HOME | DD
Doom-the-wolf — Renamon - Breast expansion
[NSFW]
Published: 2010-01-10 22:44:11 +0000 UTC; Views: 223755; Favourites: 1508; Downloads: 6250
Redirect to original
Description
Here's the animation I made for ~oelschlager . My thanks to him for giving me a 3 month Premium Membership.It's a breast expansion animation of Renamon. She definitely finds it much nicer than being pregnant (See Interactive pregnant Renamon).
The real Renamon has no breasts, so this is some kind of anthro version of her.
Related content
Comments: 171
👍: 1 ⏩: 1
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
web.archive.org/web/2019030305…
pbs.twimg.com/media/Dp26XVOUwA…
twitter.com/UNOYO/status/79152…
Her canon design actually does have tits. Just nowhere near that huge.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I've seen these things. Are any of these sources from 2010? Because I didn't have that information back then.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
The figure was first released in 2016.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
So that's 6 years after I wrote that comment.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
My comment was only intended as an FYI. The "real" Renamon does have breasts.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Your information is useless. Nobody reads comments. Just count how many times the same comment was posted on this animation over the years: www.deviantart.com/doom-the-wo… . Do you think that would happen if people were reading before they decided to write?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I'm sorry to tell you this, but the comments of others being pointless has no bearing on the validity of my comment.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Your comment isn't invalid, it's useless, which is worse. Someone can learn from an invalid comment. There is nothing to be gained from a useless one.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Goodness, did I kill your firstborn or something?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
It sounds like your getting emotional. I'm just giving you the understanding that none of your activity on my page was meaningful to anyone.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Actually, it was: I dropped by with a tidbit of info in regards to your text below the picture. Your replies reveal that you are either wholly intolerant of commentary, or that you like provoking people for no reason.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
You're talking about personality traits instead of actions. That too is a meaningless effort. It is not possible to infer someone's personality based on a single conversation. I recommend avoiding that in the future.
You replied to a comment I made 9 years ago with information from 3 years ago in a place where nobody reads comments. The only reason I know your comment exists is because it ended up in my message center.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
You're talking about personality traits instead of actions. That too is a meaningless effort. It is not possible to infer someone's personality based on a single conversation. I recommend avoiding that in the future.
Yes it is, possible. For example: repeatedly replying to a "meaningless" comment implies both narcissism and hypocrisy: if something is meaningless, the appropriate response is to ignore the meaningless thing.
You replied to a comment I made 9 years ago with information from 3 years ago in a place where nobody reads comments. The only reason I know your comment exists is because it ended up in my message center.
You read the comment, didn't you?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
No. It is not possible to determine someone's personality from a single interaction. The sooner you learn that, the more productive your conversations will be in the future. I did not comment on your personality because it truly doesn't matter. The only thing that matters is how much valuable information was contained in your words.
You could be a psychopath, or you could be a charismatic leader. Neither of those possibilities change the fact that the comment you wrote today was not valuable to anyone, except to give me a small amount of entertainment. If it also entertained you, maybe it was meaningful after all.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
No. It is not possible to determine someone's personality from a single interaction. The sooner you learn that, the more productive your conversations will be in the future.
Yes it is, such as the fact that conversation with you is inherently unproductive by reason of an bizarre desire to attack a person for leaving an informational comment that can simply be ignored.
I did not comment on your personality because it truly doesn't matter. The only thing that matters is how much valuable information was contained in your words. You could be a psychopath, or you could be a charismatic leader. Neither of those possibilities change the fact that the comment you wrote today was not valuable to anyone, except to give me a small amount of entertainment. If it also entertained you, maybe it was meaningful after all.
Considering that the context of this entire discussion is a reply to an erroneous assertion that you made, and then never corrected after several years... your assertion that the comment has no value illustrates a narcissistic personality that bears no correction, no matter how minor.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I think you're misunderstanding me. I did not attack you. I said you had no good reason to write that comment. Unless you literally are the comment you wrote, you should not be offended. Why are you offended?
You attacked me directly as a person instead of focusing on the content of my reply, and I have spent the rest of the conversation trying to explain to you why attacking people is bad.
I'm inviting you to learn how to have productive conversations. The first step is to focus solely on the content of the conversation and not on the person you're interacting with. Do you understand that?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
"I think you're misunderstanding me. I did not attack you. I said you had no good reason to write that comment. Unless you literally are the comment you wrote, you should not be offended. Why are you offended? (...) I'm inviting you to learn how to have productive conversations. The first step is to focus solely on the content of the conversation and not on the person you're interacting with. Do you understand that?"
And, adding to your problems, you're also patronizing. Fact: there is no such thing as a statement without a person behind it. Human beings don't just exist in a vacuum: they are the source of all sapient conversation and the only things in Creation that can interpret said conversation intelligently. Therefore, focusing on a person's personality in a conversation is warranted, because it is the personality which is bothering to speak in the first place. Otherwise, there would be no conversation at all.
On a different note: you had no good reason to make an animation of a Renamon with inflatable breasts.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
What do you hope to accomplish when you focus on me as a person instead of what I said? That's not a rhetorical question. I need an honest answer to that question.
I only argue one topic at a time, we can talk about my animations after we have finished arguing about how to have a good conversation.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
What do you hope to accomplish when you focus on me as a person instead of what I said? That's not a rhetorical question. I need an honest answer to that question. I only argue one topic at a time, we can talk about my animations after we have finished arguing about how to have a good conversation.
The answer to that question should be self-evident. I can see only two reasons why it would not be: you're either an incredible troll or you are medically autistic. If you're not trolling, then I doubt that I - or anyone - could ever possibly explain it to you.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
If the answer was self-evident, I wouldn't have to ask the question. I can explain any self-evident thing if I'm asked to do it. You should too. Are you avoiding the question or do you not know the answer? "I don't know" is a valid and respectable answer to any question.
Now, I want you to answer the question honestly: What do you expect to accomplish by focusing on me as a person instead of on the subject we're talking about?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
"If the answer was self-evident, I wouldn't have to ask the question. I can explain any self-evident thing if I'm asked to do it. You should too. Are you avoiding the question or do you not know the answer?"
Thus asserting that you can understand the answer if it's given... which you clearly can't.
""I don't know" is a valid and respectable answer to any question."
I know the answer, as do most of the people who would bother to read this.
"Now, I want you to answer the question honestly: What do you expect to accomplish by focusing on me as a person instead of on the subject we're talking about?"
Because you shifted the topic to me. The subject was not my comment, but what was contained in it: you acknowledged that, and then shifted the topic to the information being "pointless" based on nonsensical criteria - despite your prior acknowledgement. There's no logical reason to do so.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I have never seen someone work so hard to avoid answering a question. I will not allow the conversation to continue until the question has a direct and honest answer:
What do you expect to accomplish by focusing on me as a person instead of on the subject we're talking about?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
"I have never seen someone work so hard to avoid answering a question. I will not allow the conversation to continue until the question has a direct and honest answer: What do you expect to accomplish by focusing on me as a person instead of on the subject we're talking about?"
I just did give you a direct and honest answer in my last paragraph. You ignored it because you didn't like what it implied.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I'm sorry, I didn't properly understand that last sentence as the answer to the question. I'm not very smart, so I need things described to me clearly. Just so I can be sure, is "There's no logical reason to do so" the answer to the question? If so, that's a good answer.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Try reading the entire paragraph.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
All I see in your paragraph is your summary what happened in the conversation, not a direct answer to the question. The only thing that looks like an answer is the very last sentence. Are you implying that it isn't?
Let me rephrase the question:
You called me:
- "wholly intolerant of commentary"
- "likes provoking people for no reason"
- "narcissistic"
- "hypocrite"
Why?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Because the nature of your replies indicates that to be the case. Looking at your replies to other people reinforces this conclusion.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
That's not an answer. Whether they are true or not does not explain why you chose to point them out. What did you expect to accomplish by focusing on those points instead of on the topic?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yes it is an answer, and my reason in pointing them out is self-evident to anyone who reads this except (apparently) you. Case in point, you're the one who is trying to change the topic, in a way that transparently attempts to deflect focus from your incorrect assertions from long past, and draw attention to me and my "error" instead. It's not working because:
1. I am not the subject of the sentence, neither is your subjective (and incorrect) assertion that my comment has no value.
2. My comment is not valueless.
My initial comment existed to do one thing: inform you of a thing. You saw my comment and understood it, therefore the comment served the purpose for which it was written. Asking "What do you expect to accomplish by focusing on me as a person instead of on the subject we're talking about?" is itself a worthless question, because you were always the focus of the conversation. As in, the comment was directed at you.
If you happened to have foreknowledge of the contents of my comment, that simply indicates that I am not telepathic or omniscient, and thus had no way of knowing that you already knew - a condition exacerbated by the text you wrote and never updated. The comment still did exactly what it was meant to do - inform you of a thing.
Lastly, your replies to my comment give me a picture of who I am speaking to: because there is no comment without a commentator, your comments flow forth from your mind, and thus carry your specific tone and style. In this case, painting a picture of an acerbic and highly disagreeable personality.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I'm impressed. This is exactly what I was looking for. Not only did you clarify your answer to the question I asked, but you also completely invalidated my reply to your original comment.
The only thing I'd recommend for future arguments is to avoid pointing out personality flaws in the opposition. People who feel personally attacked are less likely to respond reasonably.
Thanks for the debate. It was entertaining.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
As I indicated before, I shouldn't have needed to clarify those points, because they are self evident.
As to your patronizing 'recommendation', you are only demonstrating your hypocrisy again - I did not begin this discussion by pointing out your personality flaws. I started to point out your personality flaws only after you had already demonstrated - multiple times - that you weren't likely to 'respond reasonably' to any statement that could be made. Thus - as far as this discussion - your information is useless. That is, useless to me. If anyone needs to take your recommendation to heart, it's you. Practice what you preach.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Why so negative? I was genuinely surprised that you came up with a good answer. Have you encountered too many sarcastic people before? I have, so I wouldn't blame you for being suspicious.
I did follow my recommendation. When did I ever comment about your personality?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
You still haven't learned.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Teach me. Clearly and directly. I'm listening.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I told you before: there is no such thing as a statement without a person behind it. You seem utterly insistent on divorcing a conversation from it's participants, even though that's effectively an impossibility.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
A valid statement remains valid even when the one who makes it is a narcissistic hypocrite. An invalid statement is invalid on its own merits and not because of who said it.
It's nice to know that there's a person behind the statement, but learning about the person is nothing more than an interesting distraction.
You will have to try harder to change my mind.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
"A valid statement remains valid even when the one who makes it is a narcissistic hypocrite. An invalid statement is invalid on its own merits and not because of who said it. It's nice to know that there's a person behind the statement, but learning about the person is nothing more than an interesting distraction."
That assertion is fractally wrong. A person is fully capable of making an invalid statement entirely because the statement came from their personal hypocrisy and narcissism, and not from facts or observation. Thus, failing to consider the source of a statement creates a conundrum. This standard by which the person is judged is called 'credibility'. Consider: your preceding statements have been proven invalid, and they were invalid because they existed only for the sake of your ego.
Can you appreciate the gravity of that for a moment? You have just become an untrustworthy source of information. Thus, your comments are subject to increased scrutiny.
"You will have to try harder to change my mind."
Irrelevant. What's relevant is that you will have to try harder from now on to make your statements credible, because you have discredited yourself with your own commentary.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Three invalid statements in a row does not invalidate a fourth one that follows them. The validity of a statement can only be judged based on its content and not on any other factors.
If I, a known liar, told you it was raining outside, would you search for the answer in my credibility recod or would you look out the window? The fact that I'm a liar is irrelevant to the claim.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Three invalid statements in a row does not invalidate a fourth one that follows them. The validity of a statement can only be judged based on its content and not on any other factors. If I, a known liar, told you it was raining outside, would you search for the answer in my credibility recod or would you look out the window? The fact that I'm a liar is irrelevant to the claim.
Unless said liar told me something other than, "it's raining outside", and instead crafted a strawman argument to support their nonsensical position, like you just did.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I gave an example of why an invalid argument is invalid no matter who says it or why they said it. Which part of that is a strawman?
I want to learn, but you seem to be withholding that valuable information from me.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
"I gave an example of why an invalid argument is invalid no matter who says it or why they said it. Which part of that is a strawman? I want to learn, but you seem to be withholding that valuable information from me."
The fact that it answers a statement that I did not give or imply. I never said that an invalid argument becomes valid as a result of the person who said it.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I must have misunderstood your argument, then. What were you implying with the quote "There is no such thing as a statement without a person behind it"?
Why does it matter if there's a person behind a statement? I'd be just as happy to argue against an automatic debate machine as I am arguing with you.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Doom, you make it sound like you know the real Renamon when you say that she has no breasts. How do you know that?
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
He didn't know. As it turns out, Renamon has breasts:
web.archive.org/web/2019030305…
pbs.twimg.com/media/Dp26XVOUwA…
twitter.com/UNOYO/status/79152…
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
| Next =>