You want to say furries qualify as 'animals' because of their half 'n half nature? Make sex between a human and a furry qualify as 'bestiality'?
Then, surely, by the same logic, sex between a feral animal and a furry would qualify as bestiality, with the half'n'half furry qualifying as human? Or is it alright if the feral animal can talk and think sentient thoughts, so it can be labelled non-animal? How about if my human growls and is fairly incoherant?
It's not bestiality. There is no definition under any set of laws I've ever seen that will define a fantastical and imaginary creature as 'an animal' for the purposes of media about bestiality, it's never come up in a court of law, and continuing to claim that furries and humans qualifies as bestiality based purely on your own opinion with nothing to refer to is just not something I'm going to accept as an argument.
Omaha the cat dancer. Bestiality? Court said no.
Dude fucking a plushie? Bestiality? I think not. A plushie is as much an 'animal' as a furry is.
But you know. As much as your opinion that my work qualifies as bestiality burns my biscuit, there's another issue.
Okay. Inkbunny has decided that works involving human beings should be excluded in order to stay on the right side of the law. That's great.
But your site's mission statement reads:
The result is a community art site that regards freedom of artistic expression as a top priority, gives users as much power over their own accounts as possible and provides professional tools for artists to showcase their work, sell it or share it freely.
Wouldn't you say that by excluding works involving human beings, the site is, in fact, putting artistic expression as a secondary priority? How can Inkbunny pride itself on being a zone of free expression when there are areas of expression which are being fundamentally limited?
And don't tell me that 'humans are not the focus of the site', the focus of the story in question is the relationship between a human and a fur. It's intrinsically tied to anthropomorphism, the story cannot work without it. You might as well suggest that as 'trees are not the focus of the site', it would be equally reasonable to ban every image and story featuring a tree in bloom, and continue to maintain that free expression is a top priority.
The top priority seems to be _protecting the free expression of certain specific elements at the expense of others._ That's fine, that's admirable even, but it makes Inkbunny anything but 'a community art site that regards freedom of artistic expression as a top priority'.
Okay, okay. Hang on.
You want to say furries qualify as 'animals' because of their half 'n half nature? Make sex between a human and a furry qualify as 'bestiality'?
Then, surely, by the same logic, sex between a feral animal and a furry would qualify as bestiality, with the half'n'half furry qualifying as human? Or is it alright if the feral animal can talk and think sentient thoughts, so it can be labelled non-animal? How about if my human growls and is fairly incoherant?
It's not bestiality. There is no definition under any set of laws I've ever seen that will define a fantastical and imaginary creature as 'an animal' for the purposes of media about bestiality, it's never come up in a court of law, and continuing to claim that furries and humans qualifies as bestiality based purely on your own opinion with nothing to refer to is just not something I'm going to accept as an argument.
Omaha the cat dancer. Bestiality? Court said no.
Dude fucking a plushie? Bestiality? I think not. A plushie is as much an 'animal' as a furry is.
But you know. As much as your opinion that my work qualifies as bestiality burns my biscuit, there's another issue.
Okay. Inkbunny has decided that works involving human beings should be excluded in order to stay on the right side of the law. That's great.
But your site's mission statement reads:
Wouldn't you say that by excluding works involving human beings, the site is, in fact, putting artistic expression as a secondary priority? How can Inkbunny pride itself on being a zone of free expression when there are areas of expression which are being fundamentally limited?
And don't tell me that 'humans are not the focus of the site', the focus of the story in question is the relationship between a human and a fur. It's intrinsically tied to anthropomorphism, the story cannot work without it. You might as well suggest that as 'trees are not the focus of the site', it would be equally reasonable to ban every image and story featuring a tree in bloom, and continue to maintain that free expression is a top priority.
The top priority seems to be _protecting the free expression of certain specific elements at the expense of others._ That's fine, that's admirable even, but it makes Inkbunny anything but 'a community art site that regards freedom of artistic expression as a top priority'.
In my opinion, anyway.