Noticed earlier the article was published. Thanks for publishing it! A few points I want to say:
The title is probably a bit over-dramatic (my fault really) as KaimTime has not been successfully "canceled" judging by him still having a lot of followers and activity, and "furries" was probably a bit less true as I only seen one person noticeably (to my subjective perspective) 'called out' for it. I guess it could be viewed with a prediction kind of mindset, assuming that makes sense.
"it's not even the same sapient adult furry character's consent." - I don't know if this is from editing or it was my fault but this does feel kinda odd looking at it. Perhaps "it's not even the same as adult sapient furry characters that can consent." or ending with "characters" is what I meant in mindset. Thoughts? I mean I'm the one who started the article but thought I asked about it anyway.
Despite the whole avoidance attitude of "zoophilia", I do want to be clear, if I wasn't, that I am not for witch-hunting against anyone (with or without such thing) enjoying lawful content in the furry fandom. If someone prefers less-realistic "animals" over the real thing then that's fine by me. I consider an example that is an issue is anyone (zoophiles or not) trying to use the fandom for the purpose of certain activities (e.g. animal abusive behavior).
There is also the open possibility of more points under 'Why this is a problem' that hasn't been written down.
Noticed earlier the article was published. Thanks for publishing it! A few points I want to say:
The title is probably a bit over-dramatic (my fault really) as KaimTime has not been successfully "canceled" judging by him still having a lot of followers and activity, and "furries" was probably a bit less true as I only seen one person noticeably (to my subjective perspective) 'called out' for it. I guess it could be viewed with a prediction kind of mindset, assuming that makes sense.
"it's not even the same sapient adult furry character's consent." - I don't know if this is from editing or it was my fault but this does feel kinda odd looking at it. Perhaps "it's not even the same as adult sapient furry characters that can consent." or ending with "characters" is what I meant in mindset. Thoughts? I mean I'm the one who started the article but thought I asked about it anyway.
Despite the whole avoidance attitude of "zoophilia", I do want to be clear, if I wasn't, that I am not for witch-hunting against anyone (with or without such thing) enjoying lawful content in the furry fandom. If someone prefers less-realistic "animals" over the real thing then that's fine by me. I consider an example that is an issue is anyone (zoophiles or not) trying to use the fandom for the purpose of certain activities (e.g. animal abusive behavior).
There is also the open possibility of more points under 'Why this is a problem' that hasn't been written down.