Yes but this conversation would be rather boring otherwise.
1 Like
It’s always boring oculus has no stand it will always come down to head cannon whit him
2 Likes
We aren’t looking for his opinion, he’s looking for our opinion.
1 Like
No it is an opinion piece he gave his opinion and it’s depends on head cannon
3 Likes
@Za The point of this topic was to start a discussion. Also, it seems that people do end up depicting fluffies as animals, unless they depict a completely different physiology or behaviour. Even if I say “depends on headcanon”, as @Arch pointed out, fluffies behave and exist as animals in most canons, at least as a technical level. I think it points at a flaw of the fiction, one that requires a level of weirdbox to circumvent.
Also, and finally, ripoff turned up to make the statement I expected him to. At least one other person had also done so on the subreddit version of this topic.
~
@Arch To be honest, I agree with you. But I still want to point out that not all fluffies, at least depicted physiologically, are animals.
I admit that wierdbox may not be seen as valid, but some levels of wierdbox make me wonder how far one can push the envelope of “fluffy as animal”. I can accept BDB’s Fluffy Mold as a kind of animal, but RQ once drew a fluffy that existed purely to dispense ice-cream (or rather, shit it out). And Carpdime once drew this:
Now granted, these are wierdbox images. But assuming someone writes a story about a fluffy not being able to reproduce, not overly reliant on eating to survive, having language already embedded in its brain, how far can one call this type of fluffy an animal?
~
@Axestraddler I find it interesting that you use nanotech. It was the same idea Vanner used to explain why fluffies seemingly had a natural grasp for fluffspeak.
@Carpdime It kind of adds on to the idea of fluffies being somewhat humanlike. Which reminds me.
~
Perhaps a more interesting question to us outside observers is, to what degree are fluffies human ? In both the philosophical and literal sense?
@Arch I actually like this question and prefer it. I say that because I am a hugboxer, and I do believe in humanizing fluffies, whether its exploring their bad points or their potential good. I don’t believe in seeing them as an “abomination” as I feel that an over-reliant on that approach has limited the fiction.
It is also the reason why I highlighted Pinkyfluffy’s work at the end of the opening essay - because Pinkyfluffy, from my understanding, treats them like people. Granted, he has done it to some extremes, but I think there is a potential in looking at fluffies as a kind of “people” and not just animals. Of course, they’re an imperfect people, but humanity itself is no better. Intelligence-wise, I would compare fluffies to the cavemen, which is why feral stories are so interesting, especially the ones in the wild.
6 Likes
Of course, but his opinion was just “I don’t know it depends” besides my point is that if we cut this conversation at “well it depends” then that wouldn’t be much fun. It’s nice to hear peoples thoughts on the matter, that includes yours.
1 Like
On the other side of the fence, the debatable “humanity” of fluffies is what makes abuse so intriguing for me. Animal abuse and human torture, real or fictional, are not things I enjoy reading about, but fluffies are a whole different matter, because on a philosophical level they are neither human nor animal. Their animal characteristics take away from their humanity, making it easier for abusers to psychologically distance themselves from the abuse, while their human qualities - the fact that they CAN communicate and reason (albeit poorly) - are precisely what makes the abuse appealing in the first place, whereas animal abuse is just gross and reprehensible.
This paradox of fluffy intelligence is what makes them the perfect torture-dolls. They are in some respects comparable to humans, while simultaneously being incredibly stupid, lower than the lowest of natural beasts by virtue of being man-made and artificial. This allows us to live our our innermost fantasies of extreme, over-the-top sadism while providing adequate mental distance from both the abuse of animals and of humans.
5 Likes
Fluffys are no more animals than any machine man has made is an animal it is no more alive then fire is alive
2 Likes
If fluffys are animals than they can not be fluffys ,fluffys need limitations or else you end up whit everything is a fluffy
2 Likes
I disagree with your point, if only because it’s akin to saying “well if dogs are animals then everything is a dog”. But I agree there should be limits.
2 Likes
Dogs are a set thing fluffys are not eventually as it always happens someone will strip every fluffy characteristic from a fluffy and call their new donut steal a fluffy
2 Likes
I understand what you mean, but I still have hangups. I just think it’s interesting to hear other peoples thought on the matter.
2 Likes
uh oh, everyone, looks like we’ll get cut on all this edge 
3 Likes
Than hear it my opinion does not silence theirs no matter how wrong it is
2 Likes
I’ll look forward to your perfect donut steal
2 Likes
I know, I enjoyed hearing yours.
1 Like
Kinda rude.
1 Like
@Arch I feel hesitant. While I see your point, I stop short of thinking of them as “perfect torture-dolls”.
First, a semantic bone I have to pick with you, Arch. Earlier we had agreed that fluffies are, from a biological standpoint, at least animals. And in that same way, humans are also animals. Thus, to say that fluffies are neither human nor animal from a philosophical standpoint betrays this position, because, if fluffies are animals, as so many state theya re, how they are also “not” animals? And, if they have humanlike elements, how are they “not” animals in that regard? Granted, one can argue that human abilities and traits trascend the savage and thus can’t be confused with lowly animal qualities but, and as humans are animals, one could argue that a more enlightened animal is still, at the end of the day, an animal. Thus, the human being will always function and exist as an animal.
Secondly, as somebody who is familiar with such fantasies and sadism, as well as having looked after both animals and people at various levels of disadvantage, I’m afraid that I cannot see this ‘adequate mental distance’. To much of fluffy abuse reminds me of actual human and animal abuse that I don’t see the distance at all. if anything, it sort of illuminate why some people have distanced themselves with the fiction over time.
To me, what you’re describing is the kind of mentality and justification for using fluffies as stress relief which, in turn, puts it against what some other people may have wanted out of the genre. Some may actually find the simplicity of fluffies endearing. Others admit that fluffies are flawed mentally, and have written fluffies having suffered abuse, but do so as a means of a metaphor for the actual evils of real abuse. So, no, I don’t agree with you that they make for perfect torture-dolls.
And, to take it a step further, I don’t see them as incredibly stupid or lower than the lowest. Well, it does depend on whose the writer or artist but, when I think of the fluffies that Carpdime and Waggytail have done, they don’t strike me as the lowest. Granted, this becomes a problem of “it depends on headcanon”, but I don’t think that a person’s portrayal of fluffy is any less invalid compared to any others. A reason why I draw on Pinkfluffy’s example is for that precise reason - he enjoys exploring fluffies as very intelligent, and I think there is a value to that. Conversely, I suppose you could argue that there is a value to exploring fluffies as being as abusable as possible, but I think it needs to be done with nuance.
Finally, and as somebody who finds the simplicity of fluffies endearing, I sometimes wonder if Art-anon felt like Pandora when he started drawing fluffies as being the neotenic animals we know them as. Granted, he already gave his own reasons why he chose to not be associated with fluffies, but I sometimes wonder if he has his own regret in depicting fluffies as being neotenic. I can relate to Art-Anon and Marcusmaximus enjoying fluffies because they are like Peter Pan - they don’t grow up. And I can understand why they’d feel empathy for over the most disadvanatged of them, as opposed to sadism.
3 Likes
That’s where we need to distinguish between the literal definitions of “human” and “animal”, and the philosophical concepts they represent. For clarity, the philosophical [human] and [animal] will be denoted as such.
First and foremost, the ideas of the distinction between [humans] and [animals] are entirely based on human perception. They don’t describe how something is, but rather how they’re percieved by (most) humans.
On a literal level, yes, humans (members of the species Homo Sapiens) are part of the kingdom Animalia, thus we are animals. Philosophically, though, [humans] see ourselves as separate from - above - other [animals]. [animals] are wild, savage, driven by instinct, and incapable of abstract thought, while [humans] are… not that. It’s important to note that the human form is an important trait of [humanity] - the closer something looks to us, the easier it is for us to see it as [human] and not an [animal] or a [monster]. The two concepts are mutually exclusive - when someone is described as acting [animalistic], it’s equivalent to saying that they’re not acting like a [human] should. When we see animals behaving in ways we typically attribute to [humans], it’s the same as saying they’re not behaving like [animals].
Thus, when you have a creature that exhibits the qualities of both [humans] and [animals], it is not BOTH a [human] and an [animal], it is in fact neither. It is not a [human] because it lacks a humanoid form (and in the case of fluffies, their average intelligence falls far short of that of humans), but it is also not an [animal] because of that same [human] intelligence. [humans] and [animals] aren’t just defined by what they are, but also by what they are not.
This too is a topic that’s been heavily explored in actual literature, with Frankenstein’s Monster being the most obvious example. In the book, he’s actually very intelligent and sensitive, but due to his hideous appearance is seen as a [monster] and shunned from society.
As for everything else… yeah, it just boils down to what you want out of fluffy fiction. By definition no interpretation is any more valid than the rest, there’s no overarching authority deciding what’s “canon” or not beyond a set of loosely agreed upon facts and even those are subject to quite the variation in headcanon. If it’s not clear, everything I’m saying is just the interpretation that best fits the kinds of stories I enjoy. Other interpretations aren’t any more or less valid than mine, but I’m certainly not going to be reading stories that depict hyper-intelligent fluffies because it’s just not what I’m looking for.
2 Likes
Why so much text? Fluffys are clearly animals who are modified by humans beyond anything before. They are labeled biotoys only to make emotional people feel better about them. And labeled “soap” in legal terms to keep hasbio from getting sued to death.
As far as most canons go. It all makes sense and the general definition makes it easier for people.
Other than that… There are two approaches to fictional things.
A) You take what the majority thinks is right and declare it a general canon
B) You say that since it’s fictional, anyone can imagine it like he likes it to do. That leaves everyone absolute freedom and with it completly dissolves any coherent universe that would link the storys (a.k.a. you destroy the very foundation of a fandom)
Not trying to be “that guy” btw.
4 Likes