I would not torture a robot who is fully sapient because they would get stronger and kill me. Havent you seen films
3 Likes
Thats just the motive behind cruella de vile
3 Likes
I write through my characters, and even make a past for them that lets me know where they came from and how they got there. It won’t be from birth to death mind you (unless absolutely necessary), but the story is written with the mindset of the characters. For example, I absolutely don’t agree with Tohr’s view points, but I understand them. I don’t agree with the FRD recruitment methods, but they work. It is a world that you build for other to enjoy. I don’t want to read a story which the character is shares every view point with the author. It would be one dimensional and boring to the point it would be propaganda for a certain idea. You have to give your antagonists just as much depth as the main character to make them interesting and compelling. If their view point has some or a lot of merit to it, the better to see where they come from and where they are going.
That’s my opinion, take it with a grain of salt. If some readers get pissy, it’s on them not you. You paint your world, characters, story as you want to tell it and damn those who don’t like challenging ideas.
1 Like
As their own usually. Sometimes the creator if they are using their art to speak out
1 Like
Yeah. I totally don’t do anything like that.
But to answer the question, I go with character viewpoint,the simplistic view that Fluffies have make it easier to disconnect from the author. And if as others have said, you can add a foreword if you’re worried
1 Like
OOHOHOHOHHOHOOOO -FURIOUSLY SCRIBBLING NOTES-
1 Like
are you counting how long the fluffies will theoretically survive like that in there?
2 Likes
yyyeeyeyeeyeyeye
2 Likes
honestly it depends? because sometimes its Obvious that a writer is writing a strawman or making a character say something in bad faith
but then other times you can tell when someone is only writing for the story
im going to run into the same problem in a bit… 
4 Likes
I might not be the most socially observant but unless its a pretty blatant mouthpeice/strawman (cough rand cough*) then unless i discover something about the author that makes it click i assume the characters have their own views
3 Likes
As I once said, unless a fictional world’s laws of biology are radically changed, by scientific definition fluffies are animals. This isn’t up for debate, go look it up. Therefore, unless the aforementioned changes are applied, no fictional world would be able to justify passing a “biotoy/soap” law. With that being said.
Yes and no. The upside from having less fluffies around is immediately shot down (again, unless the fictional world is severely different when it comes to the scientific community) when you consider that it’s like setting a horde of toddlers armed with knives to purge an abandoned house full of stray cats/dogs. You just don’t. They may get the job done but any activist/sane people would chew you and your governmental groupies out, so you could say goodbye to the old support your political movement would get.
This made me laugh. I doubt it would ever come to that, unless the media got a hold of someone who got off to doing so. In which case, I wouldn’t really care because I don’t do that, joke’s on you SJWs!
As much as that could be understandable, it would still be wrong. That dog is ill and might have never done such an act had it been healthy. I have wondered a lot of times if I, had one of my cats been killed by my neighbour’s dog, would have sought revenge. But… what good would it do? That dog didn’t do it out of spite. If I still somehow ended up doing that, it would be to put a menace down, not to make an animal suffer, therefore being as quick and painless as possible.
Look, I am not stupid. Abuse is a good way to have antagonists in a story or to have some mindless, twisted fun. The reason I was brought here was exactly that once I saw TheClick’s vidyas. But discovering fluffies led to me realizing how good of a literary subject they are. Unlike other talking animals, they have hardships to endure by default. They are unique, in being this mish-mash of genetics, feelings and human-like minds, so close to humans but still so far. I won’t bash anyone for liking abuse or writing about it, hell, some of the stories I enjoyed most had abuse in them. I will still dislike mindless abuse most times, but that’s a me thing.
Rant over, I am done diverting the attention from the OT.
2 Likes
Does animals know words from birth and (sometimes) know exactly for what brand of keeble to beg for?
5 Likes
It is unimportant. What matters is that they are, by Merriam-Webster definition, animals.
Also, depends on headcanon.
Not all fluffies demand Hasbio° stuff. Most foals only start talking some time after birth, during which time their mummah usually sings to them. The most common song being Mummah wubs babbehs, babbehs wub mummah, dwink aww da miwkies, gwow big an’ stwong. Or some iteration of it.
Is it any wonder that once they are talkie babbehs they know these words?
3 Likes
I think the fact that we have an argument right now proves that hugbox vs abuse is a good moral dilemma. Unfortunately the thread is not about that, so let’s stop now
2 Likes
i think it’s a bit of both. kind of how even if a good cook follows a recipe, there’s always gonna be a little bit here and there that’s made to please the chef’s palette more than the customer’s since the chef knows what they like better.
a writer that brings a character to life may not be using them as a soapbox to preach a particular view, but their life and experiences are going to influence it in subtle ways no matter what, since that’s the position they’re writing from.
that said, unless otherwise stated by the creator themselves, i try to separate the art from the artist as much as possible. Jim Carey might be anti-vax, but The Mask is still a beloved movie from my childhood whether his family gets sick or doesn’t, ya know?
4 Likes
I tend to see a characters views as the characters view alone tbh, because at the end of the day, it’s a story for entertainment, and a character with its own strong personal opinions is a GOOD character, it’s strong and feels like a person of its own when their opinions are strong.
2 Likes
Sorry to break it to you, but that doesn’t mean squat now a days.
Merriam-Webster literally changed a definition overnight just to make a Supreme Court justice nominee look bad.
The definition for “animal” may change tomorrow, and the new definition may not be broad enough to include fluffies. What do you do then?
3 Likes
Everybody knows animaI just stands for anim.A.I., which in turn stands for animated Artificial Intelligence.
3 Likes
Lntelligence
4 Likes
That’s a good point….it’s hard to read @Marakasaya1 comics and not assume he is deranged (in a good way, of course 
)
2 Likes