I never got this anthropomorphic animals in a world with regular non-anthropomorphic animals it's weird to see

Qualske99 said:
I never got this anthropomorphic animals in a world with regular non-anthropomorphic animals it's weird to see

Not really, it's like us with monkeys/apes.

SirNoname said:
Not really, it's like us with monkeys/apes.

Is it? I don't think the comparison is 100%. It'd be like if we had apes as domesticated pets, and we had almost identical facial features and hair covering as they did.
And considering we have not just canine anthros here, but a parrot, it'd be like if you and your girlfriend were closer in species to your pet than you are to your girlfriend's boss.

Is he about to butt fuck that dog?

GarethGobulcoque said:
Is it? I don't think the comparison is 100%. It'd be like if we had apes as domesticated pets, and we had almost identical facial features and hair covering as they did.
And considering we have not just canine anthros here, but a parrot, it'd be like if you and your girlfriend were closer in species to your pet than you are to your girlfriend's boss.

You're still looking at it from the point of view that humans aren't animals. We are. Just because we have so many tools and gismos doesn't mean we're in anyway different from other animals. And other species do socialize outside of their species. There's mountains of documentation of not only friendly socializing, but also out of species mating as well.

What if our roles where reversed? What if humans where the domesticated pets, and all the other species you see in the comic where the ones with baseball caps, cell phones, and automatic weapons?

Roses are red.
Violets are blue.
My girlfriend is mad.
This dog will do.

H3xx said:
You're still looking at it from the point of view that humans aren't animals. We are. Just because we have so many tools and gismos doesn't mean we're in anyway different from other animals. And other species do socialize outside of their species. There's mountains of documentation of not only friendly socializing, but also out of species mating as well.

What if our roles where reversed? What if humans where the domesticated pets, and all the other species you see in the comic where the ones with baseball caps, cell phones, and automatic weapons?

...okay, I'll bite. What if that was the case?

Think of it like this... would it be any better or make any more sense if the 'pets' in these kinds of worlds were just humans running around on all fours?

GarethGobulcoque said:
...okay, I'll bite. What if that was the case?

Would it still be weird? I mean in an objective sense, not from the point of view from a human.

H3xx said:
Would it still be weird? I mean in an objective sense, not from the point of view from a human.

You tell me, you brought it up. According to you, my perspective is too muddled by anthropocentric conditioning to speak objectively about this, so I can't be of much help. Please, continue.

Time for you to "Git fukn rekt m8!"

RoiLion said:
Is he about to butt fuck that dog?

He's about to butt fuck that dog.

GarethGobulcoque said:
You tell me, you brought it up. According to you, my perspective is too muddled by anthropocentric conditioning to speak objectively about this, so I can't be of much help. Please, continue.

No snark, please. I'm asking you to consider the reverse of your situation. How is that not clear? Your original statement:

GarethGobulcoque said:
Is it? I don't think the comparison is 100%. It'd be like if we had apes as domesticated pets, and we had almost identical facial features and hair covering as they did.
And considering we have not just canine anthros here, but a parrot, it'd be like if you and your girlfriend were closer in species to your pet than you are to your girlfriend's boss.

Which to me seems like you aren't thinking about it from an animal point of view. Humans generally think of themselves as above other animals. But what if Humans weren't the only Sapient species on the planet? What if we where like the Xindi from Star Trek. This fictional society is made up of 5 distinct sapient species. It really isn't weird if you think about our planet from the other end. The other species must think us really weird.

@ H3xx

I've actually had this very discussion before, in a course generally considered more highly than the e621 comments section. It was in regards to a thesis by Jacques Derrida, where he analyzed why he felt embarassed when he noticed his pet cat saw him naked. It's a very stimulating essay on the nature of human perception, how we distance 'animals' as a separate unified entity, and raised questions about our foundations of language, reasoning and morality that couldn't easily be answered.

The reason I snarked you instead of contributing further is because this conversation, just like that class discussion, is destined to go nowhere. The line of thinking is so alien to our basic perceptions that we have to remove ourselves from reality several times into a setting of pure abstraction just to have a frame of reference, and at that point we have no footing on which to make any meaningful argument. And that's just one person thinking about it- when you open it up to a discussion, everyone is so deep in their own unique world of abstraction that no one's even having the same conversation. Everyone else's opinion seems wrong because you're not in their interpretation of what that world looks like, and never can be, and vice-versa.
So yes, I'm snarking you because your point sounds like it has nothing to do with the topic, and I refused to contribute because I'd sound exactly the same to you. We'd get nowhere, and just spend all week downvoting each other for sounding stupid. I'd rather make more dick jokes than make more enemies right now.

GarethGobulcoque said:
@ H3xx

I've actually had this very discussion before, in a course generally considered more highly than the e621 comments section. It was in regards to a thesis by Jacques Derrida, where he analyzed why he felt embarassed when he noticed his pet cat saw him naked. It's a very stimulating essay on the nature of human perception, how we distance 'animals' as a separate unified entity, and raised questions about our foundations of language, reasoning and morality that couldn't easily be answered.

The reason I snarked you instead of contributing further is because this conversation, just like that class discussion, is destined to go nowhere. The line of thinking is so alien to our basic perceptions that we have to remove ourselves from reality several times into a setting of pure abstraction just to have a frame of reference, and at that point we have no footing on which to make any meaningful argument. And that's just one person thinking about it- when you open it up to a discussion, everyone is so deep in their own unique world of abstraction that no one's even having the same conversation. Everyone else's opinion seems wrong because you're not in their interpretation of what that world looks like, and never can be, and vice-versa.
So yes, I'm snarking you because your point sounds like it has nothing to do with the topic, and I refused to contribute because I'd sound exactly the same to you. We'd get nowhere, and just spend all week downvoting each other for sounding stupid. I'd rather make more dick jokes than make more enemies right now.

Well excuse me for trying to be fucking productive.

GarethGobulcoque said:
@ H3xx

I've actually had this very discussion before, in a course generally considered more highly than the e621 comments section. It was in regards to a thesis by Jacques Derrida, where he analyzed why he felt embarassed when he noticed his pet cat saw him naked. It's a very stimulating essay on the nature of human perception, how we distance 'animals' as a separate unified entity, and raised questions about our foundations of language, reasoning and morality that couldn't easily be answered.

The reason I snarked you instead of contributing further is because this conversation, just like that class discussion, is destined to go nowhere. The line of thinking is so alien to our basic perceptions that we have to remove ourselves from reality several times into a setting of pure abstraction just to have a frame of reference, and at that point we have no footing on which to make any meaningful argument. And that's just one person thinking about it- when you open it up to a discussion, everyone is so deep in their own unique world of abstraction that no one's even having the same conversation. Everyone else's opinion seems wrong because you're not in their interpretation of what that world looks like, and never can be, and vice-versa.
So yes, I'm snarking you because your point sounds like it has nothing to do with the topic, and I refused to contribute because I'd sound exactly the same to you. We'd get nowhere, and just spend all week downvoting each other for sounding stupid. I'd rather make more dick jokes than make more enemies right now.

If I may add a different perspective, both of you are focused on the matter of how we treat pets and not the larger picture of animals in general. In a universe where there are anthros of nearly every species imaginable, there are bound to be plenty with carnivorous diets. Assuming their own moralities would prevent them from killing and eating fellow sapients, they would look at ferals as lower animals even if they share genetic similarities. This mindset would assimilate into general furry mindset and ferals would be treated the same way we treat our animals. Therefore the dog would be considered a pet because they don't view it as smart enough to be people. Obviously some hipster herbivores will say otherwise and they will be ignored like they are here.

GarethGobulcoque said:
It'd be like if we had apes as domesticated pets, and we had almost identical facial features and hair covering as they did.

There are numerous monkeys that pretty closely resemble humans, and they're not even that closely related to us.

That said, identical macroscopic traits evolving independently across taxonomic classes is so unlikely as to be impossible. I could strongly support one species (or even multiple members of an order, with appropriate ancient ancestors) ending up humanoid, but a bird anthro with a dog anthro? You're so far into fiction that you might as well not even bother debating it.

Imuthes said:
There are numerous monkeys that pretty closely resemble humans, and they're not even that closely related to us.

That said, identical macroscopic traits evolving independently across taxonomic classes is so unlikely as to be impossible. I could strongly support one species (or even multiple members of an order, with appropriate ancient ancestors) ending up humanoid, but a bird anthro with a dog anthro? You're so far into fiction that you might as well not even bother debating it.

Space and time are infinite. Sure the likely hood is very very low, but given enough time, it's an assurity.

dim85 said:
Roses are red.
Violets are blue.
My girlfriend is mad.
This dog will do.

Aside from the deep and intense discussion everyone else is having. I just have to say.... Fucking brilliant.

Internetz sir. Solid internetz.

Brayburned said:
He's about to butt fuck that dog.

PERFECT avatar for such a sentence.

Qualske99 said:
I never got this anthropomorphic animals in a world with regular non-anthropomorphic animals it's weird to see

We concur with alllllll measure!

H3xx said:
Would it still be weird? I mean in an objective sense, not from the point of view from a human.

Yeah it would be objectively weird if these were like actual modern humans you're talking about. Any sapient creature regardless of traits or appearance keeping another sapient creature with equal capabilities for intelligence and sociability as a pet would be weird and wrong.

GarethGobulcoque said:
@ H3xx

I've had this discussion before, in regards to Jacques Derrida, where he analyzed why he felt his pet cat naked. It's a very stimulating human perception, how we distance morality easily.

I snarked you because this conversation is destined to go nowhere. The alien that we have to remove from just one person- when you open it up so deep in conversation. Everyone seems wrong because of what that world never can be.
So yes, I'm snarking you because it has nothing to do with the dick jokes.

-snip snip snip-
All choosing to hear only the parts I wanted to hear aside, I agree with you completely Gareth. Most people don't have the depth to understand that they abstract much differently than pretty much everyone else.

Nimnul said:
-snip snip snip-
All choosing to hear only the parts I wanted to hear aside, I agree with you completely Gareth. Most people don't have the depth to understand that they abstract much differently than pretty much everyone else.

Well, normally that's not a bad or counterproductive thing. Different perspectives and creative minds help us widen our own thinking to areas we hadn't considered before. It's just with this topic, it's more like people arguing in completely different languages. Also, people not knowing what the word 'objective' means.

Also also, you just made a YouTube Poop out of one of my rants. I approve, and think more people should totally do this.

Nimnul said:
-snip snip snip-
All choosing to hear only the parts I wanted to hear aside, I agree with you completely Gareth. Most people don't have the depth to understand that they abstract much differently than pretty much everyone else.

That is magical. You are destined for greatness. Also I hope this means that debate up there is over, it felt a bit too hostile for my liking.

Qualske99 said:
I never got this anthropomorphic animals in a world with regular non-anthropomorphic animals it's weird to see

https://e621.net/post/show/83694/black_and_white-comic-cub-explosion-furries_with_p

Qualske98 said:
I never got this anthropomorphic animals in a world with regular non-anthropomorphic animals it's weird to see

Penny: Alright, got it. Is there anything else?
Leonard: Yeah, don’t let Goofy near him. He’ll have nightmares and I’ll have to deal with it.
Penny: What’s the problem with Goofy?
Leonard: Wish I knew. He’s fine with Pluto.

Dear lord look what I've started!

what is this comment section, im not here to learn and contemplate the world i live in!