Mahyar: I recommend researching the Flammenwerfer 35. Developed by the German army during the Second World War, this flamethrower projected fire up to twenty-five meters through its elongated tube.
Mahyar: The question of whether wearable technology could one day enable a person to ignite fire from their hands, as depicted in fiction, is not entirely absurd from a purely engineering perspective. However, it demands a sober evaluation of feasibility, safety, and consequence.
In principle, a sufficiently miniaturized ignition and fuel-delivery system could be integrated into a wearable device. One might imagine a compact mechanism, perhaps resembling a wristwatch, capable of producing a directed flame. Yet such a design would confront immediate constraints: fuel storage limitations, thermal insulation requirements, control precision, and the ever-present risk of catastrophic malfunction.
The difficulty is not solely technological. It is ethical and practical. A device intended to project flame from the human body would, by definition, carry significant risk to the user and to others. Any failure in containment or regulation would result not in spectacle, but in injury.
Mahyar: @Makkon: For a first serious attempt, it is a starting point. I am eager to improve and learn. From your experience, do you think this is a good starting point for a beginner like me?
Mahyar: @Makkon: I have read your feedback carefully, and I understand your point.
You are right about my current level—this was my first serious attempt,
and there is still much to learn.
By “good,” I meant the effort I was able to make at this stage,
not a claim of quality.
I also recognize that I misjudged the context and tone.
I will take a step back, focus on improvement,
and let future work speak for itself.
Thank you for taking the time to offer detailed feedback.
Mahyar: @hexTerminator: Yes, I noticed it.
Only Katia’s tag is present…
We should perhaps add the descriptive one as well…
It will make it clearer for everyone…
Mahyar: If I were genuinely elite—or merely appearing so—there would be no reason for me to participate in a booru of such degraded quality, reminiscent of 2008 graphics.
Why waste time debating with users who instinctively oppose guidance and recoil from formal discourse?
While chronologically mature, their reasoning is arrested at the level of a five-year-old.
This statement is analytical, not an assertion of superiority.
Mahyar: @AMKitsune:
Thank you for your warning. I have tried to make clear that I bear no ill-will, yet my tone was misread.
I did not intend to appear elitist. Discussing neurobiology is not elitist. My jokes were not malicious. Suggestions I offered were not rude.
If I commented previously, it was out of ignorance of the sensitivity of users here. Humor in my view; insult in theirs. I accept my role as a clown.
Now I respond in the most detached, mechanical tone. Users here are delicate: critique scares them, jokes upset them.
Understand this: stating ridicule was ineffective demonstrates resilience. Attempting to make my first work good does not imply superiority.
I never claimed to be superior or that my art is the best. Past humorous tones are retired.
Detachment is necessary; this mechanical tone is not elitism. Feedback is welcome; it drives growth even if some react emotionally.
Mahyar: @AMKitsune:
Claiming my first drawing is good is not a statement of superiority.
The tone you perceive as cold is deliberate, a barrier against childish mockery.
Mahyar: Anyone may appreciate, critique, or suggest improvements to my artwork; my response remains neutral.
Should you, as previously, attempt to affix irrelevant labels or diminish my work, know this: it is ineffective.
Past attempts at derision did not perturb me; they merely resulted in unnecessary wear on your keyboard.
Mahyar: The mockery I received did not deter me.
On the contrary, it compelled me to ensure my first hand-drawn piece reached its highest potential.
Criticism, when understood, becomes motivation.
Mahyar: Many of you doubted my abilities and mocked me.
I was not discouraged. Your criticism, rather, served as the catalyst that led to the creation of my very first hand-drawn piece.
Acknowledgment is due where it is earned—thank you.
Mahyar: I find it curious how quickly technical discussion is reframed as rudeness when it becomes inconvenient.
Art evolves through tension between vision and critique—not through applause-only echo chambers.
You are free to ignore my perspective.
You are not entitled to silence it.
Mahyar: @Raywingale: The tail should be shorter and thinner. Make the face rounder, more cartoonish, and clean up the colors. All details must be clear and analyzable. Lines, proportions, and FX need precise correction. This is basic stuff—if you want it to actually look professional, you need to fix these things.
Mahyar: Hence, I shall endeavor to conceal my personal opinions and moderate my humor, lest I invoke unnecessary complications. I have already demonstrated, with reason and evidence, that my intentions were benign, yet my efforts were met with disbelief. There is little more to be done, for comprehension on your part remains lacking.
Mahyar: Putting yourself in my shoes, I think it’s understandable to be upset when users troll you and label you a censor, religious, or a hater. I did use some harsh jokes, but there was no malicious intent behind them.
Mahyar: @Rick2tails: Jumping to personal insults instead of the actual topic is unnecessary. I’m neither autistic nor a minor, and the situation was already clarified as a misunderstanding.
Mahyar: @Ofeerz: Hey, sorry about the misunderstanding.
I didn’t mean any harm; I was just sharing my personal reaction. The comment about Kazerad “turning his server into a nutcracker” was meant purely as a joke, not an insult. Your drawing is genuinely very well done; my issue was only with the content, not the quality or your intent. I didn’t expect it to turn into people labeling me as controlling or pro-censorship.
Mahyar: Factual Record of Comments and Interactions
@damrok4321 described the situation as the comment section being “filled by ranting of some unhinged dude” and framed my criticism as a failure to understand the difference between porn and artistic nudity, while reassuring the artist and dismissing my presence as a nuisance rather than engaging with the argument itself.
@GrizzlyBear characterized me as a “snooty know-it-all” and mocked my phrasing (“Logic and knowledge are my weapons”), then argued that my reaction itself was driven by instinct. While partially acknowledging that overindulgence and addiction to sexual impulses can be harmful, he dismissed my criticism by stating that fan-art does not require narrative coherence and questioned whether I had even read the comic.
@NotGodOkay repeatedly escalated the situation by calling for my removal from the platform, stating that moderators should deactivate my account. He labeled me “delusional,” claimed I had a mental handicap, called me a narcissist, referred to me as a “brat,” and repeatedly told me to leave or stop talking instead of addressing the substance of my argument.
@Radiocaster stated that the issue was not my opinions themselves but my tone, describing my comments as emotionally driven, tactless, and thinly veiled attempts to sound intelligent. He questioned my sincerity and framed the discussion as venting rather than genuine critique.
@asdf123 explicitly pushed back against this framing, stating that he did not see the rudeness others were accusing me of, that my posting style was strange but not malicious, and that acknowledging porn as mentally damaging does not equal promoting censorship. He also pointed out the hypocrisy of users preaching open-mindedness while ganging up on a single dissenting voice.
@Solus7 intervened calmly, clarifying that the “Haters gonna hate” artwork was not directed at me and was a coincidence based on an old meme. He encouraged calmness and de-escalation rather than confrontation.
@Zargothrax provided historical references and links showing that the comic’s creator had previously drawn Katia nude and that sexualized content had existed before. He argued that my criticism should be presented as my own position rather than being framed as defending the creator’s intent.
@Kazerad, the creator of the comic, stated that he is not opposed to lewd fan-art, referenced Rule 34, and explained that one of the comic’s themes is that characters and ideas do not fit neatly into simple categories. He did not accuse me of bad faith or demand my removal, and described the discussion overall as surprisingly cordial.
Throughout the exchange, my position remained consistent: I praised artistic skill, criticized content direction, and argued from narrative and contextual grounds. Calls for silencing, personal insults, and mental health accusations originated from others, not from my initial critique.
Mahyar: What I want to clarify is what last night’s debate was actually about. It was never about banning art, controlling artists, or censorship. It was about direction, meaning, and context. Specifically, whether turning a character whose core identity is comedy and narrative into explicitly sexualized fan-art adds anything meaningful, or whether it undermines that character’s original role.
My point was that constant sexualization is instinct-driven and ultimately unproductive. It does not add depth or progress to art or storytelling. I believe modern thinking should aim for meaning and coherence instead of defaulting to raw instinct. I also clearly said that I do not like seeing a character defined by humor and story being reframed primarily as pornographic material. My position was never “this should not exist,” but that this direction adds nothing meaningful and damages the character’s identity.
I acknowledged the artistic effort and praised the design, shading, and execution. My criticism was about content choice, not the artist. As I said directly: “I admire the design, the shading, the effort, everything. But not this content.” I never told anyone what they are allowed to draw, never attacked anyone personally, and never argued from a religious or moral standpoint. The critique was purely about framing and narrative coherence.
Some users understood this and clarified intentions, while others responded aggressively, labeling me delusional or narcissistic and attempting to silence me instead of engaging with the argument. That escalation is what turned the discussion hostile.
For context, yes, the original comic contains adult language, sexual jokes, and disturbing situations. I am aware of that. However, the comic itself is not pornographic. Sex is not its central theme, and sexual arousal is not its goal. Nudity in the comic is accidental, framed for humor, and often censored. The fan-art removes that framing and presents the character explicitly for sexual stimulation. That shift in context is what I criticized.
My criticism of the content and its reliance on old instincts was not a criticism of artistic quality, nor an attempt at artistic control.
Mahyar: @Solus7: Hey Solus7,
Are you sure this meme has nothing to do with last night’s argument?
Because… well… there’s a naked yellow cat frolicking around, basically screaming “haters gonna hate”.
Just making sure it’s pure coincidence before I read too much into it.
Mahyar: @NotGodOkay: Let this fucking Mahyar disappear... I said right from the start that I don't want to control anyone! But you tried to liken me to a "controller"
Mahyar: I’ve said I’m disappointed. I’m not interested in continuing this.
If this stops here, I’ll leave quietly.
Please don’t keep dragging my name into it.
Dramatic Descriptions
- Reply
- Reply
- Reply
In principle, a sufficiently miniaturized ignition and fuel-delivery system could be integrated into a wearable device. One might imagine a compact mechanism, perhaps resembling a wristwatch, capable of producing a directed flame. Yet such a design would confront immediate constraints: fuel storage limitations, thermal insulation requirements, control precision, and the ever-present risk of catastrophic malfunction.
The difficulty is not solely technological. It is ethical and practical. A device intended to project flame from the human body would, by definition, carry significant risk to the user and to others. Any failure in containment or regulation would result not in spectacle, but in injury.
- Reply
- Reply
I will focus on fundamental drawing skills first and study the Ctrl+Paint materials you recommended.
- Reply
- Reply
- Reply
You are right about my current level—this was my first serious attempt,
and there is still much to learn.
By “good,” I meant the effort I was able to make at this stage,
not a claim of quality.
I also recognize that I misjudged the context and tone.
I will take a step back, focus on improvement,
and let future work speak for itself.
Thank you for taking the time to offer detailed feedback.
- Reply
Only Katia’s tag is present…
We should perhaps add the descriptive one as well…
It will make it clearer for everyone…
- Reply
- Reply
- Reply
- Reply
No further commentary is required; the skill is evident.
- Reply
Why waste time debating with users who instinctively oppose guidance and recoil from formal discourse?
While chronologically mature, their reasoning is arrested at the level of a five-year-old.
This statement is analytical, not an assertion of superiority.
- Reply
- Reply
- Reply
Thank you for your warning. I have tried to make clear that I bear no ill-will, yet my tone was misread.
I did not intend to appear elitist. Discussing neurobiology is not elitist. My jokes were not malicious. Suggestions I offered were not rude.
If I commented previously, it was out of ignorance of the sensitivity of users here. Humor in my view; insult in theirs. I accept my role as a clown.
Now I respond in the most detached, mechanical tone. Users here are delicate: critique scares them, jokes upset them.
Understand this: stating ridicule was ineffective demonstrates resilience. Attempting to make my first work good does not imply superiority.
I never claimed to be superior or that my art is the best. Past humorous tones are retired.
Detachment is necessary; this mechanical tone is not elitism. Feedback is welcome; it drives growth even if some react emotionally.
- Reply
Claiming my first drawing is good is not a statement of superiority.
The tone you perceive as cold is deliberate, a barrier against childish mockery.
- Reply
- Reply
- Reply
Should you, as previously, attempt to affix irrelevant labels or diminish my work, know this: it is ineffective.
Past attempts at derision did not perturb me; they merely resulted in unnecessary wear on your keyboard.
- Reply
On the contrary, it compelled me to ensure my first hand-drawn piece reached its highest potential.
Criticism, when understood, becomes motivation.
- Reply
I was not discouraged. Your criticism, rather, served as the catalyst that led to the creation of my very first hand-drawn piece.
Acknowledgment is due where it is earned—thank you.
- Reply
- Reply
Art evolves through tension between vision and critique—not through applause-only echo chambers.
You are free to ignore my perspective.
You are not entitled to silence it.
- Reply
- Reply
What you choose to do with it is entirely in your hands.
- Reply
- Reply
- Reply
- Reply
- Reply
- Reply
- Reply
- Reply
- Reply
- Reply
- Reply
- Reply
I didn’t mean any harm; I was just sharing my personal reaction. The comment about Kazerad “turning his server into a nutcracker” was meant purely as a joke, not an insult. Your drawing is genuinely very well done; my issue was only with the content, not the quality or your intent. I didn’t expect it to turn into people labeling me as controlling or pro-censorship.
- Reply
- Reply
- Reply
- Reply
- Reply
- Reply
Aggressive/conflict-prone: @NotGodOkay
Logic and fairness defenders: @asdf123, @Kazerad
Observers with sarcasm/critique: @GrizzlyBear, @Radiocaster
- Reply
@damrok4321 described the situation as the comment section being “filled by ranting of some unhinged dude” and framed my criticism as a failure to understand the difference between porn and artistic nudity, while reassuring the artist and dismissing my presence as a nuisance rather than engaging with the argument itself.
@GrizzlyBear characterized me as a “snooty know-it-all” and mocked my phrasing (“Logic and knowledge are my weapons”), then argued that my reaction itself was driven by instinct. While partially acknowledging that overindulgence and addiction to sexual impulses can be harmful, he dismissed my criticism by stating that fan-art does not require narrative coherence and questioned whether I had even read the comic.
@NotGodOkay repeatedly escalated the situation by calling for my removal from the platform, stating that moderators should deactivate my account. He labeled me “delusional,” claimed I had a mental handicap, called me a narcissist, referred to me as a “brat,” and repeatedly told me to leave or stop talking instead of addressing the substance of my argument.
@Radiocaster stated that the issue was not my opinions themselves but my tone, describing my comments as emotionally driven, tactless, and thinly veiled attempts to sound intelligent. He questioned my sincerity and framed the discussion as venting rather than genuine critique.
@asdf123 explicitly pushed back against this framing, stating that he did not see the rudeness others were accusing me of, that my posting style was strange but not malicious, and that acknowledging porn as mentally damaging does not equal promoting censorship. He also pointed out the hypocrisy of users preaching open-mindedness while ganging up on a single dissenting voice.
@Solus7 intervened calmly, clarifying that the “Haters gonna hate” artwork was not directed at me and was a coincidence based on an old meme. He encouraged calmness and de-escalation rather than confrontation.
@Zargothrax provided historical references and links showing that the comic’s creator had previously drawn Katia nude and that sexualized content had existed before. He argued that my criticism should be presented as my own position rather than being framed as defending the creator’s intent.
@Kazerad, the creator of the comic, stated that he is not opposed to lewd fan-art, referenced Rule 34, and explained that one of the comic’s themes is that characters and ideas do not fit neatly into simple categories. He did not accuse me of bad faith or demand my removal, and described the discussion overall as surprisingly cordial.
Throughout the exchange, my position remained consistent: I praised artistic skill, criticized content direction, and argued from narrative and contextual grounds. Calls for silencing, personal insults, and mental health accusations originated from others, not from my initial critique.
- Reply
My point was that constant sexualization is instinct-driven and ultimately unproductive. It does not add depth or progress to art or storytelling. I believe modern thinking should aim for meaning and coherence instead of defaulting to raw instinct. I also clearly said that I do not like seeing a character defined by humor and story being reframed primarily as pornographic material. My position was never “this should not exist,” but that this direction adds nothing meaningful and damages the character’s identity.
I acknowledged the artistic effort and praised the design, shading, and execution. My criticism was about content choice, not the artist. As I said directly: “I admire the design, the shading, the effort, everything. But not this content.” I never told anyone what they are allowed to draw, never attacked anyone personally, and never argued from a religious or moral standpoint. The critique was purely about framing and narrative coherence.
Some users understood this and clarified intentions, while others responded aggressively, labeling me delusional or narcissistic and attempting to silence me instead of engaging with the argument. That escalation is what turned the discussion hostile.
For context, yes, the original comic contains adult language, sexual jokes, and disturbing situations. I am aware of that. However, the comic itself is not pornographic. Sex is not its central theme, and sexual arousal is not its goal. Nudity in the comic is accidental, framed for humor, and often censored. The fan-art removes that framing and presents the character explicitly for sexual stimulation. That shift in context is what I criticized.
My criticism of the content and its reliance on old instincts was not a criticism of artistic quality, nor an attempt at artistic control.
- Reply
Are you sure this meme has nothing to do with last night’s argument?
Because… well… there’s a naked yellow cat frolicking around, basically screaming “haters gonna hate”.
Just making sure it’s pure coincidence before I read too much into it.
- Reply
- Reply
If this stops here, I’ll leave quietly.
Please don’t keep dragging my name into it.