I can expect them to ignore it because they don't have to look at it. If you kick someone in the balls you have actively gone out and kicked someone in the balls. That's bad because you went and forced them to participate. That would be the equivalent of putting cub porn on a general TV station or a billboard, you're forcing people to see it.
Cub porn hidden away in a clearly marked cub section on FA is very different to that. Using the kicking example it would be like someone going into a club for people who like being kicked in the balls and then complaining about being kicked in the balls. If some people want to get together and kick each other in the balls then that's their business, if you stay out of the club you won't get kicked.
Freedom of speech is probably the most important thing we have. Your argument of art doesn't hold up because you can't define what art is and what something needs in order to qualify for being art or even why art itself needs to be protected (free speech would protect it). If someone can ban cub porn because they find it offensive then you should ban all images of women showing skin because it offends the Muslims. You should ban the teaching of religion because I find it offensive. Whether something offends someone or not is not a reason to ban something because there is bound to be someone offended by everything and there is no way to say why their offence is more important than someone else's offence.
For example how would you argue that furry art in general shouldn't be banned if someone finds mixing humans and animals offensive so much so that they don't think it counts as art?
"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~John Stuart Mill~
Your arguments are bad.
I can expect them to ignore it because they don't have to look at it. If you kick someone in the balls you have actively gone out and kicked someone in the balls. That's bad because you went and forced them to participate. That would be the equivalent of putting cub porn on a general TV station or a billboard, you're forcing people to see it.
Cub porn hidden away in a clearly marked cub section on FA is very different to that. Using the kicking example it would be like someone going into a club for people who like being kicked in the balls and then complaining about being kicked in the balls. If some people want to get together and kick each other in the balls then that's their business, if you stay out of the club you won't get kicked.
Freedom of speech is probably the most important thing we have. Your argument of art doesn't hold up because you can't define what art is and what something needs in order to qualify for being art or even why art itself needs to be protected (free speech would protect it). If someone can ban cub porn because they find it offensive then you should ban all images of women showing skin because it offends the Muslims. You should ban the teaching of religion because I find it offensive. Whether something offends someone or not is not a reason to ban something because there is bound to be someone offended by everything and there is no way to say why their offence is more important than someone else's offence.
For example how would you argue that furry art in general shouldn't be banned if someone finds mixing humans and animals offensive so much so that they don't think it counts as art?
"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~John Stuart Mill~