Thanks for sharing this information. I will post a warning though that the second link above has some adult photos in it, so view with caution.
1) I agree that if ANW believed that Sangy was involved in criminal rings that harmed animals that they have every right to ban him, but...
2) Sangy was not charged, or even found by the furry fandom or evidence provided, of being actually in the illegal groups that abused animals. Instead at this time he was only found in other (legal) chat rooms with those associated with the groups committing illegal activities. So at this time it falls under this section of ANW's letter dealing with guilt by association:
Our reality, especially with the influence of social media, unfortunately abounds with doctored images, false narratives, innuendo, guilt by association, and slander.
2a) Now, on an individual level, this is certainly grounds for people to be wary that the accused could be associating with these folks because maybe they may engage in those activities. And if so they can take personal action to prevent harm to animals and be vigilant for any other information that shows that they are engaging in said activities.
2b) However, on an organizational level this can be a bit more problematic. What if your brother killed someone? Sure the police may question you if you had any knowledge but you may not have any. In a sane government, you would not be charged with the murder your brother committed as if you committed it. To counter, an insane government would do otherwise. For example, North Korea does arrest all the family members if one of them shows decent.
But to anchor this back, a furry convention is not a government, and a private event for a weekend get away isn't too big a deal should they be more vigilant than a government. And I'm sure Saphy would rather not be at a party like that anyway. So in the end the entire purpose of this article was to just point out:
"Practice what you preach if you choose to preach, or preach what you actually practice if you choose to practice."
Thanks for sharing this information. I will post a warning though that the second link above has some adult photos in it, so view with caution.
1) I agree that if ANW believed that Sangy was involved in criminal rings that harmed animals that they have every right to ban him, but...
2) Sangy was not charged, or even found by the furry fandom or evidence provided, of being actually in the illegal groups that abused animals. Instead at this time he was only found in other (legal) chat rooms with those associated with the groups committing illegal activities. So at this time it falls under this section of ANW's letter dealing with guilt by association:
2a) Now, on an individual level, this is certainly grounds for people to be wary that the accused could be associating with these folks because maybe they may engage in those activities. And if so they can take personal action to prevent harm to animals and be vigilant for any other information that shows that they are engaging in said activities.
2b) However, on an organizational level this can be a bit more problematic. What if your brother killed someone? Sure the police may question you if you had any knowledge but you may not have any. In a sane government, you would not be charged with the murder your brother committed as if you committed it. To counter, an insane government would do otherwise. For example, North Korea does arrest all the family members if one of them shows decent.
But to anchor this back, a furry convention is not a government, and a private event for a weekend get away isn't too big a deal should they be more vigilant than a government. And I'm sure Saphy would rather not be at a party like that anyway. So in the end the entire purpose of this article was to just point out:
"Practice what you preach if you choose to preach, or preach what you actually practice if you choose to practice."