Further Confusion restricts membership of those with predatory history
On December 17th, 2018, Further Confusion posted an update to its Code of Conduct rules. The update includes a stipulation that membership can be revoked by an attendee's history of sexually predatory behavior.
For the safety of our attendees, Further Confusion does not allow attendance by those with a history of sexual violence or pedophilia. If you are unsure whether your ability to attend is affected by this rule, please reach out to [email protected]
Update 10:42PM: This code of conduct has been updated further, details marked in article below
This announcement has been made around the time where pictures of a fursuiter named Growly (aka TORA) have been shared on Twitter with furs stating their frustrations about his presence at Midwest Furfest this year. Tora has been a fur fan since 1999, and is infamous due to having served time in prison over sexual abuse of a minor, being arrested and convicted for these activities in 2001. After serving his sentence, and serving three years probation, he has returned to fandom activities. Suspicion of his behavior around minors continues to this very day as his removal from Fur Affinity in 2009 was prompted by being confronted about his interactions in private note system with minors.
When contacted with inquiries regarding if an indictment by a court would be required for removal of membership, or if other attendees would be able to contact a member of the staff to provide evidence on a fur they knew that was attending the function. The chair, Kenneth Coane, stated that the Code of Conduct would be updated in the coming days with more details on its function and enforcement that should resolve those questions.
Update 10:42 PM: The Further Confusion code of conduct has been updated further to solidify the standard of enforcement for this rule.
AAE and FurCon do not permit membership or attendance by any individual who is a convicted sex offender, or appears on any federal or state sex offender registry. In addition, AAE and FurCon reserve the right, at the board’s discretion, to deny membership or attendance to anyone with a documented history of sexual violence, including inappropriate conduct towards minors.
As conventions continue to expand, they have been allowed to further focus on the audiences they wish to cater to and as a result create rules that assist in those goals. It has yet to be seen if this ruling will be adopted by other conventions, family oriented or otherwise. What can be said is that this code update will certainly create discussion around whether a private organization expanding the punishment of a released convict beyond their original sentence is ethical, or whether this is an acceptable course of action to ensure the rights of those in the groups that were victimized by the individual in the past get to gather without fear of those with a history of predatory behavior.
About the author
Sonious (Tantroo McNally) — read stories — contact (login required)a project coordinator and Kangaroo from CheektRoowaga, NY, interested in video games, current events, politics, writing and finance
Comments
It wasn't just about Growly/tora. It was also about Sangie, who was also previously convicted of a sexual crime involving children, and who (importantly) was recently involved in implications of current child sex abuse with SnakeThing in the zoosadist chat leaks...and then allowed to deal at MFF for InkedFur. I think Growly was kinda just tacked on to complaints about Sangie. (I've heard grouses about Growly's involvement in fan events for a while.)
Can confirm.
As a private entity, FC has the right to limit access to its convention, as long as doing so is not based on race, religion, sex, gender, nationality, etc. Banning someone with a criminal record falls in line with, say, an employer not hiring someone because they have such a record. I support FC's decision in this matter.
No offense Papa Bear, but I had a lot of faith in you being open and accepting. If you support making people lose their jobs and/or never be happy in life because of a record while it's possible a lot of those people changed, then you have completely lost a follower of your blog.
I thought you were open and accepting? But if you support making people lose their jobs and/or never be happy again in life legally, then I can no longer support you.
I believe that the company has a right to remove someone, but you're saying that directly to something that is directly not allowing it rather than "may". That's what I mean.
Merry Christmas Diamond Man
Assuming like that isn't healthy.
You're right, forgive me: "Happy Holidays" instead.
No I mean assuming that I'm a random person when I'm not giving any direct evidence for it.
Whoosh!
Speaking as the OTHER Anon who's been coming on of late, BAM!!! You are GOOD, Equivamp! XD lol
(Very cute, wwwarea. You come up with the brilliant idea of dragging any of your unnamed detractors through the mud, but EVERYONE sees right through you. lmao)
Stop acting like the internet police. And your comment is likely an example of trolling.
Complimenting someone while laughing at someone else = internet police, and/or trolling. Yeah, okay... lol
Well you kinda are. By harassing the person by attempting to use another person's identity for the purpose of "exposing" others, and then even saying those seeing right through things in a disgusting way. And all that for off topic. Sounds like internet policing and an example of trolling to me.
Maybe, but then again, fucking wolves and children doesn't sound all that bad to you, so it's not exactly a good scale to work off of. lol
You are not getting what I'm saying. How can you lose a job you never had? An employer has the right not to hire someone with a felony record. If I were an employer myself, I would not deny someone just on the basis of their past record. A lot of things come into account. Now, in the case of FC's policy, we are discussing violent criminal records, such as murder, rape, and pedophilia. You might not be aware of this, but the criminal justice system does not have a great track record for rehabilitating people. Indeed, people who go to prison are often worse for the experience. Add to this that a number of furcons have had to close because of attendee misbehavior, thus ruining conventions for everyone, and I agree that convention organizers have a right to be picky about who comes to their events. Another example. Here in Palm Springs, there used to be biker rallies allowed. Biker gangs would come here, drink, and often get violent. This happened year after year until the city said, "No more." Is it unforgiving and closed-minded to not let the bikers back to the city to cause pain and mayhem?
No offense, "Anon," but you don't get it. Sorry I lost you as a reader. Sounds like you need to keep reading it.
I'm not very upset at you for saying they merely have a right to ban people for such record reason. Heck, I think they have a right to ban people for any reason legally. If they ban furries for wearing a pink fursuit, they have the right. Is it a stupid reason? It could be argued as "yes", but they still have a right. Though of course, people are allowed to legally criticize it.
I'm upset because you merely said "I support FC's decision in this matter.", like you agree with the rule itself being right, as in, the proper answer or "morally right". And that you may even have hinted at supporting the idea that anyone with a past record should never get a job.
And posting the comment here where the article was kinda wondering if this rule should be accepted as in the right answer or not maybe.
To add another reply, let me address your other main point.
Yes, a lot of bad things happen at furcons, but that doesn't mean we should by default ban every single person from the place just because of a bad record involving sex crimes, and not all sex crimes were violent. And I'm pretty sure I was focusing on that alone, not every single record. Though "pedophile" is merely attraction, I assume you mean child sexual abuse?
I believe in legaly protection of any legal furcon. But it would be far better if they were being more realistic on any person instead of including a ban that automatically includes those that actually changed. It would be better if this was more about certain recent people for example.
If someone, with or without a criminal record of a sexual offense has had a recent history illegal sexual behavior or some very suspicious activity that wasn't alone illegal, I would be more in support banning that person from entering because it's very likely the person is gonna cause trouble.
If someone, with a criminal record of a sexual offense, especially if such offense was small especially if based off at a young age, completed a necessary sentence and has had no history of bad behavior, still dreamed of a carrier, and was denied because of a past mistake, that just isn't good. This paragraph is what I'm more on the topic is. If you were truly supporting a rule that goes that broad to include those that really are not monsters forever, that's where I felt betrayed in terms of trust..
I'm sorry, but you actually expect the furcon admins to spend hours, days, weeks evaluating cases to see whether or not they merit consideration for entrance to a con after having been jailed for a sex offense? That is unrealistic. You apparently have no idea how busy these people are to organize a con. It is more important to protect the integrity of the con and the safety of its NON-criminal attendees than it is to protect the feelings of a couple people who have been found guilty of a serious crime.
Do some people change their ways? Yes, that happens. More often than not, however, sex offenders and people guilty of violent crimes such as assault and murder have serious mental and emotional issues that require the treatment of trained professionals. It is unfair to insist that furcon admins deal with this. They are not social workers, they are not the police, they are not psychiatrists.
If you're so offended by convention rules, the answer is simple: don't go to the convention.
It is NOT more important. People who were once criminals, especially when a time has been served are just as important as those without a record, and you are not 100% more important than them.
Maybe I am suggesting to put legal work. At least they could put a review special. They already have work on some other things. I know it's more likely unrelistic to try to know so much. But it's not that hard to see someone having a record and then seeing the person has not had a new record in so a long time. My point is, there are better ways and after all, many people who does have a record are just as important as those without one. And plus, EVERYONE is at risk likely.
Being "innocent" so far doesn't make you pure.
Not all sex offenders are the worst and some were more situational and likely to change, and if you seriously suggesting supporting a rule that is based on fear like that, then I don't think you deserve to be considered any furry that is "open" and "accepting". You're just a hypocrite. If you have a child that has done a mistake, just note that you support ruining a legal carrier your own child possibly dreams.
I think it would be better to legally promote hope for legal happiness. Besides, if they are already passing an unfair broad rule, then maybe they could deal with it better.
If I do not like the rules, I can criticize it.
Seriously, you lost a follower, and I may gladly warn many people that you support something that promotes less hope. It's not even just a convention, but it's very clear to me you support this on all legal conventions, legal websites, and legal jobs (having a legal job for example is very important).
If you were brave enough to give your actual name, Anon, I might think you were sincere. As it stands, I have to wonder whether you are supporting them because you are sex offender yourself. "If you have a child that has done a mistake" is a bizarre argument. First of all, we are not talking about juveniles; secondly, I despise the argument "I made a mistake." No, unless you were insane, you knew what you were doing when you attacked the other person. That's not a mistake; it's a deliberate act.
You act like I am against freedom and hope. Nothing could be further from the truth. You, on the other hand, are an insult to every victim of a sex crime or other violent crime. Threatening me and my column just shows what kind of person you are. Patch (below) is correct. You're a troll.
You do not need to show your name in order to make a valid argument or be sincere. Some arguments alone already stand regardless of "who", "where", "why", and many more.
Let's say for example, that I was the worst person in the world who's made a mistake, but at the same time, does that change any of the facts? There are still people, who regrets, and maybe some of those people who regret just want to stand up for human rights.
In other words, registry or not, that doesn't change any of the arguments here.
To depend on that is a huge fallacy and I would say "papabear", that you're not more important than those who's made mistakes. There are several sex offenders who regret, and showed several valid arguments, and when you depend on such a huge valid argument, all you're doing is encouraging some people to hide their own identity.
First of all, there isn't any actual statement saying it involves only adults.
Second of all, I'm not talking about "accidents". When I say mistake, I mean it's an error act regardless of intention of mind. People can learn from their actions and not anything wrong again.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mistake
You're an insult to every open minded person and every victim that is on the sex offender registry. You don't have every single right to say that I'm an "insult" to all those victims, especially since it's not the victim's right to ruin other people's lives. Justice is not about revenge.
If someone commits suicide because you decided to judge them over something they don't do anymore, I hope the victims of the person who commuted suicide SUES YOU.
What threats? That I'm leaving? That I'm warning many ACTUAL HUMAN BEINGS who just need help to move on to follow the law from your site, and warning those people to get true, and more better help to those that truly care about all of humanity?
You're the troll..
Fixed maybe.
Also, you are against hope Papabear. You don't seem to give hope to those who's made a mistake, where many of those people has suffered, committed suicide, has been threatened, and worse all because they were put on some sex offender registry over something many people don't do anymore.
You're closed minded. And BTW, it looks like there is a blog post warning other people of your site. Troll or not, and regardless if you think I'm the same person or not, it doesn't matter. It's a pretty damn good read.
Hey Grubbs, you're spot on, and don't waste time with the troll.
FC used certain language. Specifically citing pedophilia or sexual violence doesn't include, say, consenting adult age-players. But pedophilia may include grooming that stays "technically" inside lines (predators can be sophisticated on how to violate the intent if not the letter of the law), and sexual violence may include those who target things besides kids (which is much less an issue at a con where the main concern may be kids.)
This CoC change affects a mere handful of people. Arguments about it need to come prepared with knowing who and why it affects them. I've only seen bogus ones about "what ifs" that don't exist, or half-assed apologism that doesn't work with full context.
I'm not a troll. I'm saying out of care for those who's changed to be good people. Calling someone a troll for that is just morbid.
If you're seriously supporting a rule that bans even people who's already shown history of regret, and remorse, and when those people just want to live on like everyone else, then it's clear you're not helping anyone on that issue alone.
It's not unfair to ban someone who lacks such regret and remorse, but to include every single "sex offender" for example as if every sex offender are forever "monsters" is prejudice, and morally wrong.
Behavior like yours are why some people refuse to change, commit suicide and/or violence.
https://www.deviantart.com/wwwarea/journal/Flayrah-com-Is-Mainly-a-Cult-and-a-Pr...
From a blog post partly warning another website:
THIS IS NOT TROLLING.
Account abandoned and probably will make a new anonymous account with no trace of evidence of it being me. I think it's justified.
Written just like a sex offender full of guilt. What are you hiding, Diamond Man?
Oh fuck off. Even if I was on the unconstitutional registry, that doesn't change the truth.
like everyone else following the law I mean.
The COC change affects more than a mere handful of people; it affects children and other adult would-be victims of people who've handily already shown that they're willing to victimize people. It doesn't get every predator, but it's a useful heuristic.
You're right. Thanks!
Thank you for your support. I'm embarrassed to say I continued to engage Diamond Man to no effect, even when I tried to be sympathetic to him. I guess I'm just human. His direct attacks on me and my column hurt and are way over the top. I'm apparently worse than child molesters and murderers. I'm sorry I ever read these comments and tried to give input on a serious topic, only to be attacked repeatedly. I don't think I'll be offering any comments to Flayrah from now on, if this is what I can expect. This is why I moderate my Facebook groups so vigilantly, as well as my askpapabear website.
Taking my own advice, I must consider the source. Diamond Man is irrational, and I really shouldn't be bothered by what an irrational person thinks, try as I might. Well, I'll just add this to my experience in the fandom with trolls, which gives me material for my column, right? LOL.
At this point, this is why you're not a open minded, and good furry. Your behavior like this is damaging the furry fandom. Because you're the one being completely irrational, prejudice, and causing a lot of knee jerk reactions. If you post, expect me to post a reply back on many websites I know to avoid wrong arguments you have irrationally caused.
You're a troll.
My concern is the "they came for the X..." sort of concern, so don't presume to tell me why I should not be concerned. "Pedophile" is the acceptable modern-day scarlet letter in a world which should be moving away from scarlet letters and toward indivodual empathy. That's why I am posting anonymously - even defending them is seen as a black mark.
Oh no, if they criminalize child abuse, what's next, will animal abuse be against the law too? Shock horror.
This is ticking the usual boxes, heavy on buzzwords, low on examples. There are a handful of people affected by this policy but it would be inconvenient to bring those up because they aren't exactly going to help this nontroversy.
Fine, you want names? We know Growly's an idiot, but not everyone agress he's malicious and there's some evidence he got railroaded. We know Sangie's creepy, but he also pisses off conservatives politically which makes him a really juicy target to some. If we're going to ban creeps from the fandom, there goes half the fandom. Fuck, since I'm anonymous and don't have to be polite, YOU set off my internal creep alarm, but I'm not going to try to get you banned hecause of it. It's just real easy to set off witch hunts and real convenient to create designated safe targets and that helps no one.
I didn't bring up animal abuse. Stop conflating anons.
OK great, that's 2 names, thanks, that helps. Just 2? It shows just what a nontroversy this is.
Growly's record is more than enough to meet a standard of a formal policy. "Not everyone agrees" or "some evidence" doesn't set aside that fact or help re-litigate his case. He already had a lawyer for that. You can disagree with facts, heck I don't think he's malicious either, but they're facts. Laws were broken no matter what the intentions are now, and disagreement about intentions doesn't rebut the concern of people who wouldn't want to bring their kids in presence with sex offenders. If there is a policy it needs to be decisive and not inconsistent lip-service.
Which leads to a great example for why to be decisive:
Calling Sangie "a juicy target" is nonsequitur and dodges the issue, it doesn't matter if he's the president of the USA. He appears in the zoosadist chat logs, and what's there is horrifying. If you read between the lines of what he did, to ask why, you can get a picture of a sophisticated manipulator using a tag-team grooming strategy to evade liability. Levi Simmons (the ringleader, who was arrested for raping a drugged 12 week old puppy which was possibly killed afterwards) was doing the grooming, so no touching. He was showing nude photos of Sangie to his young nephew. Then molesting of a groomed-by-proxy target could be done with more plausible deniability and lower chance of getting caught. That's only one example of many more. (I haven't even published other tips I get because victim ID's are sensitive.)
That's why a policy needs to be decisive with no prevarication about it. Because the worst % of predators know the lines and are sophisticated about evading them.
These are examples who were convicted with evidence of continuing concern, not "creepy feelings". 2 names is not "half the fandom". Stop stretching...
Animal abuse comes up because it's relevant to what's illegal. People complaining here want to erase the actual reasons and replace them with vague hypotheticals and dodges, but that falls apart when we look at the 2 (and only 2) names anyone has named.
No one should be looking at names when designing a policy; you shouldn't be making your policy around specific people. Worrying about specific names and cases can also only create a backward-looking policy. The policy should concerned about going forward and that should be based on clear principles and logical implementation which applies to everyone.
"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~John Stuart Mill~
No. Nobody wanted to play Ask A South African Idiot about how American policies are based on real cases with real evidence.
"Megan's Law is the name for a federal law, and informal name for subsequent state laws, in the United States requiring law enforcement authorities to make information available to the public regarding registered sex offenders. Laws were created in response to the murder of Megan Kanka. Federal Megan's Law was enacted as a subsection of the Jacob Wetterling Crimes Against Children and Sexually Violent Offender Registration Act of 1994
I should probably suggest to not waste your time with these trolls Rakuen Growlithe.
The multiverse review on this website is very spot on, and so far doesn't seem to be disconnected to what it's claiming toward this insane political belief system community. Like man, is this really what the furry fandom in general came to?
Never mind. Your mind is already made up and you're clearly expecting a book report. I now know more about your nature and I do not like what I see.
Cool non-answer! In other words you don't like being wrong. Book report my furry butt, the least you can do is match the effort others make. I do the homework but you clearly don't want to.
And further, I'm freaking furious about what came out in those zoosadist leaks, as should be anyone in the entire fandom. It was urban-legend level awful, like you would say Nahhhh GTFO if you just heard about it without all the evidence on top. That was tagged to me to write about and it sucked big time, but nobody else was going to do it. It ruins my enjoyment of a hobby, like the existence of such a ring ruins so much of what the fandom has gained in the past few years.
Expecting people to sit on their hands about that stuff is toxic. For reasons explained in other comments, there are limits on what cops can do about it, such as, animal rape/murder vids being fairly legal to traffic. But it's axiomatic that animal abuse correlates with child abuse and it's one of the flags they use to assess the danger.
So who else can do anything about it? That's me and you. And I'm pissed when people don't just sit there and do nothing, but puff smoke to interfere with it too. At the very least what can be done is supporting cons for updating their 1990's policies to 2018, and keeping in mind: knowledge is power.
And another another thing, anyone crying "witch hunt" about such a policy change is being ridiculously ignorant. Now for a real one you could look back to the 1980's Satanic Panic for an actual figurative example of that happening, such as with the Fells Acre daycare trial - some of the most expensive prosecution in history with no results. Nothing even remotely resembling that is happening here or anywhere on social media.
The 80's was pre-Spotlight when religious people weren't looking up to their own authority figures, while making fanciful conspiracies about ritual abuse. But now we have seen the waves of news about corruption up high and are much better prepared to know about it. And while fandom doesn't have popes or priests it does have people like Kahuki of RMFC, who owned the con he wasn't allowed to chair, and let Foxler use it for a doormat (foxler admits to sex chat with young teens.) Or then there's the ring rumored to be inside Bad Dragon with a lot of clues such as the founding connection to Doug Spink. It happens here.
Great example of it in higher places, Kero and his 100k subscribers.
Now show me an example of anyone in the fandom with a sex offense conviction who was "witch hunted". How about Lupinefox in the PA sex abuse ring, who was acquitted? Nah, he wasn't "slandered" by fandom, he was (at first credibly) accused by the victim and has a clean record. RC Fox? Nope again, his social media accounts were closed before things came out, I was offered access to his private messages but no evidence of bullying or whatever. Sisk? Possibly the only half relevant example in the entire fandom, and the exception that proves the rule; even here only one side is very easy to read, and if she did happen to be banned from a con but have opportunity to go, well, FC explained they are taking these case-by-case and presumably that makes opportunity to appeal to them.
Miss me with that "witch hunt" baloney. The good part about all this is the extreme stuff is very rare, so even if it gets attention it doesn't mean the whole fandom is tainted or at risk of such a policy being applied very often.
Here's my concern with this. Especially in the modern political climate, the alt-right movement has been using accusations of pedophilia to score easy points. Insane Kangaroo in particular has made a point of using local communications methods to fan whatever flames he can in whichever dirdctions he can, because one of the major tactics of the alt-right is to inflame fear whereever your can. It works when people let it, and I'm worried that putting explicit language like this is going to simply play into the hands of those who use such tactics.
In the past a blanket "Staff reserves the right to revoke membership to the convention at any time" was sufficient to cover this situation if deemed necessary, and other local cons such as Fanime or Babscon continue to use such language. Why is it necessary to narrow down focus if the true concern here is the attendance of one or two furs of note? Wouldn't it be better for the convention to contact those individuals directly and not engage in either virtue signalling or alarmist behavior, depending upon your interpretation of the reasons behind these chamges?
For that matter, if the CoC is going to be more specific about who is not allowed, then why isn't there a clear disclaimer against attendance by neo-Nazis, or a more clear prohibition against firearms? By singling out one distasteful subgroup but not the other, you implicitly provide support for the other.
So, fun fact, the two examples you give about them "supporting" because they don't explicitly restrict them, firearms and hate groups, are explicitly restricted. Not only that the words restricting them are right next to each other.
Under the section "Costumes, Clothing, Behavior, and Safety":
I know I'm a dang nerd, but does anyone actually read these things?
Thanks for pointing that out to "Anon," Sonious. :-)
I'm probably not the Anon you think I am if you're replying in such snarky tones. I find you intolerant and distasteful, however, and hope I never have to encounter you at a con.
Speaking of half-assed arguments, thanks for giving the full context.
Insane Kangaroo isn't friendly to alt righters BTW.
In late 2016/early 2017, he was absolutely coming into Bay Area Telegram groups and speaking in very alt-right ways.
Ok thanks. I'm guessing it was pretty brief and low level trolling since he isn't local to there and I am but never saw it.
Feel free to ask Spectrum. He got into it more than a few times with him.
I believe you, good thing he seems uninterested in that now AFAIK.
Banning something that looks like a real gun doesn't actually ban real guns. I suppose I expected an explicit "firearms are not allowed at FC". Firearms enthusiasts tend to be very good at getting hung up on that sort of loophole.
Banning Nazi clothing doesn't ban Nazis.
What, Insane Kangaroo is alt-right now? I know he's a mega-creep, but...?
Insane Kangaroo in particular is a known predator. Just Google Connor Goodwolf his new name and read about it. Kiwofarms has an accurate unbiased collection of his behavior. He is not alt-right.
During the Trump campaign, he was active in the Bay Area Telegram groups as a very Milo-esque Trump supporter.
Some people already served his time and might even want a normal happy life without wanting to offend further. There are even some who were very young who are strong parts of families who made dumb mistakes more situational and wants that past to be forgotten. Really dumb to treat someone like crap forever because of a mistake in the past. Just another group that partly makes "open and acceptance" look like a joke.
If a person who has served a sentence does look suspicious, I can kinda accept banning someone doing that.
But a default "You did a mistake, you can't ever be accepted ever again." action is an example that's wrong. If every furcon does this, this will only cause more harm, cause more depression, and maybe even more likelihood of offending again since the lack of acceptance and lack of second chances renders.
Oh please, just because you serve time doesnt absolve you of your history. You serve time because you committed a crime and broke a law. The con is not required to admit anyone who seeks admission. Is it ok to put a convicted pedophile who has served time in a day care center? Its ok cause he served time right?
"You did a mistake, you can't ever be accepted ever again." action is an example that's wrong."
What is wrong was committing the crime in the first place. You have a record for a reason, when you serve time for a crime it's not forgotten but forgiven. The same applies in real life, you could be forgiven but its not forgotten. You do the crime then you must deal with the consequences.
"If every furcon does this, this will only cause more harm, cause more depression, and maybe even more likelihood of offending again since the lack of acceptance and lack of second chances renders."
More harm? This only effects the offender and only applies to them because of their crimes or behaviors. It's not the con's responsibility to fix them, it's their responsibility to protect their attendees.
Their second chance is not being in jail forever, serving their time and being released is their second chance.
In a sense, yes. Justice is about changing people to be law following people. Plus, many people are furries which is part of their life. It promotes harm to not allow people to be legally be happy for the rest of their lives. If you don't accept someone as a person because of a mistake the person doesn't do anymore, then you're a bad person..
How would you like it if your own son made a mistake and wants a job and a carrier, would you support what you say then?
It's not really "forgiven" if you by default not ever accept people in a legal group because of a past. You don't have to forget it, but acting like this shows lack of forgiveness too. Not all consequences are "justice". Treating someone like crap because of an old mistake never desired again is never OK.
Yet, people's lives deserve to be happy legally. When a job, and/or carrier doesn't accept people, it promotes harm.
Or more of a bad person* for something.
Also, legal "second chance" apply to others at groups forgiving, including jobs. Released from prison isn't the only thing that counts as a second chance. It's not so legal "second chance" if you can't get a legal job, can't have a legal carrier, and being banned from every necessary legal store.
Further Confusion is a furry convention.
Yes it is. But it's a group of expression kinda like a lot of carriers are, online accounts and so on. If all of those had the same rule, it would make it harder for some people to live and be happy following the law.
Plus that place not accepting some furries merely because of past mistake is a huge blow into the community maybe.
Here's the bigger question. Why has it taken Further Confusion so long to realize the need to ban pedo creeps from their con?
You realize this is an issue with all cons, not just FC right? Guesses -
- The problem is rare with small numbers of people that hasn't merited specific language before. Cons are probably hitting scale where formal policy is helpful beyond just having organizers confer in private.
- cons work on a shoestring by community volunteering and don't build in extra security, there could be other costs like insurance for liability, and background checking everyone isnt feasible.
- they're in between their attendees and hotels where they lack power to just kick people out of hotels (even if they arent allowed in the con itself), and want to keep hotels happy and not taking responsibility for that.
- banning one person can put them in a "damned if you do damned if you don't" position, with dumb people screaming at them on social media or comment sections of furry news sites, others with that person may get burned (say if they are dealers with helpers or handling a full hotel room), and people like to make threats about suing the con for money liability or "defamation" (which are just a headache even when toothless), meaning it's best for them not to talk to you about it unless it's need-to-know.
Well since you mention other cons, Anthrocon had a well known pedophile on staff for about ten years and never once removed him from staff. It took for the creep's arrest to put a stop to his sick shenanigans.
This is kinda interesting, especially since the first update gives some reasoning behind the decision. Specifically they state, "For the safety of our attendees." But if they are worried about the safety of their attendees why are they only forbidding attendance by those with a history of sexual violence and/or paedophilia. Do they not think those who committed normal assault would endanger the safety of their attendees?
I think that is a really interesting question because I would certainly think people should make decisions based on "blind" reasoning. You should have a general set of principles and then cases should be decided by seeing how they apply in those principles. What seems to happen a lot is that people make a set of, sometimes contradictory, special cases where they have a predetermined outcome rather than any committent to a specific way of thinking.
Is it really the case that people with a history of sexual violence are, overall, that much more likely to reoffend that their presence is a threat to the safety of attendees? It would be really cool if Sonious followed up that aspect of the story. Why do they single those people out specifically instead of just everyone who was convicted for a crime? Or for a violent crime? What is the evidence that sexual violence offenders are more of a threat to safety? Is it actually based on anything?
"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~John Stuart Mill~
There is a case where many people who has done a crime won't actually desire to do it again, and I guess a sexual mindset is more likely to be based off a mental issue that's hard to help. Though not all the time.
Though I would have find it better if they addressed only to those with medium to worse situations, sex offending and/or not, and if such people are truly likely to offend again. Sadly they include every single sexual offender, even those that are least likely to offend again, including those without a violent history. Heck, they are actually aware of this.
They replied to me saying they do understand that for some people who is nonviolent, and unlikely to re-offend. But they wanted to include those anyway "for" victims who don't want to experience those coming or something close to that.
Though I certainly don't agree with it because since crime and human are too different things, and that a person showing up does not automatically violate any legal freedom, it's not fair to ban those people who are just as important. If this was about "fear of offense", then it already in another argument defeats the point to ban those who are likely to not offend again.
But that's what they said kinda. I would like to copy and paste my email, but I don't know if I'm allowed to.
"Furry conventions shouldn't have the right to bar convicted child rapists" is so heavily into "Germany doesn't have the right to ban Neo-Nazis" territory, the Venn diagram is practically a circle.
I'd say I'd like to wish everyone a Happy 2019, but a good chunk of you hardly deserve one.
Point 1 to Anonymous: He confessed in his column that he has a past offense. Therefore, while he acts as if he is protecting the rights of other felons and feels they should have forgiveness and be allowed into furcons, he is actually just doing this for himself. Obviously. If it helps, I forgive you if you are truly repentant.
Point 2: Let's say an ex molester or other violent attacker is allowed into a con and one of his victims is also there. Imagine the horror that victim would experience. Do they not deserve respect and consideration, or we should just give that to the former criminal? If given the choice between letting in a victim and letting in her former attacker, I sure as hell would side with the victim, who deserves to feel safe.
Point 3: Anon is right that we should try to forgive people of their past. But a furry convention is not the place to test this out. While it is true some people truly change their ways, it is unreasonable to put the furry convention and all its attendees at risk to see whether or not the particular felon they allow in has seen the light. Forgiveness can be sought in the churches, temples, family homes, and therapist offices. A furry convention is not the place. If you seek redemption, Anon, go beg forgiveness from your victim. Then seek counseling.
Last point: Violent actions have consequences. In this case, one of the consequences might be that you are never accepted at a furcon again. Feel bad about that? Maybe you should have thought about consequences before you raped, beat up, or killed someone. The fact that you may be banned from a furry convention (really, the LEAST of your worries), is a reflection on you, not other furries. Don't blame them for the consequences you suffer.
That is a terrible argument. If I (regardless if I've made a federal sexual offense or not) say everyone should be forgiven for any possible mistake, it means everyone, regardless of if such person is doing this to himself or herself, or not. Seriously that is disgusting, especially since "caring" is always in a way "selfish". You have to care about yourself in order to care about others for a lot.
And where did you see anyone confessing any past?
But again, action doesn't define people. And your personal argument is also for victims who would feel terrible just by simply letting the "perpetrator" out of prison. Are you gonna support legal life imprisonment without the possibility of parole and/or the death penalty just because some victims are strongly horrified of not violating the person's rights to live and be free?
I do support letting a victim not allow a "perpetrator" in his or her own home, but however a victim does not have a right to control where the victim goes in other places the victim does not own unless expressed by law (e.g. a legal restraining order allowing such victim to do that), no matter how much the victim feels.. Note: I don't call people who already legally payed for offense a perpetrator.
But having a furry lifestyle is very important. You don't have a right to force your opinions down people's throats who demands a right to enter social media and/or conventions. You're really disgusting if you support taking away hope for many furries who "aren't" perfect to other people who really changed. And the "risk" thing applies to every person. It makes no sense to act as if someone who's changed is "more risk" than those who are "perfect". There is no evidence in between.
You're disgusting Papa Bear, you are one of those people who encourage suicide. If you seriously believe people should suffer for a mistake they don't do anymore, you're just as bad as a child molester, and I won't apologize for saying that. Consequences are not always right, and it is 100% the other furries fault for choosing to refuse to give other second chances. Especially if someone who's made a mistake had mental issues (which might be less of a choice), and was young.
_____
You're 100% no more important than those who's made mistakes. Especially since it's very impossible to be "innocent" these days.
So honestly "Papa Bear", you're not a good person.
https://multiversefeeling.blogspot.com/2018/12/avoid-askpapabearcom.html
And by the way, I thought we were talking about almost every single offense under "sexual" which in some cases is also no different than what 99% of people has done in the past in terms of harm (i.e. one or more of: harassment, personal insults, slight but non-deadly violence, pity theft, and some more.).
And I'm pretty sure that Anon expressed that those who are likely to offend should not currently be allowed in any furcon, sexual or not. I only more cared about those who are then least likely to offend again which is likely no different than those who "might" offend first time. Any bad negative reason beyond any real justice system is no different than being a pure dick to someone just because one is a furry. It's all nothing but personal reasons beyond the justice system, especially if the "criminal" already payed for his or her harm.
I likely support people who's changed to be good people to hide their identity as long as I legally can.
And anyone who refuses to offer second chances are probably encouraging reoffending.
____
Oh and it's also possible to be forgiven at a legal furcon. You don't have any right to dictate that they shouldn't you disgusting pervert.
I honestly hope you get kicked out of every furcon, because you deserve it. Don't like it? Maybe you should of thought that before you made certain mistakes yourself. :)
Well, I'm sorry I have hurt your feelings. Take care.
So Papabear, would you care to give your thoughts on banning people at furry conventions who've been cruel to animals? Personally I would like to see them banned and so would most other people who care about animals.
The FC rules also include cruelty to animals. I find cruelty to animals reprehensible. So, yes, if someone is abusive to animals, why would you want them at a furcon? Answer: you wouldn't.
Next, you might wish to define animal cruelty a bit. This does not include the legal hunting of animals such as deer or ducks. It does include deliberate abuse of animals, torturing them and/or criminal neglect that causes suffering. I would hope this would not be a controversial opinion. Should I duck in preparation of people calling me a horrible person again? Hmm.
Well FC refused to ban Jonah Vore even though they were told and linked to his gruesome videos of him purposely throwing in live small animals so that his monitor lizards could have a tug of war with them, which was nothing but horrific and cruel and served no purpose as those lizards would readily take humanely pre-killed food. Jonah does sick things like putting live baby chicks, ducklings, squirrels, rabbits, rats and other animals by hand right in the snake's mouth just for his sick pleasure, and there's absolutely no need for that since each of his snake's have been shown in videos to take warmed up thawed out dead animals when presented properly to the snake. FC con staff did not think that this was serious enough at the time when they were told about it nearly a decade ago. :(
Well I stand corrected, not quite a decade ago but close enough.
Chris Bartlett
To:
Cc:[email protected],[email protected]
Jan 22, 2012 at 11:59 AM
Hi there
First of all Great first name!
OK, thank you for bringing this to my attention. I will be frank and honest with you.
I would love nothing more than to ban anyone and everyone who is cruel to animals from Further Confusion. However banning someone is not my call. Even as Chairman I do work for the AAE which controls the convention. All actions against our attendees would first be approved by the board.
In any event I personally would not recommend a ban on anyone unless I felt that they in some way where a threat to the safety and well being of my attendees. Who knows, maybe by attending our convention and listening to panelist he will have a change of heart.
Im sure you can understand the Pandora box that would be opened if we started trying to take action on everyone who should or should not attend due to actions in their day to day life. We do have a standard for attendees and rules that they must follow, but that is for conduct at the convention and unless there is some legal reason why they should not attend then for us to take action of things that happen outside our realm of responsibly would not be justified.
This letter was CC'ed to the board and to the Chair of Further Confusion 2013 for further review.
Respectfully
Chris Bartlett
Chairman FC2012
Not too sure but I like that this person is likely not one of those people who ban people regardless of heart, and instead maybe, depends on the current heart of some other people.
And if there isn't a threat to anyone at the convention, I don't see much of a reason to ban the person if there is no effect from the person being there.
Even in the case of "victims at the place" even though I have my thoughts on that, it's not like any non-human animals are there. If one were to ban someone just for being abusive to non-human animals outside, it would be like banning someone for getting a speeding ticket; unrelated to anything at the furcon likely.
Though would I ban someone who still abuses animals illegally? I mean, I probably would because maybe I should rather report such cruelty to the government of the country. And would I ban someone if I feel that they have a huge risk toward the furcon? Likely so.
Other than that, I don't see any moral reason to do something that has no good value gained.
I speak this probably in behalf of most people today. A lot of people these days might have caused abuse (usually small) today, but that doesn't mean they should be banned in any legal place having no connection to it with low risk, or else that might happen to most people today. XD
But if someone is breaking the law while at the place, that might be a different story.
My thoughts.
Sorry if I made a mistake or more.
Let's ban every single person at legal Furcons then. I'm starting to feel that you want every single person who's had at least one mistake (no matter how small they are) to be banned.
No adult is innocent likely.
Account abandoned and probably will make a new anonymous account with no trace of evidence of it being me. I think it's justified.
Diamond Man, you're being absurd and overreacting to my comments.
Actually Papa Bear, I'm not overreacting to your comments. You have clearly stated (and just now to mere violence to non-human animals) that those who has done that in the past, including those who learn and don't do anymore should never ever be allowed in a furcon again... You already gave up hope.
Was I ever abusive to non-human animals? I don't remember, I've been angry about random stuff, sometimes for example I worry I spray a cat too hard with water on purpose,. but if I think about it, I certainly don't like the idea of it. But what's the point, I guess I'm a horrible monster for the rest of my life now right? And that I lose my right to be a furry too. *sarcasm*
Account abandoned and probably will make a new anonymous account with no trace of evidence of it being me. I think it's justified.
Also I don't actually see a rule in that conduct prohibiting members who has in the past abused non-human animals, unless I missed something?
Also I'm not being absurd for my main points on here.
Account abandoned and probably will make a new anonymous account with no trace of evidence of it being me. I think it's justified.
When I said "he confessed in his column" I meant in "comment" and I meant here on Flayrah not on the Ask Papabear website.
NO MATTER HOW SMALL?!
Uhh, yes? There is such thing as slight to worse offenses, sexual or not. I am against the idea of treating small forms of offenses to be as bad as worse ones.
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT RAPE AND CHILD RAPE HERE, DM
If you're talking about the FC rules, then you're talking about "any individual who is a convicted sex offender, or appears on any federal or state sex offender registry." That is far, far broader than rape and encompasses non-violent and even victimless crimes. The most obvious and absurd of those being the cases of minors who are dating each other, con sensually able to have sex, who send a nude photo to one another and are convicted for the production of child pornography and put on the sex offender registry.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/teens-nude-photos-penalties_us_55f07586e4b0...
https://www.outsidethebeltway.com/north-carolina-teen-charges-as-a-sex-offender-...
https://reason.com/blog/2016/02/03/male-teen-takes-nude-photo-of-himself-ch
"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~John Stuart Mill~
I'm actually talking about what Grubbs has state he supports, which he said, "we are discussing violent criminal records, such as murder, rape, and pedophilia".
You do have a point, though. Or rather, you would have had one, if the examples you linked weren't: two of the same story, all of them hypothetical. There are real instances you could have used, like those New Jersey kids who sat bare-assed on other kids' faces (though that is technically a sexual assault, and I think that all their registry consists of is informing police when they move, and not being on a publicly searchable database) or public urination.
But like I said, you have a point...which is why I already emailed FC about that very such thing. (Pending response though. I'm sure they've got about a hundred people as literate as Diamond Man flooding their inbox with angry word salad.)
Your quoted sentence suggests Grubbs is confused about FC's policy because, unless there is something else not mentioned in this article, it doesn't cover all of those crimes.
"Now, in the case of FC's policy, we are discussing violent criminal records, such as murder, rape, and pedophilia."
vs
"AAE and FurCon do not permit membership or attendance by any individual who is a convicted sex offender, or appears on any federal or state sex offender registry. In addition, AAE and FurCon reserve the right, at the board’s discretion, to deny membership or attendance to anyone with a documented history of sexual violence, including inappropriate conduct towards minors."
I was just looking for some quick example links. At the moment, the Flayrah comment sections have a lot of anons with varying, though usually poor, ability to follow arguments, so it seemed good to have some external support. The first link does deal with the same case as the second but it also discusses the issue in a wider form.
"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~John Stuart Mill~
We anons expand the argument and do not simply limit things just to satisfy your terms of discussion!
Rakuen Growlithe: Boy, these anons sure don't contribute to the conversation much, do they?
Anon: YES WE DO! *contributes absolutely nothing to the conversation*
Did he say "pedophile"? I remember seeing unlawful killing, beating, and rape. Pedophile does not equal to child sexual abuse, and not even all child sexual abuse equal to being rape by some definitions of some laws.
And yes, I'm also against comparing all things to being the same when it's not for the purpose of realistic views, and for the purpose of being fair in legal punishment.
Okay...once more unto the breach...and I'm only a little sorry about keeping this miserable thread alive here...I received a response to my email from FC's chair. Verbatim:
Bless kenny.
Name fucking one, you slimy, weaseling, scummy, spineless "well but" apologist.
Name one fucking convicted sex offender who is directly affected by this policy and was "cases of minors who are dating each other, con sensually able to have sex, who send a nude photo to one another and are convicted for the production of child pornography and put on the sex offender registry"
And by the way, one exception that proves the rule has the generous option to appeal this policy because it states case by case.
Normal person? LOL calling yourself "normal" and posting here arguing about stuff to do with furcons just makes me laugh. ;D Seriously, are you in support of sick in the head child molesters or what's your agenda here? Nobody wants to see kiddy diddlers at a convention of any sort except possibly other kiddy diddlers??? >.<
thatsthepoint.jpg
avoidingthequestion.jpg
How about conventions ban people who have been cruel to animals also such as Jonah Vore? We don't need such vile, disgusting pieces of trash at conventions!
You don't have a right to call anyone who's changed to be good people a "vile, disgusting pieces of trash" and no human is trash. Though as for Janah Vore, if he is a threat to the community, then sure, ban him or her and I hope this person gets legal help to stop.
Very curious what that guy did?
At some point though, almost every person who's had a pet may have abused a non-human animal at one point with slight force. Note too, I say my case for the idea that slightly over feeding an animal and/or "pulling" toward food of a non-human animal is a form of abuse.
If we are talking about extreme violence (e.g. cutting a cat's tail off), then oh. One of my hate is for people who purposely do that a lot and I hope those people show remorse to such wrong someday.
"You don't have a right to call anyone who's changed to be good people a "vile, disgusting pieces of trash" and no human is trash."
Oh, wow... That is fucking RICH, coming from someone who will write essay after essay about someone being WORSE THAN A PEDOPHILE after they call you unkind names on the internet.
Diamond Man you must be completely oblivious to what Jonah's done and continues to do over years of purposely being cruel to animals for his sick twisted pleasure and entertainment! I stand by my opinion that Jonah is human trash!
Does he still abuse animals? Plus can you give me examples of his or her abuse?
As for "trash", he's still a person, biologically. Criminals are still human beings. I'm not defending Jonah Vore's abuse, and I hope the person stops. If he's not stopped, and it's illegal, then please legally call the police.
Sadly there is a great lacking of laws to prevent cruelty of animals in Mexico where Jonah Vore resides. :(
Patch Packrat has done a report on his continued cruelty toward animals via his Reptile Channel on Youtube on his blog!
https://dogpatch.press/2017/06/19/reptile-channel-animal-abuse/
Thank you.
I did read it earlier but so far didn't find anything so serious so far. But I admit I didn't read that much of it so I didn't really much have a say.
OK yeah that one part with the YouTube video or maybe more than one video sounded serious, though what bothers me is as if "for vore reasons" suddenly makes it worse. I don't really depend on "why" in the mind in this case. If the animals were not being properly fed and was so bad it was a lot of abuse, then that alone is bad regardless of "vore fetish" reasons. If a non-human animal was fed properly legally then I don't think there is abuse, even if such person did all that for "vore fetish" reasons I guess.
I'm still a bit confused on when the last time Jonah Vore did this though.
One of the things I'm against is exposing someone's old past for the purpose of ruining someone online, though then again I am not sure if this is still recent.
"I didn't read that much" "I'm still confused" "I am not sure"
Every time you comment, remember, don't pull your pants up before you finish making the poo.
You can read something fully and still be confused. Just saying.
You seem to be really, really stupid DM! *insert facepalm pic*
Diamond Man suffers from autism, which, as you may know, can cause people to have inappropriate and exaggerated reactions to stimuli. He's written in to my column in the past about a number of things (no, this is not violating any promises of privacy because anything that actually appears in my column has been approved by the person writing to me, in this case, Diamond Man). It also can lead to repetition and insistence on things that have already been addressed. So, I was probably a bit rough on DM because I had forgotten this about DM, and I apologize for that. Anyway, the conversation went in circles, insults were hurled at me, but it's okay. I understand DM is upset.
No offense, but I like to ask you to not use "autism" as any support to these type of trolls assuming you are. Most importantly, I think it would be better for all of us to avoid even mentioning me since I've kinda stopped too. Same with that Anon guy regardless if you think I'm such person or not. Plus, did I actually say specifically on your past columns posted that I actually have autism? Or was it just assumption because some behavior on there may have reminded you of that?
I'm not trying to be mean and I don't remember specifically insulting you.
Quote: "You're disgusting Papa Bear, you are one of those people who encourage suicide. If you seriously believe people should suffer for a mistake they don't do anymore, you're just as bad as a child molester, and I won't apologize for saying that." You also shared your posts on multiverse.blogspot Papa Bear Grubbs hurts the furry community:
https://multiversefeeling.blogspot.com/2018/12/avoid-askpapabearcom.html telling people not to read my column and that I'm a horrible person. WTF??? "I don't remember specifically insulting you"???? Good God.
Yes, you said you had autism. Avoid mentioning you? You're all over the place in this list of columns. Mentioning you had autism is "support to these type of trolls"? Huh?
It's funny how your main rant was that we shouldn't tell people what to do, yet here you are, telling me what to do. You're right that I should stop getting sucked into this argument. My bad.
Would it really be insulting when a victim told their recent perpetrator that he or she is disgusting?
Would it really be insulting when a person who cares about legal hopes to avoid a website that denies such help, for the sake of health, and suggesting a more likely proper legal website?
Would it really be insulting to say someone aiding to ruining a person's life is worse than a child molester in some cases? Though maybe "worse than a child molester" was too much, and I'm sorry for being so broad like that if I did.
Would it really be insulting to sincerely say you're a horrible person for telling many people who's changed to never ask for forgiveness at furcons and force the opinion that every furcon's effort of forgiving is a "waste" of effort?
I don't think so except for that one thing I'm apologizing for.
_______
I mean on Flayrah on this post. Why are you replying to a person randomly attacking me? Or what about that other time when you randomly mentioned that one Anon person (regardless if you think that's me or not)?
Also for autism, may you please send me a private message to my Diamond Man account a link to that post where you claim I said I have autism? I assume the post you've made is public but I think it would still be better.
All I did was asked you stop mentioning me. I don't think "asking" is as pushing right?
So, you're saying I am worse than a child molester, and, furthermore, that telling me that I am worse than a child molester and that I encourage people to commit suicide should not be insulting to me.
Thanks so much for your comments. You're just a super person.
I think your comment is further evidence that you did not read my full comment..
My "would it" were just mere points, and at the same time in one of them, I said the following:
.
I mean you do things that might encourage people to commit suicide. Denying a human being isn't the same, but it certainly might cause these people uncontrollably to think of doing so.
A "super person"?
Your apologies fucking suck, dude.
I'm kind of feeling vindicated by history, here.
Diamond Man, Equivamp used to message me not to go so hard on you, and at one point told me I didn't apologize well enough to you for something or other; and now that PapaBear is part of your Massive Flayrah Conspiracy Cabal, I'd just like to point out Flayrah and PapaBear's relationship in the past has not been super great (but we both at least had the decency to operate on the "let's just, if not agree to disagree, at least agree to avoid each other and not have giant comment slapfights on each other's websites").
Do you remember every single argument you've ever got into here? Because that's a lot of things to remember.
Yes.
Are you talking about that time when PapaBear announced some program, then he took some comments maybe too far, and then he later edited them to delete his messages? I was looking at that there.
Though, I usually look at the current, and recent, and I don't really think that old past that happened years ago really matters on this argument. He still has similar opinions to some of others here, and my "conspiracy" theory isn't really just a Flayrah thing, it's basically either the whole fandom in general, or that part of the fandom and hopefully it's not large. Even then, maybe this is part of Flayrah because I don't think it's required for every single person to have the exact same opinion. He probably clearly showed that he believes not giving second chances at certain places, and that's enough personally to me to show one of the biggest political agenda this website usually has.
Diamond Man, how can you possibly say we don't believe in second chances when you're still here?
After we've repeatedly told you earlier this month that you have broken our rules?
Certain places, and I think I may have meant certain second chances.
That's the thing, Diamond Man; at least in this article, you're assuming we're fully supporting Further Confusion's decision, when only PapaBear (who is less associated with Flayrah than you, a former contributor) has said anything. We only reported on it (and by "we", I of course mean Sonious), and I think if you actually paid attention to our responses to FC's decision (or just us in general), I think you'd see that actually we have a variety of responses to it, because we aren't one person, we're a group of people with varying opinions and responses.
Many of us do have opinions more closely aligned to your own than you probably believe; if we're a bit short with you in this article, it's mostly because we're a bit sick of the month's worth of comments you'd deluged us with on the previous article. And in that case, if we're a bit short with you, it's a combination of the fact that you have a history here, your tone was combative from the beginning, and even if we agreed on the basic idea (law enforcement, especially in America, can sometimes be a bit harsh, erring on the "punitive" rather than "rehabilitave" side), that particular article was not the hill to die on in that particular battle. You could have picked a better spot, is what I'm saying.
Anyway, nice comment on the Smash Bros. article; if you're going to stick around, MORE LIKE THAT, please.
I don't think I said you're all fully supporting it 100%.
In many comments, including the "Toast" article reporting that he's arrested, you, and many other long time Flayrah fans has always joined together against me. It doesn't mean 100% you all have the same exact beliefs, but however many of these things are so close that there is something very common here.
I always get rated down by the active majority on that topic, and every single comment has shown support against my main beliefs here.
The same happens on this article. There is like 3 different guests and many members, insulting me, and so on. And even though I don't see a clear confirmation that "you all support FC's rule", there are several things exposing that many likely do. Or at the very least, most people on here are against treating ex offenders just as important. I've seen several comments on here against my main idea repetitively.
I've also (on both articles) see what's his name gets completely bashed just for pointing facts, research, or anything that might even SLIGHTLY hint that the person is in agreement with me. Helping my point more of my "conspiracy" theory.
Plus you even attacked me months ago when I was criticizing what's his name on a free speech topic by randomly talking about that certain porn subject out of nowhere. (WTF!)
More like what? By not criticizing many people's certain points?
Maybe if you talked to people like a person, instead of virtually stomping your feet and screaming at people and threatening to lawsuit them, you'd get past the point of people saying "fuck off, asshole" and get to find out what their actual views on a subject are. You know, like "what's his name" does, and gets along fine here.
Also, you put a lot of stock into the comment rating system here, despite practically being the posterchild for why it's fake bullshit and hardly indicative of anything.
Anyway, fuck off troll.
You know, it's really fucking hard to take you seriously when you end your comment with a "Anyway, fuck off troll.", especially when you're a troll yourself a lot.
Why is hypocrisy so common in the fandom?
Some of your behavior and some of other people's behavior further justifies my criticism, and my review of this horrible website.
I wish to threat legal action because of false information if I legally can. That's not bad behavior, that's called being a victim of false information. And that's just one of many examples.
https://multiversefeeling.blogspot.com/2018/02/flayrah-is-poor-furry-site-review...
If you don't want people to act so salty on here, then maybe you should start legally improving yourself, and it would certainly help this place have a good image even though it might not much help get that image.
Anyway, fuck off troll. lol
Your "criticism" is actually a series of increasingly insane persecutory delusions that anyone who says boo to you is part of an ever-growing conspiracy to personally target you. You've drug this paranoia across multiple websites, where they go ignored except by your own sockpuppets. I would almost feel bad for laughing at you, because you almost definitely need a handler, except you just can't stop sticking your dick in the fan, can you?
That's what someone who can't take criticism is likely to say.
__
I posted out the fact that it's insane to get someone a life penalty just for mere possession for certain pictures. You completely attack me for it, and so did many other insane delusional people.
I criticize a rule and say the rule broadly including those who are just as important as many "innocent" people is bad. Many people attack me for it.
I point out facts, research, and so on. And many people including you attack me for it.
Anytime Rakuen Growlithe comes in and gives research, and even shows even a slight different opinion than most of you guys have, you completely go butthurt by it. And even though I'm not a huge fan of this person, at least this person does make some good points maybe and many assholes throw a fit on here.
There's a reason why I'm going around "stomping" my feet, and it's probably because of this insane bullshit and cyberbullying that most active members from Flayrah does.
Face it! You're calling me a troll because I don't agree with your flawed opinion, and acting like an asshole because someone doesn't agree with your insanity! I'm not a troll, and I'm not delusional. You guys are. You guys even go to the point and do things Wikipedia's example of trolling describes..
And don't expect me to be "nicer" around here. I tried that, it's a waste of time.
I don't expect you to do anything but continue to shit up the place.
Guess you just can't win an argument from me.
Diamond Man's point continues to be proven, regardless of downvote, and certain popular opinion.
You lost.
Also thanks for giving me more evidence as to why this website continues to generally go down a steep hill...
Account abandoned and probably will make a new anonymous account with no trace of evidence of it being me. I think it's justified.
Happy New Year, man.
Happy fucking New Year.
Yep. You won. You're in the moral right.
Now go touch some children in front of a police station. You're in the RIGHT after all.
Diamond Man. You don't have to have ever specifically told anyone.
I was just looking around his website, and while it's true I can forget what I wrote, and sometimes I might say some things that are fake or out of guess. I've ctrl+F tried to find "autism", "autistic", and even "Asperger" or enough, but couldn't find anything related to that coming from "Diamond Man" or that other blog post. I've still yet to receive a link to whatever area on his website he's claiming about.
Papabear that is no excuse to not realize how bad the animal cruelty done by Jonah Vore was, is and continues to be until a stop is put to him in some way! Patch Packrat has provided more than ample evidence to show exactly how sick, twisted, cruel and unnecessary anything Jonah's done has been!
What so because I care about being more realistic and kinda dependent on heart of current people, I'm suddenly "stupid" now? *facepalm*. Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.
FURRY IS NOT A GOVERNMENT. Don't force every single furcon to have rules depending on low risk things toward the furcon outside the furcon. That's bad for many people who are new people who wants to live a legal happy life other than banning and reporting a crime legally.
And I already said that Jonah Vore needs to stop abusing any animal if such person still is. I refuse to believe in your agenda (assuming that's what that is) that he's forever a bad person if he ever stopped.
Really funny to see Papabear on here to claim I'm insulting him, yet he calls me "irrational", and has made a lot of other insults toward me and probably to another person too.
Gee, I wonder if saying he's acting like a hypocrite is considered an "insult" on here and I wonder if most of Flayrah considers that "trolling" too?
Account abandoned and probably will make a new anonymous account with no trace of evidence of it being me. I think it's justified.
FC certainly has the right to disallow anyone they wish from their convention. I actually have no issue with banning people with convictions for crimes like this especially if they are on the sexual preditor registry. I'm sorry, you do something like that, you very possibly need to have some life long consequences since there's no proof anyone can ever be fully rehabilitated. The safety of those who haven't done something like that has a higher priority in my book.
That said, I think it should take an actual legal conviction. There are too many who think the court of public opinion has real standing. Rumors, unproven accusations (proven in a real court of law), should not hold any actual weight as it's too easy for witchhunts and social media dogpiles to happen with people who have no actual facts but are just parroting what they've already read or think they read. If you have proof, go to the law, not to the convention staff.
Counterpoint: the law is not absolute and is actually riddled with holes so big you can fit entire conventions inside.
Great example: read into what came out of the zoosadist leaks. Kero and crew should certainly be distanced from fandom to the greatest extent possible. There's been 2 arrests. What's in the way of more?
- the info was leaked from inside abuser networks by people seeking to cast out token bad apples to preserve their own secrecy, when faced with expanding liability tied to several criminal cases that threatened more of their friends.
- it was done by leaking to twitter, intentionally avoiding going to cops, contaminating the chain of custody for legal purposes. We know what went on but now that may not be enough to satisfy the high bar of legal proof (court truth is not the same as real truth)
- then there's statutory limitations. A year or 2 passes and suddenly abuse isn't actionable.
- the stuff exposed was done by cold, calculating evaders. Encryption, secret chat with self-destruct, sockpuppets, using proxies to do grooming on kids to act like a molester tag-team and diffuse the liability of actually touching them, videos without faces even though we have location, clothing and way too many points of verification to not be ID'd with certainty.
- we can possess evidence and the ring itself existed because last century's laws weren't made to envision a network of people who get off on raping and murdering pets. If such videos were as illegal as CP that would be a different story.
- local police lack resources for cybercrime. FBI has a high bar for what they care about - terrorism yes, pet murder not so much. They investigate but have less power than a cop on the street to arrest anyone without a warrant signed by a federal judge. This is how we get a big gap in enforcement.
This isn't rumor and the weight of evidence is so much it could take years to scan it all. Flippant bullshit complaints about "witch hunting" are worthless when the witches are right there looking at you. Turning your back on it is indefensible. Cons certainly can take all this into account when deciding who to extend hospitality and a platform to.
Videos posted by the individuals allegedly commiting the acts is fairly compelling. They are likely either real or could reasonably be taken at face value. From anyone else? No. Video is too easy to manipulate these days. I don't deny that vidoes of pretty much any act exist on the internet, but it's gotten to the point where it's almost trivial to map somebodie's face onto such a video or change the background to make it look like it was done someplace it never actually happened.
I don't support such acts, but I also don't support hearsay and the court of public opinion or social media in determinining the validity of accusations such as that. It's just too easy to get people repeating things as fact that they have zero actual knowledge of. Basically, 1000 posts accusing somebody of something very possibly has no more validity than the first post that started the chain, and it's almost impossible in most cases to find 'post 0' to see just what evidence there actually is. I heard from so and so who knows somebody who may have seen this happen is NOT proof in any stretch of the imagination and those running most conventions are intelligent enough to know this. People are very free talking about what others should do when there is no risk to them personally. FC is taking a risky path with this liability-wise and I really hope they don't end up getting sued.
Counterpoint: this is flimsy smokescreening and petty contrarianism. Doctored videos are as easy to detect as to make, even simply by the weight of context. There has never been a serious case of false accusation in fandom based on a flimsy premise like that.
We saw this tactic in action with Kero the Wolf's "hacked" defense, where the story kept changing and one by one every defense fell apart.
But the sad result was gullible kids, con artists, and complicit creeps playing "skeptic" past the point of farcical, and capitalizing on cultivated ignorance. A big mess of bullshit that hurt everyone involved except those reaping views. It was what I've taken to calling Toxic Acatelpsy, and that's the juice that runs many Youtube careers.
That isn't just value judging how their company runs, that's alogrithmically designed. Emphasizing activity that's agnostic to content is why Youtube is the favored platform of white supremacists.
It's incredibly fucked up and capitalistically psychopathic. Fandom needs to reject it if it wants to maintain a line between a proudly independent fandom and the shittiness of corporate content (and there is a line). "Corporation with a conscience" is a thing in the regular world. Fandom can do that even better.
FC is speaking for the fandom with a better standard, and they'll be remembered for it. Their lawyer is a sweetheart BTW.
Nobody is going to sue anybody and only an idiot who doesn't understand torts would try the mental gymnastics to propose it.
There is also no proof that anyone who is "innocent" has a less risk than those who by government permission has been removed off the sexual registry. Just because there isn't any "proof" to you, doesn't mean there needs to be unjustified crap toward people who's still people.
If we talk about "evidence" outside of concrete, then there is evidence for some people.
Oh and if they want to ban those type of people anyway, they have every legal right I think. Hopefully people won't force that to those many certain ones who legally also has a right to allow those who's already changed.
Account abandoned and probably will make a new anonymous account with no trace of evidence of it being me. I think it's justified.
“Stupidity is a more dangerous enemy of the good than malice. One may protest against evil; it can be exposed and, if need be, prevented by use of force. Evil always carries within itself the germ of its own subversion in that it leaves behind in human beings at least a sense of unease. Against stupidity we are defenseless. Neither protests nor the use of force accomplish anything here; reasons fall on deaf ears; facts that contradict one’s prejudgment simply need not be believed..."
Diamond Man: American idiot with a shitty taste in movies to boot.
"Diamond Man is an idiot because I hate him, and hate his criticism, and he is evil because he believes in human rights and health for people's who's changed. And if he likes legal movies I hate, his taste is idiotic"
"If anyone disagrees with the furry government that Flayrah I believe supports, the person is a troll and a bad evil person."
-Not literal, but it kinda feels like that.
Get out of here you troll and bigot. I hope you yourself get banned for life until change as a good legal person from all legal furcons, legal social media, and many legal jobs.
Account abandoned and probably will make a new anonymous account with no trace of evidence of it being me. I think it's justified.
But dude that's gonna make him kill himself. You totally support encouraging suicide of this person who makes legal comments on a legal website maybe.
You:
By the way:
"I hope you yourself get banned for life until change as a good legal person from all legal furcons, legal social media, and many legal jobs."
"I hope you yourself get banned for life until change as a good legal person from all legal furcons, legal social media, and many legal jobs."
Better.
Every complaint here
Post new comment