Interested in advertising on Derpibooru? Click here for information!
Help fund the $15 daily operational cost of Derpibooru - support us financially!
Description
No description provided.
Source
not provided yet
Help fund the $15 daily operational cost of Derpibooru - support us financially!
No description provided.
That quote is entirely subjective to the person’s beliefs.
Now you’re running away like a coward again
“video game Fallacy does not hold up to scrutiny since no one plays a video game to derive decadent pleasure from the suffering of the characters”
You say this, and I counter with… RapeLay.
“In short, abusers are individuals who can’t be trusted to keep it to their “art”.”
There’s a fair bit of art depicting abuse of humans and even children. Are we to suspect every person that creates such works to be criminally inclined?
@Darkmoon
“I’m sure the police reports will very thoroughly go into the madmen’s online activities.”
If the criminal involved makes any allusions to something computer related, their computer will be seized and gone through. Hell, in all likelihood their computer would be seized anyways.
@Darkmoon
“Not fluffy abusers, but very similar “tastes” in entertainment and when they didn’t have the will to ignore their craving, they did horrible things.”
Ahhhh, now here you have said something actually interesting. They did have cravings. Cravings desire to be fulfilled. The question here though, is what was their craving? Was it simply to harm and maim? Was it something more? Did they specifically target the animals? Did they have someone in their lives or their history that they wanted to harm? Were they in some way unable to harm said person? Were the animals a substitute for the person? Were the animals used to fulfill the craving for wanting to hurt people in general, until the animals could no longer suffice? There are a lot of nuanced questions that need to be answered for every case you cited.
@Dangerous Amoeba
“What percent of a population is a killer who enjoys killing (not people who kill in rage and so on). Now how many people abuse animals one way or another, burning ants, remove things from flies, tormenting dogs and cats, etc. There are a lot of people who hurt animals, but most of them never harm a human.”
Well I haven’t found general population rates. I read about some “study” done at a prison that 70% of the most violent prisoners had abused animals, while only 6% of non-aggressive prisoners had abused animals. Unfortunately if failed to provide a lot of critical information. It didn’t state what classified one as one of the most violent. It didn’t state what classified one as non-aggressive. It didn’t state the rate of abuse in other violent prisoners, if there even were any prisoners left after the previous groups are sorted out. It didn’t state what classified as abuse for the study. Most importantly, it didn’t state sample sizes. If there’s only 10 in one group and 100 in the other, the 7 abusers in the smaller group can skew the rate. There are odds that maybe they just got the 7 abusers in the 10 and if they gathered another 90, there might only be few more, dropping the rate from 70% to 10~20%. Poorly done studies like this only serve to sensationalize a problem rather actually address them.
If you or anyone else wishes to look into this kind of stuff further, I would suggest always attempting to identify where the reporting or studies are lacking, before looking at their results.
Some might be born mad, like (this isn’t exactly a fair comparison): Read a while back a guy killed someone accidently becuase they did not like being touched (aspergers or something). He didn’t kill him becuase he “turned” into a killer. He was just born like that.
Some are just mad.
What percent of a population is a killer who enjoys killing (not people who kill in rage and so on). Now how many people abuse animals one way or another, burning ants, remove things from flies, tormenting dogs and cats, etc. There are a lot of people who hurt animals, but most of them never harm a human. I am pretty sure most “deranged” killers are born, or created by an event. I don’t have specifics, but i am pretty sure people who turn to killing for kicks, have some weird past (abuse and such).
Well if we go a little broader, we can look at serial killers who enjoyed suffering in the same way Abusers do.
Albert Fish
Jeffery Dahmer
Jack the Ripper
Ted Bundy
Not fluffy abusers, but very similar “tastes” in entertainment and when they didn’t have the will to ignore their craving, they did horrible things.
Ad Hominem attack lacking evidence is a clear sign of a bad argument. Not saying ad hominems are bad, just after you present a valid argument that isn’t so easily cut down.
I’m sure the police reports will very thoroughly go into the madmen’s online activities.
Actually one of the reasons mortal combat is so popular is becuase of its ultra violence, everyone loves spines getting ripped out. Thats just one example. Ever heard the phrase “violence sells”? I think that becuase violence is so attractive to people, it proves people on some level like violence. “Abusers can’t be trusted to keep it in their art.” Prove it. Find me people who are fluffy abusers and committed a similar crime IRL. Then show me statistically that abusers are more likely to do it than non abusers. I doubt you will find much.
Your one to talk about a lack of logic abuser. You’re fighting an uphill battle. Now to explain my analogy, it’s not exact criminal activity that they’re guilty of, but they are abnormal and depraved. No normal person would enjoy the things they enjoy. Further, your video game Fallacy does not hold up to scrutiny since no one plays a video game to derive decadent pleasure from the suffering of the characters, but to enjoy the challenge of the gameplay. In short, abusers are individuals who can’t be trusted to keep it to their “art”.
I come back to see if there’s a response, notice typo of transposed characters in “criminal”… dog dammit
Look at that guys history, he rejects logic and reason like a creationist.
What about the instances where the story is the suffering of the characters?
@Darkmoon
“More like walking into a prison and reminding the criminals that they’re bad people.”
That is a flawed analogy. Inmates in a prison have actually done something crinimal, where here in the booru no one has done anything wrong. The people here who enjoy fluffy pony grimdark are are bad people based on your opinion. Sadly, your opinion doesn’t change reality, and the people that enjoy this stuff are just regular people like you.
“Except the abusers are free to walk among our ranks, ticking time bombs.”
Again, you have yet to prove that claim. Your opinion that this is true doesn’t change reality.
No, becuase people in prison (usually) are actually guilty of a crime. Your slippery slope argument that abusers are psychos waiting to happen, falls apart when you apply it to another art form. Ever played manhunt, fallout, mortal kombat, etc? Seriously violent, very popular games. Yet not that many people who play these games shoot people in the head expecting legs to explode, or try to rip out spines from people.
More like walking into a prison and reminding the criminals that they’re bad people. Except the abusers are free to walk among our ranks, ticking time bombs.
Why do you even show up on art like this? Its like going to a restaurant you don’t like, ordering food (cos you had to look at the art) then insulting everyone who enjoys the food and its creator. Why?
Enjoying the suffering of the characters is much different from enjoying the story. For instance, I’m not going to rag on LoTR because Sauron killed all those people in the beginning, he’s a villain and it represents what kind of person he is. It’s a far cry from jerking off over watching some nameless person getting slashed to pieces in Saw and blowing your load.
“You think hugboxers claim moral superiority?”
Well, it’s usually not the abusers going around, claiming other people are mentally unsound, questioning their upbringing, mocking their hygiene and declaring them dangerous with zero actual evidence to support anything they’ve stated. So yes, hugboxers are claiming moral superiority, completely without basis for doing so.
“And what are abusers doing when they shriek about fluffy ponies not being real and this somehow justifying art of harmless creatures being slaughtered?”
It’s called stating a fact, one would think this was obvious. Also why does art need to be justified? One could also ask this about why there is art of colorful cartoon ponies sporting phalli that are biologically impractical.
@Darkmoon
“One would like to think a normal person is superior to a murderous psychopath.”
Granted, but you have yet to in any way prove your claims.
“Inb4 “Video games do the same thing herp-a-derp””
I could use video games as an example, but since you wish to discount that, I’ll just use books, television and movies. All three forms of media carry a narrative. The narrative is often constructed to allow the reader/viewer to participate as a 3rd party observer. In this position, you have limited control over the narrative in that, you control how you respond to the narrative. Now, going on your predefined reasoning that enjoying fictional things dying or suffering makes you a “murderous psychopath”, then if you enjoyed teh scene of Tywin Lannister being killed, you are a “murderous psychopath”. If you enjoyed Jack Bauer torturing a suspect, you are a “murderous psychopath”. If you enjoyed the soldiers of Hydra being mowed down by allied forces, you are a “murderous psychopath”. Now, Inb4 “You’re putting words in my mouth!”, all I have done is taken your stance, that the killing and suffering of fictional beings, or the abuse of fluffies, makes you a murderous psychopath, and applied that same stance to other media.
One would like to think a normal person is superior to a murderous psychopath.
Inb4 “Video games do the same thing herp-a-derp”
You think hugboxers claim moral superiority? And what are abusers doing when they shriek about fluffy ponies not being real and this somehow justifying art of harmless creatures being slaughtered?
The point.
Your head.
@NotThatAnyoneCares
The funniest part about hugboxers, is that they’re protected by the police, fed by farmers, kept warm by houses that were built by other people, and probably need other people to fix the various things they own. They’re as helpless as the fluffies. And if you try to point that out to them, they throw screaming fits. They’re as arrogant and self-centered as smarty friends.
Same can be said for any human, but at least non-hugboxers don’t claim to be morally superior and are also able to identify similarity between this picture and practices used by farmers. Unless you’re growing all of your own food and control every aspect of it yourself, you will end up harming, or in other words abusing, some animal or other. Also, don’t ever receive a vaccination for anything, or insulin, or many other medical advances as they are developed using medical testing, or abusing, of animals.