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).
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).