference between thinking a metal fork is bad and thinking the guy who just stabbed someone with a metal fork is bad.

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

You really are nothing but a racist who can't see they way others do and can't agree with or even put up with the thought of someone choosing to be so drastically different.

Wait, you are serious?

Spoiler

Racist? Come on.
Next you are going to be comparing us to Nazis. And before you do, making fun of someone who likes a drawing of two animal-people getting it on is not in any way comparable to the crimes of the Third Reich.

If you hate something that you don't understand, and the people that fall into that category then yes you are a racist

Couldn't have put it better. Also if I were going to compare you people to Nazis, I might mention how you expect people to fall in like with your thinking even though it is extremely against a certain group just because you think you are right >.>

I don't deny that furries have a right to be furries. They do. They have the right to draw what they want, write what they want, speek what they want, ect.

However, furries are not the only ones with these rights. They have every right to write bad fanfiction, and I have every right to call it stupid.

All bad fan fiction is stupid. And everyone has the right to like and dislike as they please. I just drawn the line at people being willfully ignorant (not you specifically) and trying to force their opinions on others.

My point is that they want to express themselves. Which is fine.
But when I want to do the same? "Fursicution!"

And this is becoming derailed. Fast.

As I said before, this would change species, not race. Besides, if you CHOOSE to be something (which the first generation of these groups would have had to been) it is justified to judge them.
Fun fact: Adults do that in the real world all the time (judge people by actions and choices)

Googling that will only ever pop up one type of art. I'm calling it. Troll.

Right. Because I disagree with you I must be a troll.
My friend, you are only proving what I thought about furries all along.

No you were called a troll because you referred to "yiff" when talking about furry drawing which is most commonly used to indicate sexual activity or sexual material within the fandom, instead of just looking for furry

That was a joke. I have seen the art. Most of it is demented, and little of it is tame.

Besides, seeing a reaction leads me to my point: people are more often offended at the truth than a lie.

snip

http://www.vgcats.com/comics/?strip_id=275

That is not meant to arouse

And that is not furry art. It has anthro characters in it, but the fact that they are anthro is not the focus of the piece. Were it repalced with humans, it would have the same effect.

If a piece can have humans replaced in it to have the same effect, then it is not true "furry" art.

Le snip

Thank you. You have had the most adult reaction of anyone to anything I have ever said.

 

[Aprilgold]

If only so I can choose monkey, then I'm down with it, because then I resemble a human with more hands, better athletic skill, great intelegence AND the ability to climb very well. Its a win because I can still wear pajamas, my body won't change much. Growing the tail would hurt like hell, and I would probably have a large amount of hair growth everywhere, but thats all the fun.... Right? Oh, and if its free, like I'm a testing gini pig or something.

 

[Ryengu]

If a piece can have humans replaced in it to have the same effect, then it is not true "furry" art.

Then probably a large part of the porn isn't really furry art.

 

[Vidi Kitty]

And that is not furry art. It has anthro characters in it, but the fact that they are anthro is not the focus of the piece. Were it repalced with humans, it would have the same effect.

If a piece can have humans replaced in it to have the same effect, then it is not true "furry" art.

So if I were to take... say Hamlet and write in that he had a tail and ears and so did everyone else to varying degrees... It would still be Hamlet?

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

If a piece can have humans replaced in it to have the same effect, then it is not true "furry" art.

Then probably a large part of the porn isn't really furry art.

No, because it relies on the fact that they are furry.
Quite a bit that I have seen relies on usage of things such as tails and other animalistic things. They would not have the same effect.

And that is not furry art. It has anthro characters in it, but the fact that they are anthro is not the focus of the piece. Were it repalced with humans, it would have the same effect.

If a piece can have humans replaced in it to have the same effect, then it is not true "furry" art.

So if I were to take... say Hamlet and write in that he had a tail and ears and so did everyone else to varying degrees... It would still be Hamlet?

I don't know. But I am sure you have the answer and lecture for me, so let's hear it!

 

[Unesh52]

OVERTHROW THE BEASTIALS

 

[Kuro Kaze]

Believe this has been covered a varity of times, one that comes to mind was Batman Beyond and the splicing episode really cool, same concept with the splicing of animal dna with humans to bring you to the next level of ability but it was more idealized as a cosmetic thing.

 

[JoshuaMadoc]

I'm becoming more and more convinced that all this anti-furry sentiment won't reflect even half of how serious people would be in throwing ordinance at real hybrids.

That alone is frustrating to me because it's so mind-numbingly unserious that my head is bluescreening.

 

[Ryengu]

So if I were to take... say Hamlet and write in that he had a tail and ears and so did everyone else to varying degrees... It would still be Hamlet?

That's probably a bad example because yeah it would be. The main thing in a play is the actions, and just changing a few minor features isn't going to alter that. However one could argue with that example that changing them to furry-ish creatures doesn't change the characters at all, which is more on the actual original topic.

Also Captcha is referent vingen. Sounds like a game title to me :U