Encouraging bad people to get the right treatment so they no longer be a threat is a plus in my book, however I want to criticize: the idea that some of these people must never be welcome might partly be contributing to why some of these people never get the proper help they need but I'm not sure if you're on the same page as I am on this take. Do you mean people who want to join the fandom and hurt living beings alone? I certainly don't welcome a furry being an abuser, however that doesn't mean said person can't be a furry alone or lose the future of socializing innocently when no longer a threat. I also feel like what you're saying is conflicting especially when you say it's not about cancel culture. Claiming to be open for innocent expression but then arguing against people like Kero just expressing innocent anthro stuff (less related to what he did) seems a bit two-faced, but like I said I am not sure if that's what you meant.
Anyway I worry about the message might lead to harassing certain people against their rights to be a furry all over a 'past' action they no longer do.
Some people can't help being a furry and once and a while, some awful people might have this. So for me using a Kero the wolf example, trying to tell him to get the right help but then broadly telling him he's not welcomed in the 'furry community' as if any typical stranger has a right to gatekeep that kind of stuff, as if it's a "crime" to merely be in the fandom for innocent interests alone (such as merely being a furry), is probably not solving much of anything and might even be contributing a negative reaction to getting the right treatment, especially since being kicked out of the furry fandom will not save animals. If Kero actually did get the proper treatment and was successful, then just wants to be a furry, rehabilitates back into society after, then I see nothing ethical to argue he suddenly can't exist as a furry and innocently socialize. To go against that is exactly the same level as saying "Hey, I want you to get the right treatment but you can't be yourself innocently. You can't be happy. You can't get normality back!"... Yeah... don't be surprised they failed to become safe around others again.
That being said, I'm not saying that Kero being a threat should be online socially, however this shouldn't be about about the topic of "furry" as if him leaving that would make that much of a difference.
Also less related to this, you said "does engage" but I'm sure you mean "doesn't engage"? Somewhere in the first paragraph under the line you put. I assume that's part of the reason you wanted to edit your comment.
Disclaimer: I am not actually sure if I got anything correct here. I also feel like my writing here is a bit sloppy today.
Encouraging bad people to get the right treatment so they no longer be a threat is a plus in my book, however I want to criticize: the idea that some of these people must never be welcome might partly be contributing to why some of these people never get the proper help they need but I'm not sure if you're on the same page as I am on this take. Do you mean people who want to join the fandom and hurt living beings alone? I certainly don't welcome a furry being an abuser, however that doesn't mean said person can't be a furry alone or lose the future of socializing innocently when no longer a threat. I also feel like what you're saying is conflicting especially when you say it's not about cancel culture. Claiming to be open for innocent expression but then arguing against people like Kero just expressing innocent anthro stuff (less related to what he did) seems a bit two-faced, but like I said I am not sure if that's what you meant.
Anyway I worry about the message might lead to harassing certain people against their rights to be a furry all over a 'past' action they no longer do.
Some people can't help being a furry and once and a while, some awful people might have this. So for me using a Kero the wolf example, trying to tell him to get the right help but then broadly telling him he's not welcomed in the 'furry community' as if any typical stranger has a right to gatekeep that kind of stuff, as if it's a "crime" to merely be in the fandom for innocent interests alone (such as merely being a furry), is probably not solving much of anything and might even be contributing a negative reaction to getting the right treatment, especially since being kicked out of the furry fandom will not save animals. If Kero actually did get the proper treatment and was successful, then just wants to be a furry, rehabilitates back into society after, then I see nothing ethical to argue he suddenly can't exist as a furry and innocently socialize. To go against that is exactly the same level as saying "Hey, I want you to get the right treatment but you can't be yourself innocently. You can't be happy. You can't get normality back!"... Yeah... don't be surprised they failed to become safe around others again.
That being said, I'm not saying that Kero being a threat should be online socially, however this shouldn't be about about the topic of "furry" as if him leaving that would make that much of a difference.
Also less related to this, you said "does engage" but I'm sure you mean "doesn't engage"? Somewhere in the first paragraph under the line you put. I assume that's part of the reason you wanted to edit your comment.
Disclaimer: I am not actually sure if I got anything correct here. I also feel like my writing here is a bit sloppy today.