Is it better for them to hide that one of their own is harming children to prevent particular individuals from saying what they would about them anyway? Or to not get caught covering up for them so to see them and really make people suspicious of them as a group?
I think it is important here to acknowledge that, in spite of the amount of would be political manipulators in the internet community, when faced with serious issues like animal or child abuse, furs act on conscience, rather than political indoctrination like this article attempts to provide. (That is to say, it attempts to encourage the fandom as a whole to act in a certain way. It attempts to offer a way of acting for the good of the fandom, as opposed to one's normal reaction.)
The thing is, if you assume the majority of furs are so bad as to find some excuse to not call out a child molester when they encounter one, you're suggesting the fandom is predominantly made up of bad people. I know this not to be the case. We turn on our own all the time when we see them doing harm to others.
When in The Furry Community, everyone may assume the freedom to display what they’re into (if they can get it into a Furry context) but that implies no guarantee of acceptance or protection by the community. When it comes to illegal activities, you tip a Furry’s moral compass entirely at your own risk. If a fur thinks you deserve it, he’ll dial 911 as fast as anyone. And with all furs free to act in this manner when their conscience moves them to do so, the fandom can hardly be considered a safe haven for child or animal abusers.
Furs who act on their hearts don't need to be told the things in this article. While furs who start ascribing to some politically oriented code of Furrydom are in great danger of having their heart and conscience compromised by rhetoric.
When it comes right down to it, issues like animal and child abuse are not fandom issues. They are general moral issues. And a fandom is neither a church nor a political platform. We help our fellow fans enhance their enjoyment of anthropomorphic animals. It is not really our place to try to be shaping how our fellow fans think, feel or act. At least, not outside of an artistic context.
As I said in my response to another article, you can only legitimately influence the hearts and minds of Furry fans through artistic Furry creativity. Furry characters were originally established for the purpose of communicating ideas and making people think. And, in that way, it becomes the choice of the reader whether to accept and absorb the ideas the characters project. But it’s quite a different thing to personally preach to Furry fans – to try to establish for them a certain way they should think and act to be accepted as proper responsible Furries. That is not the place of a fandom.
By that same theory, it was improper for anyone to suggest a connection between the immoral actions of a few football officials with the overall institution of football and the overall football fandom. Fandoms do not unite people into an organized institution that projects a single idea or state of being. Fans always remain individuals who determine their moral stance for themselves.
I think it is important here to acknowledge that, in spite of the amount of would be political manipulators in the internet community, when faced with serious issues like animal or child abuse, furs act on conscience, rather than political indoctrination like this article attempts to provide. (That is to say, it attempts to encourage the fandom as a whole to act in a certain way. It attempts to offer a way of acting for the good of the fandom, as opposed to one's normal reaction.)
The thing is, if you assume the majority of furs are so bad as to find some excuse to not call out a child molester when they encounter one, you're suggesting the fandom is predominantly made up of bad people. I know this not to be the case. We turn on our own all the time when we see them doing harm to others.
When in The Furry Community, everyone may assume the freedom to display what they’re into (if they can get it into a Furry context) but that implies no guarantee of acceptance or protection by the community. When it comes to illegal activities, you tip a Furry’s moral compass entirely at your own risk. If a fur thinks you deserve it, he’ll dial 911 as fast as anyone. And with all furs free to act in this manner when their conscience moves them to do so, the fandom can hardly be considered a safe haven for child or animal abusers.
Furs who act on their hearts don't need to be told the things in this article. While furs who start ascribing to some politically oriented code of Furrydom are in great danger of having their heart and conscience compromised by rhetoric.
When it comes right down to it, issues like animal and child abuse are not fandom issues. They are general moral issues. And a fandom is neither a church nor a political platform. We help our fellow fans enhance their enjoyment of anthropomorphic animals. It is not really our place to try to be shaping how our fellow fans think, feel or act. At least, not outside of an artistic context.
As I said in my response to another article, you can only legitimately influence the hearts and minds of Furry fans through artistic Furry creativity. Furry characters were originally established for the purpose of communicating ideas and making people think. And, in that way, it becomes the choice of the reader whether to accept and absorb the ideas the characters project. But it’s quite a different thing to personally preach to Furry fans – to try to establish for them a certain way they should think and act to be accepted as proper responsible Furries. That is not the place of a fandom.
By that same theory, it was improper for anyone to suggest a connection between the immoral actions of a few football officials with the overall institution of football and the overall football fandom. Fandoms do not unite people into an organized institution that projects a single idea or state of being. Fans always remain individuals who determine their moral stance for themselves.