/futa/ - Futanari

Futanari, Dickgirls, and other Girls with Dicks

Index Catalog Archive Bottom Refresh
+
-
Name
Options
Subject
Message

Max message length: 12000

files

Max file size: 32.00 MB

Total max file size: 50.00 MB

Max files: 5

Supported file types: GIF, JPG, PNG, WebM, OGG, and more

E-mail
Password

(used to delete files and posts)

Misc

Remember to follow the Rules

The backup domains are located at 8chan.se and 8chan.cc. TOR access can be found here, or you can access the TOR portal from the clearnet at Redchannit 3.0 (Temporarily Dead).

Ghost Screen
Celebrating its fifth anniversary all September


8chan.moe is a hobby project with no affiliation whatsoever to the administration of any other "8chan" site, past or present.

Board Bros: /h/ - Hentai / /loli/ - Lolicon Rules Because it's nice to see a skirt rise like a pitched tent.

Monster Girl Futa Thread Anonymous 06/06/2025 (Fri) 19:17:00 Id: 14be8b No. 94
Monster girls with dicks, nuff said!
(378.97 KB 2995x2267 1646923072360.jpg)

(3.98 MB 1404x1361 1682458786625513.gif)

(748.25 KB 2039x2894 38aefade19d9dfac0e3eb4a785fbc8d6.jpg)

(405.68 KB 1280x1808 10.jpg)

(349.21 KB 1342x1600 futa Illya x knot Kuro cum.jpg)

Also a friendly hello from capybarachan.org/amg/ monster futa thread
(692.31 KB 640x768 1556044820753.png)

>>94 Excellent
Love this animation
>>98 I forgot this one, it is neat.
Age old question but... What would you say is the border of Furry / Monster Girl? (besides the more obvious like pic rel)
>>106 Robo futa >>78 and /fur-futa/ >>48 Also >>>/rwby/ technically.
(1.86 MB 1500x2000 thokmay1.png)

(322.58 KB 1500x2000 thokmay2.jpeg)

Snow Monkey/Yeti Futa Comic by Alek ErectSociety >Futa on Futa ver: https://e-hentai.org/g/2292283/fdc862e5a0/ >Futa on male ver: https://e-hentai.org/g/2283851/1645e61735/
(2.62 MB 2304x5888 1740548586295165.png)

>>94 OP forgot but this thread is courtesy of a sister futa-monster girl thread at another imageboard: https://capybarachan.org/amg/res/1798.html Give them some big hard love!
Good Night /futa/!
>Getting choked blowing monster-futa
>>236 Futa feline goddess greentext.
(908.63 KB 2753x867 PnP.png)

>I'm Pickle-pee and this is Pump-a-rum >Which one of us would you like to pump-ur-bum?
>>301 Futa birds...
>>303 BIRB
>>306 Futa Anubis x Dragongirl
(139.86 KB 1280x720 553000.jpg)

(95.68 KB 1280x720 556000.jpg)

>>305 >that marriage ending with the harpy I wish ToA had a slightly less grotesque style, it's so great otherwise
>>309 Yeah. I also wish the playstyle wasn't as difficult as it is at times.
CedricDewitt did a lot of good monster-girl futa. I just wish their alts and pics in general were easier to find however. Kemono has very little of their stuff: https://kemono.su/patreon/user/18731220 And other imagehosts are all webp for some reason (eugh): https://e-hentai.org/g/2020477/c088c062ef/
(3.23 MB 3000x4000 78sg1lb8gv4f1.jpeg)

>>312 Excellent image dump
>>310 >>309 >>303 On the subject of Futa Harpy There was an old Vocaroo/audio of pic rel. It was really hot. It used to be on the old 8/d/ but then disappeared.
(13.42 MB 2480x3508 052-1.png)

(2.07 MB 1578x936 lamia futa 1.png)

>>370 >>369 >>363 Futa Lamia is top-tier
(700.96 KB 3000x3500 Sera+bred+by+centaur+cum.jpg)

(1.71 MB 3500x2500 Izutsumi+Autofootjob+cum.jpg)

(3.09 MB 4000x3000 Laimu+x+Snuffy+cum.jpg)

(1.13 MB 3500x3500 Au+Ra+OC+Pinup.jpg)

(1.39 MB 2500x4250 Yakumora+Ran+Taker+Pov.jpg)

(76.19 KB 790x828 6ynz2ydxavsa1.jpg)

Would you?
>>409 >in heat She wouldn't be asking

(169.95 KB 1535x2048 GWpmC4La8AIBnqD.jpg)

>>413 She won't take no for an answer, she's just giving you the opportunity to say yes.
>>414 >>413 >>409 So we collectively agree; WOULD


(1.20 MB 918x1300 rwNnzN5q1MpZbIlLqpUmy3ng.png)

(166.79 KB 1131x1600 GfGoQ_tWAAAxdek.jpeg)

(145.02 KB 1131x1600 GfGoQ9IWYAAigSq.jpeg)

>>416 Can we post general mg degen here? The other paces get taken down.
(153.68 KB 1208x925 F4Bnx2lWoAAMq3f.jpeg)

(152.53 KB 1208x925 F4BnxbDWkAA0eTy.jpeg)

(232.54 KB 2048x1719 FeRvRu9WIAE3puk.jpeg)

(175.52 KB 829x873 GU0l692XEAAjkqg.png)

(739.58 KB 2048x2031 GUZzeleXEAEWEnJ.png)

(260.48 KB 744x1000 frosticle-anubis-f.png)

(541.42 KB 891x1050 flv7sj.png)

(527.81 KB 891x1050 q5zjh0.png)

(1.10 MB 1159x1800 Boone_ffuta_un.png)

(1.55 MB 2000x2700 fta_60.png)

(1.81 MB 5600x3726 BonniePandora-1.png)

(4.97 MB 2400x3200 SPOILER_GS-X-4gbIAAYIbI.png)

(238.08 KB 520x549 GUP5Fu_WcAAiysV.png)

(401.35 KB 677x733 GUt4nmpWgAEAx25.png)

(920.68 KB 2600x1600 XqtRqkp.png)



(96.44 KB 540x413 1561435015391.png)

(295.89 KB 611x757 unknown-49.png)

(509.09 KB 800x1000 pScqHVK.png)

>>475 >First pic I am going to smother my face into that pair lovely gonads and use it as my personal pillow
>>476 Dunno why but canon lesbians like the reboot Catra and She-ra getting dicked and/or cuckqueaned is just satisfying. Futa on female > Yuri
>>472 I encourage it, fuck Cross
>>477 Hahaha yeah I know the creator of that, you should tell her you like her stuff. https://x.com/bonniepandora
(781.98 KB 640x352 1445986776675.webm)

>>491 >Pronouns in the bio
(8.18 MB 2100x3541 image-24 (1).png)

(8.26 MB 2100x3541 image-30.png)

(8.32 MB 2100x3541 image-31.png)


(495.07 KB 3000x1200 Harpy_Sheet_-_lr.jpg)

>>492 Hey, it is what it is . Don't like it, blame KK. He caused a big split in the art world by throwing his lot in the the puritanical, pro-censorship crowd. So everyone who kept making degen art went left.
(2.62 MB 1961x1300 F9CAE7boEcFHKmokqw4efVls.png)

(1.46 MB 1059x1500 O0KFjri8OXfEEIqcB8pcKh8Z.png)


(194.15 KB 1300x1400 Lily_Face_Plap.jpg)

(123.90 KB 868x1228 1709063298685143.jpg)

(293.75 KB 2618x2033 1707674411541484.jpg)

(347.14 KB 773x796 1708745334984121.png)

(358.75 KB 880x1174 1713448903738407.png)


I've actually got a few underground monstergirl communities where this stuff can be posted and shared. Thinking of how to share them. I could open up a burner discord, for now have an email: nagatoclassbattleship@gmail.com
>>493 >Don't like it, blame KK. Kathleen Kennedy, the destroyer of Star Wars? >He caused a big split in the art world by throwing his lot in the the puritanical, pro-censorship crowd. So everyone who kept making degen art went left. Could you reference what you're talking about? >>497 >I could open up a burner discord Please, don't
(125.51 KB 1491x1544 Em6FjlaW4AclN2V.jpeg)

(136.87 KB 838x560 ebZ7QmKD_o.gif)

>>498 >Could you reference what you're talking about? Kenkou Cross, so kc not kk. The monstergirl encyclopedia series he made wound up becoming integral to the larger monstergirl community. Unfortunately he recently went off the deep end and got a bunch of his fans to start dmcaing any art he didn't like, from futa to Yuri to traps. Of course, that art should be protected by parody, but in order to challenge a dmca you sometimes have to write your own name and nobody is going to do that. And you know, the principal part. Freedom of speech n shit.
>>499 >Kenkou Cross, so kc not kk. The monstergirl encyclopedia series he made wound up becoming integral to the larger monstergirl community. OH, you mean all of that autism. I've seen some of stupidity of it when browsing /chaos/ back on h8chan, with how the MGE community are even bigger religious fanatics than the sandniggers. >Unfortunately he recently went off the deep end and got a bunch of his fans to start dmcaing any art he didn't like, from futa to Yuri to traps. Why don't people just make your own original "OC Donut Steele" monster girls? That way you can avoid this entire headache. >Of course, that art should be protected by parody That's even if it's protected at all. Given how much of MGE content is not even original, someone could bring up that KC is trying to copyright material that he doesn't even own (See Universal VS DK). But like I said in the previous point, the simplest thing to do is just make your own original characters. >Freedom of speech n shit. The American understanding of "freedom of speech" when it came to material like fictional works and copyright was that you were granted a limited monopoly because you are the one who put in the "labor" to make something, and should therefore be the one who benefits from it. If someone wanted to make something using your ideas, their options were to either ask for your "permission" or to make own original "thing" that was different enough that it managed to have it's own identity. What's so hard to understand about that?

(2.95 MB 6200x4000 Linia_Fap.jpg)

(3.22 MB 6200x4000 Linia_Fap_cum.jpg)

(2.81 MB 6200x4000 Linia_Fap_cat_pp.jpg)

(3.17 MB 6200x4000 Linia_Fap_cat_pp_cum.jpg)

>>500 > If someone wanted to make something using your ideas, their options were to either ask for your "permission" or to make own original "thing" that was different enough that it managed to have it's own identity. What's so hard to understand about that? people should have the right to make parody art for the thing they're passionate about. This is where all of doujin culture comes from. Literally nothing we like, including vanilla art, would be protected if we allowed belligerent copyright holders to smash anything that annoyed them. That's what Nintendo does, and it is bullshit. If somebody is actually claiming to be kc, or represent mge, that's a different situation. But some dude uploading a pic onto 4chan? No. Gtfo kc. You asked earlier why not make your own OCs, and for one, people do. But more importantly, having a shared series that we make parody art of creates a community. If you want Anubis art, you get to enjoy multiple people coming art- multiple sources, so more content. Give them ideas. Contribute some yourself. Shared experiences are important.
>>501 >people should have the right to make parody art for the thing they're passionate about They still "can" make whatever they want, they just don't own it nor control it because it isn't "theirs" in the first place. >Literally nothing we like, including vanilla art, would be protected if we allowed belligerent copyright holders to smash anything that annoyed them. But that's not how copyright works. In fact, it's companies attempting to "smash" the "Copyright" button on anything and everything has actually resulted in these companies losing power entirely because these companies getting too big for their britches and have a case backfire in the most spectacular of ways. >That's what Nintendo does Nintendo does whatever is good for Nintendo. A lot of stuff the company does has absolutely NOTHING to do with whatever is "legal", "right", or you're even "allowed" to do. Hell, they threw the entire game industry under the bus in front of the federal government entirely because the SNES was facing a feirce rivalry against the Genesis and was losing. Nintendo is absolutely NOT example of a company securing they're "copyright", they're a company who hired the yakuza to off Gunpei Yokoi. There's also a seperte discussion to be had that Nintendo is only as powerful as they are entirely BECAUSE of how many people are willing to make fan works based on the company's properties, instead of doing their own thing. >But more importantly, having a shared series that we make parody art of creates a community. If you want to take that position, why not move onto another series that is less hostile and controlling of the people who are passionate over it? Regarding monster girls, if MGE is "off limits" because of KC and his zealots, how about moving onto something like else like making something based on Lovecraft or the Universal Monster characters: https://infogalactic.com/info/Universal_Monsters Majority of which are now in the public domain, if not based on something IN the public domain. >If you want Anubis art, you get to enjoy multiple people coming art- multiple sources, so more content. Give them ideas. Contribute some yourself. Shared experiences are important. Yes, but not "everything" is a shared experience. MGE is KC's passion project, which means that he's the one who sets the rules for what can be done with it. It's not some decentralized "thing" like SCP, which has dozens of offshots and is "controlled" by almost no one.
>>502 Dude I think you're getting a little bit too autistic with this. I said people should have the right to make parody art and share it without being harassed by, in this case, an angry boomer. That is all that matters. It really seems like you're saying that people shouldn't have the right to make AND SHARE parody art, that is explicitly stated to be parody art, for free, on the Internet.
>>503 >Dude I think you're getting a little bit too autistic with this. I probably am because I keep having this discussion over and over again. And I get tired of it really quickly because it's the same fucking points every single fucking time. >I said people should have the right to make parody art and share it without being harassed by, in this case, an angry boomer First, where does that "right" exist? Is it an ACTUAL "God given right" like life and liberty (Debate exists if "pursuit of happiness" or "property" are considered "rights"); or is it a ficitional "right" like how the U.N. and busybodies also demand for "rights" like "consumer rights", "the right to housing", and "the right to an abortion"? Second, is it an actual "parody", in the veign of something like Spaceballs to provide an example, or is it just someone looking to gain money and attention by using someone else's work and only claiming it's a "parody" as an "escape" of any responsibility? These are very real hard hitting questions that I've quickly noticed no one actually wants to discuss. Or when they do, they bail very quickly. And I do take such discussions very seriously exactly because of how important and relevent they are, and go straight for the juggular in such discussions because I keep noticing how people would rather repeat sweet sounding slogans and never actually discuss what it is that they're asking for. Sorry if I'm coming across as extremely hostile, but it gets very tiresome very quickly when people bring up certain points and then refuse to actually argue their points.
>>504 >First, where does that "right" exist? Is it an ACTUAL "God given right" like life and liberty? In my view? And in the traditional American view? Yeah. Yeah it is. I mean obviously copyright law existed in colonial America because it was imported from England, but even there it only lasted for 14 years. I'm not going to get into the weeds of legal history though cause it's tangential. People have a sacred, innate, God given right to speech. And because no speech exists in a vacuum, that must mean they also have the sacred right to interact with the works of others through parody and reference and so on. People also have the right to do things just for the sake of doing them. It doesn't have to be "smart" or "valuable" to be parody, it just has to be different. That's what the American ideal of freedom and rights is. I don't need some rationalization, some license to draw dickgirls. That's a British thing, and fuck the British. I'm going to do it because it's my right, and because I want to. Art shouldn't "belong" to anybody. It should just exist, and be embodied by anybody who is passionate enough to sing it, draw it, act it, etc. Clearly I'm passionate about futa hellhound dicks, and that's that. As for why you should believe this? Well, what do you lose in believing that you, and others, have rights? Pretend you're KC. Do you lose anything from this parody art? No, in fact it's free advertising. This norm of freedom of speech actually enhances the value of your works, because it gives you potential points of inspiration you could use to make more money or get more attention. Literally nothing is preventing KC from looking at all the fanart, and making an "official" version of all the futa content and selling it. But he won't do that, because he doesn't actually care about creativity. He's slowly moving into the "angry old man yelling at kids on his lawn" stage of his life.
>>505 >Art shouldn't "belong" to anybody. It should just exist, and be embodied by anybody who is passionate enough to sing it, draw it, act it, etc. That I disagree on because then there's no "drive" or "desire" making something "great". Big projects like churches and simple throw-away folk tales would still exist, but nothing that straddles anywhere in the middle (Like my collection of video games) since it neither appeals to people who have "nothing" or those who have "all the money". >Well, what do you lose in believing that you, and others, have rights? The problem I have with people declaring something to be a so-called "right" has nothing to do with me. It has to do with imposing on other people and how would it actually work. For example, article 25 of the "Universal Declaration of Human Rights" states: https://archive.ph/gv8IP <Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control. Okay, yeah, that sounds nice. How is that going to work? Take "unemployment", where is the money going to come from to "secure" the living standards of my family and I? Or in the instacne of medical care, are you going to force a doctor as gun point to treat me when I cannot pay and his hospital is already losing money? Also, keep in mind that they sneakily insert the word "adequate" right there in the start of the article, thereby opening the door to mean that what is considered an "adequate" standard of living for one person is entirely different from an "adequate" standard of living for another person. That's not to mention all the other political implications that has when you take into account measures and laws like "Affirmative Action", that would result in an electrician belonging to a minority demographic being given beneficial treatment compared to an electrician (Who does the same work, has the same position, has the same pay, even has the same lifestyle and circumstances at home) who is a member of the majority demographic. This is also ignoring the question of if I even "need" or "want" assistance. Going back to the "adequate" question, I could be one of the richest people in the world and entirely capable of supporting myself, but the government sees fit to offer me services they're paying for because I just happen to be "that important" and so they cannot risk "losing" me. Or I could choose to live the lifestyle of a homeless begging monk for the purposes of reaching spiritual enlightenment, living entirely off the personal charity of people, and yet be FORCED by the government to live in a fancy household, eat extravagent food, and receive the best medical care against my will and beliefs. It's all fine and dandy to talk about "rights", but what does that actually "mean" at the end of the day? >Pretend you're KC. Do you lose anything from this parody art? You're asking the wrong question. It's not about my having "lost" something. It's about how I don't see it as respresenting the kind of work that I want published and released using my characters. You may not have an issue with dickgirl hellhounds, but KC doesn't want dickgirl hellhounds "representing" MGE. It's the whole "Disney/Nintendo" situation of how people go to those companies for "safe family entertainment", and have built an image around that. How true that image is can be debated, but that's not the point. >No, in fact it's free advertising. This norm of freedom of speech actually enhances the value of your works, because it gives you potential points of inspiration you could use to make more money or get more attention. Okay but he obviously doesn't want it. What now? You're going to force your fetishes upon him?
(581.82 KB 683x998 onsen2.png)

(781.68 KB 1500x1997 GBVJA-YW4AA6KB9.jpg)

(546.18 KB 2500x3328 GEe73h1WMAEVIRN.jpg)

(641.22 KB 1280x905 75127771_p1.jpg)

(393.18 KB 1856x1694 1570402721151.jpg)

>>506 >It's about how I don't see it as respresenting the kind of work that I want published and released using my characters. And? It's a parody. Of course it's not representing his whatever accurately. But nobody is forcing you to draw it. Or look at it. Or think about it. If you dislike the creativity of your fellow men, *too bad.* One of the big reveals of all this is that KC clearly has a bunch of shit living in his head rent free. >Okay but he obviously doesn't want it. What now? You're going to force your fetishes upon him? No. HE, is going to move on with his life. He can choose to spend his time creating things he loves, or destroying things he hates (which really aren't that much more deviant than MGE in the first place, let's be real.) Honestly, the American view of art is doing him a favor. If he can't stop people from drawing shit he doesn't like, maybe he'll grow a little emotionally, and stop trying. That furry rant you posted is a great example. I don't hate furries, hell, I think they're great. Or maybe I don't. Who cares. I have better things to do than spending my time arguing with retards on furaffinity. If I don't like that content, then I just won't browse that website. Pretty easy. > How is that going to work? It's going to work by me drawing stuff and you not looking at it if you don't like it. If you want to DMCA a full reupload of the MGE first edition or whatever, fair enough. But keep your hands off my dickgirls.
>>507 >And? It's a parody. Is it? Is it actually a "parody"? Is your dickgirl MGE smut the "Epic Movie" of MGE content? >But nobody is forcing you to draw it. Or look at it. Or think about it. If you dislike the creativity of your fellow men, *too bad. The same argument goes in reverse. No one is "forcing" you to make MGE dickgirls instead of something else. Or look at MGE. Or think about MGE. And if you dislike that certain people don't like your content, that's too bad. >One of the big reveals of all this is that KC clearly has a bunch of shit living in his head rent free. Okay and? I don't see the point in antagonizing the guy. >Honestly, the American view of art is doing him a favor This isn't the "American" view of art. >If he can't stop people from drawing shit he doesn't like, maybe he'll grow a little emotionally, and stop trying. Or you could just stop antagonizing him. Again, what's the point? >That furry rant you posted is a great example. I don't hate furries, hell, I think they're great. Or maybe I don't. Who cares. I have better things to do than spending my time arguing with retards on furaffinity. If I don't like that content, then I just won't browse that website. Okay, but do you not realize that you're doing the exact same thing? KC has already expressed his devout hatred for /d/ content in relation to MGE. And it probably was funny to see him sperging about it at the start of the purges. But what about now all these years later? The guy isn't going to change his attitude on the matter, and you're outright attesting that he's in fact gotten much worse. What are you trying to "prove" at that point? How much of a faggot you can be posting pics of MGE dickgirls pegging the MC?
>>508 >What are you trying to "prove" at that point? Bro, you are missing the point. I'm not trying to prove anything to KC, except maybe that he can't and shouldn't control other people's art. Simply put, I was enjoying mge futa before he realized it existed, and I'll be doing it once he leaves. He could be dead and I'd still be doing it because this is a part of who I am. MGE came out when I was in highschool and I have many happy memories about bullshitting about it between and in classes. My entire problem begins and ends with him trying to police content on websites other than his own. If he wasn't doing that, I would care enormously less, if at all. Does that make sense?
(70.56 KB 1280x1455 15.jpg)

>>497 >burner gmail Use Protonmail in the future, it's easier. >>500 >make your own original "OC Donut Steele" monster girls? A) People do, but if it's similar they'll DMCA that too B) It's already porn, gatekeeping it over a dick on a chick is retarded. More importantly KC didn't create Monstergirls as a genre or the idea of monster-gijinka and himself. If we're being super pedantic many of his designs are basically aped off of Monster Girl Quest which is a separate property. >>504 >is it an actual "parody", in the veign of something like Spaceballs to provide an example, or is it just someone looking to gain money and attention by using someone else's work and only claiming it's a "parody" as an "escape" of any responsibility? It's a parody in that it's a porn parody. That aside Nobody is making more money than KC from these as it is and even if they make money from fanart, KC will still get money because fanart and porn spread popularity for the franchise, KC fucked up, because nowdays nobody that isn't an oldfag /monster/ or /chaos/ user knows MGE.
>>512 >except maybe that he can't and shouldn't control other people's art But you're using his art in order to push your art. >Does that make sense? Not really. Part of it goes back to the point I was making earlier about how furfags cannot keep their fetishes in their pants, and how you seem to be doing similar with declaring how MGE dickgirls are a "part" of you like it's an essential component of your identity. The other part has to do with how you latched onto KC and MGE because it's something you "grew up" with. Nothing wrong with that. Where I see the issue setting in is that it results in a fixation. Everyone grew up with "something", but that doesn't mean you're entitled to it. MGE is KC's project at the end of the day, and he's the one who sets the "rules" for it. It's unforunate given how much of a nut the guy is, but that's the way things are. I've had to face this reality with innumerable companies and properties who represented my childhood, and how the people charge of them are literally doing everything in their power to piss people off. And the only real "solution" I've found to such a situation is to write it off as a loss and learn to move on. "Should" things be that way? No, but that's the way things are. And I cannot think of a way to "fix it" that wouldn't result in the creation of innumerable OTHER problems. >>515 >A) People do, but if it's similar they'll DMCA that too If that really is the "result", then people need to begin standing their ground and fight, instead of just flopping over and submitting to whatever comes their way. But it also depends on if it's really that "important" to you. >It's already porn, gatekeeping it over a dick on a chick is retarded. Okay, that doesn't matter. >If we're being super pedantic many of his designs are basically aped off of Monster Girl Quest which is a separate property. So like I said earlier, there's the chance that he doesn't even own the things that he says that he does. However then there's also the point of if you think it's really worth fighting for. It's one thing to bitch about some yahoo being a power-hungry jackass, it's another to put him in his place for overstepping the line. >That aside Nobody is making more money than KC from these as it is and even if they make money from fanart, KC will still get money because fanart and porn spread popularity for the franchise Except that's not how copyright works (At least in the U.S.). >KC fucked up, because nowdays nobody that isn't an oldfag /monster/ or /chaos/ user knows MGE Okay, sounds like it's prime time for someone new to swoop in and create a new "moster girl" mythology and take over that niche that MGE used to fill.
>>517 >people need to begin standing their ground and fight The problem is that KC has a bunch of crazy stans or possible bots that DDoS, Dox and harass people and sites that refuse to follow his hysteria, which results in the sites bending over for him and users can't do anything about that except make obscure imageboards like capybarachan (see >>95 ) It's like how Youtube basically lets anyone making a DMCA claim simply ignore disputes to their claim no matter if their claim is legitimate or not. >there's also the point of if you think it's really worth fighting for. Me personally I just say fuck him, post what I like, when and where I like. I have more things to do IRL than waste it on some retard. >sounds like it's prime time for someone new to swoop in and create a new "moster girl" mythology and take over that niche that MGE used to fill. I mean it's not like people haven't tried, but anything that has lewd interpretations of Monmusu will be associated with or considered a ripoff of MGQ and MGE since they and Monster Musume made the idea popular. Closest thing I can think of is Fenoxo's stuff but that's not exactly monster-girls, at least not entirely. It's a lot of work (which is why it can be said that KC didn't make MGE on his own, as he had a lot of help.
>>520 >I mean it's not like people haven't tried, but anything that has lewd interpretations of Monmusu will be associated with or considered a ripoff of MGQ and MGE since they and Monster Musume made the idea popular Then the simple solution is to try to create content that isn't referenced or is influenced by either. For example, WB and Disney (And the people who have since left those companies) have contibuted their fair-share of "monster girls" from over the years. If you want to keep things anime related, you have series with everything from KO Century Beasts to Kouya Ni Kemono Doukokusu (Which the lovely folks at PLW are translating). Not to mention doujin creators like almost all of Horihone Saizou and Trump's portfolio. But I guess then you also need to answer the question of where you "draw" the line regarding something being furry/kemono and something being a monstergirl. Or when things start going "too far" into the "monster" or "horror" territory
>>521 > I guess then you also need to answer the question of where you "draw" the line regarding something being furry/kemono and something being a monstergirl. Or when things start going "too far" into the "monster" or "horror" territory Yeah for sure. >WB and Disney (And the people who have since left those companies) have contibuted their fair-share of "monster girls" from over the years. Yeah but that's far more niche compared to Japan, The East has more of a more modern history of humanoid monsters even before anime. Most Western stuff is either full on furry-anthro (see hfur >>48 ) or very humanoid (Goblins, Centaurs, Orcs, Fairies, etc.)
>>517 >But you're using his art in order to push your art. Correct, I am exercising my God given right to speech, and using that right to parody other works of art that I love. > Not really. Part of it goes back to the point I was making earlier about how furfags cannot keep their fetishes in their pants, and how you seem to be doing similar with declaring how MGE dickgirls are a "part" of you like it's an essential component of your identity Dude, this is ridiculous. First it is an essential part of my identity, that's just not an opinion it's a fact, this shit was literally a huge part of my teenage years, and second, you're complaining about fetishes... On a futa board. You're using the arguments of a parish priest while not being one. All of this same shit can be applied to you. Should this whole website be taken down as it's all unnecessary, just a "fetish den"? No. And if you believe that something can be totally invalidated because it's sexual in nature, why are you still posting here?
>>517 >Everyone grew up with "something", but that doesn't mean you're entitled to it. That is EXACTLY what it means. He isn't entitled to a goddamn thing other than his own rights. You have the right to create. You do not have the right to stop others from creating. This is essentially the narcissist's dilemma; > "I have the right to reference art that existed before but YOU DON'T! You want the ability to speak, without wanting to defend the speech of others? No way. Everybody has the right to speak, even if you don't want them too.
>>524 >First it is an essential part of my identity, that's just not an opinion it's a fact, this shit was literally a huge part of my teenage years, and second, you're complaining about fetishes... On a futa board. The problem people have with furfags is that they don't know when to STFU. No one has a problem with them when they're chatting in their little circles, but discussions outside of those that then attempt to involve others, even on topics people have already expressed that they wish to avoid, is why they've gained their reputation. You're going down the exact same path with wanting to force KC to "accept" degenerate MGE content when the guy has expressed that he wants no part of it. In fact, that's probably a likely reason why he even decided to go full crusade on degenerate MGE contenty, exactly because people kept spamming it at him. And as a result, now NO ONE is allowed to have any fun. >Should this whole website be taken down as it's all unnecessary, just a "fetish den"? There's more to this site than just the fetish boards and discussions about what makes my dick hard. >And if you believe that something can be totally invalidated because it's sexual in nature It depends on what the content is trying to do. I've seen more than enough regular media basically ruin any good will it had going for it because it had to inject sex somewhere. >>533 >He isn't entitled to a goddamn thing other than his own rights. <You do not have the right to stop others from creating. Actually, he does when you create content based upon his works. When you do so, you're violating HIS "Rights". He's the one who owns MGE, meaning he's the one who decides who and what he can exclude in relation to it. This is of course ignoring the discussion up above about the questionable copyright of MGE. >I have the right to reference art that existed before but YOU DON'T! Referencing and plagiarism are two different things. If you're just slapping a dick onto a character directly taken from MGE with almost no change to it, that is plagiarism. However making a dickgirl that is several steps removed from MGE to where it's its own character is referencing. Again, this is also ignoring the problems with the basis for MGE itself. Assuming that KC unironically did just wholesale copy a bunch of designs that already existed and claimed it as his own, that is plagiarism and he should be punished for that. In addition, ignoring this point, KC and all his followers harassing people who dare to make their own original monster girls are in the wrong themselves as KC doesn't "own" the idea of "monster girls".
(2.51 MB 2776x2480 1679679590938617.png)

This is very philosophical and all, but the discussion feels pointless since in practice KC's purity crusade failed. Whatever content he hates is still out there. more will get made, and as this thread proves, it's not going to vanish just because he got mad and sent out some debatably legal DMCAs. He'll realistically stop patreon/pivix/etc artists, since most of them aren't going to risk getting their income nuked over Hellhound dick, but he's never going to stop people who just do it for the love of the game. It's an unenforceable standard, and trying to enforce it is a fool's errand.
>argument over the nature of art, copyright, identity, and rights >in a thread about monster girls with dicks AUTISM >>499 This anubis pic is one of my favorites.
(2.75 MB 1726x1762 vIOhkug.png)

>>535 Personally the forbidden nature has only made me want it more.
>>536 >AUTISM Perhaps but it's productive in a sense. Makes people think, prompts posting and so on. It's a better alternative to image dumping silently. >Anubis pic fave Same
doea :)
Given how KC gets asshurt over fanart, I wonder if he'd have a conniption over AI gens using his style as a basis.
>>544 That pic isn't even technically verboten, if it's supposed to be a man there fucking her ass
>>537 This, 10,000%
>>545 Who knows. his schizophrenia is inconsistent but it's probably why those are the only types of MGE futa images on R34.
>>536 >This anubis pic is one of my favorites. The guy who commed it is still active. Don't know if he still does futa, but you could try asking him. He's on bluesky. not sure if I should drop the tag in the open though... Hmmm
(1.96 MB 2480x3508 patreon_april_2025_1_20.png)

(1.93 MB 2480x3508 patreon_april_2025_1_21.png)

>>534 >Actually, he does when you create content based upon his works. No, he doesn't. Now you're the one not engaging with arguments. You need to convince us why this point of view, that he should be able to stomp down on art that isn't "parody" enough, is something *any of us* should believe in. You're not doing this. In short, my position >KC is wrong. He does not have the right to control other's speech. >Why? Because everybody has the right to speech, even speech others don't like. >Why? Because speech is a right given by God, not a privilege acknowledged by law. This is the endpoint of the argument, because if you don't agree with this logical chain, then you believe that humans don't have an inmate right to free speech. Your position at the moment is >KC has the right to DMCA troll art he doesn't like >Why? Because it's not enough of a parody >why? Because it's the law The law is stupid. >The law is the law That's a circular reasoning fallacy/petitio principii
>>550 >You need to convince us why this point of view, that he should be able to stomp down on art that isn't "parody" enough, is something *any of us* should believe in. It doesn't matter if you believe in it or not, that's the law. Now you can believe the law is "wrong", and we can certainly have discussions about that, but that doesn't change what the law is. >That's a circular reasoning fallacy/petitio principii Okay, so I can just declare that 2 + 2 = 5 because it's what I "believe", and any argument that declares my belief to be wrong, due to reality and mathematics, is "a circular reasoning fallacy/petitio principii" because they cannot say why I am wrong without resorting to reality and mathematics.
>>550 >>551 Frankly this argument about law and free-speech is pointless. The law is up to interpretation by human beings, specifically those that are involved in executing or enforcing the law (police and courts). Freedom of Speech is also more complicated than a simple dogma. Freedom of Speech =/= Freedom of Consequences, so as an example if you want to exercise the freedom of speech to talk shit, that doesn't protect you from a person reacting to those words and striking you or replying in kind. What does protect either side (theoretically) is the law, that is meant to enforce civility and demand that some things are illegal, both to do, and to retaliate against, hence why many people that fight back during aggravated assault can find themselves also prosecuted, as well as bystanders that don't intervene (or do intervene). Of course this is far less enforceable for civil lawsuits which are only enforced if the subject is so high-profile that the law takes initiative (State or Corporate cases for example), and otherwise rely on people to initiate the process in lieu of other means of attempted reprisal. Where the line is drawn of what is protected or not protected by Free Speech/Creativity is very blurry on a philosophical level, even if the law is supposedly clear (it really isn't). What's really important is that legality aside, copy-right law itself is borked. Plagiarism's definition is so broad and malleable that it can be applied to almost anything, and the laws themselves don't protect people or creativity, they protect only profits and property-capital. Disney could give less of a fuck about artistic vision of Spiderman (for example) but on the basis of property law they sued a family for having the character depicted on a tombstone of their deceased child. It's ghoulish, but that's the law.
>>552 >The law is up to interpretation by human beings No, it isn't. If you leave everything up to "interpretation", then it could result in scenarios like declaring that "Free speech" doesn't actually exist unless the government provide everyone with free iPhones that have Twatter installed. And the government refusing to do this is an example of them "violating" the First Amendment because they're "abridging the freedom of speech" of the people. How do you reach such a silly conclusion? Well, it all begins with thinking that "everyone needs" a voice, right? And one place that "everyone" goes to for the purposes of having a "voice" is Twatter. But there's the "problem" that not "everyone" is on Twatter. And you think that the "reason" for such a circumstance is that people's "social conditions" are preventing them from having access to the website. And because people don't have access to the website, then you believe that their voice is bring "abridged". So you demand that the government begin to provide people free iPhones so that they can access Twatter and have their "voices" heard. I mean "what else" could the Founders have "possibly" meant when they declared "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech"? >so as an example if you want to exercise the freedom of speech to talk shit, that doesn't protect you from a person reacting to those words and striking you or replying in kind. Getting into an argument, yes. Decking the other person, no. >What does protect either side (theoretically) is the law, that is meant to enforce civility and demand that some things are illegal, both to do, and to retaliate against No, it's not. The purpose of a "law" exists as the rules and customs you're required follow if you want to operate in that kind of environment. In simpler terms, they're effectively "house rules" that require you to agree that you "will do" A, B, and C and "will NOT do" X, Y, and Z so long as you're within that municipality. Anything more about trying to justify it as a means to "enforce civility" is a system that's just BEGGING to be abused, as you'll have the rule breakers doing everything short of genuinely "breaking the law" and forcing everyone else to suffer because the law exists for "maintaining the peace" rather giving people an environment where everyone all plays by the same rules.
>>554 >No, it isn't. Yes, it objectively is. The law is written by human beings and is based on specific ideological, political and socio-economic motives at the time of being written. They are then enforced by other people who interpret the laws in a manner they see fit within their authority to do so, which is why court-of-law exists, as people argue over not only whether a law applies but how it applies. The law is not absolute or clear-cut, it is laid out by people who are fallible, hence appeals and so on. >it could result in scenarios like declaring that "Free speech" doesn't actually exist unless the government provide everyone with free iPhones that have Twatter installed. >etc. This is a lovely digression but it's fallacious, stretching out the idea of "interpretation" far beyond its meaning, or reasonable rationale. Furthermore it mixes up the idea of Human Rights as a whole and their enforcement by law, with Free Speech specifically. And you are also proving my argument because in actual history laws are repealed or their meanings reinterpreted by later generations because they violate other laws or the old meaning is no longer the mainstream way of thinking, particularly pertaining to basic human rights. For example Slave Ownership and Indentured Servitude has been reinterpreted into prison labor and contract work rather than open slavery, or how prior to the Union and Civil War, States (on paper) had a right to defy federal law and cede (and obviously people on the other side interpreted the law their own way and declared it inapplicable). >Getting into an argument, yes. Free speech does not protect you from consequences, and those consequences may not necessarily come verbally. You're free to say what you will, but people are free to react as they will, if we go with an absolute liberty approach. >they're effectively "house rules" that require you to agree that you "will do" A, B, and C and "will NOT do" X, Y, and Z so long as you're within that municipality. Anything more about trying to justify it as a means to "enforce civility" is a system that's just BEGGING to be abused, as you'll have the rule breakers doing everything short of genuinely "breaking the law" and forcing everyone else to suffer because the law exists for "maintaining the peace" rather giving people an environment where everyone all plays by the same rules. You're literally stating the same thing but from different angles. House Rules are meaningless if they are not enforced, a perfect example being that anarchist shitshow that happened a while back where the police pulled out all presence and it immediately just turned into gang-violence. If there is no law the rule breakers will have no restraint, if there is a law the rule breakers will have a line they cannot cross, setting a barrier as to what can and cannot happen. The problem is that where that line is depends on the interpretation of the legal system by individual law-enforcement and adjudicators and how they see the law. With criminal law it's usually a lot more cut and dry because you either did or didn't do a crime (on paper). With civil lawsuits it is very much up to how the judge interprets the arguments given to them by the lawyers.
(356.32 KB 1500x1000 giantess sensitive 1.png)

>>554 On a different note Vid 1 and 3 are hot as fuck, sauce? More? >>551 Pic 5 is pretty damn good too. Nice finds.
>>555 >The law is written by human beings and is based on specific ideological, political and socio-economic motives at the time of being written. They are then enforced by other people who interpret the laws in a manner they see fit within their authority to do so, which is why court-of-law exists, as people argue over not only whether a law applies but how it applies. The law is not absolute or clear-cut, it is laid out by people who are fallible, hence appeals and so on. "Interpretting" a law and arguing over the objective fact of "what" the law is are two entirely different things. >This is a lovely digression but it's fallacious, stretching out the idea of "interpretation" far beyond its meaning, or reasonable rationale. No, it's not. You unironically have a SCOTUS ruling that existed for 40 years based on a reinterpretation of 14th amendment that declared that women have an "inalienable right" to have an abortion, when the law had nothing to do with that, nor did the people who wrote it have even a single thought of the law being used in such a manner. >Furthermore it mixes up the idea of Human Rights as a whole and their enforcement by law, with Free Speech specifically For a lot of people, they don't see that there is a difference. And that is a huge problem. >And you are also proving my argument because in actual history laws are repealed or their meanings reinterpreted by later generations because they violate other laws or the old meaning is no longer the mainstream way of thinking, particularly pertaining to basic human rights Except what you're arguing people "do" goes right to the exact example you were just ridiculing me for. And a lot of it is not the "mainstream" changing their mind, it's a select few people attempting to exploit and twist the law so that the person can push whatever agenda they want. Now, if you want to argue that the way a law is written can result in said law creating unintended consequences or implications, that I can agree with and is one of the big debates when it comes to putting someting into law in the first place. One infamous example of this in recent history is the creation of the 401(k): https://archive.ph/iEGAd <The 401(k), politically, was a fluke. The original legislation was only a page and a half long. It was enacted in 1978, and became effective January of 1980. That year, people weren’t running around selling 401(k) plans. It was never designed to be what it is today. Another "unfortunate" implication I can provide as an example, that I've come to a conclusion on, is that the First Amendment actually DEFENDS PORN. And how I came to that conclusion was based upon the fact that, during the Revolutionary War, you had straight-up pornography circulating among the general populace. Most infamous of which was Fanny Hill, and some people being neck deep in environments that produced such content like Franklin: https://redirect.invidious.io/watch?v=xA8kZAjB3cY And because of this being the circumstance at the time, it's extremely difficult to argue that the Founders, when drafting the Constitution and the Bill Of Rights, were unaware of this being the case. Therefore they also understood that by having a law that effectively prevents a government from restricting speech, they also understood that said law would also rope in and protect so-called "osbscene" content no matter how much they may reject it. But as you'll notice, the important part of this conclusion I have reached is that it is based upon the evidence of the time, the mindset and circumstances of the people who wrote it, and what the actual text says. IOW, this conclusion is based upon facts instead of my own personal feelings on the matter. However that is not usually the case whenever people attempt to argue about how laws are "interpretted". What THEY are talking about instead is the belief that a "law" is a "living thing", that it can change with the time to suit whatever "needs" of the time. And once you start going down that road, you lose all objectivity and begin descending into a Post-Modernists Hell where nothing is "true" and everything is "permitted". As the only "law" that exists is the personal beliefs of whoever is in power. >For example Slave Ownership and Indentured Servitude has been reinterpreted into prison labor and contract work rather than open slavery That's not how it works >or how prior to the Union and Civil War, States (on paper) had a right to defy federal law and cede (and obviously people on the other side interpreted the law their own way and declared it inapplicable) Except there was a lot more going on at the time. For example, many of the laws being passed and attitude of the Northerners was purposely prejudice against the Southern states, to the point that they were actively defying and refusing to enforce the laws. In addition to that, you also had various European powers encouraging the split on the promise that they would help fund the secession of the Southern states on the agreement that they would supply Europe with their cotton. Then there's also the fact that the Southerners were more aristrocratic and traditional in their attitudes, and so saw the slights made by the Nothern states as being the initiation of "duel": https://redirect.invidious.io/watch?v=LknPSmgviVo And let's not forget about the slave states who didn't secede, AND the America-Indians who fought with the Union on the belief that they could keep their slaves if they "helped". So by the time the Civil War actually kicked off, no one really had the "High grand" on either side as both had been actively breaking and ignoring the law for years. Not to mention the little factoid that slavery was ALREADY dying in the South. >Free speech does not protect you from consequences Yes, it does. >You're free to say what you will, but people are free to react as they will, if we go with an absolute liberty approach. The "Absolute liberty" approach is that I can say what I want, whenever I want, and not face any consequences as a result of what I say. That's the entire point of the Norman Rockwell painting "Freedom of Speech". >House Rules are meaningless if they are not enforced, a perfect example being that anarchist shitshow that happened a while back where the police pulled out all presence and it immediately just turned into gang-violence. You talking about the L.A. riots or the Summer Of Love? >If there is no law the rule breakers will have no restraint, if there is a law the rule breakers will have a line they cannot cross, setting a barrier as to what can and cannot happen. No because people will still break the law, no matter how many barriers you have in place. >The problem is that where that line is depends on the interpretation of the legal system by individual law-enforcement and adjudicators and how they see the law. No, it's not. In you're example of (I am assming) the Summer Of Love, they were selectively enforcing the law. The niggers and Pantifa could riot all they want, but the Kenosha Kid shooting three pedos was "a step to far". Not even going to talk about J6. And that's exactly the point. The law was being used for the purposes of pushing a political agenda. It had nothing to do with "intreptation" based on different jurisdictions. They abused their power for the purposes of favoring the people and activities they wanted, while punishing the people and activities they didn't. >With criminal law it's usually a lot more cut and dry because you either did or didn't do a crime (on paper). Not even then. The reason why newer laws began to have concepts like "mandatory sentences" was because you had judges that effectively allowed criminals to walk despite having been found guilty of breaking the law. So, again, you have a lot of people playing politics with the law to suit whatever agenda they had. >>558 >On a different note Vid 1 and 3 are hot as fuck, sauce? I forget.
https://rule34video.com/video/3919793/buffpup-doggystyle-flavor-ad-edit/ Anyone have this? It got taken down and I can't find it anywhere else.
>>559 >Another "unfortunate" implication I can provide as an example, that I've come to a conclusion on, is that the First Amendment actually DEFENDS PORN ....whut? Unfortunately? You might not be saying but that's not unfortunate at all. That's the whole point of the law. Porn would be censored otherwise, especially in the puritanical parts of America.
>>559 >You unironically have a SCOTUS ruling that existed for 40 years based on a reinterpretation of 14th amendment that declared that women have an "inalienable right" to have an abortion, when the law had nothing to do with that, nor did the people who wrote it have even a single thought of the law being used in such a manner. Which proves my point, but it's much different from some nonsense about twitter being mandatory. >a lot of it is not the "mainstream" changing their mind, it's a select few people attempting to exploit and twist the law so that the person can push whatever agenda they want. The mainstream changes a lot, the few can change laws for their own agenda, yes, but they cannot do so without concentrated efforts to dilute popular opposition. A good example of this being how the current shitshow regarding identity politics depended on years of ridiculing those that opposed these laws as "bible-thumpers" and so on, slowly forming a schizm in popular culture, until society was too fractured to definitively oppose such laws, which themselves were incrementally added and changed over time. The elite learned from the mistakes of the prior centuries; that rapid change and enforcement of their ideals would result in revolt. >the First Amendment actually DEFENDS PORN. In a sense yes. However at the same time profanity has always been subject to censorship, especially after the British left and the United States achieved it's own sovereignty. This goes far beyond porn as the same applies to taxation and other things, which is why we got the Whiskey Rebellion that Washington put down despite it being a grassroots movement opposing tariffs. So really the law is meaningless in this context because how it is enforced and interpreted is how it matters. Washington and the US government determined the Rebellion(s) to be illegal, and cracked down on it, interpreting the law their own way. >the belief that a "law" is a "living thing", that it can change with the time to suit whatever "needs" of the time That's not what I said or even implied. I'm stating the direct, overarching fact that while a a law only functions in-so-far as people understand it or misunderstand it, to whatever end they may. This is why slavery was a long legal discussion before the Civil War, as the laws/amendments at the time protected property ownership, and the denial of this rested on people interpreting blacks as property or not. >descending into a Post-Modernists Hell where nothing is "true" and everything is "permitted". As always it's a balance. It's like the over-used phrase "art is subjective". In a vacuum this is true as it reflects the older saying of "one man's trash is another's treasure" but on the other-hand there are factors that weigh on how this is applied. Obviously the unintelligent and lazy will apply this in broad strokes and misuse it as an excuse to claim that someone's poorly done fetish porn is "art", but that's just a disingenuous misuse of the phrase rather than the phrase itself being entirely untrue. >That's not how it works It is. The 13th Amendment's exact wording states it outright for prison labour: >"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction." And wage-slavery is de facto. The law technically prohibits slavery but so long as you have loopholes about employment being a "choice" it's not 'technically' slavery by legal interpretation even though functionally the choice is "work whatever job you can get or starve on the street". You can argue the details but the basic premise comes out to this. >many of the laws being passed and attitude of the Northerners was purposely prejudice against the Southern states This is absolutely true, however again this is the North choosing to interpret the overarching laws of the country in a way that allows them to discriminate and apply socio-economic pressure on the South while technically being "legal" while at the same time rejecting the Southern States' interpretation of the law that gave them the supposed choice to cede. Like with Freedom of Speech, they could cede, but that doesn't exclude them from the North retaliating anyway, just as freedom to say what you want wouldn't exclude you from suffering the consequences of your words. >let's not forget Those are nitty gritty details. They are important in understanding the internal dynamics and exact path that led to the war itself, but on the broader scale of what I'm talking about the relevance is moot. >the little factoid that slavery was ALREADY dying in the South. True, but again slavery was always just the excuse, it was just geopolitical power-play. If slavery had been abolished before that and the South was still trying to be independent in its own way, the North would still find a Cassus Belli to pressure them. >The "Absolute liberty" approach is that I can say what I want, whenever I want, and not face any consequences as a result of what I say. Nope. Absolute liberty does not apply to you alone. Free speech protects your ability to say what you want to say, but nothing in the law protects what happens after. Why do you think it's still legally treason for whistleblowers to publicly speak of war-crimes in the USA? The First Amendment (going by your definition) should shield them from prosecution or attack for speaking freely, but that is not the case. >You talking about the L.A. riots or the Summer Of Love? The fact that there's two examples you named on your own proves this isn't just a fluke incident. I was referring to CHAZ. >people will still break the law The difference is that breaking the law means there are definitive consequences which not only wards off potential crime, but also means that people don't walk off scot free. Obviously this is a layman's explanation of the theory, and obviously this can be abused, but the opposite is chaos. >It had nothing to do with "intreptation" based on different jurisdictions. They abused their power for the purposes of favoring the people and activities they wanted, while punishing the people and activities they didn't. But here's the thing. These actions of abusing power are entirely based on 'legal interpretation' because things have to be allowed or disallowed on a case for case basis by the law-makers and enforcers. Political bias is still an interpretation, just as people can interpret a fictional book under different political lenses. > The reason why newer laws began to have concepts like "mandatory sentences" was because you had judges that effectively allowed criminals to walk despite having been found guilty of breaking the law. Which again doesn't stop criminals from walking by simply interpreting what those "mandatory sentences" are. And yes politics plays a role, this is why I reiterated "on paper" and "in theory" so many times and again reiterated that in practice the human factor (which implies politics, personal ties, societal standards of the time, etc.) as influencing how laws are executed and seen >I forget Curses.
>>580 > A good example of this being how the current shitshow regarding identity politics depended on years of ridiculing those that opposed these laws as "bible-thumpers" and so on No, it didn't. In fact, they co-opted Christianity. >That's not what I said or even implied. Okay, but that's how I see any argument made about how the law needs to be "interpretted", In that it's no an actual argument about what the law "is", but instead an attempt to say that the law "changes" to suit whatever political agenda someone wants to push. In same ways, the Progressives actually understand this, and it's why they constantly call for an end to the Constitution. >This is why slavery was a long legal discussion before the Civil War, as the laws/amendments at the time protected property ownership, and the denial of this rested on people interpreting blacks as property or not. There was also white slaves, most notably the Irish. Also, a lot of the problem with discussions about slavery is that people treat the entire issue as "black and white". They don't look at other factors, like how people sometimes became slaves because they defaulted on a debt they owed, or that slaves were actuallty capable of buying their freedom. >In a vacuum this is true as it reflects the older saying of "one man's trash is another's treasure" but on the other-hand there are factors that weigh on how this is applied. Obviously the unintelligent and lazy will apply this in broad strokes and misuse it as an excuse to claim that someone's poorly done fetish porn is "art", but that's just a disingenuous misuse of the phrase rather than the phrase itself being entirely untrue. What you're talking about is a big reason of why I'm so anti-regulation. Because, at least in the free market, people are able to pick and choose, personally, what they find to be artistic or valuable. Meanwhile when something is under government regulation, they are the ones who solely decide what does and doesn't have "value" or is and isn't "artistic". >The 13th Amendment's exact wording states it outright for prison labour Okay, I was not aware of that. >And wage-slavery is de facto. The entire concept of "wage slavery" was a strawman created by Anti-Abolitionists: https://archive.ph/i0E9J >The law technically prohibits slavery but so long as you have loopholes about employment being a "choice" it's not 'technically' slavery by legal interpretation even though functionally the choice is "work whatever job you can get or starve on the street". That's not how it works. As long as you're able to pay your bills, no one cares what you do for a living or where the money comes from. So long as it's legal. All the people pushing the "wage slavery" meme today are people who think the "only" pathway to success is the 40/40/40 plan. They don't consinder all the different methods by which a person can create money. And if they ever DO see making someone making money outside of a job, then that person "must" be doing something illegal/immoral. Think I'll post some Holo futa, because /biz/ related. >They are important in understanding the internal dynamics and exact path that led to the war itself, but on the broader scale of what I'm talking about the relevance is moot. Not really because it also shows that things didn't "need" to go down that path. >Why do you think it's still legally treason for whistleblowers to publicly speak of war-crimes in the USA? Probably for the same reason why the government can "legally" (I say "legally", but it vioalates the Fourth Amendment, but "who cares" about that?) tap my phones and spy on me. They don't care. >The fact that there's two examples you named on your own proves this isn't just a fluke incident It's two different circumstances. The L.A. Riots was allowed to happen because the idiot they had in charge of dispatch pulled back all the cops on the excuse that the scuffles would "fizzle out", and the politics related to it all happened AFTERWARDS. Meanwhile the Summer Of Love was a direct attempt at causing a Cultural Revolution here in America. >I was referring to CHAZ. Oh, you mean the comedy saga that was showing in real time what happens in an anarchist societies? That the leader, government, and rule is decided by Might Makes Right. >These actions of abusing power are entirely based on 'legal interpretation' No, they weren't. In fact, their entire GOAL is to ignore the rules of the system, so that they can then point at those times they intentionally broke the rules and use it as an "example" of how the system is "broken". And then declare that we need a "new system" that holds people "more accountable". It has nothing to do with "legal interpretation".
(2.53 MB 1920x2560 1709238178193487.png)

>>575 No but R34video has a message feature, might be able to get it from the uploader
>>551 >Okay, so I can just declare that 2 + 2 = 5 because it's what I "believe", No. Bluntly put, why won't you tell me what you believe? I told you what I believe, and the why is obvious; humans have the right to speech; and that also means they don't have the right to stop others from speaking. But you won't tell me what you believe. Do you or do you not believe people should have an inalienable right to speech? >>552 > Disney could give less of a fuck about artistic vision of Spiderman (for example) but on the basis of property law they sued a family for having the character depicted on a tombstone of their deceased child. It's ghoulish, but that's the law. are you sure it's the law? or do people just let it be the law because they are too scared to stand up and fight back? in either case, it seems you agree that if it is the law, the law is bad, and kc is wrong- which is all I really care about in the first place.
(2.42 MB 2280x3320 draenei priestess b.jpg)

>>605 >reddit spacing My eyes! >are you sure it's the law? It's the law generated by capitalist society: Property (and Profits) over People. The only reason it's not more obvious is because when they were blatant about it, we got strong unions and workers revolts, hence welfare to assuage the populace and propaganda to divide and divert attention. If people are too busy screaming about identity politics and taught that things being the way they are is fine and good, they're not going to be united against the greater threat. Fear, ignorance, inability etc. It doesn't matter if you're all up in arms about some company being a cunt, they're so big that even PR-disasters like this won't hurt their profits enough to make them back off, and the US Government will back them up with armed force if necessary. >you agree that if it is the law, the law is bad, and kc is wrong Yes.
>>605 >why won't you tell me what you believe? >Do you or do you not believe people should have an inalienable right to speech? You do realize that you're asking two entirely different questions, right? Where, despite overlapping in some aspects, they're completely disconnected from each other. As far as what I BELIEVE about Copyright, I have zero issues with the concept and will defend it to the death because of how I can benefit from the process. At the end of the day, all Copyright does is protect people's labor. I hate to admit that the Communist are correct about this aspect but labor is a form of private property. It's something you, and only you, are able to provide. Where Copyright steps in is that, unlike phyiscal labor where you see the direct results of your work (From digging a field to balance a company's books), Copyright (And it's sister know as Patents) protect's the labor people put into ideas and concepts that a person has created, and allows for them to benefit from creating those ideas. Think what you will of people like Edison, but the guy made bank from creating hundreds of ideas, just as he should have as it was a result of his labor. Now with that being said, I do agree that Copyright should not effectively be "forever" as it has become. A person should receive their dues for having created something that people found value in, just as they would if the person performed any other sort of work. However that compensation doesn't exist "forever". A typical job only pays you whatever you agreed to receive in exchange for the hours that you directly worked. Contract jobs agree to pay you whatever for a completed task. And as such and like everything else, your ability to benefit from having created an idea should also have an expiration date attached to it. And to be fair, the law still does have the expiration date attached, but it's about a century out. Which does favors for no one. As much as I want to exploit a system that will allow me to effectively print money to the end of my days with no one able to stop me, there is the issue that it also provides me no incentive to continue innovating and creating. All I have to do under the current regime is release just ONE single hit and I'm set for life as I collect the residuals and the royalties. However under past systems, I was still expected to at least put something out every decade or two, which the wheels moving forward. Now as for the subject of "The Freedom and the Inalienable Right to your Speech", that only exists up to the point that you begin to impose upon other people. Let's drop the subject of "Creative freedom" for a moment, and look at this from another perspective: LABOR UNIONS. You have this one company called MGE. They're a company who has a lot of tools that allow for them to put out great products that people want, and have employees who go to and work for the company because they like the pay that is offered. Now you have a set group of people that dislike the company, because of whatever policy they have in place, and they're going to protest about it. Okay, nothing wrong with that in-and-of-itself, they're independent adults who can do whatever they want. But actually what they want to do is protest ON the company's property, protests in such a way that it PREVENTS the company from being able to conduct business, and physically assualt ANYONE who dares to go to the site to do their job. That's the exact moment where you're so-called "Freedom of and inalienable right to speech" ends!!! What you're doing is imposing your values on to other people, dictating how they live they're lives, and physically preventing them from being able to access and practice the speech and activities THEY independently chose to participate in. And the police have every right to haul your ass off and beat you to a bloody pulp for your actions. And that's almost exactly how America's history of labor unions occured. Communist leaders kept invading company factories, destroying property, and attacking any and everyone who just wanted to do their job and refused to join or support the union. And the result of these antics, even the federal government had to get involved on innumerable occasions. Now, that's just a hypothetical. What does it have to do with the discussion of Copyright and porn? Well, you take the MGE company and change it to the IP that is the Monster Girl Encyclopedia, the tools used at said company are the characters and world that have been built in the MGE universe, and the people who work at the company are those followers KC has "granted" the right to use his world and characters however he wishes. And, yes, that does mean that you are the bad actors in this scenario. But it doesn't have to be that way. If you like what KC has done, but dislike how he places limits on how people are allowed to "play with his toys", then you create your own thing. In the scenario I provided it would be you creating something as silly as the EGM Company, that looks almost "exactly" like the MGE Company but a totally different entity. This actually has happened IRL, look up BlackRock and BlackStone. Or Hooters and Twin Peaks. Now, of course, you're not going to have the "same exact" tools as they MGE company "because that would be theft", but you at EGM have tools that are similar enough that would allow for you create similar products and be able to compete with the MGE company in the same arena. Now, of course, this isn't a perfect analogy. I'm not accounting for things like any plagerism charges in court, but those are bullshit half the time that only exist to waste people's time, and you're likelihood of winning/losing is effectively a coin toss. Then, of course, there's also the problem of the rabid fans you guys were talking about. But, just like in the MGE scenario, you at EGM can the same rights to prevent these people from interferring. Honestly, the only reason why they can get away with harassing people creating their own legally distinct monster girls is because no one will stand their ground and fight them on the matter. In fact, the law even provides you the ability to actually go out and sue people who make false copyright claims. Hope that answers some things. Feel free to ask me if you want me to expand on any of it. >it seems you agree that if it is the law, the law is bad That doesn't matter at the end of the day. The laws are the "rules" of society you agree to follow if you want to live and operate in that society. It doesn't matter if the law is "good" or "bad", you are still expected to follow it. And if you DON'T follow it, then expect to be punished. HOWEVER, and I think I may have missed mentioning this before, that does NOT mean that the law is static in nature. If you think the laws are bad, ineffective, and/or foul in their implementation, then what you need to do is go through the process required that would allow for you to change those laws. And it's that process, in theory, that allows for societies to improve and adjust with the times. Now there is another discussion to be had that the laws are "never" going to change so there's no point in following them anyway, or that you don't care what the law is and you're going to do what you want to do. And, okay, that's the decision that you are making as an independent and reasonable adult. However don't be the one to start bitching the moment you are punished for your actions. You knew what the rules were, broke them anyway, and now have to pay your dues. And don't think that I'm saying this as some pure fucking saint. I've pirated just as much content as anyone else on this site. And I also acknowledge that, if I'm ever caught performing my activities, I will have to face the consequences of my actions. Declaring in front of people "Well, I see the rule as wrong and stupid" is not an excuse. In fact, we actually make fun of niggers for having that mindset. >and kc is wrong He could very well be, but that doesn't matter as far as the law and rules (As they exist today) is concerned. If I may offer an alternative, how about to take the old Frank Sinatra maxim: <The best revenge is massive success. You think KC and his followers are full of shit? Then prove them wrong.
You autists have good taste. I'm finding I already have a lot of the things being posted. >>499 Wow, what a giant fucking fagwad. >>500 >I've seen some of stupidity of it when browsing /chaos/ back on h8chan My experience with /chaos/ is that it was almost dead all the time, except for one decent CYOA thread, which people were enjoying until the writer pushed cuckoldry into the story, killing the last bit of activity on that board forever. >>506 >because then there's no "drive" or "desire" making something "great". Big projects like churches and simple throw-away folk tales would still exist, but nothing that straddles anywhere in the middle (Like my collection of video games) since it neither appeals to people who have "nothing" or those who have "all the money". I don't think he means free as in no copyright whatsoever, but free as in you shouldn't be sued for drawing fanart because it "belongs" to the copyright holder. The concept of "fair use" already exists in copyright law. >but KC doesn't want dickgirl hellhounds "representing" MGE They don't. Because it's unofficial art. Simple as. It's like arguing you can't criticize something because it could cost that thing money, except even more nebulous and inconsistently enforceable. >You're going to force your fetishes upon him? Fanart does not force anything upon the official source. You have yet to demonstrate the negative effects you keep claiming free expression has. >>508 >Is it? Is it actually a "parody"? Yes. >Is your dickgirl MGE smut the "Epic Movie" of MGE content? Quality is irrelevant. >And if you dislike that certain people don't like your content, that's too bad. Them disliking it isn't an issue. They're having it forcibly taken down. >No one is "forcing" you to make MGE dickgirls instead of something else No, they're forcing you to not make them. That is the issue. >I don't see the point in antagonizing the guy. It's not the point. The point is MGE dickgirls are hot. He's only antagonizing himself by going out of his way to find MGE dickgirl art on weirdo subforums and sites because the mere existence of it anywhere rustles his jimmies. >What are you trying to "prove" at that point? How much of a faggot you can be posting pics of MGE dickgirls pegging the MC? The point is MGE dickgirls are hot. Why are you acting like you don't know this? They were being drawn before KC reacted to them and they'll be drawn after he's dead. His reaction was never a goal, it's an issue. Are you merely pretending to be retarded? Flailingly attempting to play devil's advocate? >>517 >Just take him to court over your dickgirl drawings Small time artists shouldn't have to legally dispute whether every instance of fanart is "fair use" with the creator who has far more money and resources than them. >>521 >Then the simple solution is to try to create content that isn't referenced or is influenced by either Oh yeah. Only create monstergirls that don't reference 95% of popular mythology like KC, MGQ, and Monster Musume do. Real simple. It's like saying only Disney has the right to use Grimm's Fairy Tales, but enormously more restrictive. You're obviously pretending to be retarded though, since you're denying the very concept of "fair use" while posting smut of copyrighted characters. >Kouya Ni Kemono Doukokusu (Which the lovely folks at PLW are translating I thought they finished that years ago? I swore I read the ending years ago. >>524 >reddit spacing > First it is an essential part of my identity, that's just not an opinion it's a fact, this shit was literally a huge part of my teenage years, and second, you're complaining about fetishes Fetishes shouldn't be your identity. That's a core part of why furfags are obnoxious. They make a fetish part of the identity, and since it's a part of them, they feel the need to for it to be accepted and push it around in places it's not wanted. >>534
[Expand Post]>There's more to this site than just the fetish boards and discussions about what makes my dick hard. So just nuking all fetish boards is fine then? >>536 >>argument over the nature of art, copyright, identity, and rights >>in a thread about monster girls with dicks <AUTISM This is the best part of imageboards. >>552 >Freedom of Speech =/= Freedom of Consequences That's an anti-free speech rhetoric used specifically to justify violence in response to speech regardless of the laws. Freedom of speech is the whole concept that you should not have your speech forcibly suppressed by any means, but especially violence. The whole debate is merely about what then qualifies as free speech and thus has legal protection >if you want to exercise the freedom of speech to talk shit, that doesn't protect you from a person reacting to those words and striking you Yes it, does. That's the point. I can call you a faggot, and you're not legally allowed to kick me in the balls for it because I have the right to say it, so long as I'm not harassing you. But verbal harassment is less to do what what is said and more to do with where and how it's communicated, so that's tangential. >What does protect either side (theoretically) is the law Pure semantics. What is and isn't protected as free speech under the law is the whole point. You can't separate the discussion of what is "free speech" from the law, claim then that freedom of speech isn't freedom from consequences, and then bring the law right back like you never pretended it wasn't there. I agree that free speech laws are getting increasingly porked. >>554 >How do you reach such a silly conclusion? Well, it all begins with thinking that "everyone needs" a voice, right? No, you reach such a conclusion because that's how it works in practice, in court, when the law is interpreted by lawyers, judges, and sometimes even juries. >>555 >You're free to say what you will, but people are free to react as they will, if we go with an absolute liberty approach. That's not free speech, that's anarchism. You're not free to say shit if anything you say can be freely met with violence. The concept of free speech demands legal protection to function, or elsewise it does not exist. You cannot separate it from law like you're trying to do. The execution of the law may vary, but it is required. >>559 >"Interpretting" a law and arguing over the objective fact of "what" the law is are two entirely different things. Because? >However that is not usually the case whenever people attempt to argue about how laws are "interpretted". What THEY are talking about instead is the belief that a "law" is a "living thing", that it can change with the time to suit whatever "needs" of the time. And once you start going down that road, you lose all objectivity and begin descending into a Post-Modernists Hell where nothing is "true" and everything is "permitted". That just means their interpretations of the law are fallacious because they're not objective enough. Those laws are still interpreted to varying degrees. This is just tangential semantics. >>576 Even among avid consumers of pornography, there is often the belief that it is mentally harmful and should not be protected speech, even if the concession is given that it should be tucked away in dark corners of the net. These people of course have relatively little to say about one's right to smoke tobacco and drink alcohol, despite those things being far more objectively and provably harmful. They choose to prioritize their attacks on things that mentally ruffle their feathers more. As an aspiring wizard who despises 3DPD porn, but consumes mass amounts of 2D, real women close to me still tickle my fancy. So my personal experience is that non-realistic porn at least doesn't interfere with your ability be attracted to and pair bond with a real person. However, I think the ability to pair bond likely varies wildly from person to person. Some people will never be able to get over their first crush when they were 12 despite never even asking that person out, while others might have several partners without issue (in the bonding department, as obviously you or the people you choose have issues if you keep breaking up with people). This doesn't invalidate the general trend and that pair bonding is a proven psychological phenomena in humans as it is in animals, just that the degree to which this effect applies varies. People with hundreds of casual sex partners are going to be mentally screwed no matter how relatively malleable their pair bonding is. >>580 >functionally the choice is "work whatever job you can get or starve on the street". That's just realism. It becomes effective slavery when the options are limited and it's an employer's market where the poor are competing for scraps with no hope of upwards mobility. Which is inevitable as population increases and doesn't level out like it is in Japan because we keep importing third worlders. >>583 >or that slaves were actuallty capable of buying their freedom. Legally capable and actually capable need to be distinguished here. Given the power a slaveowner has over a slave, until slavery was dying out naturally, it's a natural consequence that a slaveowner would impede any possibility of a slave saving enough to buy their freedom in most cases. >The entire concept of "wage slavery" was a strawman created by Anti-Abolitionists: https://archive.ph/i0E9J >ctrl+f >Greek >0 results Doesn't the concept go all the way back to the Greeks though? I thought they considered working for a wage to be slavery, as opposed to the middle and upper class trades that worked for a more negotiable commission, or set the price of their own goods? >>605 >Reddit spacing >>607 >But actually what they want to do is protest ON the company's property, protests in such a way that it PREVENTS the company from being able to conduct business, and physically assualt ANYONE who dares to go to the site to do their job. Monster dickgirls do not prevent KC from conducting business. His "property" in this analogy should be official KC sites, and other official media. People sharing un-kosher scribbles of characters he made in corners of the internet that he does not own are none of his business. >the tools used at said company are the characters and world that have been built in the MGE universe The tools used are computers and writing utensils and such. MGE is the resulting product. And since this product is digital, immaterial, infinitely reproducible for practically no cost once after it's initial creation, the way it's protected from "theft" cannot be analogous to how physical products are protected. Instead, copyright comes in. And according to copyright law, most or all of what KC has attacked would fall under "fair use" if taken to court. However, as most people do not have the resources to fight back against frivolous DMCA claims, and the resources that would be spent if one does have them are not proportional to the value of what is being fought for, these legally protected parody works get taken down anyways. It's currently fiscal might makes right in practice, not the free speech and fair use that's it's supposed to be on paper. It's actually KC that's breaking the law with false and frivolous DMCA claims, but there is not a great enough incentive to challenge him. >And I also acknowledge that, if I'm ever caught performing my activities, I will have to face the consequences of my actions. Declaring in front of people "Well, I see the rule as wrong and stupid" is not an excuse. It actually is. It's called jury nullification.
>>613 >The concept of "fair use" already exists in copyright law. "Fair Use" only exists in America and England. And even then, it's a huge legal grey area because no one ever actually fights on the matter for the purposes of setting a precident. In addition, there's reasons for both sides of the argument for why you wouldn't want to make fanworks. Assuming that fanworks are not protected by "Fair Use", you're effectively giving the rights holder content that they can have free of charge. So like Nintendo could release AM2R and charge money for it because it IS their game though they never commissioned nor created it. In fact, Bungie recently did exactly that when they used Destiny fan art for an upcoming expansion of Destiny 2, without ever asking for permission or providing compensation to the original artist. However assuming that your fanworks DO exist as "Fair Use", what you're doing is basically offering "free advertising" for the rights holder. And with that being the case, given how much people in this thread express their hatred for KC's prudishness, do you really want to spend your time advertising MGE instead of something else? >They don't. Because it's unofficial art. That doesn't matter. >It's like arguing you can't criticize something because it could cost that thing money You do know that's exactly what "slander" is all about as a legal definition, right? In fact, President Cheetoh-Man recently won several court battles over that exact thing. >Fanart does not force anything upon the official source. Yes, it does because fanworks can take upon a life of their own and dictate the direction of a series. Need look no further than how Brutal Doom effected how the latest Doom games approached their gameplay. >Quality is irrelevant I wasn't discussing quality, I was discussing application. >Them disliking it isn't an issue. They're having it forcibly taken down. And that's their right because of it being MGE related content. And will continue to remain that way until someone fights it. >The point is MGE dickgirls are hot. For you and me, maybe. Not for KC, who opinion is the only one that matters since he is the owner of MGE. >Small time artists shouldn't have to legally dispute whether every instance of fanart is "fair use" First, they don't need to do it "every" time, it only needs to happen ONCE to set a precident. Second, do you WANT to continue being abused or will you put your foot down, say enough, and finally give these people the ass whooping they deserve for abusing the system in a manner that it was never designed for? >It's like saying only Disney has the right to use Grimm's Fairy Tales They have the right to use THEIR version of Grimm's Fairy Tales, no one elses. Same thing here: KC, MGQ, and MM have the right to use THEIR versions of popular mythology, but they are not the only ones who created those characters. For example, a lot of the "tropes" for mythologyical characters and creatures in Japanese media mostly come from Dragon Quest and Record Of Agarest War, the former which was based on Wizardry, and all which got it's influences from DnD. And DnD lists a lot of THEIR influences in the section "Appendix N", who references authors like Robert E. Howard, Edgar Rice Burroughs, Lovecraft, and Andre Norton. So there you go. Basically do the same thing. Take influences, and make the things your own. >since you're denying the very concept of "fair use" while posting smut of copyrighted characters. Have you ever considered the possibility that I just don't give a shit? I've had these types of arguments more than once, across dozens of topics, and run them into the ground following the person's logic to it's "inevitable end" or what they "need" to do if they want things to change. However never once do people actually ask what I "believe" on the topic, or what I "do" in relation to the subject. I think the first person to actually do so was this post: >>605 >So just nuking all fetish boards is fine then? I feel like you're asking a different question than the one original posted. Depends on what you're referring to. It's entirely within Acid's power to do so because this is HIS site. However doing say may result in traffic dropping to almost zero because people do come here for content, and the removal of it means they'll be going somewhere else. >That just means their interpretations of the law are fallacious because they're not objective enough. Those laws are still interpreted to varying degrees. This is just tangential semantics. That doesn't matter. Those "semantics" are used all the time to make laws that would otherwise be outright illegal. For example, the SCOTUS ruling in the 60's that declared that unequal outcomes is a sign of "discrimination" has been used as the basis for everything from Affirmative Action to college scholarships. This is despite the fact that the point of the Civil Rights laws was to prevent discrimination, and that such "interpretations" and "Semantics" are now being used for the purposes of CREATING discrimination. >Even among avid consumers of pornography, there is often the belief that it is mentally harmful and should not be protected speech The funny thing is that there is actually ZERO evidence proving this. In fact, several studies have been conducted showing that increased access to pornography has actually resulted in a drop in sexual assaults and rape. Now if you're talking about addiction to porn, or the discussion of sexual content and one's mentally mature in being prepared for it, that's an entirely different discussion that has almost nothing to do exclusively with porn. >These people of course have relatively little to say about one's right to smoke tobacco and drink alcohol, despite those things being far more objectively and provably harmful. Not as much as people think. A lot of the "problems" you hear about nicotine and alchohol are exaggerated, if not outright fabricated, by lobbying groups who are basically looking to bleed companies dry. In fact, as people have moved from cigarettes to vaping, those same lobbying groups are now demonizing it despite being a far healthier activity: https://odysee.com/@johnstossel:7/let-them-vape:5 >Given the power a slaveowner has over a slave, until slavery was dying out naturally, it's a natural consequence that a slaveowner would impede any possibility of a slave saving enough to buy their freedom in most cases. In most cases, no one is actually going to put in the effort of buying their freedom in the first place. Because they're too content with having their master provide everything. Just think about how many people actually get involved with investments and other alternative methods of cashflow compared to the amount of people who work a job all their life and refuse to pursue anything greater. >Doesn't the concept go all the way back to the Greeks though? Possibly, but I doubt it was the "consensus" of the time. Even the Kikepedia article doesn't makes any definate claims other than a quote from Cicero: https://archive.ph/uTl0c <"the very wage [wage labourers] receive is a pledge of their slavery" And then it IMMEDIATELY jumps to the 18th century, with it outright admitting that majority of the arguments made about "wage slavery" are fallacies created by Marx. Who you have to remember was preaching a religion, nothing at all related to economics other than "in name only". If you look at another book from the period like the Bible, it actually talks about being generous, expediant, and unoppressive about providing the wages one has earned. >Monster dickgirls do not prevent KC from conducting business In the analogy, "no", but you do want to protest on "his property". >His "property" in this analogy should be official KC sites, and other official media. No, his property is anything having to do with MGE. > And since this product is digital, immaterial, infinitely reproducible for practically no cost once after it's initial creation, the way it's protected from "theft" cannot be analogous to how physical products are protected. Yes it can because those ideas required someone's labor to create. And that labor needs to be protected. >However, as most people do not have the resources to fight back against frivolous DMCA claims Honestly, that's their fault. If they want their works protected, then they need to go through the process of building up the resources needed that would allow their potection. However majority of people don't, never do, and never will. So just like the slaves who will always be slaves instead of trying to become free citizens, they're going to be harassed and attacked to the end of their days because they never prepare. >It's currently fiscal might makes right in practice To an extent it has ALWAYS be "might make right". In fact, the American system is actually much more beneficial because, unlike how courts used to work, you are only responsible for your own fees. Under the English rule of court systems, the loser of the trial was held responsible for paying for everything. >It's actually KC that's breaking the law with false and frivolous DMCA claims Then you need to provide that. >but there is not a great enough incentive to challenge him.
[Expand Post]Then quit bitching. If you're not going to actually fight on the matter, then all you're doing is making noise and I'd rather that you'd STFU if that's how you're going to play it. >It's called jury nullification. That's not how juries nor the law works.
(295.57 KB 681x919 fta_60.png)

>>606 >Yes. That's all I needed to hear! >>607 >What you're doing is imposing your values on to other people, mmm, and KC/you aren't doing that by DMCAing porn parodies out of existence? That is exactly what you're doing. You're in this mentality of "I get to control what other people do but they shouldn't control what I do!" whereas I say "nobody should control anybody." It's that simple. Anyway, does anybody here have the non xray version of this? Google doesn't let you reverse image shota content anymore. Or loli. Great website!
(278.51 KB 971x922 upskirt_futa.png)

(514.96 KB 3210x1767 1615064833264.jpg)

(1.43 MB 2556x1664 1570412374254.png)

(768.92 KB 750x1050 1723900488500.png)

>>615 man my spacing does look a lot worse on the board than it does in the text tray
(900.14 KB 1708x3000 cheshirefuta.gif)

>>615 >does anybody here have the non xray version of this? Gonna be honest I could barely find this pic as is. No search engine except SauceNao processed the image. Sorry I did my best. Worst part is I'm pretty sure I know the image you're talking about and had it a long time ago. Could be wrong though. I'm prettu sure this was back on old infinitychan when it was 8ch.net. It was either on /d/ or more likely /chaos/. Pic rel is the same author (LESS) and is also unavailable on the internet nowdays. Only the non-futa variant is on Gelbooru. https://gelbooru.com/index.php?page=post&s=view&id=3320485
>>619 I'm very well acquainted with the artist! Hopefully we can get it uploaded to gelbooru, I don't think I have an upload enabled account. You seem to be a well read mg deviancy enthusiast. Wanna join our sekrit club?
>>621 NTA but do you have any exclusive stuff?
>>622 some, yeah. I share as much as I can of course.
>>621 >I'm very well acquainted with the artist! That's nice >Hopefully we can get it uploaded to gelbooru, I don't think I have an upload enabled account. Me neither, sorry. >You seem to be a well read mg deviancy enthusiast. Wanna join our sekrit club? What club?
(144.68 KB 905x1280 D_IFP8hWwAAwHNO.jpg)

(140.02 KB 905x1280 D_IFP8lXsAQ2LfJ.jpg)

(123.03 KB 848x1199 D_IFOy5WsAEF2nU.jpg)

(138.96 KB 905x1280 D_IFOSsXoAASsbF.jpg)

>>622 >>627 Make a burner and message me- budgetchigurh@protonmail.com. We could also use session I guess, which is totally anonymous and disposable but a little basic. BO Note: Files Spoiled for Off Topic.
Edited last time by CloverTree on 08/07/2025 (Thu) 03:40:25.
(1.02 MB 1061x1500 GRhRU_hWAAA2ud0.jpg)

(1.02 MB 1061x1500 GRhRSp4XAAArg57.jpg)

(912.72 KB 1061x1500 GRhRy51WoAAmiGY.jpg)

(347.87 KB 2000x1595 F9IgxCCbEAErq9H.jpg)

(333.40 KB 2000x1595 F9IgxCDaUAAA1rv.jpg)

(322.69 KB 2000x1595 F9IgxCEboAAywIH.jpg)

(963.73 KB 2200x3300 GTR8kC9XYAAF_Uy.jpg)

(874.10 KB 2200x3300 GTGx5UcX0AAy1TM.jpg)

(675.84 KB 1141x1280 73228994_p1.jpg)



(292.79 KB 1800x1150 DvJIfsbUcAA8EnR.jpg)

(286.44 KB 1800x1150 DvJIfsbU0AA00vo.jpg)

(1.67 MB 2500x2880 bowsette cum.jpg)

>>630 >Make a burner and message me To what purpose? Are you going to send an invite link? >pics Isn't that Yaoi? >>631 >>632 Never seen these ones before. Knotty Hellhounds are hot. >>633 These are good too Pic 2/3 appear yaoi, and the style is similar to Dross.
(2.20 MB 1137x1441 faf056a1240687e1.png)

>>634 >Are you going to send an invite link? yeah, sure, after chatting a little. >>634 >Isn't that Yaoi? femboys anon, femboys. And remember, femboys aren't gay.
(20.25 KB 425x208 Traps are gay.png)

>>637 >femboys aren't gay lies.
(1.46 MB 1152x896 SnakeCharmerFuta.png)

>>630 >>637 >after chatting a little. Email sent.


Forms
Delete
Report
Quick Reply