As wwith what Expete said, they’re just walking-talking ads. Needing Hasbro brand toys, food, a save room, can and will demand things of anyone and everyone that walks by them as if they’re entitled to what they want. Along with that, they’re literally an abomination to nature and offer nothing to the world, nor able to live in nature when left alone.
You may as well hand someone your bank card as you’d be just spending money on stuff as a Fluffy will ad target kids for things they ‘need’.
You can write as many stories as you want about fluffies having feelings and wanting to live just as I have but doesnt matter to humans in these settings because Hasbio has successfully lobbied to deny them personhood for the reasons I have specified.
Aside from the bio-programming, fluffies are generally accepted to be both a mash of traits and instincts from different animals and an unfinished product. Even if they’re not very smart and maybe weren’t meant to be sentient, it is both very likely that they are (even as a “glitch”) and very difficult to prove that they’re not aware of their surroundings in the way a natural animal is.
Even if we assume a canon where it is both proven and public knowledge that fluffies are non-sentient, I imagine discarding your pet/biological “toy” as trash as it bleeds on the ground just like a real animal and cries for help in a voice similar to that of a small child would be easier said than done for any adult human with a functioning sense of empathy. I’m not saying this to insult the premise, I’m just pointing out that people in-universe universally having this sort of attitude requires a society that has been thoroughly convinced that something that eats, shits, and bleeds is not only “not real” but worthy of active condemnation. And at that point, who’s buying all these fluffies that are getting left behind in fluffy parks? The fluffy itself may have only been a few bucks, but that’s not considering all the supplies you need to keep them from crying and being huge downers.
For me, the philosophical debate over “are fluffies alive” is integral to the fluffy genre.
The Fluffy is a great fictional being that can be a proxy for how we treat our animals, our children, our elderly, our homeless. And just like Mark Twain or Jonathen Swift, these horrific revelations easily lend themself to dark, biting satire.
The greatest irony is that only a true autist can write a good fluffy story, while at the same time, only a true autist can not differentiate the difference between a fluffy and an IRL animal.
Guys, don’t leave your trash in the parks! be responsible and throw it to the dumpster
You’re overthinking an imaginary pony that’s a weird shitty cheap spin-off of my little pony
If you try to find logic in all the aspects of it, it loses what makes it interesting
I do recognize that “because fuck you, that’s why” logic is fun, but overthinking the implications of a world where man created fluffies and trying to rationalize common fluffy tropes is 90% of the appeal for me. It’s your post at the end of the day, so I’ll cut it out.
Hey, on the bright side, the babbeh might get picked up and honored as a roasted fluffy by a passerby looking to replace his turkey for Thanksgiving.
This is why we shouldn’t go down the rabbit hole of what one would considered alive or not. It’s not healthy for all of us.
Please dispose of your waste properly kid. No one want to step on used fluffy.
Pet rats cost about that much and you still get in legal trouble for torturing or dumping them.
Doesn’t that make literally all stories about fluffies completely meaningless? People only have any reaction to either abuse or hugbox because the fluffy is supposed to be actually feeling something in-universe. And if everyone hates fluffies, why would they buy them?
Do you hate 90% of the shit you throw away? No. People treat fluffies like inanimate objects. Thats literally it.
Its fine the park keeper will dispose of it, assuming the ferals dont get to it on the night 
No reason to be upset when someone is philosophizing about parts of the genre. Some people might be newer than others and have not delved into atuff that otgers aren’t interested in digging into or have already explored ages ago.
Given that there are huge groups on social media dedicated to how humans “pack bond” with literal inanimate objects, I too wonder about the world(s) that fluffy stories are set in. Most children have to be gradually weaned off a stuffed toy that’s falling apart and filthy or they will absolutely melt down. And most adults are hardwired to have biological responses to certain features, like high pitched voices or large-eyes-small-nose proportions, etc. So in order for people to widely accept that a biological construct that bleeds, cries tears and begs for its life is just a machine, something has to be different about them from real people on real-life Earth. Nobody cares about corporate or even criminal law when it clashes with what our emotions say, as recently demonstrated at large by a certain recent murder. People are just made to empathize unless they’re broken.
Here’s the main issue that people who bring this kind of thing up - this is the same text book talk from hugboxer people who look to demean and bash folks in abuse posts/abusebox.
No, this isn’t a place to make wild crackpot theories on someone else’s lore/headcanon because you don’t see the point. No, going into what ifs or whataboutthems on someone else’s post isn’t good form as it just make the person come off as a bleeding heart for something that was made to be enjoyed for a set folks.
If anyone want to go about their own reasoning and thoughts on the topic - they can write their own stories/artwork on it, not shove them into the comments of someone else’s work. I never understood folks who think they could come into a given post, spout what they want and expect everyone to get into their idea. Just make your headcanon on it and let others have their own.
I’d personally welcome that kind of discussion on my own posts, but I’ve learned the lesson from this thread that other people aren’t drawn to fluffies for the same reasons I am and not everyone is interested in that kind of theorizing under a silly picture of a fluffy being disposable. I’ll keep this in mind and and do a better job of “reading the room” in the future.
Leave it here, we can buy a new one on our way home.
That being said, this is just bad parenting. Today they break their fluffy, tomorrow they break their smartphone.
I don’t hate things I throw away, but they’re at least byproducts of the things I wanted. If everyone hates having fluffies around, which they seem to do if they’re going out of their way to make the fluffies suffer, what motive would they have to buy them in the first place?
Introspection and analysis are very scary to a lot of people. It’s why media literacy is dead and we can’t have nice things in the real world.