IDB

IckleMissMayhem wrote:

And by the time they go home after TATINOF:

blueapple_x wrote: Hasn't Dan made enough jokes about furries in a subtle (but not really) "I'm making fun of this subculture" type of way? And based on urbandictionary's various definitions, being a furry doesn't automatically mean you want to have sex with an anthropomorphic animal/an animal. So if Dan really was a furry I think he would know that fact and wouldn't have made a joke about rubbing Shiba's all over his naked body to set back the furry community with that stereotype lol.

spider wrote:

IckleMissMayhem wrote:

And by the time they go home after TATINOF:

Did you have all of those images on hand waiting for the perfect opportunity to use them?

IckleMissMayhem wrote:

fancybum wrote:

Let's talk about houseplants!

And by the time they go home after TATINOF:

akui wrote:Your logic make sense but that doesn't meant mine doesn't, I didn't say they want to have sex with animals, I say I don't want to rule out any possibilities, whether they are real furries or not, and if a furry do happen to be sexually attracted to animals, would it be moral for them to own a pet is just a general question I wonder not specify to Dan and Phil.

jaej wrote:whatever sorry for ruining the entire thread for everybody always

mermaid blood wrote:Why are people comparing their experience/culture/opinon differences? compare the two people involved, they are the only ones relevant.

Dan was a highschooler and a big fan of Phil, who had lived out of home for several years and just completed his masters degree. We don't know Phil's sexual and relationship history, we do know (some) of Dan's. Phil had a track record of sexual talk (reciprocated) online with teenagers, both sexes.

these are the facts, regardless of the interpretation you bring to the table. both sides are unlikely to ever agree. i don't think it's unfair to be alerted to behaviour and relationships that can correlate with manipulation and abuse. it means you give a shit.

the fairest conclusion is probably to admit those instincts are justified in a lot of situations, but we don't know if they are in this case. nor can we guarantee they're unwarranted. we don't know them. claiming what one has done to the other and the inner workings of their relationship dynamic is ridiculous. this particular conversation comes up semi-frequently in the phandom and it bothers me, because it's a serious one. sometimes i think people are too determined to defend to the death, or vilify, people they're fans of. logic gets lost in the discourse.

jhamba wrote:

mermaid blood wrote:Why are people comparing their experience/culture/opinon differences? compare the two people involved, they are the only ones relevant.

Dan was a highschooler and a big fan of Phil, who had lived out of home for several years and just completed his masters degree. We don't know Phil's sexual and relationship history, we do know (some) of Dan's. Phil had a track record of sexual talk (reciprocated) online with teenagers, both sexes.

these are the facts, regardless of the interpretation you bring to the table. both sides are unlikely to ever agree. i don't think it's unfair to be alerted to behaviour and relationships that can correlate with manipulation and abuse. it means you give a shit.

the fairest conclusion is probably to admit those instincts are justified in a lot of situations, but we don't know if they are in this case. nor can we guarantee they're unwarranted. we don't know them. claiming what one has done to the other and the inner workings of their relationship dynamic is ridiculous. this particular conversation comes up semi-frequently in the phandom and it bothers me, because it's a serious one. sometimes i think people are too determined to defend to the death, or vilify, people they're fans of. logic gets lost in the discourse.

(this is not as a mod/admin, but as someone mad about the way this conversation has gone) I would prefer it if we didn't just dismiss people's opinions the way we did in this conversation, or act like having a controversial opinion and arguments are the end of the world. This forum is for debates, and we need a healthy amount of disagreements for this forum to not stagnate. As long as the person isn't insulting a group of people, or another poster (too harshly), I think the more controversial topics are a very important part of the ecosystem of this forum, and shutting them down is a silly and slightly disrespectful thing to do.

akui wrote:

blueapple_x wrote: Hasn't Dan made enough jokes about furries in a subtle (but not really) "I'm making fun of this subculture" type of way? And based on urbandictionary's various definitions, being a furry doesn't automatically mean you want to have sex with an anthropomorphic animal/an animal. So if Dan really was a furry I think he would know that fact and wouldn't have made a joke about rubbing Shiba's all over his naked body to set back the furry community with that stereotype lol.

Your logic make sense but that doesn't meant mine doesn't, I didn't say they want to have sex with animals, I say I don't want to rule out any possibilities, whether they are real furries or not, and if a furry do happen to be sexually attracted to animals, would it be moral for them to own a pet is just a general question I wonder not specify to Dan and Phil.

But let's not dwell on that, human are complicated creatures and Zootopia made all my friends furry.

Anonymousse wrote:

[img]by%20Ickle%20https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/2e/41/c6/2e41c6483e6c96065a161ef3275897cf.gif[/img]

new favourite gif.

Umm... So what DO they use the cacti for?

Is their ___ dungeon made out of cacti?

Edit: Am I blind or did we lose the "poof"

SquishPhan wrote:

Anonymousse wrote:

new favourite gif.

Umm... So what DO they use the cacti for?

Is their ___ dungeon made out of cacti?

Edit: Am I blind or did we lose the "poof"

I don't want to know.

And yes it does look like we have lost the 'poof', what a sad day for us all.

spider wrote:

akui wrote:Your logic make sense but that doesn't meant mine doesn't, I didn't say they want to have sex with animals, I say I don't want to rule out any possibilities, whether they are real furries or not, and if a furry do happen to be sexually attracted to animals, would it be moral for them to own a pet is just a general question I wonder not specify to Dan and Phil.

The discussion started on Dan and Phil though. Dan's family had a dog since he was young and they have another dog now. From the few pictures Dan posted his family dog likes him a lot and shows affection to him which it wouldn't if it were being abused. Don't know about Phil but he raised hamsters for a long time and had a rabbit as well so he knows how to care for pets at least.

Dan was joking and said his real opinion in Festive Day in the Life which was posted earlier. And even if they were attracted to animals it's safe to say from their family history of pets that they know morally not to abuse them and would be very against it.

SquishPhan wrote:

jhamba wrote:(this is not as a mod/admin, but as someone mad about the way this conversation has gone) I would prefer it if we didn't just dismiss people's opinions the way we did in this conversation, or act like having a controversial opinion and arguments are the end of the world. This forum is for debates, and we need a healthy amount of disagreements for this forum to not stagnate. As long as the person isn't insulting a group of people, or another poster (too harshly), I think the more controversial topics are a very important part of the ecosystem of this forum, and shutting them down is a silly and slightly disrespectful thing to do.

I disagree! You can't have a discussion if the other party isn't allowed to debunk that theory in whatever way they want. This is a forum after all and those people's thoughts also shouldn't be shut down, people are allowed to disagree. You can't have it both ways.

jhamba wrote: oh, no, people are allowed to disagree. And, I don't think people should debunk things in whatever way they want. There are ways to debunk a theory without resorting to shutting someone down, or misrepresenting their arguments. (again, this isn't as a mod, just someone with strong opinions)

Anonymousse wrote:

by Ickle

new favourite gif.

Umm... So what DO they use the cacti for?

Is their ___ dungeon made out of cacti?

Edit: Am I blind or did we lose the "poof"

Anonymousse wrote:I broke my own code (this is an everyday problem)

jhamba wrote:

Anonymousse wrote:I broke my own code (this is an everyday problem)

#relatable

Anonymousse wrote: I'd love a ls tonight/today.

akui wrote: IDK but the fact Tom said himself in his vlog that he is having some legal problems, I inclined to think them leaving CF is the real thing, but yes, we can never know for sure unless CF remove them both from their website. (PJ is no longer on it i think?)

IckleMissMayhem wrote:

jhamba wrote:

Anonymousse wrote:I broke my own code (this is an everyday problem)

#relatable

Pfft. Do it properly and FUBAR the thread, then we'll talk(!)

IckleMissMayhem wrote:Interesting about R1. Maybe R1 want(ed?) to get rid of the other IT hosts (they're all CF peeps, no?), but keep for other projects, maybe they came as a set deal?
Ugh. We'll likely never know. Ditto the specifics in contracts.