If you ran out of argumentative statements you could have just said it.
You want to continue? Okay.
Well no it doesn't because being a furry is an incredibly dolled up form of bestiality.
Take, for example, two pictures of a tiger.
One from the wild, one anthropomorphic. Are they both not animals?
Does wanting to have love with the latter make it ok?
Can a guy who draws furry comics and has orgies with people in animal suits be arrested for bestiality when they have never done anything to an animal? No. The difference is action. Anything somebody wants to do in their private life is fine as long as it does not harm any person or animal. Wanting is not the same as doing. There are people that fall in the "doing" category, and that is wrong. Anything up to that harms nobody. If somebody wants to sit in their room all day and fap to animals, have at it. If somebody tries to screw an animal, call the police.
And using national socialists was a poor example because society also looks down on national socialists. It's a shame they have any rights in this country.
And yes, I understand that being gay and black was looked down upon in society (I myself don't like gays) but there are certain things that should never be accepted, like child enthusiasts or national socialists.
There was nothing wrong with the national socialist example as I was not trying to compare it to how society looks at national socialists, it was to distinguish between the wanting and doing aspect of freedom to like what you want.
But what I said about furries holds true for others. national socialists have a right to hate blacks and Jews. The Westboro baptist church has a right to hate gays. You have a right to hate furries. But hating something does not harm it. Fapping to a picture of something does not harm it either.
I'll leave it at that. I can't make it any clearer than this. But as I said, you're narrow minded, so you'll probably find someway to twist what I said or form half your argument around misinterpreting it.
Poll