No really, why is it a problem though, this offers zero actual problems that exist outside of a debate club you made up and "people were angy on the internets again"
I believe some people's reasoning may be a bit different than some others.
If you saw the shit Kaim was into, I dare you to put it in an art job portfolio or ask to be trusted to take care of someone's pet. It's pretty fucked up by extremely liberal standards whether or not someone is a diddler risk.
You're not being realistic, nor clear. Being into "feral" furry art doesn't automatically equate into being into real-world animals. If you want to lean into being realistic on such a subject to use such a fear-based argument, then I think it would be more logical if it was about someone being into realistic and accurate deceptions of the real-world animals with accurate enough behavior, and that's just some lean as it's not 100% conclusive. Some people are into "ferals" that has less accurate features, including human-level emotions of intelligence, and many of such people prefer such features. There are also certain characters edited to have even less accurate features as a preference.
Now I will disclaim that I don't fully know everything about KaimTime, but I did saw a couple and it's not enough.
Maybe instead of saying "I won't say how zoophiles should be handled though" and finding a bunch of mental copes about straddling the line, start with a real problem like "how should we handle zoophiles" and then figure out what problem artists have with it.
I didn't want to go into detail with that a lot because I didn't want to get into a ridiculous heated debate and thinking about it now, it would also be a bit complicated. If you want a bit of a stance from me on this so bad then here I go:
There is no offense of an actual zoophile merely seeing and/or enjoying lawful art of anthropomorphic characters, and such a person is not getting closer to any real animal just by having internet access to certain content that isn't even about real animals. So unless the law says otherwise, there is no complicit to any bestiality activity from a certain furries having open access to certain art. I don't think I fully get why some people try to act like it's an offense by itself and then use such mindset to go after innocent furries because they didn't follow such a weird ass hive-mindset.
One concern I can see is when certain zoophiles are coming together and having contact with each other making certain discussions (e.g. talking about locations of where the offense will take place). This isn't even a feral art elusive issue either as it happens with two-legged furries too and/or some other places too. Though remember, this is about some. I don't think all people who has such a mental condition is planning a crime with it.
So how can furries deal with those that are using the place to discuss illegal activity for example? Well, we have certain policies, and there might be some other realistic way of dealing with it (it's a little hard to talk about this I think). Despite that, nothing in here seems to suggest blaming certain feral artwork because the more I think about it, it just feels like the wrong target.
one of Kaim's fave artists on his alt is tagged "bestiality"
It's quite possible a loose definition of bestiality can apply to anthropomorphic animals x humans as well.
I believe some people's reasoning may be a bit different than some others.
You're not being realistic, nor clear. Being into "feral" furry art doesn't automatically equate into being into real-world animals. If you want to lean into being realistic on such a subject to use such a fear-based argument, then I think it would be more logical if it was about someone being into realistic and accurate deceptions of the real-world animals with accurate enough behavior, and that's just some lean as it's not 100% conclusive. Some people are into "ferals" that has less accurate features, including human-level emotions of intelligence, and many of such people prefer such features. There are also certain characters edited to have even less accurate features as a preference.
Now I will disclaim that I don't fully know everything about KaimTime, but I did saw a couple and it's not enough.
I didn't want to go into detail with that a lot because I didn't want to get into a ridiculous heated debate and thinking about it now, it would also be a bit complicated. If you want a bit of a stance from me on this so bad then here I go:
There is no offense of an actual zoophile merely seeing and/or enjoying lawful art of anthropomorphic characters, and such a person is not getting closer to any real animal just by having internet access to certain content that isn't even about real animals. So unless the law says otherwise, there is no complicit to any bestiality activity from a certain furries having open access to certain art. I don't think I fully get why some people try to act like it's an offense by itself and then use such mindset to go after innocent furries because they didn't follow such a weird ass hive-mindset.
One concern I can see is when certain zoophiles are coming together and having contact with each other making certain discussions (e.g. talking about locations of where the offense will take place). This isn't even a feral art elusive issue either as it happens with two-legged furries too and/or some other places too. Though remember, this is about some. I don't think all people who has such a mental condition is planning a crime with it.
So how can furries deal with those that are using the place to discuss illegal activity for example? Well, we have certain policies, and there might be some other realistic way of dealing with it (it's a little hard to talk about this I think). Despite that, nothing in here seems to suggest blaming certain feral artwork because the more I think about it, it just feels like the wrong target.
It's quite possible a loose definition of bestiality can apply to anthropomorphic animals x humans as well.