Are furries comparable to paedophiles?

No, they are not comparable, and the first post makes a fallacy of assuming that all furries are into the sexual aspects of it, when actually only a minority are. Even within that minority, most have the restraint to refrain from attempting sexual interactions with real animals, and also in many cases would not approve of 'live' porn of such, because it is harmful to the animal, and the vast majority of furries find animal cruelty/abuse abhorrent. I know a number of furries and have done for years, none of them would even consider for an instant having sexual intercourse with an animal.

As a furry myself, beastaility is not something I approve of, and the last person to accuse me of such to my face got his head kicked in. furries have a very strong (usually non-sexual) love of animals, and the vast majority of them would never do anything to cause harm or distress to an animal. Furries are the kind of people that would intervene if they saw an animal being abused, and very often they volunteer at animal sanctuaries. They work hard to develop a trusting relationship with animals based on mutual respect, and are extremely careful not to betray that trust. Some furries I know are able to walk among even the biggest and strongest predators, such as tigers and lions, without harm, because they have developed their relationship with those animals to the extent that the animals will tolerate their presence at close quarters, and in some cases even welcome them.

I know one person who was actually invited by a tiger into their enclosure to witness her giving birth. The birth went wrong (a breach birth) and the person was forced to intervene to save the cub's life, and perhaps also the mother's. The mother was completely unsedated and but trusted that human sufficiently for him to be able to intervene and ensure that her cub was born alive. The human mused later that perhaps the mother knew something was wrong and wanted a human present for that reason.

paedophiles, as defined by law, are sexual predators with a disregard for the welfare of their victims. They couldnt be more different.

 

This is generally the view the (certainly UK) courts take. You don't just find child porn, you have to be actively looking for it, therefore if you're caught you're automatically for the high jump. However, there is, unfortunately, a bit too much of a reaction to potential paedophillia. Recently (in the last couple of years) a guy was a victim of ID theft (his details were stolen during a security breach at a well known online retailer) and his credit card was used to buy child porn before he realised his information had been compromised. Of course, the police investigation revealed that he was innocent of all wrongdoing, but it was too late. He had already lost his job, many of his friends and had been forced to move house due to death threats. That kind of damage cannot be easily repaired, if it even can be. Being found innocent in a police investigation or court of law does not remove the stigma of the allegations nor the presumption of guilt on the part of other people.