so is always making comments about people having different headcanons being stupid but…ok.
2 Likes
It’s rude to judge people for what they think, but it isn’t any better to retort.
1 Like
Personal belief. Fluffies are Bio toys. Enginered lifeforms devoid of natural evolution and sculpted by man. Utilizing a variety of gene encoded memories to facilitate things like a basic language, and traits such as the belief hugs have restorative properties. They are much like the majority of food crops in our world patented life forms. Engineered by man to fill a specific niche. Having a patented genetic code in my opinion makes them not animals the product of natural evolution. Much like many Monsanto crops they are capable of reproduction this however does not disqualify them from being a commodity in the case of Monsanto crops they are GMOs genetically modified organisms and must be labeled as such. In the case of the fluffy it is a bio toy and must be labeled as such. In my opinion
3 Likes
@Armer_Irrer Part of the reason behind “so much text” is because there is a debate regarding problems inherent to fluffy fiction, whether it has any or not. The lack of an authoritative canon on fluffies means that anything that is fancied in the hivecanon could be seen as definite canon, when it really isn’t the case. For starters, and since you had to mention it - I don’t follow a canon where fluffies are legally classified as soap, and most stories I know don’t.
Part of the problem with saying “its all fiction” its like saying that we can get away with anything and there’s no limits - yet, as with the internet, there are limits to what we can write and depict. I know enough people who enjoy lolicon and shotacon content who like to push this same argument, but it doesn’t make the content any better, even if its fiction. Likewise, this site maintains a strict rule against animal abuse, especially if done realistically.
To put things into perspective, I am of the camp that does see fluffy fiction as having inherent problems. As much as this fandom has persisted, it has done so with much difficulty. I feel that more needs to be done to show that fluffies isn’t all about darkness and disliking fluffies for their limitations. After all, Nietzsche isn’t all about Nazism 
@researcher7201 Ah, now we’re getting somewhere. Granted, this does read more as a legal definition and doesn’t make a fluffy any less of an “animal” but, I do agree that a genetically modified organism (GMO) would have to be distinguished from a “natural” one. But it does make me wonder what would become of feral fluffies if left alone in the wild. I know abusers have assumed they just die out, but, I am interested in the stories of fluffies naturally existing and flourishing in the wild. @researcher7201 assuming such ferals survive and thrive for successive generations, up to a year, would they be considered “natural” in your book? Keep in mind that cultigens do exist.
@Arch For a rejoinder, I’m going to repeat what I stated earlier. It is true that human nature and humanity is different from the animal and strives to be above it but, whats to say that human nature, itself, isn’t the product of animalism? How much of our notions of “passion” and “romance” are actually driven by a want to reproduce, which itself is based off a sexual need, an “animal” need? Our need for companionship and friendship is as animal as social animals like ants and wolves needing the colony and pack respectively. Humanity strives very hard to differentiate itself from the animal but, itself, has attained its definition from an “animal” origin.
Think of it this way - our mathematical definitions and science, while very valid, all rely on assumptions, and these assumptions depended on a history of trial & error, and can easily go wrong at any time. What I’m saying is, just as the concept of morality we have now is very different from before, I don’t think humanity is that different from the animal, despite trying its very best.
There’s a clip from Waking Life that reminds me of the argument I’m adopting at the moment:
(All that being said, once Humanity does achieve Transcendence or the Dyson sphere, then maybe I’ll retract my statement a bit more)
5 Likes
Spotted one typo “diea”, I’m assuming from context that it’s supposed to be “idea”
Other than that, it’s pretty interesting to see such in-depth discussion on something so miniscule as fictional creatures. Goes to show that we like our entertainment to make sense… in some sense
2 Likes
If you take a pickle out of the brine, wash it, dry it, is it a cucumber again? No it remains a pickle. Leave it out till it rots it’s a rotten pickle. A human created item can never be anything but human created. It’s existance can only happen because of human contact. Even if they have been breading in the wild they are still not natural. They would be an invasive, human introduced factor in to the environment, no mater how well the environment adapts to it, or even if it ultimately proves benificial. Now I think the real mater at question here is not if fluffies are natural or a bio toy. They arnt natural. The real mater here is does that mean that abusing them is ok. Is it ok for a human to break it’s creation. Is it ok for a human to derive satisfaction or joy from destorying its creation. To answer that let us lean on existing wisdom.
First let’s look at an argument for. You build something or purchase something. It is yours by law and as such it’s entire existance is at your pleasure, and for your purposes. If you want it broken you are within your right to break it. Like fireworks you may even enjoy it’s destruction so long as it does not endanger others and their rights. That is your right as the owner of a human creation.
However, and this is where I stand. This is not an inanimate creation. This is a biological being no different then a cat, dog, pig, cow, sheep, or any of the other organisms humanity has divorced from nature and bent it’s biology to its purposes. Humanity has already decided how these things are to be treated. They may be worked, they may be utilized, they may be consumed, but they may not be abused. In some cases like dogs or cats consumption while not illegal carry a heavy social stigma. Humans have decided that beings capable of limited sentience of which we have created are not to be made to suffer unnecessarily. We do not always hit that mark, but that is where we aim. They are slaughtered quickly and in a manor that is painless when we use them for food. We jail and fine those who abuse them.
The fluffy being a new creation I believe would exist in a grey area for a time. But it’s sentience is undeniable. It is aware of its own mortality, the passage of time, it understands itself as an individual, and it can learn from past experience. However limited that may be it is present. Once that is recognized it will move rapidly from social stigma to law. It would in time be seen as no different then butchering a dog.
3 Likes
2 Likes
2 Likes
For me it was a legal thing, fluffies are obviously animals but the biotoy classification meant hasbio didnt have to follow humane laws, and nobody has cared to modify those laws since hasbio went bankrupt either so it stays that way
3 Likes
I went with the programable way with spliced-in parrot genes because a human-whatever chimera like other HCs propose would be far too controversial, specially since having human DNA it would mean its intelligence, as limited as it is, its still partially human in nature.
3 Likes
Everybody has their own approach, sometimes their own HC.
I try to keep things simple and try to work around the general ideas. In the Hubris stories I painted Hasbio as this mismanaged company lead by a narcissist madman because frankly thats the only way I could see anyone making something like fluffies.
Previous HCs that went into the commercial viability of fluffies chose a “razors and blades” model where fluffies are cheap and hasbio makes money off selling accessories. I went the other way because I cant believe any company able to create not just a genetically modified animal but an entirely artificial one like fluffies are would then sell them for pennies. On the contrary I think they would be very expensive.
How come fluffies are cheap in your stories?
Because hasbio was a mess and there was an industrial accident where their breeding fluffies got out. They lost the goose with the golden eggs, now anyone can make fluffies so hasbio goes under unable to recoup the huge R&D investment. Everybody can breed fluffies now. Production ramps up, prices go down. Fluffies are now cheaper than hamsters, and more disposable too.
3 Likes
Personally speaking, even if you went with parrot genes, I;d still humanize them. Mainly because I find parrots incredibly intelligent and emotive, and from what I understand, the most intelligent animal known in History was a parrot. Specifically, an African Grey called Alex.
While parrots aren’t human to begin with, I consider them, along with covids, as being above the average animal, a similar treatment I give for dolphins and primates. And considering that Alex had a limited vocabulary, the fluffy capacity for greater intelligence and speech strikes as more interesting. What if we did have a talking pet, a genetically engineered pet that could understand us better than out current pets? Of course, fluffspeak and some limitations are needed to keep them “fluffies”, but this is also a debatable point.
~
I like the controversy. I like it the same way the replicant question is asked in Blade Runner. I say that because, my interest in fluffies is when they are humanized, at least to some level. Part of the charm of knowing Alex wasn’t just his intelligence, but his attachment to his owner, even until his death. Even if fluffies do not have human DNA, I think they have a sentience/sapience that makes them a little like us, at least at a base level. And putting in the human DNA, to me, takes off the gloves, because its asks the serious question off making a commodity of the human genome.
One of the ideas I want to write more is one where fluffies have more rights than human replicants, base on the premise of replicants not having the capacity to reproduce and being more “programmable”. I don’t think its right, but that controversy is precisely why I feel it should be explored, to see the dangers of commodifying Life.
3 Likes
how would a replicant be more programable than a toy who is noting but programing ,fluffys are not life they are a facsimile of life whit out true free will
2 Likes
I like the cut of your jib.
1 Like
i can really only speak for the stuff i created back in the day (fluffy programs/fluff A.I. made by Runtsoft© and the fluff-mold in the post) but i’d say it’s fairly obvious which gets to call itself “living” lol.
on second thought though, the OG fluff-mold was just cottonpuffs that were used as meat in leftover chinese takeout that had gone rancid, so really they’re about as close to zombie fluffies as they are a new life-form of it’s own. guess it’s not as clear as i thought after all lol.
either way, i lean in the direction of fluffies in general being horrible chimeras that are, unfortunately, animals.
2 Likes
I love that we’re all allowed to make our own equally canon stuff because, and this may sound silly, it opens the possibility for different philosophies on life filtered through the batshit insane lens of small idiot creatures
4 Likes
Long responses are best responses.
Reminds me of my youth on forums. Back before Twitter made folks think there would be a word limit.
2 Likes
very cool. i also hc fluffies as genetically engineered animals classified as biotoys.
they dont use fluffy speak by default (the speech uh impediment is still there though) so ferals just kinda pick words from ppl passing by and domesticated ones get fluffytv
so yeah ppl can train fluffies to speak human dialects in my hc
very cool i think
(i just dont really fancy fluffy speak lol)
Well the term ‘biotoy’ declare, one way or another, they are bio.
I think the main reason most of us consider them animals is the fact that they can reproduce. Moreover, in a very animalistic way, with great efficiency.
If something, the fact that fluffies can reproduce can be considered as ‘canon’.
It makes them be closer to animals than robots or toys.
The good think about fluffies is that your ideas can fly freely.
As far as I remember, there used to be a background story about fluffies can reproduce, and in such a hyper-effectively is the greed of Hasbio. For them it was a cheaper way of “production”, if fluffies breed very fast and quickly, than create every one of them in a vat.
That’s way they wanted to keep the ones capable of reproduction and sell only the sterilised ones. But, PETA queered their pitch, didn’t they? So, therefore, the hyper-prolific fluffies got into the wild.
An other argument can be for they are animals is that they are 'mix-match creatures. They are not built from the scratch with artificial DNA or whatever sci-fi bioengineering. Or maybe, even this possible in case of fluffies. BUT, most times and in most stories they are just mixture of a lot of different already existing animals. Soooo… they are animals, too.
there are two additional argument with this.
- Very mix-match creatures are not always breeding well. For example Mules. A crossbreed of horse and donkey, both of them are equidae, but they are almost always sterile. Fluffies could turn out sterile, but they didn’t because they are our creations.
It can be an element in a story for example, fluffies can breed only with a specific Hasbio component for breeders.
Or generation by generation, fluffies got lamer and lamer, because of there lousy genetic, or lack of blood refreshing.
- A legal drama kind of story. For example, it was in the Jurassic park novel. Genetically engineered animals can be patented. As the Supreme Court rules on that in favor of Harvard, before or something. Therefore, here is your precedent case. So, Using this Hasbio can claim the rights of its fluffies, and no one else can legally make them.
So they animals, can be animals, but virtually still properties.
And bought products for the owners.
I find this idea interesting.
But let me use my fantasy here. 
There is this picture of Artist-kun. This Bio 3D pinters is awesome, I say.
Fluffies could be built cell by cell, protein by protein, being flesh and blood. Not born or grew.
It an other interesting question. Just because your are meat or bio, makes you animal. You could be plant! Fluffies are closer to plant?
Or you just a plushie made out of squishy meaty stuff?
Maybe, fixed up with some wires and microchips to be a sci-fi toy.
Sure, in this case you could easily tell with a microscope or X-ray it is not a regular animal. Still meat-and-bone.
But it makes me think. 
What about the Fuzzy ponies? How much they are biotoys or animals?
1 Like