There is no canon because everything is canon.
I feel like this is the basis of many needless disagreements.
@A-S you’re being strung along.
2 Likes
But what if…
Everything is canon because there is no canon?"
My personal opinion is that fluffies have no legal protections whatsoever, but legality and mortality rarely intersect. Even if one can’t be prosecuted for blatant murder of fluffies, someone deciding to kick the abuser’s ass for their deeds would be a natural and realistic consequence.
Just because this doesn’t happen that often in stories doesn’t mean it’s something that shouldn’t be considered.
2 Likes
Sorry, I genuinely cannot remember the names right now, if I do I’ll definitely let you know.
I think fluffies, even if they didn’t have animal rights, would still have rights in general. They would have property rights.
For example, if I break or steal your cell phone, I can still be punished, even if the phone is inanimate.
If I break or steal your fluffy, I harmed or stole your property, and society can punish me.
that the world is cruel and uncaring has been a core element of fluffies ever since fluffies could be identified as something separate from mlp . that fluffies are not animals but objects shapes not only the fluffies but the setting something that your fluffies have rights does nothing to change your fluffies still fallow every other trope which logically should change if fluffies having rights was important .
since nothing else changes about your fluffies all your faux realism achieves is making fluffies willing slaves
fluffies being classified as objects has bases in the real world monsantos seeds are considered monsantos intellectual property if other crops cross pollinate with the monsantos germ it is considered a infringement on monsantos copy right and the court will order the crops destroyed.
I truly can not understand why you would want to strip the sifi out of fluffies and fill it with plot convince. well that’s a lie militant huggies have to find a way to demonize everything that dose not conform to their narrow views
2 Likes
that is how fluffies lose all identity, and just became a word you attach to a story which is the slow spiral to oblivion we are in . what’s a fluffy anything that is identified as a fluffy
1 Like
are you seriously going to tell me you accept this as a fluffy no modifiers just a straight main line fluffy
It’s not like chimeras and transgenic animals (pets even) don’t already exist. And they’re still legally considered animals… because they’re animals. The actual controversy takes place around those animals getting loose and becoming invasive species, or interbreeding with local wildlife. There’s also ethical and religious debate about whether or not we should be creating such animals.
Why would fluffy ponies be any different?
I am not certain declaring fluffies animals would change any stories. Most abuse happens inside the house, and unseen by the public. How many people are arrested per year for abusing their cat? How many people do you think kick their cats around or have kids that do? As animals or bio-toys, they still would represent an invasive species. It would be like Florida not incentivizing the killing of Burmese pythons in the everglades.
1 Like
How would they do that as different species?
Transgenic animals aren’t necessarily a different species, just an altered population with traits from another creature. there have been instances of modified organisms breeding with unaltered ones.
for our purposes its really more of a question of headcanon and what makes for the more interesting story.
Edit:
Since i didn’t address it:
Interbreeding is only really possible if there are populations of the same secies or woth a closely related species. Say fluffy ponies encounter other equids, assuming the " pony" part is accurate and not Hasbio engaging in false advertising. The chances of fluffs and horses, donkeys and the like actually peoding viable offspring without assistance or casualties is slim, but not impossible.
HELL no. Fluffies are older than some of the people in this forum. Stop trying to change the basics. What Virgil wrote a while back was perfect. Once you give it cat ears and the ability to run fast and …now it’s not a biotoy?
It’s no longer a Fluffy. And frankly the new glut of cutesy hugbox and conversations like this make me sick. Because I can’t imagine anyone coming into this community and seeing some of the gore and murder and STILL wanting to juxtapose a cyoot widdwe fambwy with so much wub and happiness"
go found your own creation then because
the more you want to change the basic fluffy lore thats been around for a LONG time…
the more you should realize that fluffies are probably not for you.
2 Likes
What, are there nine/ten years old in this forum?
And you know the basics?
1 Like
The biotoy concept was never central to fluffy ponies.
It was started by gingerfig as a “fuck you” to people who were giving him grief over his art and stories. From there, it was glommed onto by abusers. It was a controversial idea, and there really wasn’t a consensus.
3 Likes
Agree with what you said, but
Was it? I feel like little of his story involved the biotoy canon
The word biotoy may have started with ginger fig but fluffies where always seen as less then animals. Like it or not through most of the boorus existence fluffies where categorized as not animals. As it was the first place dedicated to fluffies it’s norms their do carry weight
To the point of this tread what dose it matter if fluffies have rights if it changes nothing in the story, it’s like getting rid of fluffy speak they now speak perfect English and what does that add other then making fluffies more mundane
Apparently, they do.
According to them, at least.
Ok boomer.
WHAT THE FUCK MCGEE
YOU USED PUNCTUATION
1 Like