artist:artist-kun cute impending_death one_more_day_one_more_foal safe

Image

main image
Uploader artist-kun,
Tags artist:artist-kun cute impending_death one_more_day_one_more_foal
Rating safe
Source Unknown
Locked No

Comments


- Reply
Megatron: If only they could read
- Reply
Anonymous1: @Megatron: I am not sure they would know what extermination means.
- Reply
Anonymous2: Shit color. Throw him in the incinerator.
- Reply
Anonymous3(2): You puffin your cheeks at me cocksucker?
- Reply
Anonymous4: Dare I ask why the little cutie's being exterminated?

@Anonymous: Nah, I think that's just the artist's style.
- Reply
Anonymous5: I don't get it why is brown such a bad color? you dont see people killing brown dogs or cats.
- Reply
Bacner: Well, that's sad.

- Reply
fluffytaffy: IT'S SO POOFY

- Reply
Megatron: @Anonymous: It's the same color as poop. You generally don't see pastel coloured cats and horses... yet.
- Reply
Anonymous6: @Anonymous: Let's see what else is brown: Shit, the SA uniforms, and more than half of all murderers in the US.

Gee, I wonder why it's so unpopular.

- Reply
PETN: damn kun, the more realistic your fluffies get, the more unsettling they are to look at.
- Reply
Anonymous7: Little does it know.....
- Reply
Anonymous8(6): At least it's going into the oven with a smile on its face.
- Reply
Anonymous9(4): @Megatron: I'm with Anon 5. I'd adopt a brown fluffy.

@Anonymous: Okay, you're just racist.
- Reply
Anonymous10: I never understood the hatred of brown fluffies either. They would be perfect for guys. Let's face it, the pastel colors are gay as hell unless you're a little girl. Plus, they resemble normal ponies more in this way.
- Reply
Anonymous11(6): @Anonymous: Anon6 just didn't get the memo: Stating a fact is racist now. It's hard to keep up with all this progress.
- Reply
Nazar: @Anonymous: A lot of people say that brown is a very unpopular color on account of how common it is. It's also the idea of selling fluffies with popular colors or finding ones with popular colors.
- Reply
Anonymous12(4): @Anonymous: I don't suppose you have evidence to support this "fact", do you?

- Reply
Noctuam: foal for violation
- Reply
Anonymous13(2): Extermination by cattle prod up his ass until his eyeballs boil
- Reply
BadMunsta: @Anonymous: http://www.colorofcrime.com/colorofcrime2005.html
- Reply
MaidenMaiden: @Anonymous: Same shit here in Canada. There are Somalian neighborhoods in the big cities that look like you're in another continent or something. They have no fucking gratitude that we took them out of Somalia and commit crimes constantly. And if you say anything about it you're Hitler. >_>
- Reply
Anonymous14(6): @Anonymous:

>Of the offenders for whom race was known, 52.4 percent were black

www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded/expanded-homicide-data
- Reply
Anonymous15: @MaidenMaiden: disgusting niggers. im mixed raced myself, but those fucking africans are so ignorants and disgusting, they just cant give thanks for being accepted in the first world
- Reply
bloodgutsandfluff: God damn I love this.
What software do you use artist_kun?
- Reply
Anonymous16(4): @Anonymous: @BadMunsta: I have counterarguments for both of you, but apparently they contain banned terms and I can't figure out what they are. I'll get back to you as soon as I can.

@Anonymous: [sarcasm] Gee, I wonder why they're ungrateful. It couldn't possibly have anything to do with generations of discrimination that continues to this day. [endsarcasm] You know, this is the internet. Anyone can claim they're mixed race. That doesn't mean anything. Also, if you don't want to sound racist, you might want to avoid using that one word.
- Reply
Anonymous17(4): @BadMunsta: For some reason I can't link directly to any websites, so instead check sources 12 and 13 of Wikipedia's "New Century Foundation" article.
- Reply
Anonymous18(4): @Anonymous: Ever heard the phrase "Lies, damn lies, and statistics"? Even if Anon 6's claims were technically true, they're incredibly misleading. Blacks only have a small lead on whites in this case, and there's a huge pool of unknown variables. Also, take a look at the victims, too.

>Of the offenders for whom race was known, 52.4 percent were black, 45.2 percent were white... The race was unknown for 4,077 offenders.
>Concerning murder victims for whom race was known, 50.0 percent were black, 46.0 percent were white... Race was unknown for 175 victims.

Furthermore, check out data table 6. White people are most likely to be killed by white people, while black people are most likely to be killed by black people. Just something to keep in mind.
- Reply
Anonymous19: @Anonymous: sounds like chink talk to me...
- Reply
BadMunsta: @Anonymous: You asked for documentation, then dismissed all documentation that contradicts your pre-conceived notions out of hand. Therefore, you are either a troll, social justice warrior, or possibly black.

- Reply
FractalFluff: @BadMunsta: No, Anon18 offered a more nuanced and accurate presentation of the data in the link Anon14 provided. You sound like you can't handle accuracy or nuance.

(Also, "social justice warrior" is a thought-terminating cliche.)
- Reply
Anonymous20(6): @Anonymous:
>Blacks only have a small lead on whites in this case

You have to keep in mind though, that African Americans are only about 13% the US population, and they still manage to account for more than half of murder cases. If you compare them per capita, the difference is huge.
- Reply
Monom: @FractalFluff: People on the booru can't handle subtlety or nuance? Color me surprised!
- Reply
Anonymous21: @BadMunsta: lol somehow I don't find the revelation that you're a racist idiot all that surprising, considering how obnoxious your spergy comments are and how mediocre your writing is.

People like you are so typical and common too, always twisting and cherry picking the truth to fit their narrow little worldview.
- Reply
Anonymous22(4): @Anonymous: True, but as I said, white people are more likely to be killed by white people, while black people are more likely to be killed by black people. To be more accurate: In 2011, 3172 white people were murdered. 2630 of them were killed by other whites and 448 by blacks. Meanwhile, 2695 black people were murdered; 193 by whites and 2447 by blacks. This means that 13% of the population is really only a threat to that same 13%. The rest of us have little to worry about from them.

I'd say more, but I'd want to provide a source link and the booru didn't like it the last time I tried putting a url in the comments.
- Reply
Anonymous23(6): @Anonymous: You have to leave out the "http" part for it to work.
- Reply
BadMunsta: @Anonymous: Somebody can't tell racism from counter-trolling.
- Reply
Anonymous24(4): @Anonymous: Ah, thanks for the tip.

@BadMunsta: First, it's kinda hard to counter-troll when there's no troll to begin with. Second, it's hard to believe you aren't serious when your very first comment here was a link to a clearly biased book. Don't believe me?

www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2000/summer/coloring-crime

www.timwise.org/2004/11/race-crime-and-sloppy-social-science/
- Reply
Anonymous25(6): @Anonymous: Anon 6;14 and 20 here.

While the links you provided certainly contain valid points(although I was well aware of them due to a background in sociology +law), they don't disagree with anything I previously claimed.

Blacks don't commit more violent crimes due to them being black, but they do commit more violent crimes.

Does criminal behavior (at least a certain kind) strongly correlate with income and education? Of course, but so what? If somebody is going to rob you, it's not going to be any consolation that he might not have done it if he would have had access to better education, and a well-paying job.
Criminal law focusses more on what is than what might have been, and it is certainly more about individual responsibility than about structural factors that influence the likelihood of commiting crimes.

And yes, I was also aware from the beginning that most crime is intraracial, but once again: I never claimed otherwise. A black person killing a black person is not of more or less concern to me than a black person killing a white person. Plus if you look at the areas in which a disproportionate amount of violent crime is commited, you'll find them to be predominantly non-white, which explains why there tends to be less interracial crime. You'd actually have to 'go out of your way' to meet a victim that is not of your own race, if the area you live in is filled with people of the same race.

I don't think we fundamentally disagree on all that much. I just had similar discussions in the past, and I'm really surprised about the knee-jerk reactions people tend to have once you mention blacks and crime without extra soft p.c. kid gloves.

The mental gymnastics people tend to perform to avoid seeing even a segment of the black population, or any other group for that matter in a negative light is astonishing to me.

The pattern you find in this comment section can be found again and again in similar discussions.

1.Knee-jerk reaction: das racis!
2.Denial: That's not true. It's just a stereotype
3.Relativization: You can't generalize that. It's not all of them. (which nobody claimed to begin with). Others do it as well, why focus on X?
4.Exculpation: Isn't it really society's fault? What about all that structural racism?
- Reply
Monom: Not really. America has had a terrible history of treating black people like absolute shit that makes South Africa look enlightened. Acting surprised when people get offended by you ignorantly generalizing an entire group of people and dismissing them as PC, SJW types is stupid and hypocritical. And somewhat anti-intellectual, since I have only ever seen racist white people complain about PC, SJW types.
- Reply
Anonymous26: @Anonymous: While there's certainly some truth there, you seem to have a bad habit of only seeing the information that supports your claims. Here's something I forgot to mention earlier:

www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-3

In actuality, only 37.7% of 2011's confirmed murderers were black. 28.0% are of unknown ethnicity. While it's certainly possible that this remaining 28% is primarily black, we simply don't have enough information to say for sure one way or another. Your "fact", that half of all murderers in the U.S. are black, is speculation. Speculation with a basis in fact, perhaps, but speculation nonetheless.

Also, let's take a look at your original comment:

"Let's see what else is brown: ... more than half of all murderers in the US.

Gee, I wonder why it's so unpopular."

Honestly, what conclusion did you expect us to reach except that you think people are (or should be) afraid of blacks? I'm willing to admit that, for whatever reason, blacks are more likely to commit violent crimes than whites, but until now you've done nothing but portray them in a negative light.

P.S. Those links in my previous post were directed at BadMunsta, not you. You've actually provided statistical evidence, whereas he's provided complete BS.
- Reply
Monom: @Anonymous: The sad thing is that he's a closet racist posting anonymously on the internet and he still won't just admit that he just doesn't like black people.
- Reply
BadMunsta: @Anonymous: When you are an anon first response to documentation is "Ever heard the phrase "Lies, damn lies, and statistics"?" I assume trolling.

@Anonymous:

Even if we assume that only 37.7% of all murders were commited by black people, and every murderer of unknown race was white, blacks only constitute 13.2% of the population. that means they are still about 4 times more likely to commit murder than the general population.
- Reply
Anonymous27: @BadMunsta:

"Even if we assume that only 37.7% of all murders were commited by black people, and every murderer of unknown race was white, blacks only constitute 13.2% of the population. that means they are still about 4 times more likely to commit murder than the general population."

That says more about how America's "justice" system works than it says about black people.
- Reply
Anonymous28(6): @Anonymous: To be fair I quoted the part saying: "Of the offenders for whom race was known(!), 52.4 percent were black "

As for the unknown offenders, there is no way of knowing what they might be composed of, but there's also no reason to suspect that they significantly differ from the distribution in the known offenders category. So it is reasonable to assume that the total distribution of offenders does not differ greatly from the distribution of known offenders.

I can see how you might get a certain impression from my original comment, but its intentional 'offensiveness' was supposed to be taken with a grain of salt.

The fact that it makes people like Monom salty, is a welcome side effect.
- Reply
Anonymous29(26): @Anonymous: "To assume makes an ass out of you and me." I'm willing to accept the possibility that your original claim was true. However, we shouldn't assume that it's true, no matter how likely that assumption might be. Your original comment as Anon 6 left no room for unknown variables; It was presented as a hard fact. As a result, you made yourself look racist. That comment could have been drastically improved just by saying "more than half of all identified murderers in the US." The before and after segments I also quoted last time still would have given the comment some racist undertones, but at least you wouldn't have come across as a complete bigot.

@BadMunsta: More likely? Perhaps. Likely to begin with? Not by a long shot.

factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=bkmk

(Couldn't find 2011 data, unfortunately.) There were 5486 confirmed black killers in 2011. According to the 2013 census, there are over forty million black people in the U.S. Even if we assume the worst and add the 4000+ unidentified killers, that's still less than 0.1% of the black population.
- Reply
Monom: @Anonymous: Ah, so you're not going to directly address my points but neatly sidestep them and address me indirectly? No sir, that's not the mark of a cowardly anon at all.
- Reply
Anonymous30(4): @Monom: Other Anon here. That might have more weight if you hadn't previously accused him (her?) of being a closet racist.
- Reply
Anonymous31(6): @Monom: I looked over your comments again, and I still didn't find anything I would care to respond to.

And to be frank, judging from your remarks so far you don't seem like the kind of person one can have a fruitful discussion with, and I did not want to waste my time.

I like your stories, though. :)
- Reply
Monom: @Anonymous: If he didn't want to be accused of being a closet racist, he shouldn't post racist comments and try to defend them by cherry picking data.

@Anonymous: I am a pretty amazing writer.
- Reply
Anonymous32(4): @Monom: I partially agree with you. His original comment was incredibly racist, although it could have been an accident. After all, people make mistakes. However, even if he is a closet racist, that's no reason to resort to ad hominem attacks. While the debate might have started with name-calling (which, I admit, was as much my fault as anyone else's), it has since been focusing primarily on statistical data and analyses of how arguments have been presented. You, on the other hand, have done little but fling insults around, which has hardly been productive.
Thread locked for the current user.