Image Uploader Anonymous, June 14, 2013; 03:12 Tags abuse artist:templar big_mista crossover fun horse impalement jousting justice Rating questionable Source Unknown Locked No Comments June 14, 2013; 03:14 - Reply Templar: Big Mista always willing to help a guy out for a quick Buck or two.. even if Justice should be Free. June 14, 2013; 03:15 - Reply kazamiyuzi: fuck! You moron! June 14, 2013; 03:15 - Reply Templar: Sidenote I didn't realize til just now how fucking mad that horse looks Jesus Christ. June 14, 2013; 03:24 - Reply Menthol: @Templar: oh man that horse is so butthurt. June 14, 2013; 03:48 - Reply fluffytaffy: @Templar: I'd say he looks determined IT'S HIS GAME FACE! June 14, 2013; 07:33 - Reply Wayward_N: @Templar: You keep saying 'justice', but I haven't seen anything resembling justice from either of these guys. One is a sadistic owner of the worst shelter ever and is probably getting his money from drugs, and the other is delusional and probably thinks that he's fighting in the crusades and the fluffies are moors. However, this is a well drawn piece, even if it is of two villains. June 14, 2013; 09:04 - Reply Anonymous1: @Wayward_N: And your a faggot June 14, 2013; 09:23 - Reply HurrDizzle: @Wayward_N: Lrn 2 humor Nice work Templar, does that horse have armor plate on it? Also at big mista - This Guy! June 14, 2013; 10:16 - Reply Anonymous2: @Wayward_N: he's crazy, i mean who the hell dresses up as a knight unless they are roleplaying, but thats his thing June 14, 2013; 11:50 - Reply The_New_Guy: @Wayward_N: You're the kind of guy who wouldn't like the Dark Knight because the Joker was in it. Then again you might have because he killed so many people. June 14, 2013; 11:52 - Reply Templar: @Wayward_N: I can handle being called a villain. @HurrDizzle: Nah it's more like the cloth with stitchings, look at Santa anons for another reference >>11624 Also drawing Big mistah was fun, I figure when it comes to dealing with other abusers he'd probably be a pretty chill guy. June 14, 2013; 15:10 - Reply RevMe: @Wayward_N: I thought it was clear that Big Mista was getting his money from fluff-fights. June 14, 2013; 15:16 - Reply Wayward_N: @RevMe: Oh, that makes sense. Same basic premise though, his real business is illegal. June 14, 2013; 15:20 - Reply Wayward_N: @The_New_Guy: I liked The Dark Knight, it was awesome. The thing is everyone knows that the Joker is a bad guy, whereas many people on this site consider Big Mister and Monty Python's Black Knight here to be heroes for torturing and killing fluffies. June 14, 2013; 16:39 - Reply LordPomposity: @Templar: It is mad that its genes have been stolen to create this disgusting biotoy. This is an indignity that no real animal should ever have to endure. June 14, 2013; 16:57 - Reply Anonymous3: @Wayward_N: Animal fights are illegal. Pokemon-like toy fight are legal and transmited on Fluff TV June 14, 2013; 17:08 - Reply robopony: June 14, 2013; 17:16 - Reply Anonymous4: anonymous templar here. i support this bro image.@robopony: June 14, 2013; 17:27 - Reply Anonymous5: @Wayward_N: There are genuine Joker supporters out there IRL that think he made some good points and may even be a hero. Morality. Is. Relative. June 14, 2013; 17:37 - Reply Wayward_N: @Anonymous: 1. Pokémon aren't real in our universe nor in any fluffyverse. 2. Pokémon battles end when the opponents faint, and I presume that these fights are to the death. 3. Bio-toys, if you insist on that term, would still qualify as animals. June 14, 2013; 17:41 - Reply LordPomposity: @Wayward_N: Their metaphysical status as biotoys takes precedence over their biological status as animals, which is really just a technicality. June 14, 2013; 17:58 - Reply Gowdie: @LordPomposity: Biopet is a much more appropiate term. IRL pet owners don't call their pet a toy, IRL pet abusers don't call their pet a toy either, don't forget that fact that fluffies are sentinent, are made up of various animal DNA and think a lot like human children do. They were clearly designed to be pets, and even a child can recognize the similarity between a real pet and a fluffy pony. However, if you replaced a fluffy's brain with a machine and stopped them from being able to reproduce then it could possibly count as a biotoy. You're probably going to shit yourself and reply with something like "bu-but ginger fig said so! they are toys since they are biologically engineered!!!! Muh environment! Fucking vermin!" June 14, 2013; 17:59 - Reply Gowdie: On the other hand, I love your work, Templar! June 14, 2013; 18:07 - Reply Wayward_N: @LordPomposity: That may be your headcanon, but it's not mine. June 14, 2013; 18:08 - Reply LordPomposity: @Gowdie: Biopet is a completely pointless term. All pets are biological, so adding the prefix bio- to the word pet imparts no meaning. Sentience and child-level though processes (rather than a library of preset phrases and associated stimuli designed to created the illusion thereof) are your headcanon. Design intent as a pet is your headcanon. Your insistence on using someone who hasn't posted here in over two months as fodder for strawman arguments continues to be as laughable as ever. June 14, 2013; 18:09 - Reply Wayward_N: @Gowdie: That's a good idea. June 14, 2013; 18:35 - Reply Gowdie: @LordPomposity: And that can be summed up as your headcanon too, shame that you're most likely going reply implying that it's the official canon because it helps your torture boner. June 14, 2013; 18:47 - Reply LordPomposity: @Gowdie: No, I'm just going to shake my head and request that you restate your point in a way that doesn't include yet another tired old personal attack. Once you do that, I'll be happy to participate in a discussion with you. June 14, 2013; 19:40 - Reply Ironweaver: @LordPomposity: It's no less pointless then the term biotoy. June 14, 2013; 21:21 - Reply takenoko: @Gowdie: My only problem with 'biopet' is that it doesn't really make much sense as a fluffy-selling term; it leaves them open to pet stores advertising their equally organic dogs and fish as 'biopets'. Whereas 'biotoy' gets across the neutral concept of 'we've designed a species of animal and are now trying as hard as we can to treat and market them as if they are toys.' I feel like preserving the ambiguity and debatability of fluffies is the most important part. It's a debate fairly unique to fluffy pony fandom. A bit like the 'what's the point at which an android and a human are equal' debate in scifi, yet different due to the organic factor. June 15, 2013; 01:06 - Reply Menthol: @Wayward_N: aiight, first of all fuck you, your mamma, and everyone in your neighborhood for assuming drug dealing and bad people/situations go hand in hand. tons of people sell to support their families and don't even own a gun or any of that gangsta shit you learned on tv, so know what you're talking about before you make statements like that you ignorant child, and second, justice is a subjective term, thinking like yours is why everyone who isn't black white or Asian get funny looks from paranoid bigoted twits who think everyone with a tan has a raging hard-on for terrorism both international and domestic. June 15, 2013; 01:15 - Reply Menthol: @takenoko: > 'biotoy' gets across the neutral concept of 'we've designed a species of animal and are now trying as hard as we can to treat and market them as if they are toys.' THIS. NIGGA. GETS. IT. June 15, 2013; 03:27 - Reply Gowdie: @Menthol: Problem is, the "Biotoy" concept is closer to abuse than neutral or hugbox IMO, most authors use it like this "It's a toy, it has no feelings, you don't get arrested for breaking a toy so go ahead and rip your fluffy's head off and make it's foals eat the flesh off it, whatever." June 15, 2013; 03:50 - Reply LordPomposity: Could everyone who's whining in here go produce some content? The front page is full of abuse pics where militant hugboxers can come and ritually recite their litany of personal attacks, but there isn't a single hugbox picture for me to go shitpost in. It's not fair. June 15, 2013; 04:14 - Reply Anonymous6: @Gowdie: But "bio" just indicates that it's "biological," which is the default of pets... If you had a robot pet, you'd be obliged to call it a "robopet" or something. "Biopet" seems redundant. How about "Genetically altered animal?" Or "Genecrafted pet?" June 15, 2013; 04:15 - Reply Menthol: @Gowdie: but "it's a real animal designed by a toy company and created from scratch in a lab. it's just like any other pet or animal!" makes you sound retarded when you say it. while i'm not a believer in common cannon around here, isn't it a founding idea in this fandom that Hasbro is directly responsible for the existence of the fluffy pony? it's not outrageous to assume designed by man = not a real animal to a lot of people, is it? June 15, 2013; 04:23 - Reply Menthol: @Anonymous: >Genecrafted pet see? that works too! just something to differentiate it from every other animal out there is enough, abuse and hugbox both be damned. June 15, 2013; 09:05 - Reply Wayward_N: @Menthol: Whether it's a naturally evolved animal species or a genetically engineered animal species, it would still be an animal. @LordPomposity: Nobody likes a shitposter. June 15, 2013; 09:14 - Reply LordPomposity: @Wayward_N: You must have some serious self-hatred issues, then. June 15, 2013; 15:51 - Reply Menthol: @Wayward_N: and? My point still stands, we need a term to separate them from other animals, lest both sides continue to bitch and moan about "they are real animals/they are meat-toys" ad infinitum. you know how we have terms like "handicapped", "special", and so on? To categorize certain people away from others because they. Are. Different. Is that really such an alien concept to you extreme hugboxers? Not being a dick, just honestly curious. Thread locked for the current user.