4725
4726

Cain and Abel (imgur.com)

KatSwenskiDoes_not_draw_furry_porn! が 投稿

並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A
あなたは単独のコメントのスレッドを見ています。

残りのコメントをみる →

[–]12mo -26ポイント-25ポイント  (31子コメント)

2furry4me. That art style screams... stuff it shouldn't be screaming.

[–]kyzfrintin 12ポイント13ポイント  (10子コメント)

What are you talking about? I just see a dog and a cat. Nothing weird about it.

[–]MasqueRaccoon 5ポイント6ポイント  (18子コメント)

You must hate Disney movies.

[–]12mo -3ポイント-2ポイント  (17子コメント)

If you think this is Disney style you're blind to the nuances of furry porn.

[–]KatSwenskiDoes_not_draw_furry_porn![S] 3ポイント4ポイント  (9子コメント)

http://i.imgur.com/qDUTSgy.png

[–]12mo -4ポイント-3ポイント  (8子コメント)

If you think the dog you drew is the same style as that fox, you're mistaken. I'm sure you're an experienced enough artist to be able to point out the differences, particularly in the eyes, the mouth, and the chest. Compare actual dogs sitting with the way you drew a dog sitting and maybe you could work out some of the... issues... in your art. It may be unintentional, but you're definitely influenced by the amount of anime and furry art you consume.

I mean, why do you think people keep asking you about furry porn? Just a funny coincidence?

[–]kyzfrintin 1ポイント2ポイント  (7子コメント)

Jfc why are you so obsessed with furry art? It's really disconcerting. They're just animals with faces, like any amount of comics/cartoons with anthropomorphised animals.

Not every dog with a face is a fucking vessel for vicarious furry fantasies. Sorry to disappoint you.

[–]12mo 0ポイント1ポイント  (6子コメント)

I'm defending a statement that I made. The statement is correct and people (like you) try to contradict it with faulty reasoning. For example you said, and I quote, "the only deduction I can make from your identifying this as quasi-furry porn is that you're a furry", which is false, as shown in my reply using the same reasoning "the only deduction I can make from your identifying this as quasi-pedophile porn is that you're a pedophile."

  1. You're trying to infer things on me personally because I said the artist's work looks like furry porn. This is false reasoning; just like you identified quasi-pedophile porn doesn't require you to be a pedophile, me identifying quasi-furry porn doesn't require me to be a furry.
  2. You've said that I only connected this to furry because I looked up the artist. This is clearly false because I've connected this to furry before looking up the artist, and many people before me have connected the artist's art to furry (whether or not they looked up the artist beforehand, I don't know, but it doesn't seem likely, unless you're into conspiracy theories)

And this one is my main point and the most important:

3.I'M NOT THE ONLY ONE WHO ASSOCIATED THE ARTIST'S ART WITH FURRY PORN. The artist repeatedly and consistently gets inquiries about whether or not they draw furry porn when they post their art.

So something about their art is similar to furry porn, and according to me, that something is a few stylistic choices which I pointed out (vaguely) to the artist. The artist can then decide if these stylistic choices make their art look like furry porn, and if they want to continue using these stylistic choices.

Now you're attacking me personally again by calling me "obsessed" because I defend my post. But, you defend your post too. Are you "obsessed"?

[–]kyzfrintin 0ポイント1ポイント  (5子コメント)

just like you identified quasi-pedophile porn doesn't require you to be a pedophile, me identifying quasi-furry porn doesn't require me to be a furry.

I think you missed the part where they're not the same thing. Everyone knows paedos like kids. Only furries know the actual "nuances" of furry porn.

This is clearly false because I've connected this to furry before looking up the artist

Because you apparently know what furry porn looks like. Which was my point - you have to know what furry porn looks like to relate something to furry porn.

I'M NOT THE ONLY ONE WHO ASSOCIATED THE ARTIST'S ART WITH FURRY PORN.

I didn't say you were, and even acknowledged that other people experienced in furry porn might be thinking the same thing. I'm not a furry aficionado, so I dunno what those signs are.

So something about their art is similar to furry porn

Whatever that is.

[–]12mo -1ポイント0ポイント  (4子コメント)

Whatever that is.

That's exactly the point. You kept making false assertions:

Anything else you wrote is pretty much veiled name-calling ("obsessed" because I point out your faulty reasoning; "furry" because I point out the artist's art has furry themes) and dodging.

[–]kyzfrintin 0ポイント1ポイント  (3子コメント)

I literally made the connection before looking up the artist

Which only furthers my point. You have to know what kind of art they do and how it (maybe) relates to furries in order to say this comic resembles furry porn. I said you had to look her up, because I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. But no, this is something you've thought about before...

Anything else you wrote is pretty much veiled name-calling

Oh, even the part where I pointed out four times that your attempted deflection including paedophiles watching beauty pageants doesn't work? Because you don't need to watch child porn to know what it includes? Why do you keep ignoring this very, very important point?

Why on Earth are you so passionate and defensive about me pointing out that you've seen furry porn before? Because it's obvious you have.

[–]MasqueRaccoon 1ポイント2ポイント  (6子コメント)

Did you even look at my user name? XD

Also, where do you think most furries got into the fandom? That's right, Disney movies.

[–]12mo 0ポイント1ポイント  (5子コメント)

That really bears little relevance to you being able or not being able to differentiate between this art style and Disney art style.

You can like furry porn and Disney movies and still not be able to differentiate the stylistic choices either uses, simply because you never tried identifying their stylistic elements. What's the stylistic difference between Chuck Jones Bugs Bunny and Bob Clampett Bugs Bunny? Lots of people are fans of both animators, some would be able to tell which cartoon was drawn by which animator, and few would be able to point out the specific stylistic differences. However, those few would instantly be able to tell you about "Chuck Jones cheeks".

TL;DR just because you can't identify certain stylistic differences doesn't mean they're not there, even if you're a Disney and furry fan.

[–]MasqueRaccoon 1ポイント2ポイント  (4子コメント)

Nowhere did I say they were the same style. You're off on an irrelevant tangent.

Plus, you're trying to imply all furry art is the same, because Kat's style is too close to "furry art." So you're contradicting yourself.

[–]12mo 0ポイント1ポイント  (3子コメント)

you're trying to imply all furry art is the same

No I'm not. I said "stylistic choices" and "stylistic elements", I didn't say "one monolithic style."

Nowhere did I say they were the same style

Nither did I. I said "If you think this is Disney style you're blind to the nuances of furry porn." And then I proceeded to explain that some people are blind to nuances of different styles, like the difference between Jones and Clampett. They both draw in the classic WB style, but they don't draw exactly the same. They have some shared stylistic choices and some different.

Really I've said nothing you're claiming I said.

[–]MasqueRaccoon 1ポイント2ポイント  (2子コメント)

Which was completely irrelevant to the point. Honestly, you've gone off on something no one was discussing.

You said it was "too furry." My point was that Disney has lots of cartoons that are essentially furry. Your tangent about art styles isn't relevant to the topic at hand. It's not the style that's at issue, it's your assertion that something was "too furry."

[–]12mo -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

Honestly, you've gone off on something no one was discussing.

I was discussing the style from the beginning. In fact my post literally says "That art style". You're posting in a thread started by me, about style, where the first post talks about style, and the following posts talk about style. I can't believe you've missed this.

It's not the style that's at issue

Surprising, given that the style is at issue in the first post and in every subsequent post you've replied to.

it's your assertion that something was "too furry."

This is actually the first time you mention this. You were talking about style with me ("Kat's style") not about things being "too furry". I only mentioned "too furry" in terms of style, which I talked about in each post I made.

Did you notice?

[–]kyzfrintin 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

I just can't believe this guy. It's insane.

[–]TotesMessenger 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

I'm a bot, bleep, bloop. Someone has linked to this thread from another place on reddit:

If you follow any of the above links, please respect the rules of reddit and don't vote in the other threads. (Info / Contact)