Boomer The Dog seeks legal name change
Boomer The Dog is attempting to change his legal name, as reported by the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.
I want to have my own identity. Everyone should have their own, and if it means having another name than what they were given, then they should go for it.
At the courthouse, Judge Ron Folino warned that he might veto the change if it "causes confusion in the community" or would be "seen as bizarre."
Update: Boomer's petition was denied; Judge Folino ruled the change to "The Dog" could risk public welfare. His closing statement: "Although Petitioner apparently wishes it were otherwise, the simple fact remains that Petitioner is not a dog."
As part of the process, Boomer was fingerprinted by a state trooper, inspiring artwork from close friend Ricochet.
Boomer is a regular at Anthrocon and Midwest FurFest, where he is occasionally seen in a suit of shredded paper. His name derives from the lead character of early 1980s NBC adventure/drama Here's Boomer (video).
About the author
GreenReaper (Laurence Parry) — read stories — contact (login required)a developer, editor and Kai Norn from London, United Kingdom, interested in wikis and computers
Small fuzzy creature who likes cheese & carrots. Founder of WikiFur, lead admin of Inkbunny, and Editor-in-Chief of Flayrah.
Comments
Oh, brother.
He wanted his own identity!? Whose identity was he using before!?
A hand-me-down from his parents, like the rest of us.
Honestly, I'm a little surprised we've not had more of this.
And how was that not his? We all start off from scratch with only a given name and family connections. What he does with it from thereon is pretty much up to him. The idea that changing his name to a dog's name somehow imbues with a new or somehow improved identity is just absolute sillyness. His comparison with his father's having changed his name when he moved to the US in order to better assimilate in his new home is equally ridiculous.
Ah, well. It's his business and his cross to carry. I just don't see anything particularly notable or praiseworthy about it.
As you say, what he does with the name he was given is up to him – he's just decided to relinquish it for one he feels is more appropriate to the life he leads, and the family he now keeps.
Companies do this all the time, as do performers and those with spiritual beliefs – think Stalking Cat.
As for notability, most do not pick a dog's name; presumably this is why the story was picked up by the AP.
I don't see much of anything of a spiritual nature involved here... and yeah, I was thinking of Stalking Cat in very much the same vein.
Up to him... and the big brother the man court of the laws.
I wonder if the Judge things Snoop Dogg is an actual dog because it's in his name. That'd be interesting.
I was surprised that the AP got the story, My idea was that the most that would happen was a story about it in the local newspaper.
Another part of the surprise it that to me it's normal to be Boomer The Dog, so I didn't think it would be that big of a deal to others, just an unusual name change.
Boomer
"What he does with it from thereon is pretty much up to him."
That's exactly what we're trying to say. So where's the problem?
Smile! The world could use another happy person.
No problem. Just my opinion: someone who feels the need to legally change his identity to that of a dog (or any other animal) is obviously someone who can benefit from some long-term counseling.
In general, today's psych profession doesn't have a problem with what you identify with as long as you are not troubled by it.
Although your views may be seen as eccentric or fantastical, if it's not causing problems in your life, psych people don't really care. Think of those who believe in a mystical sky daddy and find health and happiness in it.
In my opinion you set the bar for long-term counseling way too low.
There are far, far more important problems to be concerned about than what someone wants to call themselves.
I agree full-heartedly! There are far more important problems to be concerned with than what someone wants to call themselves!
Oh? Guess you don't care if I call you SmartAss McAsshole then?
Why should you care what people call you? There are more important things after all. (EDIT: Apparently naming conventions do matter I suppose seeings as this comment was voted 1 twice, if it didn't matter people wouldn't have felt any emotional regard for it, which only proved my point.)
I can twist a meaning too, ain't it all fun?
But in all seriousness, if it isn't important, why do you keep commenting on it, or more importantly think it's around the same in the sin factor as someone having sex with animals?
The question is rhetorical btw, one thread about that is enough for this story.
Actually in a completely different discussion with Chuck Melville in comments to another article, I noted that almost every disagreeing comment was voted 1, sometimes twice, while his comments somehow maintained a rating of 5 from at least one vote. I'm pretty sure he thinks upvoting himself and downvoting his detractors somehow strengthens his argument.
News flash: It does not.
Smile! The world could use another happy person.
You're not the first to notice interesting voting patterns. I spent an hour or two investigating this issue a fortnight ago.
Flayrah's voting system is intended to prevent both logged-in users and visitors from voting on their own posts. (We already know you like them.)
It turns out there was a loophole within the AJAX comment mechanism where it would present a valid voting form attached to the submitted comment of a visitor. Such visitors would have to immediately vote on their own posts, without regard to other votes.
A few SQL queries later, and I had a list of 113 comments voted on by their creators. 83 were by a single visitor, and nine each by two other visitors. Predictably, only two such votes were for less than five stars.
This loophole has been fixed and the votes removed. The identity of the voters concerned is, of course, a private matter. But I know — and so do they.
Not everyone can be dog the bounty hunter.
*ba-dum-tssh*
Man, why would you do this thing that he's doing. I am disappoint.
I want my name to be in line with my identity. It has been with most everyone for years, but I wanted to take it another step and make it legal. It's part of an ongoing growth process as a Dog, as me.
Furry doesn't really have much to do with it, not everything at least. I was this way, a Dog, a long time before I found the Furry scene 12 years ago. I would bark that Furry adopted me, and now most of my friends are here.
I don't really take to definitions like lifestyler, therian, Were or whatever, but I feel like a Fur, and I present myself and my ideas, and let you decide.
So Prince could change his name to a unpronounceable symbol, but this guy cant change his name to Boomer the dog? Just let him have it and be done with it.
Social capital: if you do something which people like, you get some free passes for bizarre behavior, if such is your disposition. Don't incur debt. Don't blow it all with one horribly anti-social act.
My question is did Prince get his name legally changed to the symbol? Or was that an artist title? Because he was called "The artist formally known as prince" therefore I am thinking it was just a "Band Name" "alias" type of thing. If it was a legal change that would be interesting because the same logic about emergancy dispatch could be made. You couldn't say your symbolic name (which aren't characters in a symbolic language such as those in Asia of course) over the telephone
The thing is, personally, I don't see the need to have one's name legally changed to something everyone calls you. Billy the Kidd wasn't known as that officially, it's an alias, but fewer know him by his actual name. This happens, it's not the end of the world if the government has you under a different name, because the government has no control over what name the people call you by.
As far as I've been able to learn, Prince's name change wasn't legal. It was simply a stage name, and a pretty gimmicky idea at that. And he didn't stick with it, either, but completely dropped it in 2000 and went back to just being known as Prince... which really is his real name.
To me, it's a really important thing that the courts give my name legal recognition. I don't feel like a real participant in society with two names.
It's a problem with some Furries, and in other fandoms where identities can be strong. You're wearing two different hats, and some people think that's normal to have the dividing line, some actually like to have the split, but I don't like it. I'm seeking to be a more fully realized individual.
I can even argue that psychologically, it would be better for me to be all things Boomer, and I feel in some ways I need that to move on.
Boomer
verdict: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/10223/1079394-100.stm
"putting the public welfare at risk."
Judge, I am disappoint.
Out of context: And when I first read that line I thought it was silly to, but he goes on to explain a rational scenario where the name could put another's health at risk.
(From the updated article)
""Consider the following example," should the court grant the request, Judge Folino wrote. "Sometime thereafter, Petitioner witnesses a serious automobile accident and telephones for an emergency medical response. The dispatcher on the phone queries as to the caller's identity, and the caller responds, 'This is Boomer the Dog.' It is not a stretch to imagine the telephone dispatcher concluding that the call is a prank and refusing to send an emergency medical response.""
I'll do like an another unusual name changer, In God We Trust would do. If there would be some question about the name, or if it seemed like confusion was coming up in an emergency situation, I could just use my given name. Note that my given name would also be my identity, maybe not legally any longer, but by birth.
Plus, 911 would enter 'Dog' into the computer and instantly verify my identity if it is legal, whereas if I adopted the name by common usage, it wouldn't be on record, so the situation could even be worse!
What if I was in an accident and one of my friends who knew me only as Boomer The Dog calls the dispatcher and I'm not in the database by that name? The dispatcher might conclude that my friend was making a crank call and it could have dire consequences, using the judge's logic.
Here's another example, could a married woman be faulted legally for using her maiden name in an emergency situation? Think about it. AKA.
I feel that the judge's argument is a bit weak on that point.
Fandom I am dissapoint.
Also before someone says something, why is it that "I'm a furry" is a universal excuse for any and all actions done by a person?
No, but it's also not an excuse to try and change disappointing behavior in an individual just because they share a hobby, or try and stretch one's actions on the whole of a group.
Why are you disappointed in the fandom sir? The Fandom didn't ask for a name change, an individual did.
I'm disappointed, in you
Somebody call the waaaaambulance :V
Why is it always the ones that whine about everyone getting over-defensive about their criticisms are the ones who tend to get over-defensive from the criticism of others?
Just so you know the fandom is solely responsible in of itself for all of the bad press it has gotten so far.
Also why shouldn't I be disappointed in the actions of a individual of this fandom if they do something dumb, since the fandom pretty much says they can do whatever they want even if common sense would dictate otherwise?
No, that's not entirely true. Sure, there's a good size chunk of the fandom who have gone out and precipitated a lot of the bad press, but there's also a lot of blame on the press side as well, especially back at the beginning. (It's gotten better in recent years.) A number of articles were written without due research (or, if they did the research, simply ignored it) and focused entirely on the seamier, sensationalistic and more visual aspects of the fandom. The infamous CSI episode about furries had an advisor on the set, but ignored him whenever his advice conflicted with the story they wanted to tell. Et cetera, ad nauseum. Plenty of blame to go around.
I'm pretty sure you haven't heard about confurence have you?
I know all about Confurence, which doesn't alter my point. The only thing you've said that I disagreed with was that the fandom was solely responsibile for its bad press. They aren't. They do deserve a lot of the blame, but they are not the only ones responsible.
"Also why shouldn't I be disappointed in the actions of a individual of this fandom if they do something dumb."
Sir, please read what I said again, I didn't say you couldn't or shouldn't be disappointed in an INDIVIDUAL but you said:
Fandom I am disappoint.
The fandom never said they can do whatever they wanted, you're saying the fandom said they can do whatever they wanted. The fandom can't talk or dictate as it doesn't have vocal cords, it is an object not a person.
You're making Boomer into the representative of the whole of the fandom, they are their own individual, commenting on the actions of an individual for their lack of common sense is one thing, and it'd be hypocritical if I was criticizing you on that. What I have issue is is you're crisizing the fandom based on one individual within it, because it makes no sense at all. It's a hobby.
It'd make about as much logical sense as saying "Golf is responsible for all the bad press it got because Tiger Woods was sleeping around."
I see it as a bigger issue than just the Furry fandom.
It's about self actualization, individual choice, the pursuit of happiness, the right to an identity and being able to petition and have your case heard in a court of law and decided in a fair and balanced way, among other things.
Boomer
I support his effort to express his creativity and individuality. Any citizen should be allowed to do this as long as no harm is intended or done. He should probably establish legal residence in a state which has a more liberal judicial climate and make his petition there.
Allowed, Yes. Should it be done? No. This slack jawed, slope-headed, grease ball mouth breather deserves every bit of scorn and ridicule tossed his way. I mean, Boomer the Dog. Really? Not even just Boomer? But Boomer the Dog? Hell, now that I think about it, I can't even find fault with the judges denial. I sure wouldn't take anyone called Boomer the Dog seriously.
Maybe Boomtastic will reconsider his horrible life decision and at least make it less of a horrible life decision.
Don't be so hard on him. I agree that it is a bit silly to actually change your name to Boomer the dog. He would probably have better luck just changing his name to boomer and keep his last name.
And insulting an individual based upon things other their decision will make them less likely to take any of your advise about life decisions...
Maybe you'll consider that horrible decision next time.
HAH! I see what you did there. But this wasn't so much an Ad Hominem* argument, and I wasn't trying advise anyone. (My advice is admittedly as bad as my disposition.)
What I was doing was openly mocking someone who I think is a shmuck. And in a round about way showing my disdain to the "Special Snowflake" treatment. But, in retrospect I was probably being a bit to harsh on him and I might retract the "slack jawed, slope-headed" part.
*(took me forever to remember what this fallacy was called, thanks google :D)
Yeah, this response probably excessive, but I hate "U MAD LOLZ" type rebuttals.
Aww, come on, that's just the beginning of the story, where's the rest, time to gimme all you got.. :)
Eh, tapped out of rage. Short fuse = tiny explosion.
I stand by everything I said though, besides the long string of inane insults.
There should have been some insult customization before I just tossed-em out all willy nilly. So, sorry for the baseless insults.
The story (I.E. my opinion) "You're a silly git for changing your name and should be treated as such."
SO. Yeah.
But, I would like to say even though I think your name change to Boomer The Dog is absolutely insane and borderline retarded, good luck on it. I seriously mean that.
Oh, and also try not to attract any more negative media attention then you already have.
I'd say he can do what he wants, but naming yourself after a character on a televisions show, I wouldn't call 'creative'.
And the "Conservative Judge" did show an example of how the change of the name to "Boomer the Dog" could harm another individual unintentionally.
Good point. I'm not really trying to be creative, more like correct an imbalance that I see.
I'm a fan of the show, but it goes beyond that, to something that I have grown into as my identity. It's like when someone's art is 'inspired by X..', but the inspired artist makes it their own and takes it in new directions.
Yes he did, and he's right in questioning the whole thing, which is why I even had an evidentiary hearing on the name change, instead of just having it go right through like other non-unusual name changes I witnessed did.
Shining River's idea of residency in another state could be something to think about. What I'd like to do is make contact with any other Furries who have changed their names to animal names, and hear how they did it.
As for Furry, that was something brought out by the news media first. Doing research for the story before they talked to me, they checked my sites and networks and found the Furry connection. Being that it's Pittsburgh, of course that was taken up pretty quickly.
I know people down here in Aus with weirder names than that.
Now if he really wants to mess with "the public welfare", he should change his name to just Boomer. I have two friends who've changed their names to just a single name. You should see the contortions various organisations go through trying to get them into databases that keeps insisting that they must enter both a first name and a surname.
It might have been better if they had tried Boomer Dog, or Boomer T Dog.
Also the problem with name changes, is that it's up to the Judge's discretion.
Note, over three years ago, I was able to change my name to Stephanie Nikon Raccoon in Illinois. Had no issues with the name in that time, although folks do take a second look when they see my last name.
Ah, so you're one of the Furries they talked about who has changed their name. I'm happy that it went through without a problem, but it you have any tip to share that might be useful in a case like this, let me know.
I want Boomer The Dog because that's what I am known as and have been using, but I would sign as Boomer T. Dog. There are others with the name Dog, over 100 listed on White Pages.
Not much to share. Didn't actually see the judge. I handed the papers over to the clerk, and she came back 10 minutes later with signed papers. I think the judge just wanted get it done quick as he had a bunch of divorce cases.
As for ridicule, I haven't gotten any really. Most folks think it's rather nice. And I have lots of friends who have changed their names with no issues.
Subtly doing it probably helped in a way... the press probably didn't know there was a fur involved, and I think doing it quick and painless and without media would have probably been better, but once the media grenade is lobbed, you can't put the pin back in.
Unfortunately when getting what you want, it's always a game of trying to figure out how to make everyone around you at least apathetic to what you want.
I wanted to do it more subtly, but the press found out and made the Furry connection. I had to publish a legal notice as part of the name change, from this name to this name, and being in Anthrocon town, and fresh off of the convention, a reporter did his homework and found out who I was from my sites and networks.
My friends wanted to talk to the press, but I wasn't looking for that, I didn't care either way, being focused on just what I had to do to get the name changed.
I don't have much separation between being a Dog and other parts of my life, because it is a major part of what my life is about, so I can't separate by default, unless I wanted to put on an act.
I am fairly loud about who I am, always wearing a collar with a name tag and carrying my squeaky outside, and I have no problem wearing a fursuit around my neighborhood, not just at a convention.
I think if you want your animal identity just to be a hobby, that's fine, but if you want it to be more, you should be able to go for that too.
I'm lucky that I had mine done in a rural county, and my notice in a very small newspaper.
Changing one's name isn't a really big deal. In fact I really think everyone should have the opportunity to be able to change their name. Myself and a bunch of my friends celebrate our Naming Day, just like our birthdays. It's a reason to celebrate being who we want to be.
I guess in some places it is seen as a big deal by the court. It might have been nice for it to go through without much fanfare, but then the fight is one of the things that caused more publicity for the cause of getting it changed.
So much like what I think and where I want to be, that sounds great. I'd rather have a naming day than a birthday, naming being a thing that I actually had something to do with making it happen. Naming day sounds like a more positive thing than a birthday to me.
Boomer
And to those who are bashing this persons choice I say:
UMAD?
No, just disappoint that no matter what furries do someone will defend them, just disappointed in furries for not having common sense, just disappoint that furries will scream "TROLL!" at any criticism or even any actual critique. Just disappoint that in the statistic above "fluent in one or more non-native languages" on http://www.klisoura.com/ot_furrysurvey.php , just disappointed in furries all around, disappointed how furries don't realize "trolls" are for the most part other furries. Disappointed that if I criticize the fandom in any way I get someone screaming in my face calling me "not a true furry", disappoint that the fandom calls itself accepting of others and yet we have massive numbers of furries trolling each other calling them not true furries because they aren't in their group.
Also disappoint in the chances are that this comment will be deleted for not blindly agreeing with other furries.
There are furs that need to calm down. But furs are some of the easiest targets to troll. We are the fastest to argue and even faster to anger. Heck even I argue with some of the crazies. Pack mentality is good but no one should follow blindly.
Also furs shouldn't be so upfront about being furry. It shouldn't be the first thing you tell someone about yourself. I never mention it unless someone asks. Saying "Hi I'm [name] and I'm a furry." is one of the easiest ways to get someone against you. Because you never know how they feel about furs.
Or, Oh gawd. I'm tired of teenaged furs asking for about how to tell their parents that they're a furry and making it sound like coming out about being homosexual. Not only is being a furry NOT that big of a deal, but making it seem that way also is a sure fire way to make you sound flat out crazy :/
I guess I don't really care that this guy wants to change his name, 'cuz it's his life and if it makes him happy or comfortable with himself than fine. But imho, anyone who wants to change they're name to something along these lines probably still needs a bit of a reality check...
Oh dear lord, don't get me started on that, a forum that I frequent often had to make a special rule against that because we were getting inundated with like 3 threads a day on teens asking that.
I changed my name a while ago, and have had no issues.
Being homosexual shouldn't be a big deal either, yet society does it for them.
I do think it has this one thing in common, and it's that one thing that generates this preverbial closet. When you say homosexual media says "Gay Sex" therefore causing all those who are gay to be 'perverted'. Same with furry.
Homosexuality shouldn't be all about sex either... it's just what the society focuses on because they're the perverse ones.
True. But even with all the media attention we get, it's still not much and a lot of people still don't know what a furry is. Not to mention, it's a hobby or an interest for most people. Sure, some people are life stylers like I assume Boomer is, or fetishists. But of the ones I've seen ask how to tell their parents about it and making a huge deal of it, only a few could classify as either of those, most just liked cartoon animals. That's not really something you have to sit down and have a long discussion with your parents about.
I think I take an animal identity more seriously than some Furries, but I can't really decide that because only you know what your actual level of Furriness is.
I'm into things like the behavior, the feeling of being a Dog, the looks, and trappings like a collar and tag, some of the more sensual parts of the appreciation.
My parents did know, because I just acted that way when I was in junior high, just something that happened that was fun to me but caused me to get into trouble. I feel that it was my Canine personality starting up.
Boomer
Just disappoint that in the statistic above "fluent in one or more non-native languages" on http://www.klisoura.com/ot_furrysurvey.php
You're disappointed with about 1 in 4 being being bilingual? I would bet you that that is higher then the ratio of Americans of the general public that are bilingual. Heck that might be higher then the general public in general, but the American one I am pretty sure of.
disappointed how furries don't realize "trolls" are for the most part other furries. Disappointed that if I criticize the fandom in any way I get someone screaming in my face calling me "not a true furry"
Take a second and re-read what you just wrote... You're disappointed with furries that don't realize that there are people who are trolls amongst them, and you're disappointed people are being over reactive and calling you a troll. That's like saying you're angry that your immune system is doing nothing, and that you're angry that you're being hindered by an auto-immune disease... you can't have it both ways.
But it seems to me you're just covering all basis, because if you didn't you couldn't complain about something, even stuff that won't happen. No your comment won't be deleted for being a stupid comment, I think there are plenty of precedent here that would prove you wrong on that, the fact that you can't see that precedent is sadder then most of the things you complained about.
Agh, wrong statistics.
I meant the spot above it, statistically 14% of furries are zoophiles and that study is scientifically accurate.
I question how scientifically accurate it actually is. I think that it's more factual to say that 14% of furries who responded to the survey are zoophiles. That doesn't accurately translate to the whole of furrydom; I mean, how big a percentage actually responded to the survey? (This is the first I've even heard of it.)
Whoops it's actually 13.31%, also there's a 1.56% margin of error so it's between 11.75% and 14.87%.
So how the fandom says there aren't zoophiles in the fandom is a bunch of lies.
I still question any statistical results. But -- in my opinion -- anyone who's a zoophile isn't really a furry, no matter what they claim. In the end, it all depends on who you ask.
Any one who wants to be a furry, is a furry. There are no set guidelines or rules.
You could say that it could be inaccurate in that there are really less zoophiles, but what about those who wouldn't be willing to admit they were zoophiles as well? Surveys are more of a guideline than anything else, because there are always people who won't respond, or won't respond accurately, etc. Just playing devils' advocate.
And I say baloney. Anybody can call himself whatever they want to, but that wouldn't make it so. I could call myself a Martian, but unless I suddenly sprout attennae and turn green or provide some other biological proof, it just ain't so. A zoophile may consider himself to be a furry, but his interests run in completely different directions than those in the fandom, and I say those specific interests have nothing to do with Furry. He's a 'furry' only because he says so, not because he is.
If he has interest in anthroporphic animals then he's a furry, despite what they do in their spare time. Their zoophilia has nothing to do with furry...
Perhaps you should send you criticisms to the survey creator, THEY are the ones that put the two together as if they needed to prove some link between the two.
What Sonious said. Plus that's like saying I'm not a furry, either, because I happen to have a handful of human characters that I like to draw and have other interests that just so happen to not have any relation to furry.
No, it's not like saying that at all. It's saying that they like having sex with animals and therefore there's no reason they can't be called furries. What it actually does is say that, by inclusion, having sex with animals is part of being furry. Their interest is pretty much solely along those lines and have little, if anything at all, to do with any of the legitimate furry interests, except as wherever they may use them to express their zoophile urgings. I don't see that as being Furry.
... Whut. No, not really, since, according to this at least, only about 14% do, and I can be led to assume that is about accurate, more or less. Not 100%. Just like being attracted sexually to anthros isn't necessarily a part of being a furry, just for some. And you can be a zoophile and still have legitimate furry interests, it's not just that the people who are zoophiles like furry because that's what their weird fantasy children would be like, and even if that is the case it still would fit other's standards of what a furry is. In my opinion, even if your only fascination with anthros is sexual, then I would still say you could be considered a furry. Of course, though, this all varies on personal opinion yadda yadda.
/rambling
Those particular individuals who claim furry is equal to having sex with animals, or that having sex with animals is what makes them furry, I'd say yes they are working off a definition that they are comfortable with but is false, and those individuals are not furry because of that. Like the fringe socialists in the Democratic Party call themselves as Dems over a socialist. Or the fascists, call themselves Republicans over fascist.
They call themselves that because they are the fringe, and they want to feel like they are a part of something bigger then their actual group comprises of. It's not that they don't have their own individual opinions, it's a Darwin reflux of pack mentality. Strength in numbers, so if your group doesn't have the numbers they tend to try and fuse them with others.
I think the studies actually support this though, as clearly zoophiles are a minority within our group. Being a Republican isn't about being a bigot. Being a Democrat isn't about being a socialist. Being a furry isn't about being a zoophile.
There are three people who would claim otherwise. 1) Those who are the fringe members themselves who want to make the larger party their home. 2)Those who wish to see the larger party squeal and/or are rivals or enemies of the larger party. Leftist sights will be always sure to point out the bigots in the right, the rights will always point out the fringes on the other end. 3)People who have listened to the propaganda from #2 or fear #2's influence on neutral parties. So they feel they need to attack the fringe and run the risk of overreacting by trying to purge them in a offensive measure instead of reacting to them as they reveal themselves.
About the #3 it's important to realize that hunting out the fringe is not a good idea. The fringe really want to meet people like them, they will try stuff. Like for example if a zoophile really is using furry as their own synonym for a zoophile, they will prove that intention with their words. If they are doing it in private and you don't hear about it, then its obviously not too concerning, if they do it in a public way, it will be seen and the evidence would be right there. AKA they will come to you, if they are trying to say furry is about having sex with animals to the general public and when you do you criticize them on an individual basis, and inform the public that they are a fringe using a Free Access public use word... like Fred Pheleps calling himself a Christian... his actions show that he's using the name under false pretenses and to troll so much so that the Baptist organization distances itself from him (which is really bad since Baptists tend to believe in the seperation of the churches).
It's important when someone throws an individual's name in the ring do some research before you believe them. We don't need a Shirley Sherrod incident...
After typing all this it seems odd talking about something like this in a page on an article that has nothing to do with it. I think that's a sign you're getting too close to being #3. Don't seek out that which is not being dealt with at the time.
I know you're seeing that others are seeing us as zoophiles because there are the zoophiles who are calling themselves furry. But if there are individuals who don't understand they are a fringe after all we've done to show that furry doesn't equal zoophilia, including putting it in a survey to convey that they are a minority (if they were equal zoophilia would be at 100%, or at least above 50%) then there really isn't anything you can do to convince them, and they obviously fall in category #2 of the above listed, or are too stupid to care about in the first place.
"It's saying that they like having sex with animals and therefore there's no reason they can't be called furries. What it actually does is say that, by inclusion, having sex with animals is part of being furry."
Your perversion of logic is far more disgusting then anything anyone could ever do to an animal, truly. Apologies for being blunt seeing this is practically rape in a logician's eye.
That's like saying:
"That person is having gay sex and there isn't a reason they can't be called a Christian. Therefore, by "inclusion" (don't make me laugh) being gay is a part of Christianity."
Or "That person is Muslim there's no reason that can't be an American. Therefore, by "inclusion" being a Muslim is part of being an American."
Seriously, try those and see how far they get you in making people think you're rational.
No, it isn't like saying those things at all, so quit twisting your logic into pretzels. Zoo's who try to claim that they're furries are in effect saying that sex with animals okay and that it is part of the furry experience and that is why they're there. And it's enough of a hot button topic that non-furries tend to believe it's true when it comes up, regardless of whether or not it is factually true. Well, it's not true, that connection doesn't exist, we don't need people in or out of the fandom thinking that it does, and we sure don't need the presence of bestiality in the fandom. So long as that is their primary interest, I sure don't consider them to be furry.
Burned Fur? xD
Me? Hardly. More like 'mainstream fur', or as much so as we have a mainstream in the fandom.
Yeah. That probably fits more, most furs I've met have about the same views on this sorta thing. I'm just being a jerk :b
Meh. I don't really care much about what people think of furs anymore, so it's hard for me to argue with you. Plus even if you have a different idea of who is considered a fur than I do, we still can't control who and who doesn't call themselves a furry, and I don't see why anyone should get all srs business about it anyway since we can't make people like that stop calling themselves furs either way. But, whatever.
Well if you're a fur, you're a zoophile by your own cases you've presented above. Congratulations.
I'm mainstream too, you know why... because since you're a mainstream and you're calling yourself a fur, by the laws of inclusion all furries are mainstream... and a zoophile.
13% = 100%. War is peace. Welcome to 1984.
"No, it isn't like saying those things at all, so quit twisting your logic into pretzels."
I don't get that metaphor, there are no such thing as twisted pretzels. Because (your) logic clearly dictates since their are rod shaped pretzels calling themselves pretzels, by inclusion all pretzels are straight rods.
I see our new comment style is getting a workout. :-)
Please keep the discussion focussed on the story rather than the commenters.
I won't comment on this thread further as I believe that it has delved as far as it'll go. However, I do believe that a "Reply" button makes no sense if people shouldn't be commenting on other comments.
"Burned Fur" has no meaning Sulley. Since there are some furries who are "burned" calling themselves furries by the law of inclusion all furs are "Burned Furs". By saying he isn't Chuck is saying he doesn't believe in logic.
So furries can only be furries if it is their primary interest?
"Zoo's who try to claim that they're furries are in effect saying that sex with animals okay and that it is part of the furry experience and that is why they're there. And it's enough of a hot button topic that non-furries tend to believe it's true when it comes up, regardless of whether or not it is factually true."
Exactly which is why the Gazette called Boomer a zoophile in the article. Wait... they didn't?
The primary interest of the fandom is the furry arts: comics, art, fanzines, animation, fursuits, prose, etc. That is the core around which the fandom was created. It has nothing to do with either bestiality or the so-called furry lifestyle (the latter of which is an old argument which goes back to the days of the AFL newsgroup.). Those who are into bestiality (and similarly questionable interests like pedophilia) are fringe subsets who have seen the fandom as a vehicle for attaining some level of respectability for their interests, and some of them probably do believe that their interests and the fandoms are one and the same. But their interests are not -- and should never be -- a part of the furry fandom.
I agree with every single word of this post. It made me :3
And as I said before, you should be yelling at the survey makers for putting the zoophile question in there as if the question was somehow important to the fandom.
They probably put it in there to show that they were actually not equivalent, (as you said they are not) but all you see are the 13% and put words in their mouth and assume the reason they're here is because they think furry is a zoophilia club. Just because they're zoophiles doesn't mean they're furry because they are zoophiles or that they think furry equals zoophilia. That was not asked on the survey.
No their zoophilia shouldn't be part of what a furry is, but they are a furry who happen to be a zoophile. No one said they had to be part of your little slice of the fandom, but if they have a legitimite interest in comics, art, fanzines, etc and are also have zoophilia, then they're still furries even if they have baggage.
A furry is not defined as: Someone who has an interest in furry arts, but can not be a zoophile.
or
A furry is someone who is interested in the furry art, but not an art theif.
They are furries too, you don't have to like them, tolerate them, or hang out with them. Hell you can even tease and berate them as I have a tendency to do. But to say they're not a furry because they have a trait or behavior your despise is to do as the zoophiles you dislike are doing:
Changing what the definition of what a furry is just to make yourself comfortable.
Like a Republican calling Democrats unAmerican. An American is someone who's an American citizen. It is NOT someone who's an American citizen AND believes what you believe.
I'm not the one changing the definition.
No?
Can a zoophile ever be a furry?
The answer here is yes. The problem is Chuck is setting up a false dichotomy and engaging in semantic gymnastics because he can't admit he's wrong.
Chuck is wrong because he thinks zoophilia has something to do with whether or not someone is a furry fan. It doesn't. Zoophilia is irrelevant to the fandom. It has nothing to do with whether or not someone is a furry fan.
I'm probably not the only one who wishes Chuck would stop trying to forge connections where none exist. It's embarrassing to us all.
Actually, I totally agree with you that zoophilia is irrelevant to the fandom. That is very largely my point. My problem is with those who think that it (or any irrelevant interest) does have a place in the fandom.
It's not that I think zoophilia is relevant to the fandom, however to say a zoophile can't be an actual furry just because you feel that way is a falsity is what I was trying to say.
Or to put it in Venn Diagram:
http://twitpic.com/2feynm
Let A = Furries
Let B = Zoophiles
Let C = Zoophiles who are not furry, but think they are because they think furry is about zoophilia.
Now as you can see, C is obviously a subset of B.
A and B intersect but are not subsets of one another.
C does not intersect A, because they are not furries, they actually are those that believe that B is equal to A, but as you can see B is not equal to A, so C is mistaken.
The intersection of B and A are zoophiles who understand that while they are furry, their zoophilia is not what furry is about. However, they are still furry.
The intersection of B and A unioned with C are what compose the 13% of A unioned with C (since C they 'think' they're part of A)
The people in C are saying A = B, therefore they are changing the definition of furry.
But does that mean you are correct? Yes and no, C is wrong but so were you. I am saying A is furry, so A = Furry.
What I saw you saying was A = A and NOT (B intersect A). Which it can't be because that gets rid of some of those in set A which are furry. (A false dichotomy as Morton said)
This is what was causing me to scratch my head.
I think your real problem is you think you know what people think, and ascribe imaginary motivations to them. The presence of zoophiles in the fandom doesn't mean they think it "has a place" in the fandom—it's irrelevant to what the fandom is about: anthropomorphic animal characters.
To put it another way, the presence of people who like eating noodles in the fandom doesn't mean they think eating noodles is part of the fandom. It's irrelevant and doesn't matter. Yet you seem to be overly paranoid about some kind of noodle-eater plot to take over the fandom and... force everyone to eat noodles or something.
Bottom line is, if you really think zoophilia isn't relevant to the fandom, you should stop claiming it's a factor in whether or not someone is a furry fan.
I have to agree here...
Aw hell no, noodle munchers is where I draw the line... lol
It becomes a factor whenever it presents itself. Let us use Furaffinity as an example: do a search for zoophile and see if any bestiality pix turn up. If any do, then its obvious that somebody believes that either furry is the same thing as bestiality, or, at the very least, that it's an okay venue for releasing bestiality images. The artists involved certainly think so, and, apparently, so do the admins. Now allow a casual visitor or a potential new initiate to visit and skim randomly through the images; the first impression that they come away with is that zoophilia is indeed an aspect of furry fandom. And it will almost always remain their prevalent impression, and it is how they will define us to anyone else they discuss the matter with.
Zoophilia is not relevant to the fandom's interests; but its presence is relevant in so far as it portrays us in a false and harmful light.
As it is not relevant to Furry interests, and that it is strongly relevant to a zoophile's interest, I do not consider a zoo to be a furry fan. He's not there for the cartoons or the fursuits.
A is A.
That's your opinion, nothing more. You don't know whether or not zoophiles are interested in cartoons or fursuits—you aren't a mindreader. The point is, whether they're a zoophile or not is irrelevant to whether they're a furry fan. You think it is, and you're certainly entitled to your opinion, but I'm going to have to disagree. It is entirely possible for someone to be a zoophile and a furry fan. It doesn't mean the two are the same, except perhaps in your mind.
I'm not sure what point you were hoping to prove with the FurAffinity example, but you failed. Doing a search on "zoophile" there brought up a staggering total of 8 results, and none of them were bestiality pix. But you've been called on the carpet for this illogical argument before, how subject matter defines the fandom.
Your position is that people shouldn't incorporate their irrelevant interests into the fandom, because someone will think beyond all evidence and reason that those irrelevant interests are part of the fandom.
I've seen plenty of people promoting their Christian beliefs in artwork and stories. There's even a God's Creatures Mailing List for Christian furry fans. Does this mean Christianity is an aspect of the fandom? Of course not. Like zoophilia, it's irrelevant to whether or not someone is a furry fan. Yet you believe, at least according to your logic, that Christians and furry fans are to mutually exclusive and distinct group with no overlap. You can't be a Christian and a furry fan because Chuck Melville says so. Why? Because heaven forfend, someone might see a picture of Jesus Christ depicted as a lion (JESUS CHRIST IT'S A LION GET IN THE CAR) and think the fandom is all about Christianity.
I'm not a Christian myself, but there's no harm in them being here, and your argument that them promoting their irrelevant interest harms the fandom is full of holes. Saying it's okay for some things to portray us in a false light but not others is intellectually dishonest of you.
Likewise, I think, your assertion that people who change their names to something animal-related need psychological help. (But someone changing their name to "Aron Mufasa Columbo Fonzerelli Ball In A Cup Boogie Woogie Brown." is perfectly acceptable.)
I mean, seriously, you think people like L. Tygger Graf are mentally ill? Just for liking animals enough to make the intensely personal choice, which really isn't anyone's business but her own, to change her name to reflect that? Since when did the fandom need the Chuck Melville Seal Of Approval to do anything?
"That's your opinion, nothing more."
And I'll stand by it.
"You don't know whether or not zoophiles are interested in cartoons or fursuits—you aren't a mindreader. The point is, whether they're a zoophile or not is irrelevant to whether they're a furry fan. You think it is, and you're certainly entitled to your opinion, but I'm going to have to disagree. It is entirely possible for someone to be a zoophile and a furry fan. It doesn't mean the two are the same, except perhaps in your mind."
The problem is that it tends to mean one and the same to anybody else looking in, and that means friends, families, potential employers, etc, etc.
"I'm not sure what point you were hoping to prove with the FurAffinity example, but you failed. Doing a search on "zoophile" there brought up a staggering total of 8 results, and none of them were bestiality pix. But you've been called on the carpet for this illogical argument before, how subject matter defines the fandom."
I don't know where you were searching, but I did a check just now and turned up 66 images. Granted a few of these are simply animals exposing themselves, and some are of anthros screwing four-leggers (which, frankly is still technically bestiality), but there are several of humans and animals caught up in the heat of coitus. Some are very clearly marked with a 'Bestiality' warning on them, and at least one artist calls himself 'Zoophilic'. So tell me what I see isn't there.
"Your position is that people shouldn't incorporate their irrelevant interests into the fandom, because someone will think beyond all evidence and reason that those irrelevant interests are part of the fandom."
No, my point is that people with these tendencies and interests should not bring their crap into our playground. It does wonders for them to be associated with us, but all we get is -- well, the expression of what you get when you lie with dogs comes to mind...
"I've seen plenty of people promoting their Christian beliefs in artwork and stories. There's even a God's Creatures Mailing List for Christian furry fans. Does this mean Christianity is an aspect of the fandom? Of course not. Like zoophilia, it's irrelevant to whether or not someone is a furry fan. Yet you believe, at least according to your logic, that Christians and furry fans are to mutually exclusive and distinct group with no overlap. You can't be a Christian and a furry fan because Chuck Melville says so. Why? Because heaven forfend, someone might see a picture of Jesus Christ depicted as a lion (JESUS CHRIST IT'S A LION GET IN THE CAR) and think the fandom is all about Christianity."
I'm not going to be concerned until that Christ figure is molesting either a dog or a toddler. The Christianity thing is a whole other ballgame and has no bearing here.
"I'm not a Christian myself, but there's no harm in them being here, and your argument that them promoting their irrelevant interest harms the fandom is full of holes. Saying it's okay for some things to portray us in a false light but not others is intellectually dishonest of you."
Being erroneously linked to Christianity is not the same as being mistaken for a collection of animal molestors, and certainly doesn't carry nearly the same kind of ugly baggage. I think I could live with people mistakenly thinking we were all Christlike figures; I have far more trouble with strangers believing we 're all animal-f*ckers.
"Likewise, I think, your assertion that people who change their names to something animal-related need psychological help. (But someone changing their name to "Aron Mufasa Columbo Fonzerelli Ball In A Cup Boogie Woogie Brown." is perfectly acceptable.)"
Who said that I found that acceptable? But frankly, a person changing his name doesn't concern me in the least; people do it all the time. It's his reasons for doing it that I find silly. But I've also said that it's his business and I haven't really said anything else about it since.
"I mean, seriously, you think people like L. Tygger Graf are mentally ill?"
Heck, no. I knew Tygger and I know damn well that she never considered herself to be a tiger trapped in a human's body.
"Just for liking animals enough to make the intensely personal choice, which really isn't anyone's business but her own, to change her name to reflect that?"
If you actually read through my earliest posts here, you'll note that I pretty much said that early on. I think the matter is silly, but yes, it is his own business. I never denied that and I've never said otherwise.
"Being erroneously linked to Christianity is not the same as being mistaken for a collection of animal molestors, and certainly doesn't carry nearly the same kind of ugly baggage."
... Try telling Jesus that, I think the cross counts as 'baggage'
The things is even if we literally went to every furry zoophile's house and killed them off, you would find yourself in an episode of the twilight zone, for even when you decided to do something against the group you were protreyed as... low an behold the strangers would still think there was a connection.
Why?
Because it's still ever so lulz-ful when people such as yourself squirm when people make such a connection. So people will continue to make it.
Think of this... Iran call the US infadels because they have gay people. If the US killed off gay people would Iran change their rhetoric? No because Iran's leadership would still call them infadels for their rhetoric wasn't really about gay people in the first place it was to make the US look bad. Same here... many who make this unscientific link aren't about actual zoophiles at all, it's all about making furries look bad. And they'll do it even if there were no zoophiles at all.
I think Chuck arguing that the fandom is being overrun by zoophiles does more to hurt our image than help, because it focuses the attention on things that are irrelevant to the fandom instead of focusing on the things it is about. Defining yourself by what you aren't has always been a losing strategy.
I don't remember arguing that the fandom is being overrun by zoophiles. I believe my original argument was that I don't consider them to be furries at all. The topic has since drifted from there.
But if -- to play the Devil's Advocate here for a moment -- I was to look for examples that would appear to define what the fandom is all about, I think I would find overwhelming evidence that it was about sex as opposed to general fantasy, as that appears to be the most prevalent imagery throughout the internet. Would that assumption be incorrect? Because if it's incorrect, then the evidence is contrary to the belief, and if it is correct, then someone's fooling themselves.
If I were to look for examples, I'd find overwhelming evidence that it was about anthropomorphic animals characters, because that is more prevalent than the subsets of sex or general fantasy alone.
Sorry, but that just ain't so. A random browse through Furaffinity's search will almost always turn up several sexual images, from tame to explicit. The first impression it gives is that it's all about anthropomorphic sex, with the lesser emphasis on anthropomorphic, to the extent where 'sex' is no longer merely a subset of the whole, but where no sex becomes the subset.
This varies from site to site, and sometime the ratio tips the other way, but in general it would appear -- at face value -- that furry's most relelvant aspect (since we were talking about what's relevant to Furry) is furry sex.
Why are you infering that FurAffinity defines what being a furry is?
It's a website run by a furry for furries, but by no means is the website the omnibus of what furry is.
You're sure giving Dragoneer a lot more power then I'm sure he gives himself.
(*Looks at the rating stars* I finally really did it... YOU MANIC... YOU BLEW IT UP! AWW! DAMN YOU! DAMN YOU ALL TO HELL!)
Fix'd. Should be good for ten more levels with the margin override and indentation change. You might consider this a hint that it's gone on long enough, though.
I use Furaffinity as an example because right now it is the major furry art archive and is probably far more representative of furry interests than anything else online.
So was the Catholic church the major representation of Christianity, but apparently Christians disagreed, such as you yourself seem to disagree with FA and what they allow.
If you disagree with their representation, don't give them credibility by using them as an example. Martin Luther didn't keep claiming to the Catholic church was representative of his Christian beliefs after posting the 95 Thesis.
If you're going to be who you are, go all the way.
Or go use ArtSpots and support the things you'd like to see more of instead of whining about the things you don't.
Debate 101: Know your opponent...
He's already on Artspots... and VCL...
http://us.vclart.net/vcl/Artists/Chuck-Melville/index01.html
So um... what's with the Pin ups man? How dirty.
Also you participated in an adults only comic called Wild Kingdom released by MU Press according to my research, is this also correct or no?
I guess it goes to show you, as a wise person once said "From the inside, we're...
Well, we're just plain undecided."
I wonder where that person is now?
I've never had a problem with pin-ups. I've never had a problem with adult work either, for that matter. I've even gone on record several times in defense of it. But I do draw lines at what's acceptable and what isn't. Bestiality and child porn is unacceptable.
Regarding the general adult material, while I still am generally in favor of it, I do feel that it's completely overdone and overexposed to the general detriment of the fandom -- it tends to reveal the lack of imagination within the fandom that they are capable of drawing only one experience out of the total sum of life experiences. But that's a fight for another day...
That person, as well as the community he was describing, was well over a decade ago; things have changed in both worlds.
This reminds me of how someone wanted to start a squeaky-clean furry con a few years back, and the people yelling loudest about wanting to keep the perverts out were the same ones not offering any support (monetary or otherwise) to help the convention.
Not surprisingly, that convention isn't around anymore.
From reading your article I'd say it hasn't. You in fact openly admit that some furries had though it was about 'bestiality' yet you didn't spend the whole page raging about them.
"In your mind only. Anthropomorphic sex is a subset of anthropomorphic animals, and if you really don't want to see it, learn to use FurAffinity's filters instead of whining about it."
First off, I agree that it's a subset.
Secondly, this particular discussion is a Devil's Advocate argument, nothing more.
Thirdly, we were just talking about what is or isn't relevant to furry interests, and the visual evidence, as I just demonstrated, appears to be furry sex and not simply anthropomorphics in general. That is the impression that any casual viewer will get if he visits most furry art archives.
"Or go use ArtSpots and support the things you'd like to see more of instead of whining about the things you don't."
In fact, I do use and support Art Spots. Thank you for asking.
If you think not, then I'd say you were in a state of denial. Probably you're far too close to it to properly view it objectively.
Careful. Next you'll be telling me I need long-term counseling.
I think on of furry's issues is that it's primary internet based, and the internet itself is hardly based in facts.
I cannot say what other would see when looking up the fandom, it depends on how hard they choose to look. If they want to say that B = A to my face though, and I disprove them and they still say B = A, then I have no point in talking with them further.
AKA you seem to be worried about the what the irrational think is rational a bit too much.
If they think of furry as one thing based on one picture on FA, I'd wonder if they'd think of Christianity after going to GodHatesFags.com
This whole thing is kind of reminding me of this old video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I87JfpfgFUo
Priests and altar boys!
Smile! The world could use another happy person.
I was searching on FurAffinity for the keyword "zoophile", exactly as you requested. And if that's all I can come up with when deliberately looking for it, the chances a casual visitor or a potential new initiate is going to stumble across these randomly among the thousands of images on FurAffinity is next to zero. Nobody's saying it doesn't portray us in a false or even harmful light, but if this is the best you can come up with, the idea that there are legions of zoophiles attempting to subvert the fandom for their own means is laughable at best and delusional at worst.
So you believe it's okay for some things to portray us in a false light but not others. Gotcha.
Nice backpedal. Your original assertation was that anyone who changes their name to something animal-related need psychological help, not whether they felt they were an animal trapped in a human body.
I'd say you owe Tygger an apology, but that's just my opinion. And I'm sticking to it.
"...the idea that there are legions of zoophiles attempting to subvert the fandom for their own means is laughable at best and delusional at worst."
Nobody's saying that there's legions of them; but even one is too many.
"So you believe it's okay for some things to portray us in a false light but not others. Gotcha."
I think it's bad for us to be portrayed in a negative light. While being portrayed as Christlike' is wrong and misleading, it's not negative and harmful as being portrayed as a crew of depraved molestors.
"Nice backpedal. Your original assertation was that anyone who changes their name to something animal-related need psychological help, not whether they felt they were an animal trapped in a human body.
I'd say you owe Tygger an apology, but that's just my opinion. And I'm sticking to it."
I'd say you need to recheck your facts. Tygger has never changed her name... at least, not to my knowledge. Her real name is Lia; Tygger is a nickname, not her legal name. And she's not trying to pass herself off as 'Tygger The Tiger' -- she is Lia 'Tygger' Graf. Note the distinction between the two.
Okay, I rechecked my facts:
"Tygger Lia Graf IS my legal name. It's on my driver's
license AND my Social Security card. TYGGER! IS my legal signature, the
same signature found on my images, my driver's license and my Social
Security card. I even sign my checks that way and any legal document. I
changed my name mainly due to the fact that the then nickname of Tygger
was what I was commonly known by and I kept receiving checks made out to
Tygger, not Lia Graf. So I changed it it to Tygger Lia Graf. So far,
I've nearly everything changed over and even file my taxes as this name." — Tygger L. Graf, alt.fan.furry, Jan 24, 1998.
Source: http://tinyurl.com/2d5gayb
Apparently, I was wrong. Her legal name is not Lia Tygger Graf, it's Tygger Lia Graf. My apologies for the error. I can admit to my mistakes when I make them.
Let us know when you apologize for your mistake of calling Tygger mentally ill for changing her name to something animal-related.
Apparently I was in error, since I didn't realize she had legally changed her name. It's been a long while since our paths have crossed.
But I note that she's still not calling herself Tygger The Tiger, so it's still an irrelevancy.
She doesn't have to call herself Tygger the Tiger. Simply changing her name to include her fursona is all that's required for you to proclaim she needs long-term counseling, so it's entirely relevant.
I think if its any fetish that furries get off on more then any other is the sound of their own opinions.
(No I'm not exception)
With all due respect, you're in a logic hole and trying to dig yourself out with more faulty logic...
News flash: people with multiple interests or fetishes often try to combine them. That doesn't mean they become the same thing, or necessarily imply they only had one of those interests to begin with. If searching FA and getting 60 images for "zoophile" means people think the two are equivalent, then there are even more people who think "baking", "model trains," and "fishing" are the same as furry, and that you absolutely have to be a "computer" geek to be a furry. Not to mention the numerous other fetishes exist quite distinctly and independent outside of furries that get combined with furry on FA and elsewhere.
Of course this ignores that a lot of non-furries assume furry is zoophilia without seeing any of the bestiality material, as they consider any sex with an anthro to be bestiality. Or that all is needed for a counterexample to many points is a zoophile with a fursuit or large cartoon collection, or a person who was a furry before getting into zoophilia.
While I can sympathise with where you are coming from and agree it is problematic when outsiders assume furry is equivalent to zoophilia... your poor reasoning and communication of the point here is not helping. Statements like these only will be helpful to those with an interest in making your position look more crazy/wrong than the opposition. What are we supposed to do with those that risk portraying furries in harmful light?
"News flash: people with multiple interests or fetishes often try to combine them. That doesn't mean they become the same thing, or necessarily imply they only had one of those interests to begin with."
I am very much aware of that. But in this particular example I don't believe that the interest really strays very far from the primary interest (zoophilia), but that the interest in furry is little more than a means for them to indulge that darker interest more openly within the blanket of more appropriate work. "I'm okay because I'm with them."
"Of course this ignores that a lot of non-furries assume furry is zoophilia without seeing any of the bestiality material, as they consider any sex with an anthro to be bestiality. Or that all is needed for a counterexample to many points is a zoophile with a fursuit or large cartoon collection, or a person who was a furry before getting into zoophilia."
Therefore, why allow the genuine article within the ranks, where his presence legitimizes that otherwise erroneous assumption?
"What are we supposed to do with those that risk portraying furries in harmful light?"
Recognize them for what they are and not allow them in. Restrict bestiality art and stories from online archives and from convention art shows. Discourage their presence. ("Look, fella, we don't do that kind of stuff around here.") Stop acting as though it isn't really a big deal, and acting as though it's somehow okay just because it involves animals... that even a minor interest in general anthropomorphics somehow condones a truly reprehensible practice.
"Recognize them for what they are and not allow them in. ... Discourage their presence."
I think you missed why I was asking that question, as the "those that risk portraying furries in harmful light" in sentence referred to you and not zoophiles. My point was that your poor logic and reasoning in this case is doing more harm than good to your base goals, and this can potentially be adding to a harmful light against furries. The question was rhetorical, and implying that if we were to be consistent, then we should be discouraging your presence and otherwise distancing you from furries. Or maybe an it would be better to consider an alternative that avoids no-true-Scotsman fallacies and fallacies of composition when dealing with such things...
(I don't mean to be rude, just to the point and apologize how harsh that may be.)
"I think you missed why I was asking that question..."
I saw it, rather, as a better opening for the response I gave instead.
Your own logic is faulty if you think my points or my stance are somehow more harmful to furrydom than what I've been arguing against; I find that to be truly topsy-turvy.
Folks always say there's no such thing as bad publicity, but y'know, maybe there is.
See, this is a strawman argument. You're not a mindreader. You have no way of knowing whether this is their primary, or even only (as you so often claim) interest. You're ascribing motivations to them that only exist in your own mind and trying to pass them off as facts.
Except that there's no way to enforce this. There's no membership to join, no governing authority to kick them out. You can't stop people from being fans.
Because your claim that zoophilia is somehow relevant to whether or not someone is a furry fan does more to legitimize erroneous assumptions than actual zoophiles do.
Woooo! Double strawman argument! You think they have a minor interest (but you're still not a mindreader, sorry), and you think we condone this.
But in this particular example I don't believe that the interest really strays very far from the primary interest (zoophilia)
"See, this is a strawman argument. You're not a mindreader. You have no way of knowing whether this is their primary, or even only (as you so often claim) interest. You're ascribing motivations to them that only exist in your own mind and trying to pass them off as facts."
Actually, I haven't denied that a lot of this is my opinion, even though common sense dictates that human nature is pretty predictable when it comes to specific addictive or obsessive behaviors... and I've seen enough people with such obsessions to usually recognize it when it occurs.
Recognize them for what they are and not allow them in.
"Except that there's no way to enforce this."
Of course there is. I've already described the appropriate actions: active discouragement through prohibition of bestiality work in convention shows and on internet archives. That's not an impossible task.
Therefore, why allow the genuine article within the ranks, where his presence legitimizes that otherwise erroneous assumption?
"Because your claim that zoophilia is somehow relevant to whether or not someone is a furry fan does more to legitimize erroneous assumptions than actual zoophiles do."
I don't see how. Look at it this way: a firebug has a legitimate interest in firefighting, even beyond the hypnotic lure of the fire itself; but would it be wise for the Fire Department to hire him as a fireman? He might have legitimate knowledge that could come in handy, but is it worth the risk that he won't cause more damage than the good he might do?
...even a minor interest in general anthropomorphics somehow condones a truly reprehensible practice.
"Woooo! Double strawman argument! You think they have a minor interest (but you're still not a mindreader, sorry), and you think we condone this."
If you accept it without challenging it, then yes, I'd say you were condoning it, even if only passively.
But if you feel that strongly about it and want to actually do something about it, by all means please put your money where your mouth is and fund that effort. Because whining about it does nothing to solve problem.
Anyone can sit around all day on an internet message board making snipes at Tygger, playing armchair psychologist, and proposing unworkable solutions that do nothing to solve the problem and think they're doing something, but at the end of the day it's all talk and all you're doing is making yourself feel you've done something. Talk is cheap.
If you want to make a difference, quit whining and start doing.
I've seen enough people with such obsessions to usually recognize it when it occurs.
“Translation: You're playing armchair psychologist.”
Your opinion.
Of course there is. I've already described the appropriate actions: active discouragement through prohibition of bestiality work in convention shows and on internet archives. That's not an impossible task.
“Except, again, none of that prevents them from being a fan.”
Except that this is not what the quote was addressing; it was in response to the comment that there was no way to enforce keeping out undesirables. My response shows that there is.
Look at it this way: a firebug has a legitimate interest in firefighting, even beyond the hypnotic lure of the fire itself; but would it be wise for the Fire Department to hire him as a fireman? He might have legitimate knowledge that could come in handy, but is it worth the risk that he won't cause more damage than the good he might do?
“Whether he does damage or not is not the issue; the point is he has a legitimate interest. His level of interest is determined by him, not you, and speculation and theory and half-baked ideas of how much damage he might do don't factor into whether or not he has an interest.”
His interest, whatever the level of its legitimacy, is irrelevant. The overruling point is that no FD administration is going to hire him with the history he’s got out of concern for the damage he could do.
If you accept it without challenging it, then yes, I'd say you were condoning it, even if only passively.
“We hear this fallacy a lot, that the fandom someone "condones" or "accepts" [whatever Public Enemy #1 of the fandom is this week]. It would be nice if we could have some happy little Utopian fandom where we did background checks on everyone and made sure there was nobody with any sort of criminal record and only upstanding members of the community were "allowed" to join by the central governing authority of the fandom (which had the income to do all these background checks through the collection of annual membership fees), but as it stands right now, furry fandom is a hobby, run by people who do it in their spare time, for very little (more often than not negative) return on their investment. So to say that these hard-working folks "condone" or "accept" this sort of thing because they lack the resources to prevent these people from joining is more than just a little offensive.”
Oh, come on; how hard does it have to be? You’re completely overblowing the difficulty. If someone submits a work of bestiality, you simply take it down, return it and say, “We don’t do this sort of thing here”. It’s nothing more involved than that. No background checks (although in a fan community people get to pretty much know who’s doing what anyway), Archives need simply include a rule prohibiting zoo art and stories, and then enforce it when needed; convention art shows could do the same. (Some do already.) Don’t patron anybody who creates or promotes such work.
Eventually they’ll either quit creating such work or else leave the fandom in frustration and disgust.
“But if you feel that strongly about it and want to actually do something about it, by all means please put your money where your mouth is and fund that effort. Because whining about it does nothing to solve problem.”
‘Whining’ about it, as you put it, is always the first step to change. ‘Squeaky wheels’ and all that.
“Anyone can sit around all day on an internet message board making snipes at Tygger…”
Ah-ah! Now you’re inventing things that have never happened in order to validate your outrage. I’ve taken no snipes whatsoever at Tygger, nor do I have any particular reason to; that’s entirely your spin.
“…playing armchair psychologist…”
Your opinion.
“…and proposing unworkable solutions that do nothing to solve the problem…”
What I’ve proposed thus far is entirely workable. Whether or not anyone is willing to implement them is another issue entirely.
Anyone can make claims that they "just know" things on the internet, but saying so doesn't make it true.
Nothing in your response prevents them from setting up their own websites and forums and whatnot that you have less control over. There's no way to "kick people out" of the fandom because there's no central authority to do so; you can't prevent people from being fans. Not really. Your position is that we somehow "condone" and "accept" their behavior because we aren't mindreaders or do background checks to prevent "undesirables" from joining the fandom. Or they could get together with other like-minded individuals and set up their own websites and conventions, because, to drive the point solidly home again, you can't stop people from being fans. At which point are you going to something about it other than whining? Talk is cheap. You said anyone who changes their name to something of any animal, like Tygger, is mentally ill. It happened and you haven't retracted that statement, so don't try to weasel your way out of it by pretending I'm outraged rather than manning up and admitting you were wrong. Yep, and until I see a diploma from an accredited university for Charles P. A. Melville majoring in some sort of mental health field, I'm standing by it. Uh-huh. Your opinion.“Translation: You're playing armchair psychologist.”
Your opinion.
“Do you have a Ph.D in psychology? Do you have a job as a professional in the psychiatric field? No? Then it's not an opinion, it's a fact.”
It’s your opinion that I’m playing armchair psychologist.
Except that this is not what the quote was addressing; it was in response to the comment that there was no way to enforce keeping out undesirables. My response shows that there is.
“Nothing in your response prevents them from setting up their own websites and forums and whatnot that you have less control over. There's no way to "kick people out" of the fandom because there's no central authority to do so; you can't prevent people from being fans.”
They can set up as many websites as they like. If we refuse to acknowledge them as fans – as I do – then they’re just another bunch of lost soul wannabe lurkers. The chief difference is that they won’t be directly tied to the fandom because they won’t be included on recognized furry sites.
Oh, come on; how hard does it have to be? You’re completely overblowing the difficulty.
“Not really. Your position is that we somehow "condone" and "accept" their behavior because we aren't mindreaders or do background checks to prevent "undesirables" from joining the fandom.”
No, you condone and accept it if when you come across such a person or an artwork and you don’t challenge it. There’s no background check or mindreading required when someone comes up to you and shows you a picture of him boinking his horse and telling you these were his honeymoon photos. Same is true of any work displayed on an archive or in an art show.
Eventually they’ll either quit creating such work or else leave the fandom in frustration and disgust.
“Or they could get together with other like-minded individuals and set up their own websites and conventions, because, to drive the point solidly home again, you can't stop people from being fans.”
And how likely is that? Were there really very many bestiality conventions happening before the availability of the furry cons? And how many furs would actually attend a furry con if they were aware of it being supported by zoos? (I ask that one with some trepidation, given how many seem to support ‘cub porn’; one never knows these days, though one hopes for the best in people.) I’m not too concerned. I think things would sort themselves out given the right inclinations. A mouse can howl itself hoarse, but it still ain’t a wolf.
Now you’re inventing things that have never happened in order to validate your outrage. I’ve taken no snipes whatsoever at Tygger, nor do I have any particular reason to; that’s entirely your spin.
“You said anyone who changes their name to something of any animal, like Tygger, is mentally ill. It happened and you haven't retracted that statement, so don't try to weasel your way out of it by pretending I'm outraged rather than manning up and admitting you were wrong.”
I haven’t retracted it because I never said anything at all about Tygger. That’s entirely your invention.
What I’ve proposed thus far is entirely workable.
“Uh-huh. Your opinion.”
And I’ll stand by it.
It’s your opinion that I’m playing armchair psychologist.
“It's your opinion that you've seen enough people with such obsessions to usually recognize it when it occurs. You have no qualifications or work experience to back up this opinion, only your own biases. Someone who makes such pronouncements without formal training to back it up is an armchair psychologist.”
In all honesty, you have absolutely no idea what my experiences or qualifications, work or otherwise, actually are, so you’re in even less of a position to make any claims. For the record, I have no medical degrees, but you don’t need one in order to recognize when someone is having problems.
"It doesn't matter if you don't recognize them as fans, by your argument newbies and casual browsers will. You can't kick people out of the fandom because you can't stop people from calling themselves fans."
They can call themselves Members of the Lollipop Guild if they want, but it still won’t make it so.
No, you condone and accept it if when you come across such a person or an artwork and you don’t challenge it.
“The argument is that the fandom somehow condones and accepts this when the fandom at large doesn't know about it. Like we're supposed to be omniscient or something. "These people are here because furry fandom accepts everyone!" No. These people are here because without any central governing authority, there's no way to kick anyone out of a fandom.”
The fandom, by and large, is very much aware of it, so don’t go fooling yourself. And you don’t have to kick people out through any physical activity, as you seem to suggest – all you need do is close a few key doors, as I’ve suggested.
“It's more likely than the needle-in-a-haystack chances of a newbie randomly stumbling across a zoophilia image among the thousands available on FA. Anyone can set up a website these days. It's easy. You can ignore it all you want, but at the end of the day your opinion really doesn't matter.”
If opinion didn’t matter, there wouldn’t be internet forums. The fact that we’re here discussing/debating/arguing/flaming proves very much that opinion does indeed matter. Otherwise neither of us would have gone on even this long on this topic.
I haven’t retracted it because I never said anything at all about Tygger.
“You said…blah blah de blah blah…”
No, that’s enough of that bit of nonsense. We’ve already covered it. I never said word one about Tygger. It’s your fabrication, your spin, and your obsession. It’s not my fault that your reading comprehension is faulty or that you need to invent a threadbare connection to hang your wobbly comparison on. I’ve clarified my phraseology already, even though I didn’t think it necessary, and so far as I’m concerned that’s the end of it.
OK, this has gone on long enough.
This is not a forum. It's the comments section of a news article, the topic of which is not zoophilia, armchair psychology, or identifying who may be called "furry".
Please take your pet peeves to a real forum, or to your LiveJournal, until such time as they are relevant to a story.
"I don't see how. Look at it this way: a firebug has a legitimate interest in firefighting, even beyond the hypnotic lure of the fire itself; but would it be wise for the Fire Department to hire him as a fireman?"
Exactly, because being furry is a serious job which require thorough background checks by a small group of our employers.
I accept that I'm not a god and have no control over other's actions despite how despicable they are. I can only comment on how despicable they are. Just as the Vatican can crack the whip against pedos as hard as they can, but some will leak through. And even though they are currently trying, there are still those decrying their efforts as 'not enough'.
So if your goal is to have furry satisfy everyone, I'm sorry to say, not even God can do that. So what chance do meer mortals have?
As far as our outlook is going, I've covered the news coverage surrounding Anthrocon for 5 years, and I have noticed improvement. So you may see the glass as half empty, but I see the bartender pouring more in anyway, so the backwash isn't as relevant as you believe.
"I don't see how. Look at it this way: a firebug has a legitimate interest in firefighting, even beyond the hypnotic lure of the fire itself; but would it be wise for the Fire Department to hire him as a fireman?"
Exactly, because being furry is a serious job which require thorough background checks by a small group of our employers.
Totally irrelevant to the point, which is that you don't want to be introducing harmful elements into any environments, especially when you're already aware of that element's potential for disaster.
Actually organization structure is of absolute relevence here. To be a fireman a hiring manager must allow access for you to be one. No one can stop someone from calling themselves a furry, even if they aren't one because there is no furry license.
Your analogy would be more accurate if it allowed for the possiblility of the fire bug starting his own fire company and then becoming a fireman through that means, because even if there was a 'centralist deciding' furry there would be a break off furry site in a heart beat because people would inevidably denounce the 'decider'
Just like Christians can't stop Fred Phelps from calling himself a Christian even if they don't believe he is one. There will always be those who aren't Christian who will point to them as the omnibus of Christianity to their agitation, but the good Christian understands that instead of concentrating on the evils within the group is to instead set a good example themselves. There is nothing they can do to the untrue ones without being untrue themselves. And even if they got rid of Phelps the nonbelievers would find something else to chastise them for.
Your 1996 self would realize this, how you lost that understanding I cannot understand, though since I have written articles similar to yours I can at least say I've been following the golden rule. If I ever lost my own ideals and started disbelieving the principals I had established long ago, I'd want someone to slap me upside the head. Because something along the way led me down the wrong path.
Oh wait.
Moderator note: We don't require readers to be logged in (though there are benefits to doing so) or to provide a name or email address - but if you choose to use a name, please use it consistently, and keep the commentary to the comments.
The reason zoophiles do not reply to say they are zoophiles-zoosexuals is guilt.The devil working through men gives guilt. Humans have to see this,and stop giving guilt,and be good to whoever,and when that happens the true number of zoosexuals will be known. still when you look at it it is all sex on this planet of sex.
It could be that, especially if people aren't sure where they are with the issue, or knowing that society is not accepting they might want to keep it quiet. Society just isn't that familiar with Zoos yet. Plus those who like Humans don't generally talk about their sex lives every minute either, it's just accepted that sex happens.
Boomer
It's the problem with having a group, there will always be individuals who will make other individuals look bad in the view of outsiders. If your group is too large you have less control of the individuals within.
Like for example, just because someone is a Christian doesn't mean they believe in Fred Phelps or his group. Just because someone is Muslim doesn't mean they are Al Quida supporters. There are subgroups in this fandom just as any other. You're disappointed in zoophiles, not the fandom. There are zoophiles in the fandom, yes, but the fandom is not a subset of zoophiles. Nor are zoophiles a subset of the fandom. In other words, not all furries are zoophiles and not all furries are zoophiles, so saying you're disappointed in furry fandom for the actions of a subset you're truly disappointed in makes no sense.
I'm disappointed in Fred Pheleps, I'm not disappointed in Christians. I am disappointed in Tiger Woods, I'm not disappointed with golfers. I'm disappointed (maybe not strong enough a word) in Al Queada, I'm not disappointed in Muslims. I am disappointed in zoophiles, I'm not disappointed in Furry fandom. Once you understand the idea behind this concept, most of the problems in this world start to make more sense. It's pretty much what Sociology 101 should be.
It's not that I'm saying your stupid, groups and individuals within are a topic of debate and something I've been trying to understand since I was in high school, and am still learning new things all the time...
First read this on Yahoo's news's Odd News section. The only thing I said was "Fucking furries, why just why?"
*sigh*
Haters gonna hate.
Really if you have nothing positive or constructive to post, don't.
Doesn't have to do with hating. It's more like people rolling their eyes and saying, "Oh, Gawd, what now?"
Chuck Melville (visitor) — Fri 13 Aug 2010 - 11:22 Your spirit is not like the spirit of Jesus that the furries,and zoosexuals have.All the sexualities for that matter .That bothers me because I want you to live peaceably as far ii is possible with all men,and have joy forever more. To love all having the tolerance of the furry is worth it is it not?
Um, I find this post neither constructive nor positive, I guess I'd call it irony.
Wow. I remember this guy from Portal of Evil. Maybe. If it was the same "Boomer the Dog," he did some of those human/animal Photoshop morphs that I personally find really, really creepy. Actually posted to PoE proper as "Boomer the Dog." Was treated fairly nicely by the regular posters, despite being one of the few furries to actually deserve a place on a site like PoE.
ITS A BOOMER!!! RUUNNNN!!!!
Sorry, i just had to go there...
Don't run! Right click it step back and left click.
There is to me a real danger on getting your name changed to something that applies you as less then human. You think humans treat other humans as crap, wait till you see how they treat a dog. Dogs aren't covered by our constitution, while they may be covered by local laws. If you were to change your name into something that applies you're less then human, just wait until someone violates your human rights and actually uses a defense that your name protreyed that you were not covered by human rights.
Or if Boomer gets an ex... and Boomer has sex with someone else, would the Ex file bestiality charges against the new significant other? "Next on the docket... this individual had sex with... Boomer the Dog."
Hell, that'd be one really messed up show of Law and Order...
Of course the judge didn't do it for the individual's benefit, by his statement he obviously did it so he wouldn't be known as "The judge who allowed someone to change their name to that of a dog's" or a "Dog sympathizer" or whatever. He has his own image to worry about you know. Think of what the other judges would say! *gasp* But I guess that's no different then furries who throw an individual under the bus to help maintain their own image, even when that individual has nothing to do with them other then they share a hobby.
I'm not Boomer the dog, and neither is the fandom, anyone who thinks I am is so mentally unstable that any comment that comes out of their mouth would have to met with the same grain of salt as a retarded person assaulting you. It may hurt you, but the aggressor will never be intelligent enough to understand how irrational and hurtful their actions were.
EDIT: I was wrong that the judge though only of himself he did provide a senerio that was not posted here (along with the "not a dog" statement) from that article where he was thinking beyond himself and the plaintiff. ""Consider the following example," should the court grant the request, Judge Folino wrote. "Sometime thereafter, Petitioner witnesses a serious automobile accident and telephones for an emergency medical response. The dispatcher on the phone queries as to the caller's identity, and the caller responds, 'This is Boomer the Dog.' It is not a stretch to imagine the telephone dispatcher concluding that the call is a prank and refusing to send an emergency medical response."" So for that I stand corrected on the opinion of the judge thinking of himself alone, or as I got from reading this prior to the articles linked, a judge acting against what he felt as misanthropic behavior by the plaintiff.
This example is ridiculous. First off, how many people, when talking to a 9-1-1 dispatcher, will give their MIDDLE name? If he just says "Boomer Dog" he wouldn't be the only person in the phone book with a last name of "Dog". Also, what about the dispatcher? Many people have unusual names, or names that are puns, or names that are identical to celebrity/famous names. If the dispatcher hangs up on these people assuming it's a prank because they were HONEST about their real name... then that is a problem with the dispatcher being derelict in their duty, and not the fault of the individual's name.
Of course, if Boomer has a habit of snickering in the middle of emergency calls, that's another matter entirely. But I highly doubt that.
Smile! The world could use another happy person.
Was "the" going to be the middle name... I was running on the thought it was going to be part of the surname.
Still, just because someone calls you something doesn't mean changing your name to that something is a good idea. Radio DJs have aliases but they don't try to get it legally changed. As a judge people call him "Your Honor" all the time, it doesn't mean he should change his name to that.
He doesn't need the government to acknowledge that he's Boomer the Dog. He's already confirmed that for himself, honestly he should keep trying if he wants, but there is a freedom he will lose being able to switch between two identities. Which is why Kage left him off with a warning "I hope his decision will work with him in his career."
Seriously, finding a judge that will let him do it is only the first hurdle. I just hope his decision doesn't come back to hurt him. Our identity is not in our name. It's in our actions. A rose is still a rose, a thorn is still a thorn. A baby named Hitler is not Hitler, and the reason people despise that name isn't because of the letters that comprise it but that actions of the person behind it. No matter what a judge decides, he is still Boomer to those who know him.
Yes, it's The as a middle name, Boomer The Dog, BTD. For some reason the court didn't capitalize the T; they spelled my proposed name incorrectly in court papers. I'll have to make sure that I explain that when I submit to the court again.
I don't want to have to switch between two identities, I like the idea of continuity in my ID, that whole feeling of being just one thing, and being honest about it.
I do think that part of my identity is my name, an important part to me.
Good luck with your quest to do that. Just commenting on things as I usually do, but I'm not your keeper, so don't take any of what I said with too much heart.
And I apologize for the whole rant back and forth in the center of the comment thread on your story. I may think the name change is a bit silly. But it certainly isn't as silly as seeing someone changing their name and the first thing someone thinks and rants of are zoophiles in the fandom.
How one could make such a leap, I have no idea.
It's an 'argument robot' I do believe. I've seen the same program run on other groups, and it seems to run a scan for current topic keywords, then incorporates them into a lead-in to a pre-programmed hot button topic like Zoo- Plush- Beast- Nazi- philes. Pure social engineering, so don't worry about it.. :)
I'm doubtful, he's done tricks with context that I haven't seen AI do. It gives me practice on the disagreeable, which helps me more then hurts in the long run, as if I do make mistakes I can learn from them.
I'm not the one who brought the zoophile issue into the discussion, and I certainly haven't equated with the name change business. I think the name issue is a silly business, but I've also said that it was his own affair, and that is pretty much all I've had to say about that. The zoo thing cropped up in a topic drift and went off on its own tangent.
Yes, right after saying anyone who feels the need to legally change his identity to that of a dog (or any other animal) needs long-term counseling. But you're entitled to your opinion and strange bias against animal-lovers.
BTW: In March 1994, a teenager named Peter Eastman, Jr. from Carpinteria, California legally changed his name to Trout Fishing in America, and now teaches English at Waseda University in Japan. No word on whether Mr. Melville thinks he's crazy, but he appears to be holding down a job, so there can't be that much wrong with him.
"Yes, right after saying anyone who feels the need to legally change his identity to that of a dog (or any other animal) needs long-term counseling."
Changing your name to that of a dog is a pretty nutty thing to do, but people do nutty things all the time. Doing it because you think you're a dog in a human body is, I believe, a serious wake-up call. Of course, I find that a whole lot less disturbing than if he were involved in the other matter we've been discussing, and so far as I've seen, he doesn't appear to be. In any case, it was my opinion, and opinions are going to happen on a forum discussion board.
"But you're entitled to your opinion and strange bias against animal-lovers."
I have no bias against animal lovers, but it's the apparent odd lack of bias against animal-f*ckers that I find strange.
"BTW: In March 1994, a teenager named Peter Eastman, Jr. from Carpinteria, California legally changed his name to Trout Fishing in America, and now teaches English at Waseda University in Japan. No word on whether Mr. Melville thinks he's crazy, but he appears to be holding down a job, so there can't be that much wrong with him."
I dunno -- does he think that he's a trout trapped in a human body?
If anything, maybe you'll come away from this discussion a bit wiser and learn to word things more carefully instead of unfairly tarring other fans with that broad brush of yours.
I said that changing their name to that of a dog was a nutty thing to do. As in "Boomer The Dog". You can't get more specific than that. Heck, if he'd just left it as 'Boomer', no one would even know the difference or even blink. But his choice was specifically for the sake of identifying himself as an animal. That is what I meant, and only that. Past that, you're just reaching for the sake of pointless arguing.
You can't get much more specific than a direct quote.
Any other animal. You don't think it's just people who chose the name of a dog. Including Tygger Lia Graf, who legally changed her name.
Long-term counseling. You don't think it was just "nutty" and harmless and wacky. You actually think people who change their names to that of their fursona need psychiatric help.
What's pointless is you claiming you didn't say these things when it's pretty obvious you did. If you didn't mean it, then man up and admit you were wrong instead of denying you said it.I thought I was pretty straight-forward in what I'd said, and I think that you're simply taking it out of context and are making a mountain out of a molehill. If the language is not precise enough for you, then I'll modify it: "Anyone who wants to change his name to that of a dog (or any other animal) so that he can be identified as an animal, because he believes that he is an animal trapped in a human body and wants to excise any social customs specific to the humanity he was born with (such as the name he was given at birth) is obviously someone who could benefit from some long-term counseling... and we're not talking about simply adopting a nickname either."
I guess this is as close to admitting you were wrong as we're gonna get. Like I said, maybe you'll come away from this discussion a bit wiser and learn to word things more carefully instead of unfairly tarring other fans with that broad brush of yours.
Because for someone who's always whining about giving people the wrong impressions, you sure do it a lot yourself.
Okay it was Cannon Fodder, but ask yourself this... why is his name cannon fodder, and why did he leave as soon as you took up his cause, I think you got played by a troll.
Wow you trolls.
Someone wants to get a name change and you're all "HOLY SHIT WE CAN'T ALLOW THIS. ALERT THE INTERNET."
Ironically the name change wasn't what most of the back and forth was about, but I guess if I was confronted with such a wall of text I would infer that it was about the story as well.
Wow, this has the most commented post ever (correct me if I'm wrong). So many tangents and so much logic, but it seems that the 'Most Excelently Argued Point' Award goes to *Opens envelope*... Sonious! Even though the current posts have nothing to do with the article, it has been very amusing to read them. In addition, I completely agree with Sonious on everything that he has said. That said, isn't it time to lay this post to rest?
There have been posts with more comments, but only a couple. Neither reached thirty levels of indentation.
Numerically this puts many pre-2010 historical debates to shame, although I can't help thinking some were better.
To be honest I've gotten sick of it @_@
I was starting to give myself a headache, and with a head this big that's no joke.
Oh I might want to add, on Aug 19th, I had to call in an accident. Same situation the judge used. 911 has no issues taking a call from Stephanie Raccoon. Plus I've had to call them in the past for other issues. Never had any legal issues due to my name at all.
That's exactly the kind of testimony that could be used in court with my case. I wish that you lived in the area!
I think that you're in another state, but 911 is nationwide, so it seems like your experience would have to apply in Pennsylvania, as a real life example of how an emergency would be handled, using a last name that is also the name of an animal.
If I was calling in I'd give Boomer Dog anyway, and I can't see them questioning that, since there are a are a small number of people with the last name of 'Dog' nationwide.
I actually get many more times the results for Dog compared to Raccoon on the White Pages online! On Lycos people search, there are 3 Raccoons, and 110 Dogs, according to the results.
Boomer The Dog
http://boomerthedog.net
Who are the other folks with the last name raccoon? I haven't run across any. Google even fails me.
Take a look at whitepages.com, and put Raccoon in, and also do it at http://peoplesearch.lycos.com/?tab=people
My idea is that it could be a native American name like some of those with the last name Dog seem to be, like John Sun Dog could be for example.
It seems like you had such an easy name change, sigh.. I think it's great that you got the name of who you are. Did you do it to have a Furry name or take your character name, or because you're really a Raccoon?
Boomer The Dog
http://boomerthedog.net
It's just my name. I got use to being called it over many years, and made it official
It's the same here, though I seem to have a lot more baggage with mine and it's not so simple. For me it was one of those decisions that was like a turning point in my life.
I think that there should be a panel at the next convention about names and why someone would want to take an animal one legally.
Boomer
boomerthedog.net
Hi Flayrah readers, I took part in a segment for the National Geographic documentary series Taboo about Secret Passions, and how I'm a Dog.
The premier was last week, but some have said they missed it. The good news is the episode appears to be scheduled again on Tuesday June 11 at 6 pm Eastern time in the US.
There's more background on the filming and my thoughts on it at my site http://boomerthedog.net , with links to the schedule for the show.
Have fun watching, it was a lot of fun to do, woof!
Boomer
Yay! I hope it was fun! I posted the video in Newsbytes.
The filming was fun, a big experience for me this year in fact. The producers and crew were into the story, so we had a chemistry going and I loved it!
Thanks for putting it in Newsbytes, my forum here is old and I don't know who would see it here as much.
Boomer
The Furry feature documentary Fursonas makes its Pittsburgh debut tonight, March 10.
Since this is a Furry news site I came looking for an article on Fursonas, but can't find one here, kind of a surprise when it's a full length movie about real Furries.
If a writer here would want to do an article, as a subject in the movie I'm open for interview at my email, see my homepage at boomerthedog.net at the bottom for the address to write.
Boomer
*Greets at you* Hallooo Boomeer! Nice to see you!
Hey Boomer, I got your article. It was tweeted at your account, but you don't seem to use it much, so I was wondering about catching your notice.
Fursonas represent what a furry feels inside of them externally seen. The story they give the artist inspirers the artist to do what they do. It is one person praising another using are to do that.
That person should be allowed to have his name to be changed to Boomer. That will give him joy. Why rob that harmless guileless person of what we want to have?
I love the furries. I found them late in life falling in love with them right away. I have been protecting them teaching them and edifying them ever since.
Regarding “your name is your identity”, the Wikipedia article on Wooden Leg (Kâhamâxéveóhtáhe) is instructive on how some non-Christian and non-European societies have regarded names. Wooden Leg (1858-1940) was a Northern Cheyenne warrior best-known for fighting against Col. George Custer at the Battle of the Little Big Horn in 1876, when he was 18 years old. He got his name because he was a tireless walker, as though his legs were made of wood.
At that time, it was common among many native North American tribes to have two names; a childhood name (his was Eats From His Hand), and an adult name given by the tribe at his or her puberty ceremony, often based on a physical or personality trait. “Crazy Horse” was more accurately “Fighting Mad Stallion”; apparently he had a reputation for being hot-headed.
“Indians” could have more than one name, too. Wooden Leg’s parents were Many Bullet Wounds (father), also known as White Buffalo Shaking Off the Dust, and Eagle Feather On the Forehead. His three brothers were Strong Wind Blowing, Yellow Hair, and Twin. His two sisters were Crooked Nose and Fingers Woman.
The Japanese also used to take different names in the past, which was culturally different than just a legal name change; and to some extent still do. The cartoonist who created “Cyborg 009” was known as Shotaro Ishimori when I became a fan of manga in the late 1970s, and became Shotaro Ishinomori in 1986. His birth name was Shotaro Onodera. Reportedly the Ishimori and Ishinomori names were more than just pseudonyms, but I don’t really understand the Japanese cultural context.
Anyhow, “Boomer the Dog” appears to be a unique identity, whatever his “legal name” may be in American society. His “name” should not control his identity. If someone becomes a furry fan, his or her fursona may reflect their identity more accurately than their legal name does. What's wrong with having two names?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wooden_Leg
Fred Patten
Many actors use a different stage name. I'm not sure if they always legally change it but I recall hearing that best Doctor, David Tennant, changed his surname when he took up acting because there was already an actor sharing that name. Scientists, particularly females, often write under their maiden name even when they get married so that you can identify that all the publications are by the same person.
"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~John Stuart Mill~
Famously the actor Stewart Granger was really named James Stewart, but there was already an actor named James Stewart.
Fred Patten
God bless the rational minded furry. He that wants to be named Boomer needs to be given love even as he gives it. The very act of denial is turning ones back to the love that he freely gives. People need to turn around Hugging him giving him what he requests.
Post new comment