4 ms·
Perhaps you didn't see, but the images I was asking about are indeed part of the article.
by RedComet 6y ago
Perhaps you didn't see, but the images I was asking about are indeed part of the article.
- klyrs 6y agoIt's window dressing. You don't like the aesthetic, that's fine. But you're focused on the window dressing, and not on what the article has to say.
- RedComet 6y agoReally? People never comment on, say, a popup on a NYT article that gets posted? This is probably a third of the article... but I'm beginning to think you have anthropomorphic dog in this fight, so to speak.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- klyrs 6y agoAh yes, the ad hominem. Classic. Nope, I'm not a furry, but over the years I've been quite fascinated by how people react to them. For instance, the first person who responded to your comment seemed to correlate images of fursonas with partial nudity, which is often sexualized. Over the decades I've observed furries (which has been rather unavoidable as a gamer/hacker), from what I can tell, it isn't a sexual thing. Sure, some furries are horny, and those furries like sexualized images... but there's plenty of folks who are furry but don't use that as an outlet for their sexual energies. It's kinda like leather. Some people wear leather for protection, some people wear leather because it's stylish... and some people have a leather kink. The kinksters don't ruin leather for the rest of us.
- RedComet 6y agoAd hominem? There isn't even an argument lmao.
- klyrs 6y ago> but I'm beginning to think you have anthropomorphic dog in this fight, so to speak. How do you characterize this? Besides the obviously high-quality pun, that is ;)
- RedComet 6y agoIf we're having a formal debate on the merits of the axiom of choice and I call you fat, it is an ad hom. If we're having a beer and and I ask you what's up with your weight gain, it is not.