It was in response to the “canonically adult” comment (not the picture itself), because it’s a stupid defense that can be used to excuse anything, as per my example.
But I now see I actually responded to the wrong person.
This isn’t that though. This is a canonical adult, with the mind of an adult, in the body of an adult. Sure it’s used as an excuse for weird pedo shit, but in this case it’s just an accurate observation.
Yeah, in hindsight my comment was a bit snarky, I admit. Gut reaction. I guess I’ve just become a little allergic to that kind of argument because it’s often used by certain types.
In this case you are absolutely right. The character Diane Foxington is very obviously not a child. I was merely responding to that particular argument, but I could have been a bit more diplomatic about it. Apologies.
And the fact that I responded to the wrong comment wasn’t really helping either!
Ha, count yourself lucky! Usually this type of argument is used to defend Loli crap, for example. You know, the characters that ACTUALLY look like 6-year olds, but then it’s argued that “they’re akshually very old spirits inhabiting the body and blahblahpedoshitblah.”
I have to admit though that I’ve never seen it in furry-context, though that could be because I don’t really get into contact with the community much, so yeah. Like I said, it was a gut reaction, nothing to do with the linked picture itself. Note to self: think before you post! ;)
It was in response to the “canonically adult” comment (not the picture itself), because it’s a stupid defense that can be used to excuse anything, as per my example.
But I now see I actually responded to the wrong person.
This isn’t that though. This is a canonical adult, with the mind of an adult, in the body of an adult. Sure it’s used as an excuse for weird pedo shit, but in this case it’s just an accurate observation.
Yeah, in hindsight my comment was a bit snarky, I admit. Gut reaction. I guess I’ve just become a little allergic to that kind of argument because it’s often used by certain types.
In this case you are absolutely right. The character Diane Foxington is very obviously not a child. I was merely responding to that particular argument, but I could have been a bit more diplomatic about it. Apologies.
And the fact that I responded to the wrong comment wasn’t really helping either!
Yeah, I probably could’ve picked a better argument or word it a bit better, I just now realize how bad it is.
Ha, count yourself lucky! Usually this type of argument is used to defend Loli crap, for example. You know, the characters that ACTUALLY look like 6-year olds, but then it’s argued that “they’re akshually very old spirits inhabiting the body and blahblahpedoshitblah.”
I have to admit though that I’ve never seen it in furry-context, though that could be because I don’t really get into contact with the community much, so yeah. Like I said, it was a gut reaction, nothing to do with the linked picture itself. Note to self: think before you post! ;)
Perhaps “physically” is a better descriptor than “canonically”. “Physically and mentally” if you want to be thorough.
Fair, that was a pretty weak comment.