**And tell me, what would it look like, if I didn’t hedge? **
As was Raccoon, for me.
I have no idea what this means?
I personally don’t have a comment one way or the other on this controversy, but it seems part of it stems from people misinterpreting Meeko’s statement “Furries are more human than most humans are” as an almost Nazi-ish statement, claiming that furries are more fit to exist than most humans are. I don’t think this is the case. Some people think he was confusing “human” with “humane.” Looking online, I see that the term “human” can indeed be used in a way similar to “humane”:
This is what I think Meeko’s statement meant: “Furries are usually kinder to each other than humans usually are.”
If you didn’t hedge? Something like this.
Meeko, I have quoted your exact words back to you twice. Do I have to do it a third time to make it clear which sentence of yours I am referring to? For the last time:
You specifically contrast “Furs” and “Humans” here, not “Furs” and “other Humans”, making it pretty darn clear that you do not consider “Furs” to be a subset of “Human” but rather an entirely different group. And what is “more ‘Human’” supposed to mean if not “better”, particularly in the context of a post about how great furries are?
*And I informed you that you weren’t helping your cause by claiming that furries were not human, but were in fact better than humans.
Incidentally, the OP didn’t say anything at all about people having sex in animal costumes. It talked about people being turned on by animal cartoons. If you don’t want people to get the impression that a lot of furries have sex in animal costumes, maybe you shouldn’t keep bringing it up.
That is exactly what I understood it to mean – it was a claim that furries are not humans, and that they are morally superior to humans. If Meeko wants others to believe that furries are both delusional and obnoxious then that’s just the kind of claim he should be making. If he wants others to believe that furries are just regular folks who have particular tastes in art and entertainment then it is not.
Disregarding the human/not human issue, there’s nothing special about people who share a particular interest being nicer to or more understanding of each other than people who do not share an interest. I don’t doubt that furries are on average nicer to other furries than two strangers with nothing in common would be, but that’s true of almost any other group you could name. It isn’t limited merely to geek subgroups (already mentioned by Justin_Bailey), but just about any interest at all. If I meet someone who mentions that they enjoy watching my favorite TV comedy then I’ll be somewhat more inclined to like them than if they preferred shows that I didn’t care for. If I cared for sports I’d probably feel the same way about people who were fans of my favorite team. That doesn’t mean that people who watch The Office or root for the Green Bay Packers are better or kinder than people who don’t, it just means that people tend to like other people who share their tastes and interests. Big deal.
Which was not the OP, was it? Meeko said the OP implied that furries were all having sex in costumes, but it didn’t say anything about people dressing up in costumes at all. And while Meeko may not have been the first person to allude to costumed sex in the thread, he does keep talking about it. After a certain point saying “Oh, but most of us don’t do that!” is self-defeating.
Anyway, why does Meeko think there’s anything wrong with the people that do?
Which part of
means “that the OP implied that furries were all having sex in costumes”?
Did you not notice the discussion with Dio WRT the sexual habit(s) of furries? It’s called “fighting ignorance”.
I don’t parse that as saying furries aren’t human, I parse it as saying furries are a subset of humans that are kinder than average. For example, if someone said, “Texans are louder than Americans usually are,” they wouldn’t be claiming that Texans aren’t Americans, they’d just be identifying them as an especially voluable subset of Americans.
Meeko’s actual quote was more ambiguous, but I think that was just poor phrasing. Suffice to say, he has clarified that he was not trying to say that furries aren’t human, so I don’t think beating him up over that point serves any particular purpose.
No comment on the idea that furries are nicer than non-furries.
Which part of my post #106 was in response to that particular quote? Here’s a hint: none of it. The part of my post that you have a problem with was in direct response to a particular section of post #98 by Meeko. I included the quote that I was responding to as per usual SDMB practice. I don’t see how you could possibly be confused as to which post I was responding to or what particular section I was quoting, since it’s on this same page just a couple of posts back. It’s beyond me why you are trying to make it look like I was replying to a different quote from way back in post #27, but I would prefer it if you didn’t try to play these little games with me.
*Claiming repeatedly that the OP said something it didn’t say isn’t “fighting ignorance”. And since you brought it up, I note that Diogenes the Cynic has said very little about furries having sex in animal costumes either. He stated back on the first page that “My image [of furries] is of people jerking off to Petunia Pig JPEGs” and most of his other posts here have been in that vein, but he’s barely mentioned people having sex in animal costumes. He’s certainly spent far less time on the subject that Meeko.
Saying they’re kinder than other people is the part that’s arrogant. he’s pleading for tolerance and understanding on the one hand, and claiming moral superiority to the rest of humanity on the other.
I think someone who wanted to contrast Americans from Texas and Americans who aren’t from Texas would usually phrase that as “Texans are louder than other Americans usually are.”
*He hasn’t really clarified that at all, he just keeps pretending he doesn’t know what I’m talking about. He could have said “Oh, I see that was badly worded, it would have been more clear if I’d said ‘other humans’”, and that would have been the end of that line of discussion. Instead he keeps asking me to explain myself and to show him where he said furries weren’t humans. I don’t think it’s fair for you to characterize my posts as “beating him up over that point” when he’s asked me to go over the same point over and over again.
I don’t think that’s a necessary interpretation, is all. It could just as easily be read the other way.
Ah, you mean:
I see the sex in fursuits as being part of “many things” but not the “one thing” in the OP. YMMV, obviously, or you’re reading more into that than was intended.
So “reading more into that than was inteded” is it?
Meeko has been trying to dispel Dio’s notion that the fetishists (i.e.: fursuiters) are the majority; fursuiters who have sex while in costumes are a necessary part of that.
That’s putting words in my mouth. I’ve never said anything close to that, and I don’t believe it. I think the fetish is defined by a sexual attraction to images of anthropomorphic animals. I don’t think costumes are a necessary component, and I accept the assertions that most furries don’t wear costumes.
I also don’t really hear even the furry defnders denying that those who copulate in costumes are fucking goofy.
Then you must be unique because “furry fetish” typically refers to fursuiters. Those of us who simply like anthromorphic art are called “anthrofans” or similar.
I see what you did there.
Ah, you managed to quote me before I edited my post to be less strongly worded. I agree that it’s possible to interpret the Texas quote either way, but (as you said yourself) Meeko’s actual quote was less clear.
Given that there really are people out there who either actually believe they are or spend a lot of time pretending to be anthropomorphic animals, I’d think someone concerned about the reputation of the furry subculture would be careful to avoid such ambiguous phrasing. It seems an especially bad idea to include such phrasing in a sentence where you’re claiming that members of your subculture are nicer than everyone else.
Whatever Meeko’s intentions may have been, my impression of furries is now worse than it was before*. I did not previously associate “condescending” and “poor communicators” with that subculture.
Then Meeko is even worse at communicating than I thought, because that makes no sense. Why would he specifically mention people who have sex in costumes if that wasn’t the “one thing” of the OP?
*I can’t speak for Dio, but it seems clear enough to me that he considers furry fetishists to be people who masturbate to pictures of anthropomorphic animals, not people who dress up in animal costumes to have sex. You and Meeko are the ones who keep bringing the conversation back to people who have sex in costumes, which like it or not is only serving to reenforce the association between “furry” and “person who has sex in an animal costume”.
*And FWIW, I’ve met several furries personally, although that was years ago. A girl I was friends with in high school actually went on to become a semi-professional furry artist. (The first Google hit on her name is a WikiFur entry about her.) She was also kind of psycho, but I’m sure that would have been the same whether she was a furry or not.
Because it’s been brought up elsewhere in the thread?
As I said to Dio, it typically refers to fursuiters.