Creative Commons license icon

Reply to comment

Well, I am very attractive; thank you for noticing.

But anyway, you're absolutely correct from the ethical standpoint; if a creature is sentient and has the ability to consent, there is no difference.

However, in practical terms, both the characters in question (Rarity and Nick) are not actually sentient creatures; they're cartoons, which is a type of representational art. Rarity looks more like a non-sentient animal than Nick (and they both look more like a non-sentient animal than, say, Superman, another cartoon), and the thing is, in representational art, what it looks like and what it is are the same thing.

Just to be clear here, this is not me fighting you; arguing at most. I'm even agreeing with you on a basic level; I'm just pointing out why confessing to having the hots for certain cartoon characters (and even different cartoon animal characters) may garner different reactions.

What I'm saying is your point is correct; you're just not presenting your case well, and refusing to see that there are multiple completely correct ways to see this issue.

Reply

  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <img> <b> <i> <s> <blockquote> <ul> <ol> <li> <table> <tr> <td> <th> <sub> <sup> <object> <embed> <h1> <h2> <h3> <h4> <h5> <h6> <dl> <dt> <dd> <param> <center> <strong> <q> <cite> <code> <em>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

More information about formatting options

CAPTCHA
This test is to prevent automated spam submissions.
Leave empty.