Creative Commons license icon

Toast the Rabbit, aka Rainhopper Roo, sentenced to 70 months for child pornography

Your rating: None Average: 4.9 (20 votes)

Daniel Branton, known in the fandom as Toast the Rabbit and Rainhopper Roo, pleaded guilty to possessing child pornography, in relation to his June 2016 arrest. According to the arrest documents, child pornography was found on his laptop.

Branton was sentenced on November 5th, 2018 to 70 months (5.8 years) in prison, a mandatory mental health assessment, and lifetime probation upon release. Among the conditions of his probation, he must undergo mental health treatment, register as a sex offender, and must not own any sexual images of minors, including fictional content such as drawings. He must stay away from children, and his computer use will be monitored.

In the furry fandom, Branton was the technical director of 2 Sense, and in 2009 he served as the co-chair of Califur.

(Hat tip to Dogpatch Press/Patch Packrat for access to the judgement order.)

Tags:

Comments

Your rating: None Average: 4.9 (14 votes)

"Toast" being the operative word.

Your rating: None Average: 2.3 (17 votes)

"and lifetime probation upon release."
Jesus, what perversion of justice indeed. That's just a huge violation of the 8th amendment. I hope the ruling in the future rules that it is such a violation. Seriously that's cruel and unusual especially for just mere possession of some bad pictures. Coming from someone who believes that criminal beings are still human after all.

Your rating: None Average: 3.2 (12 votes)

I think you should try to understand the gravity of amassing a collection of, and distributing to others, real child pornography, if you think that it can be described as merely having "some bad pictures". Certainly before you try to handle big-boy topics like your personal, extrajudicial opinions on what constitutional amendment lifetime sentences of probation do or do not violate, what you think constitutes "perverted justice", your view on the legal system of the United States or any other country, or, y'know what, talking at all.

Your rating: None Average: 2.3 (15 votes)

I'm not a child buddy, and the reason why I said "bad pictures" because I don't want to say the actual words in fear of something else.

I've read on many laws, I've read in how far a law can be, and when punishments can be cruel and unusual or not. And as a concerned individual, I have every damn right to argue that lifetime probation over mere possession of illegal pictures is one of those punishments that go way too far, and I find it more "double jeopardy" too after a sentence. A lot of people argue many things to be cruel and unusual, and sometimes that can cause judges to change because of that. Judges can be wrong sometimes.

I usually know what I'm talking about. I'm a person who's already aware of the fact that USA prisons and similar do not help criminals but make things worse generally, and that Norway does a better job, with not only helping for real in general, but leans much more further into actual morality by having a humane prison system, no death penalty, and no life imprisonment sentence. The two death penalties ("death penalty" and "Life Imprisonment Without Parole") is even worse than this probation argument here. With this topic, I'm just doing the usual complaint to help spread the message that supports humanity and a healthy life I think.

Your rating: None Average: 3.2 (13 votes)

Imagine if Toast had a concerned individual instead of a lawyer defending him, it would be amazing.

Your rating: None Average: 2.7 (13 votes)

Oh so it's just now bad for someone to help spread the fact that cruel and unusual punishment is not OK then? Just because I'm not a lawyer?
That punishment is cruel and unusual, period. I'm no judge, or lawyer, but people can still argue that in another sense which might also influence some judges to change.
Got a feeling anyone having a problem with me so far believes in this type of corrupt government crap.

_______

Kinda off topic: It still makes me wonder to see a useless rating system by seeing people rate my comments down because I dare question fucked up shit likely.
Anyone who supports ruining a life of someone because of mere possession of illegal pictures are likely worse than certain child molesters, and I won't apologize for that. Hell, all "causing suffering back" is always wrong.

Edit: Even though I've edit before without saying sometimes, I still wanted to say I wanted to edit this post anyway.

Your rating: None Average: 2.5 (14 votes)

You tell it! Drop some truth bombs on those judges and lawyers. Have you considered doing civil disobedience about these unjust laws? Maybe a livestream fap-in?

Your rating: None Average: 2.2 (13 votes)

This is why this website doesn't deserve to be known and shouldn't even be accepted as a civilized website in general. This place is so bad, that even many non-furry websites would probably understand and agree to my view being against lifetime probation because of a couple of bad pictures.

If you ever had your own son or daughter get a death penalty legally, or wants to commit suicide because of life time probation, I hope you realize something.
So just fuck off.

Your rating: None Average: 2.9 (12 votes)

Poor innocent Toast is suffering cruel and unusual double jeopardy from a corrupt government. Diamond Man has identified a problem. What's he doing about it?

Denouncing Flayrah dot com. The website has been denounced.

Victory! Diamond man pops a bottle of champagne. Another good job done.

Your rating: None Average: 2.8 (12 votes)

Oh grow up, all I'm doing is calling out how certain members and guest or guests are being spoiled brats just because I wanted to spread word calling out fucked up shit used by the current law, like how many people do against cruel and unusual punishment.

They act like that because they support cruel and unusual punishment likely.

And your behavior that that childish username is part of the problem.

Your rating: None Average: 2.8 (9 votes)

Go on, will there be an article to call out the offenders?

Your rating: None Average: 2.3 (13 votes)

Maybe I could make an ED article about this website even though I hate that website in general. I could also spread this to Adjective Species too.

Your rating: None Average: 2.8 (9 votes)

Can't wait, when is it coming?

Your rating: None Average: 4.6 (5 votes)

You realize there is some irony at getting mad at Flayrah for you emotion toward anynomous comments from DogPatch, yeah?

I mean where's the love for DogPatch Press?

Your rating: None Average: 2.6 (9 votes)

That was DogPatch? Thanks for the help of me exposing more known people if that's true I guess. :)

Yeah I'm emotional, but at least in a general sense, I'm using it against irrationality being against my rational arguments. Kinda a case where at least I'm using it in the right direction maybe.

Your rating: None Average: 3 (8 votes)

Shhh don't listen to the roo. He just doesn't want you to post an expose at Dogpatch. We have a well known rivalry where I help a bald guy on youtube make fun of his videos. Actually that's the guy Toast lived with and he wants the article.

Your rating: None Average: 4.2 (6 votes)

Yeah, 2 did a video about me, sure. I know you're being sarcastic about the whole helping him with it thing. Probably to insinuate I'm being a paranoid for saying the anon comments were yours.

But I mean, it's pretty plain to see in this thread where you are having a back and forth conversation with someone and then switching to anon-mode in order to get more toxic so that lower voting or words are not attached to their main account.

Could always remove anon posting to fix that, but the site function is outside my wheelhouse.

I mean I certainly agree that Diamond is concerning himself over something that is not too much a concern. I mean even 2 isn't sticking his neck out do far for his ex lover after this plea. So maybe he knows it's better to just not draw attention to it, because maybe he realized, yeah perhaps there was more to the case then he originally stated.

Your rating: None Average: 2.1 (7 votes)

You live in a house on wheels?

Your rating: None Average: 2.3 (12 votes)

"over something that is not too much a concern."
It's a big concern, a really big concern. Part of this conversation involves something that tries to ruin a living, human being's life. That's a huge concern, it's probably just like a major problem that tries to ruin a child's life.

I mainly find it so furious to see anyone be against the idea that this person who got such penalty should have a right to live a normal and legal life after the sentence of imprisonment he got is complete.

Your rating: None Average: 3.1 (12 votes)

Can you go make these disgusting comments on someone else's article for the love of fucking god

Your rating: None Average: 2.3 (12 votes)

Let me tell you this as someone who believes in life, and health. What the fucking hell is wrong with you?
"Oh, Diamond Man believes in basic human rights, that's disgusting!!! I can't let this person have his freedom of speech because I'm offended."

Just get out of here you barbaric sadistic alt "right".

Your rating: None Average: 3.5 (13 votes)

You are so fucking stupid, it's unbelievable. Dude. I'm about to blow your god damn mind here. I'm an anarchist. So you coming in here all hot about, holy shit, the Norwegian carceral system? It's not impressive at all. If you even made it sound like you knew what you were talking about, and you even left out all the completely odious equivocation and false equivalencies, I'd be like, "Oh, Norway? yeah they're actually way too authoritarian too," and maybe we'd have a nice friendly discussion on it in an alternate dimension where you have some fucking perspective and middle-school level reading comprehension.

You don't fucking believe in "life and health", you're not smart enough to, you don't even have the fucking empathy or social cognition to understand who in this situation's life has been ruined, for the rest of their life, and in a format that handily retraumatizes them again and again, over and over, spread and shared and will never go away. Who's fucking life was ruined here, Diamond Man, and who ruined his own miserable life? Ask yourself that and then get some fucking therapy.

Your rating: None Average: 2.7 (12 votes)

Norway's system involving prisoners is in fact better because it's a real moral system that believes in humanity, not abuse, at least mostly.
Not only that, Norway's crime rate is one of the world's lowest crime rate system. And the re offending rate very low. Interesting link: https://www.businessinsider.com/why-norways-prison-system-is-so-successful-2014-...

There is no evidence that someone who merely possessed images are directly responsible. There isn't even evidence that even direct non-violent abuse will always ruin someone's life because it might be possible to cure someone. And finally, regardless, ruining someone's life back is just as bad as first ruining anyone else's life.
You're the brat whiny piece of shit who doesn't understand life and health and if you're OK with ruining a person's life because of what they did for example, then that's proof that you don't know anything about life and health because you believe in the delusion of retribution. You are likely a hypocrite too.

Criminals are human beings. Nothing will change that fact. If you hurt a criminal, you are just as bad as hurting someone who's not a criminal. That is an obvious form of fact to realize when you put your dumb head out of traditional the traditional delusion of "retribution" likely.

You are against life and health for some people, and that's an actual fact.
______

I hope Toast the Rabbit regret his bad actions, and have a normal non-offending life in the future. And there is nothing fucking sick and disgusting by saying this...

Your rating: None Average: 3.7 (11 votes)

This is what I mean about reading comprehension. You don't even know what my opinion on lifetime probation or the US carceral system is, and you're not going to know, because it's completely unrelated to why your comments are disgusting. Your comments are disgusting because of your extreme downplaying of the serious sexual offense that is at play here. First you described it as "just some bad pictures", and then you're straight up denying reality about the harm possession causes, just saying "nuh uh!" when it's pointed out to you. Why? Why are you so set on defending child pornography every time it comes up? Is there something on your computer history someone should look into?

Here are some facts for you, wwwarea, about why seeking out, collecting, and distributing child sex abuse media is completely, absolutely indefensible:

It directly leads to an increase in child sexual abuse - because more children are abused to meet the increased production
A large percent of people who possess child pornography possess particularly violent pornography such as torture, and an even larger percent (at the time of the study) both possessed child pornography and sexually abused real-life children. It's an indicator of danger to children.
Pedophiles collect child pornography for three reasons: to fuel their own sexual fantasies (which leads to increased cognitive distortions validating child sexual abuse), to groom or blackmail children for child sexual abuse, and to share online with other pedophiles, which grants them "status" in those circles. Higher "status" is achieved by producing original child sex abuse content, (see above links) which in turn drives the production of new child pornography, aka increased child sexual abuse.
Child pornography harms the victims for life, mentally and sometimes physically. (See above links.) No, PTSD cannot be cured.

If you have any shred of empathy in your body, you should then see that it's not "just pictures" or "not that bad". If you have any sense of self-preservation, you should hope that your real name will never be linked to your vehement, repeated defenses of child pornography.

Your rating: None Average: 2.6 (9 votes)

I already mentioned that mere possession alone should not be compared to someone who actually makes it, you can read one comment here: https://www.flayrah.com/7480/toast-rabbit-aka-rainhopper-roo-sentenced-70-months...
I consider the actual making of the image to be more serious than merely possessing certain images alone. I fully understand the situation likely.

That's fucking bullshit partly. It doesn't change the fact that if a criminal thought of making more just because someone else possessed it, it's 100% the criminal's fault. If I agreed with you, the same must be said for having certain fictional porn, having legal traffic, and legal cities for example that don't directly demand it.
If someone directly asked someone to make it, that's a whole different story. Both people in one example are directly responsible.
Some of your behavior remind me of that person in UK trying to prove that child sex dolls "increase" child sexual abuse because someone who hurt actual children had a possession of one or maybe more, which isn't really proof because not having such doll is likely not gonna cure the person for example.
Not all pedophiles who possess are gonna go in and share the pictures. There is no concrete proof either. And not everyone who possessed such certain pictures are podophiles.

PTSD not being cured, proof? And even if not, it's likely that it doesn't stop the person from enjoying most of life.

If you have any reality, you would understand how moral blame works.
There is a reason why I'm against "mere possession is as bad as making it!" it can cause people to support cruel and unusual punishment for example. Edit after one rating, feel like I wanted to be maybe more clear. Edit Done.

Someone possessing a picture found on a the dark streets are not gonna ask for someone to make more by default unless that person does. Some people will control their own boundaries, and the person who wants to make more has their own fault. And anyone who directly helped someone make one are both at fault for example.

I wouldn't be damn surprised that you wish the death penalty was legal for Toast or LWOP was legal for such person. Both are a million times worse than what Toast did. Either of those are even worse than mere child molestation itself too.

Even then, if I did agree that it should be illegal in one way because of some very risk thing, then make it a separate penalty then if it's a very risk thing, but not as bad as the direct make because the lack of intention may still exist sometimes and mere possession isn't the same as directly asking someone to make it, nor is it the same as going to cause any harm alone morally, not sure on law.
Though I do believe in dropping charges though. Especially if the person did not want to hurt someone in the future.

________________

Links to moral blame general articles that involves criminal responsibility I think:
https://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-charges/aiding-and-abetting-accessory.html

https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2487&context=mlr

http://revisor.mo.gov/main/OneSection.aspx?section=562.041&bid=29188&hl=

Not a lawyer. Just in case, respect the law. I am not too sure on my arguments. Morally I more believe.

Your rating: None Average: 4.5 (4 votes)

Uh, you can rest easy knowing that possession of child sex abuse media is a separate, lesser penalty than creating it already.

Your rating: None Average: 2.4 (8 votes)

I am already aware of some laws that tries to separate it. Example, Missouri law has their own laws on this that may be making it separate. Here's a list of laws:
http://revisor.mo.gov/main/OneChapter.aspx?chapter=573

I think I'm partly focusing on the beliefs alone which may or may not effect law in the future. Some might even effect lifetime probation to stay.

Your rating: None Average: 3 (2 votes)

Probably not

Your rating: None Average: 2.4 (9 votes)

Now let me address those articles you've linked more.
Article 1
The last part doesn't have any clear proof that all of them will go out and hurt children in the future likely. Meanwhile, there was an old article suggesting that legalizing possession alone has actually led to less child sexual abuse in the future (something about urges).
Though I do not want to suggest "legalizing possession" (but punishment should be separate and/or easily forgiven), I think it's best to leave fictional harmless and non-threatening pictures alone. Though some governments think that fiction will "lead to abuse" which is stupid.
In the end, a risk does not equal will.
Even if such risk is true, it should still be a lowered penalty if not because it's possible (maybe) that someone who merely possess it isn't intending to promote it and when it comes to fear of asking, responsibility does exist. Again not sure exactly what the law of aiding is.

Article 2
Not concrete likely. Hell, this is found in the article:
"There is not much research about the motivations of people who possess child pornography."

Article 3
"haunting" in future can also be from mere free speech that reminds a victim of past abuse. Even if it "hurts", it's probably not the same as starting it in the first place. Plus what about governments who possessed it legally (if legal) for say, a court purpose? Also there is no evidence that someone possessing it is gonna cause the victim to be reminded by default miles away. That may depend.

Your rating: None Average: 2.4 (9 votes)

He's not wrong here though you seem to be mostly arguing past each other.

I should also note that whether or not his comments are disgusting is completely irrelevant and has no baring on whether they are true or not.

I looked at your links and two thoughts struck me. First, they are far from unbiased sources as they are from groups specifically working against child pornography. Noble as that may be, they do have an agenda. So I wanted to see what the support was for their claims but I don't really understand their references and I was wondering if you could explain.
The dual offenders reference seems to be:
20 Id., page viii.
But I'm not sure what Id is.

Similarly, your last link on danger to children appears to cite:
6 Stopping Child Pornography: Protecting our Children and the Constitution: Before the Senate Comm. On the Judiciary, 107th Cong. (2002) (statement of Ernie Allen, Director, The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children).
7 Telephone Interview with Ray Smith, Agent, United States Postal Inspection Service (April 30, 2004).
8 Id.
9 See Id. (Please note that the data compiled by the United States Postal Inspection Service are based upon evidence derived from child pornography crime scene investigations and police reports.
10 Internet Child Pornography: Before the House Subcomm. on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security, Comm. on the Judiciary, 107th Cong. (2002) (statement of Michael J. Heimbach, Crimes Against Children Unit, Criminal Investigative Division, FBI).
11 Stopping Child Pornography: Protecting our Children and the Constitution: Before the Senate Comm. On the Judiciary, 107th Cong. (2002) (statement of Ernie Allen, Director,The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children).
Again that seems to include that Id thing, which I still don't know what it is. The rest sound like they come from statements of individuals and not from a published or peer-reviewed study. So it's very difficult to make any comment on the methodology or reliability of those statements.

"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~

Your rating: None Average: 4 (8 votes)

The depth of how wrong he is, is directly why they're disgusting. I guess unless you have some Empirical Evidence that a lifetime sentence of supervised release is just as bad as videotaping the serial abuse of a child, I'm gonna stand by saying it's disgusting (and also wrong).

Yeah. We are serving past each other and I'm getting too upset about not being understood, even though I know exactly why he doesn't understand.

I might try to figure out the "id" thing, kinda interesting, probably won't be at least til after the weekend though.

Your rating: None Average: 2.2 (10 votes)

Since there is no concrete link to "mere possession" being the same as making such illegal content, you need to stop pretending it's true because you think so.
Even then, and while I am not defending these acts alone: there wasn't even concrete evidence that video taping or mere non-violent sexual abuse will completely ruin a person's life to every single person, because some people can be restored, even if someone still has bad memories, many of those people can still enjoy most of life.
One example that is horrible is when someone told a victim that their life can't be restored.

Finally, putting someone on the sex offender registry or probation (not sure if they are the same) for life has a lot of evidence of life being ruined. There are several stories where people can't get a job, and has hate, and can't mainly live a normal life because of it. Some sex offenders were killed because they were sex offenders. That can easily be compared to people who were abused by the actual perpetrator who directly harmed a child.
It's not only likely as bad as someone who was abused sometimes, but it's probably even worse. If all those stories are false and it's really not a big deal, then oh I guess.
And remember, Toast isn't even the actual perpetrator unless he did something that makes him so. Even if I agreed that there is some effect but not as bad as an intentionally aid.

I wouldn't be surprised if you ignored the evidence of that existing, since it's damn clear you're ignoring the comment explaining why mere possession isn't the same.

Again, not a lawyer. I am not too sure on what the law said. Respect the law.

Your rating: None Average: 3.1 (7 votes)

omg...he might not be able to get a job...you're so right i'm so sorry. how could i have been so blind

Your rating: None Average: 2.3 (7 votes)

Assuming you're being sarcastic, maybe if you realized how horrible it is to be on the sex offender registry, especially for life, you would probably see something.
Let me send some links.
https://www.themarshallproject.org/2017/09/17/shawna-a-life-on-the-sex-offender-...

https://blog.womenagainstregistry.org/no-more-suicides-please/

https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-naperville-north-suicide-l...

There's plenty more where that came from!
There was also probably a story where someone was downloading illegal pornography because the person was abused in the past, and I think wanted to download them for certain experiences. Later, the person committed suicide because of something relating to his life probably gonna be ruined later on involving law maybe. Having trouble finding the so-called story or close though. I think I may have found it before.

If you think those aren't a big deal, then it's clear from this that you don't understand life and health.

__________

BTW, anyone who rates some of my comments to be lower than two starts means that I'm likely gonna rate them back up because we shouldn't let the agenda tried to loosely abuse logic for voodoo theory, and/or something that might not understand the main thing on moral blaming. Hiding comments trying to criticize in the way I'm trying in favor of emotion is bad for nature.

Your rating: None Average: 3.2 (5 votes)

Look, Diamond Man, call us when he gets the death penalty; otherwise, most of us have made peace with this particular punishment for this particular crime, and more than a few of us are at the "really, he got off easy" stage.

I mean, there are nuances to be had in this discussion, but let's face it, your argument is really "there's nothing wrong with fucking kids!" and once you start with such a fundamentally flawed premise, there's little to be gained arguing with you.

Also, from past experience, nuance just isn't your thing. You literally don't even know the meaning of the word.

Your rating: None Average: 2.3 (6 votes)

People like you should be imprisoned for saying such false information. Fuck off, how do you like it if people said that to you for being a furry?
Because it's the same damn thing when it comes to lies.

I'm not defending child sexual abuse. I am mainly defending the fact that such person is a person, like you, who deserves to live and have a healthy life alone. The other main thing I'm defending is that possession should not compared to the full act of abusing a child when making it.

You have no concrete evidence to prove it's the same, especially when it's already proven morally that 1. mental intention is a thing or not, and 2. is it the same thing as directly aiding the person into the future?

I already gave out links and research and you idiotic cult type of people ignores it and emotionally react with no valid argument.
Rakuen Growlithe is like the only other person of the entire website that is likely rational on this topic. THE. ONLY. OTHER. PERSON.

But now that you're going so far to the point that you're flat out lying to the public by claiming that I defend having sex with children is another thing that's so fucked up.

If you ever have a child of your own and has ever gotten the death penalty ordered by the government and/or state and it's legal, I hope you watch just so you realize how twisted, and fucked up your beliefs are.

Your rating: None Average: 2.2 (6 votes)

Because your comment tries to actually hurt another human being, I had to mark it as spam, and I request the site owner to remove such fucked up comment.

Your rating: None Average: 3.6 (5 votes)

Quit abusing the spam filter, if I have to sit here and read your comments you should have to read those of whomever you're trying to censor with the spam filter.

Your rating: None Average: 1.5 (4 votes)

Any text like that that flat out promotes false information deserves to be removed. This harmless and non-threatening behavior was justified.

If the admin brings it back, the person might actually be promoting something that might risk being a lawsuit.
Gonna let that person keep this in mind.

Your rating: None Average: 4.5 (4 votes)

So, using the spam filter to remove comments you don't like is actually explicitly against the rules. Don't do that.

Also, just some advice, it's usually not a good idea to threaten legal action against websites you frequent.

Your rating: None Average: 1.8 (4 votes)

Fine, I'll admit it, I've likely made a mistake there. wish most members on this thread could too.

But I think the admin should remove the comment because I don't think abuse to other members should be allowed. The rating system is very likely useless and they need to add a "report" button next to the comments. Saying dangerous lies like that shouldn't even be allowed.
So even if it's against the rules, I don't want to say I did something wrong here.

Your rating: None Average: 4 (2 votes)

You want to report that comment to whom exactly?

Your rating: None Average: 1.7 (3 votes)

To a site who knows how to be responsible a lot.
For example, DeviantArt does not allow abuse toward other members. Some comments get removed, some posts do, and some other are removed, and I strongly vote that this website disallow comments that flat out lie on others if it's allowed.

https://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=1153
Plus in reaction to GreenReaper, I'm claiming that reallowing the comment might be aiding.

Your rating: None Average: 4 (2 votes)

You want GR to add a functionality to the website that lets you report individual comments to a third-party website? Why would they care? why would GR do that? Can't you just do that yourself?

Your rating: None Average: 3 (4 votes)

There are definitely toxic comments on the site which are a problem, but Crossaffliction's was not one of them. Perhaps you need to take a time out and relax.

"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~

Your rating: None Average: 2 (3 votes)

He specifically stated that I defended f****** children. Why do you think that's not toxic???
Do you have any idea how much serious a lie like that can be? I'm not even trying to be mean.
The comment could be turned into a form of libel too.

I really don't think I need to "time out and relax" here on that.

Your rating: None Average: 2.3 (3 votes)

You need to put this material on one of those sandwich board signs and hang around bus stations. It'll be a big hit.

Your rating: None Average: 4.4 (5 votes)

Sorry to burst your bubble, but sites are more at risk of a lawsuit over editing or removing people's comments, because that means we're exercising editorial control - whereas, if it's just you spouting nonsense, that's on you.

Thus, abusing the spam filter arguably puts the site at risk – so your ability to mark as spam has been revoked.

Your rating: None Average: 2 (1 vote)

To be fair, he picked the best possible target.

Your rating: None Average: 3.3 (3 votes)

and more than a few of us are at the "really, he got off easy" stage.

He got off soooo easy! And that's not due to thinking he deserves worse. He could have been convicted for every single file! He could have gotten a sentencing enhancement for files that were especially violent! He could have been convicted of distribution! Instead he's not even losing six years of his life. Oh, and maybe it's gonna be harder for him to get a job after. Which is true of all felons, but I guess it's particularly bad in this case because...reasons.

Your rating: None Average: 1.7 (3 votes)

I think it really depends on what type of felon. The sex offender registry can really cause a lot of problems. It's not even just jobs either...

Your rating: None Average: 1.7 (3 votes)

Ah, since the comment is back, I can now make that journal off a public website outside the website for directly promoting abuse toward another person by flat out lies...

Your rating: None Average: 4 (1 vote)

"Ibid." means "the prior reference, at the same place". "Id." just means "the prior reference"; "Id. at p. 25" may refer to a different place within that reference.

Your rating: None Average: 2.8 (4 votes)

Ah thanks. So that's a legal referencing convention. That does rather seem like there's not really any studies backing up their claims then. I'd have to go back to check but really all they had were statements from people. I suppose legal precedent is usually set by opinions but coming from science, that is not a reliable way to establish truth.

"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~

Your rating: None Average: 3 (2 votes)

Aren't Norwegian prison's basically glorified college dorms and nature retreats anyway? Or is that just in some "experimental" programs? All I know is Anders Breivik and Varg Vikernes seemed to have it pretty swell in prison, and those two would've easily gotten the death penalty in some US states.

Your rating: None Average: 2.4 (5 votes)

I'm not too sure but I do know they use this glorified system to treat offenders like actual human beings, and after they get out, they likely stay out. I think it's based on the concept of physiologically.
"If we treat people like animals when they are in prison they are likely to behave like animals."
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/feb/25/norwegian-prison-inmates-treated...

A little more on one topic:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-life/10724910/Prisons-book-ban-If-you-t...

"On leaving prison, a person needs to believe that they have a future. Without this, they can quickly spiral into depression and a feeling of hopelessness, which leads to an increased likelihood of re-offending."
Note: Lifetime probation can likely ruin a person's future even though it's not as bad as LWOP.

Your rating: None Average: 3.1 (7 votes)

Lol i'm not insinuating anything to you, you're in on the joke right?

More toxic is prrrreeeetty subjective with child abuse apologists above and below. Good thing Equivamp has a backbone for that.

Your rating: None Average: 4.3 (3 votes)

I'm not against toxicity in general, just saying if you want to do it, best to stay logged in so the person knows they are talking to the same person.

Your rating: None Average: 2.4 (7 votes)

You're not against toxicity?

"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~

Your rating: None Average: 2.7 (7 votes)

No need to ask when your dipshittery is allowed here

Your rating: None Average: 3.5 (4 votes)

I do not have control over the comment section. Toxicity I find is typically the results of burnout and frustrations over the things that go wrong in the world and trying to find a way to make them right. Everyone hits a toxic point threshold, which is why breaks are called "detoxing".

On an interpersonal level, this will occur as well.

I don't worry about Diamonds opinion here even though I disagree and believe the lifetime probation is fine in this case. It is not my fight, as there are other "injustices" in the world I feel is more worth the energy. I'm not going to change his mind on it, and him commenting here will not change it, so it's more a waste of resource.

Your rating: None Average: 2.2 (5 votes)

Just remember that lifetime probation tries to ruin a person's life. Any sane person would realize it's morally wrong, and isn't real justice.
You probably have a right to disagree with me, but I will likely continue to show it's wrong, and that may count as contributing to effect such cruel and unusual punishment to be abolished. Some places already abolished some forms of sex offender registry, and has tried to (e.g. Texas trying to pass a bill to not make possession a tier 3 anymore). Not so sure though.

I hope the person will be able to legally petition out of it.
For now, I will probably share this website too: https://narsol.org/
For the person who ever sees this comment later in life.

Your rating: None Average: 4 (1 vote)

I think you fundamentally misunderstand probation - it's not intended as punishment, more a matter of trying to balance their desire for freedom with everyone else's desire for them to not do something bad again.

By its nature, probation restricts what a person can do, since they aren't fully trusted to operate normally in society, having been convicted of a crime. The goal is not to punish the subject of probation, but rather to give them a measured amount of freedom while limiting the cost and risk of further damage to society.

The alternative is not "no probation", but "no release from jail", which definitely ruins their life. When you look at it from this perspective, lifetime probation can start to look like a good deal.

Your rating: None Average: 2 (3 votes)

But it's still has extra restrictions which might be violation of human rights, and some could argue it as a form of punishment. It's the same for sex offender registry (though is it the same thing?).

I kinda already assume it's a set of restrictions, but I find extra restrictions still a form of "punishment". Especially since the person is sentenced to it. Having some of the restrictions are based off very irrationality when it comes to making it life. Especially since everyone with a innocent past is also at risk.

I know it's not as bad as life imprisonment or worse, my point here is that it's still cruel and unusual.
When a person completes a sentence for jail, it should be it. The person should legally be treated like any other person who's no longer a prisoner legally. If there needs to be a legal program after, it should be for the purpose of legal restore with complete.
The proper alternative is to have an end to probation. e.g. probation for 5 years maybe.

The only restrictions I'm fine with are any restriction restricting stuff already illegal. Isn't that already applied to everyone else?

Your rating: None Average: 2 (4 votes)

You fail at basic fucking definitions. Go back to school, kid.

Your rating: None Average: 2.4 (11 votes)

Patch likes to come troll Flayrah in his spare time.

"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~

Your rating: None Average: 1.6 (7 votes)

"What's Diamond Man doing?"

Watching Alpha & Omega, d'oh.

Your rating: None Average: 3 (6 votes)

== changed my mind about replying ==

Your rating: None Average: 2.4 (7 votes)

*just nods a lot*

Your rating: None Average: 2.6 (12 votes)

In case some people might be getting a different idea. I think my comment was on the topic of how far a punishment goes. It's complaining about punishment going that far, not complaining that "it's illegal!" even though I have some thoughts on that on a different topic maybe.

If the person didn't get lifetime probation, and got probation for a year after the sentence instead, I would be far less pissed. If I fully agreed that mere possession should remain illegal, I would find the 1 year probation better, and likely fair maybe. Any lifetime penalty is irrational, and wrong morally speaking.

Your rating: None Average: 2.7 (6 votes)

Honestly, Diamond Man, the guy has to go to a shrink and register as a sex offender and also maybe not do illegal stuff (which applies to, you know, everyone already). That's all the probation means. He's not under house arrest or anything.

I think, once again, this a case of a word not meaning what you think it does.

Your rating: None Average: 2.2 (15 votes)

It doesn't look like it's not a big deal though from it sounds like.
And being on a sex offender registry is likely a terrible thing, especially if it's for life.

Your rating: None Average: 2.9 (13 votes)

There's a good way to avoid that. *whispers* ... don't do sex offending

Your rating: None Average: 2.2 (14 votes)

Say that to your own son and/or daughter if they ever got on it, and is thinking suicide thoughts. Piece of shit.

Justice is about rehabilitating, not for ruining someone's life. Lifetime registry is so bad, that in some cases (e.g. this one case), it violates the already current delusion called retribution.

Your rating: None Average: 3.1 (13 votes)

OK son. Generating demand for sexual abuse of children tends to have consequences. Don't do that, OK?

Your rating: None Average: 2.1 (14 votes)

Don't give me that "demand" bullshit to mere possession. That's like saying "traffic" causes a demand of many certain crimes. Or that "guns" creates a demand of certain crimes, and/or some more.
Mere possession of certain illegal images should never, EVER be compared to those that makes certain pictures and/or intentionally aids it. Even if it was the same, lifetime registry is 100% too far still.
And while I'm not so sure, many laws likely don't even act like possession is the same as making it even though it's still against the law.

Because it's possible a person possessing the picture had no intention in a case of mere possession, it should not be compared in a non-legal argument sense. Otherwise, let's legalize the death penalty for most things legal today because some people use it for horrible things. It's the same exact logic for certain images morally speaking.

Disclaimer: Probably already said this. I am not giving a legal argument I hope. I'm no lawyer, and respect the law. Make sure what you want to do is legal. Sorry if I made a mistake or more on this.

Your rating: None Average: 3.4 (10 votes)

"Mere possession of certain illegal images" hmmmmm

Why are they illegal, Diamond Man?

Did someone disrespect the law? Very confused, need some help on this.

Your rating: None Average: 2 (12 votes)

I'm just being safe. Maybe some other illegal images may have different effects, and some of them might not even be the same type of content, (e.g. certain illegal fictional certain porn).

Your rating: None Average: 3.4 (7 votes)

Toast was sentenced for possessing photos of rape of prepubescent children, labeled sadistic as well, Diamond Man. Why did you try to change the topic there?

And why do you think those are illegal? Answer the question please.

Your rating: None Average: 1.9 (11 votes)

"illegal images" are any image that is illegal or more than one that is illegal I believe.
What he has, is part of "illegal images".
Another thing is that sometimes it depends on the content too. Just being safe.

Do you understand now, guessing DogPatch?
Even though I do not believe in "reputation" ratings, I think people can get around this by rating other comments attached to your account if you have one. Just saying. :)

Your rating: None Average: 3.4 (5 votes)

Why are you dodging the question?

Why are the images illegal? Show your work.

Your rating: None Average: 2.2 (6 votes)

Oooh.
They are either illegal out of fear that those who possess it will magically go and abuse children by default.
Or because of voodoo theory.
Both,
Or some other reason.
Though if it should be illegal because of some major risk along with some amount of effect to victims who know, maybe it could be a very lower offense with very limited punishment (including probation regardless if it is considered that or not) and not compared to those who makes it.

As for making the content, I'm glad there is a law against it because making such thing hurts a child in the process. Not so sure about consensual sexting though.

Your rating: None Average: 3 (2 votes)

They are illegal because distributing images of child rape stimulates demand to create them, as well as revictimizing the person who was abused.

Your rating: None Average: 2 (6 votes)

I've already addressed the "demand" thing. Second you're talking about "distributing", I thought we were more focused on "possession"?

"revictimizing" the victim? Why do you believe in what might be voodoo theory?
I mean, what if the victim isn't a child anymore?
What if the victim died from cancer before possession? Is the victim in the dead damaged?
And even then, is a child miles away without knowledge of such thing "damaged"?

Even if what you claim is the reason, that doesn't make it a logical scientific reason. Where is the concrete evidence that possession is the same as literally "demanding" them by default.

I think people should not possess it, but I will never agree to the idea that mere possession "just as bad as making it" alone unless that type of behavior does.

Your rating: None Average: 3 (4 votes)

>I've already addressed the "demand" thing

No you didn't.

Your rating: None Average: 3 (4 votes)

Flapping your anus and going "nuh uh" isn't addressing the fact that possessing and distributing child porn increases demand for it

Your rating: None Average: 2 (3 votes)

A criminal's choice to make more increases a demand for it for example. Same with anyone who aids it. Claiming mere possession of certain illegal images makes a demand is like saying having traffic creates a demand for stealing. If you think that's different, then prove it.

Prove it! PROVE IT. Legally of course.
Just because you're offended by what might be criticism, the research, and/or logic doesn't mean you're right or wrong automatically. And no amount of star rating on here will change the value of the argument.

Your rating: None Average: 3.5 (2 votes)

I don't have to prove it, that is in fact the law. The burden is on you to prove that the law hasn't been broken or doesn't apply. Toast has been proven guilty of doing that.

Your rating: None Average: 1.7 (3 votes)

I never said "it's not illegal" for what the person did.
I'm talking about the argument that there is a "demand" like it's literally the same thing as demanding found here:
https://thelawdictionary.org/demand/
Note: I'm talking about possession of certain illegal images. Not distribution unless that's the same thing.

Even if it's the reason why the law is passed, it's likely a dumb argument unless maybe they mean a different type of "demand"?

Your rating: None Average: 3 (3 votes)

HAHAHAHA well, that was enlightening

Your rating: None Average: 3 (4 votes)

There's one way to get possession without distributing, genius.

It's even more harshly penalized than merely creating demand for it.

People who go on trial for distributing can defend about being innocent.

Unfortunately Toast failed.

Your rating: None Average: 1.4 (5 votes)

Under your attempt at logic, then this might be the case: if you support the sex offender registry, then you're supporting something that "creates a demand" for the following crimes: "murdering", "harassment", "suicide"*, and "destructive of property" according to one theory.

Same logic. ;)

Your rating: None Average: 1.9 (7 votes)

Jesus, I think I'm gonna log off and rate my comments higher, because it deserves to be likely. XD

Your rating: None Average: 4.3 (3 votes)

Diamond Man, honey, if you're going to break the rules, don't tell everybody!

Your rating: None Average: 2 (4 votes)

I don't see a rule anywhere about this...
Oh wait, are you talking about your possible imaginary rule that was never laid down in the public? Just like the "I own your article you make because I partly helped on it." possible rule?

Your rating: None Average: 4.3 (3 votes)

Pretty sure that doing that is one of the few things I've seen GreenReaper directly scold people for on here.

Your rating: None Average: 1.7 (3 votes)

Well I never got a warning, especially when I thought I said it way before too?

Is there like a agreement anywhere on this site?

Your rating: None Average: 3.6 (5 votes)

Diamond Man, you don't understand why people are angry this guy has child pornography; I don't expect you to understand why people are angry that you are exploiting a glitch in the comment rating system.

And, yes, there is no written "please don't upvote your own comments" warning because the fact that you can't upvote your own comments while logged on is the warning. If you can't do something logged in, you're not supposed to do it, period. Most people understand this rule automatically; there is no written warning, and yet you're the only idiot who has to have his hand held and told "No!". The point I'm trying to make is you don't understand basic human morality on this inconsequential matter, so maybe your opinions on the morality of matters such as, oh, I don't know, CHILD FUCKING PORNOGRAPHY!!!!! are not based on a full understanding of the morality of the situation, either.

It's really the same issue, Diamond Man; you don't exploit bugs in the code to get what you want. You don't exploit children's suffering to get what you want. And you don't get that.

So, anyway, now that you've been told, you don't have to understand; I'm just going to strongly advise you to stop now.

Or, hell, keep on doing it. Maybe you'll actually get banned. That would be nice.

Your rating: None Average: 1.7 (3 votes)

2cross2affliction, I'm pretty sure I understand why.
Likely they enjoy people have their lives ruined through perversion of justice because of past mistake and/or out of the myth that someone who merely possesses are the same as those who do it. It's like claiming that it's a fursuiter's fault just because such person made a fursuiter when someone else committed a robbery in the suit, in an example where the person who made it did not intend that robbery.
Stop pretending you are some allknowing person who likes to lower class anyone else because they dare disagree with you! It's selfish and egoist.

Just because a comment restricts it, doesn't mean it's an offense to get around it automatically. Besides, there are cases where you're not logged in and for some reason I could vote it unless my IP changes.
If for example there is an AGREEMENT agreed upon stating that I can't alone, then yes there would be a rule. But a separate situation that has no clear word on it is likely different.
I'm not the "idiot", many people like you who lies toward people, and spreads false biased beliefs are likely.

You do not understand anything about morality a lot. You continue to hold on to the belief that SOMEHOW it's Toast's fault or partly for the person who made it in the first place, yet you provide no concrete proof.
Ever heard of free will? And ever heard of all those links and research you kept ignoring? All you do is depend on fear, and likely support a punishment that violates the 8th amendment and human rights.
You also don't understand even more as you went in (and I apologize if that isn't what you said) and flat out said that I am defending f***ing children when I didn't.

You don't get it do you, just because something is a rule, doesn't make it moral by default. To "abuse" the mark as spam feature to hide something that is likely libel is probably justified. And I am not "exploiting" children's suffering, I am stating Toast isn't as bad as the perpetrator unless he did aid the person intentionally, or did something else that does. If the person did something worse, then he's worse than whoever it was that abused the child.

You need to stop acting like you know everything when you don't. Especially when you go out and yell (and again, sorry if that's not exactly the case) that I somehow defend f***ing children and ignore research and what likely is a fact?
When are you gonna admit that you are not always right?
When are you gonna admit that you don't have a perfect past?
When are you gonna admit that you fucked up so much when you flat out lied to the public toward me if you did? When are you gonna admit any of that?

You're wrong sometimes, and no, that's not "an insult". Seriously folks, this is the same person that said disagreeing with a critic = insult if I'm not mistaken!

Your rating: None Average: 3 (4 votes)

Wet & Mad Diamond Man even more strongly resembles a CP collector who's compensating for his own guilt than regular Diamond Man

Your rating: None Average: 1.8 (5 votes)

Since people abuse the rating system for their emotion, I'm probably gonna copy and paste my comment into another public area that doesn't have this abusive system, especially when it gets more attention. There already exist a "stamp" made on DeviantArt, but it looks like it wasn't shared on many of those groups yet. If I get more support, I may request many people to high rate my comments here if I can't really bypass the rating system.

Flayrah is not a popular website anyway and hopefully it will become less known. Mainly the site is filled with a bad anti-science and voodoo agenda anyway. This is probably barely a furry website these days.

Your rating: None Average: 4 (3 votes)

Abuse the rating system? You don't mean, like, "logging out to vote down peoples' posts twice, and upvote one's own", do you?

Your rating: None Average: 2.3 (4 votes)

I mean the ones who "abuse" it for the wrong reasons. Maybe it just depends.

Your rating: None Average: 2.8 (4 votes)

So you believe in abusing for the "right" reasons

Who's surprised to hear this from someone who thinks people should be excused for kiddie porn

Your rating: None Average: 1.8 (4 votes)

Your emotions attempting to connect to "depending on who" is a form of fallacy.

Your rating: None Average: 2.6 (5 votes)

Please try not to fuck children or contribute to fucking children, Diamond Man, you're doing an awful job of it right now, just like everything else you do

Your rating: None Average: 1.4 (5 votes)

Say that to your own son and/our daughter if they ever got in trouble for that then, while they suffer and wish for a second or more chance to live a normal non-offending life. :)

Your rating: None Average: 2.4 (5 votes)

I will, scumbag.

Your rating: None Average: 1.3 (4 votes)

Guess you don't really care about children then.

Your rating: None Average: 2.8 (4 votes)

*Flails* YOU WANT SEX OFFEMDERS TO BE RESPONSABLE? YOUR THE OFENDER!!

Your rating: None Average: 1.5 (4 votes)

In a fictional (hope so) example: You're telling your own son and/our daughter in a way that suggest "Too bad, you shouldn't have done it." instead of offering a second chance to live a normal, and law respecting life.

Your rating: None Average: 3 (2 votes)

Good thing fiction isn't real

Your rating: None Average: 4 (2 votes)

may we all someday have the confidence of Diamond Man giving a barely-relevant, confused response to someone suggesting they don't know something based on the preponderance of the evidence.

Your rating: None Average: 4 (2 votes)

Why do you need to be explicitly told what's against the rules if you know that other people have been told the same thing? Do you think you're just so special that they might not apply to you, too?

Your rating: None Average: 1.7 (3 votes)

Did the owner of the website tell me?
I don't remember hearing the owner stating anywhere saying that to anyone. Granted, I can miss it though.

Your rating: None Average: 4 (2 votes)

Try reading that again. I'm asking you why "the owner of the website" needs to tell you specifically if you've just been told it's against the rules for everyone.

Your rating: None Average: 1.3 (3 votes)

Then can you give me a source where he stated that it's not allowed to self vote and/or vote multiple times on a comment if he did?
If I get told or I find it, I might stop.

Your rating: None Average: 4.5 (2 votes)

Here:

Don't do that. You get one vote per comment. You do not vote on your own material. Those are the rules here.

Your rating: None Average: 1.7 (3 votes)

OK then, thank you.
While I'm not sure if by rules, it's the system but I think I'll safe bet that it's a rule for the site. I still think he needs to lay down the rules on the main area though. It's not good to have the rules invisible, then tell the person to not do it in a reply like that a lot of people may not find.

I don't think it's moral though. And the "folding" thing really needs to go.

So will I stop "abusing" the system back? I don't know maybe because I do not know the penalty for it. If I did got a warning, I would probably likely stop and try to get around it, and by "around", I mean like for example, me posting my blog links in that one area. Not sure if that counts as around though.

Your rating: None Average: 4 (2 votes)

So you'll only not do something against the rules if the punishment for it isn't severe, is that related to you thinking the punishment for possessing child pornography should be lesser?

Your rating: None Average: 1.5 (6 votes)

Comment is back even though I modded it.
My comment, slightly edited:
Edit: To the pieces of shit who rates my comments 1 star. You're one of those people that are as bad as certain child molesters believers. I'm not sorry. Flayrah is a political agenda that votes for humanity faith to be lowered. Edit Done.
Different topic. This site rule is just a basic rule preventing something that is far less of a big deal.

Main statement here I guess:
Mere possession of certain illegal images should be a less penalty than today but even I think it might be a bit of a larger deal than that rating thing. I might even agree to the idea that there should remain a law to outlaw possession of those pictures with dropped charging possible, but I won't agree that it should be compared to the person who clearly chose to abuse a child in the process of making it. These two things: 1. lack of intention possible. 2. and probably lack of aid. Not sure on law again.
These two things are probably the reason why I say it needs to be less.

In the end, when a sentence is complete, the person should be treated equally legally, and I hope Toast will have a normal life again with all constitutional rights and I hope he will be able to change is record to zero and/or identity if he thinks it's necessary as long as he really regrets.
This is for those who regrets.

That's what my main comments are for: Forgiveness, and rehabilitation. And since it's not fair to blame another person for the choices of a worse criminal unless there is connection (e.g. aiding), I will say "just a couple of bad pictures" unless somehow Toast was connected to a worse person.
If Toast was responsible of the making and he intended that, then I believe he's as bad in that topic. Still don't believe in life punishments though.
________

Comment Agreement:
Rating my comment 1 star after I add this automatically counts as an agreement.

Your rating: None Average: 3.2 (5 votes)

When word salad gets made from tainted Romaine

Your rating: None Average: 4 (4 votes)

"To the pieces of shit who rates my comments 1 star. You're one of those people that are as bad as certain child molesters believers."

Rating a comment 1 star is worse than raping a child.

"Rating my comment 1 star after I add this automatically counts as an agreement."

And AGREEING WITH YOU is worse than raping a child. THIS is why nobody will ever take anything you say seriously, or if they DO take you seriously, it's because you're a threat to the community.

Your rating: None Average: 1.6 (5 votes)

The other comment is back. Most of comment in this one is gone by me.

Your rating: None Average: 3.3 (3 votes)

Your previous comment was marked as spam upon your final edit, because you used the word "socialism", which contains the commonly-spammed (and hence blocked) drug name "cialis".

You are no longer marked as a contributor because you abused the mark as spam feature it grants. This group membership controls several other features… one of which is the ability for posts and comments to automatically bypass the spam filter.

Your rating: None Average: 1.8 (6 votes)

I only marked it as spam because I felt like it was responsible for me to hide something that risks being defamation toward me. I'm a victim of it and wanted to find a way to hide it as fast as possible before anyone else sees it and believes it.
There was another comment I marked as spam a while back but I do apologize for that though I guess.

Now that it's up, and other aiding people are now responsible for the comment now (which might turn into criminal responsibility if I can successfully sue), 2cross2afflication and anyone who supported the comment might be at risk if legally can.
Right now I'm just fighting it with public awareness kinda here:
https://www.deviantart.com/another-realm/journal/2cross2afflication-Claimed-I-De...

Your rating: None Average: 3 (4 votes)

Suing is tort law, not criminal. You're going to sue an internet furry for making you cry with facts?

Hiding things as fast as you can while breaking rules and losing privileges... sounds like Toast.

Your rating: None Average: 2 (6 votes)

You have no right to say what 2cross2affliction said is a "fact". Just because you want it to, doesn't make it so.
I assume it's more civil law. If what 2cross2affliction did reaches all elements of a prohibited crime, then I might be able to be free to sue such person and maybe even the site. I am not sure if I'm gonna actually bother if what he does allows me to sue legally, but I can however expose it in the public legally as a victim of it.

The rating and anti-spam rule isn't moral alone. And losing what? The ability to mark comments as spam? Not a really big deal to me. If the owner of the website wants to do that to someone who sincerely wanted to use it for the purpose of hiding something that creates a "demand" of harming an actual person, that's likely his only fault and it certainly won't stop me from standing up toward it. Even if somehow, what, my logged in version of an account gets banned on here?

This time, if I do rate my own comments, I would likely rate to my comments that fight against false information in order to not be folded (a form of censorship) and I would likely not bother telling. XD Note: I didn't say that I would.

Also gonna leave this comment:
https://comments.deviantart.com/1/775099417/4673708284
Kind of funny to see most members adopt to something that probably doesn't have so much evidence, yet ignores the evidence of harm of things they do support. Many here can't even understand how life works either. Kinda funny.

Your rating: None Average: 2.3 (3 votes)

Diamond Man, seeing as how you are a furry and all, have you considered adopting a fursona?

I was thinking a sea lion would fit rather well. Real sea lions wish they could sea lion like Diamond Man sea lions.

Your rating: None Average: 1.3 (4 votes)

I think a Dolphin would be more better. ;)
Real Dolphins are one of the smartest non-human animals in the sea. Plus I don't have my head up my ass way up thinking I'm all knowing and understanding when ignoring research on certain law, certain psychically, and certain past stories.

Your rating: None Average: 4 (2 votes)

Okay, I'll give you that, but Dolphins are pretty rapey, which may or may not explain a few of the positions above.

Your rating: None Average: 1.5 (4 votes)

Not so sure but are you acting like those are the only mammals that do that?
Of course, I guess dolphin being anthropomorphic will leave that out of it to me.

Your rating: None Average: 3.6 (5 votes)

....You feel like your fursona should be a dolphin because they're one of the smartest non-human species on Earth... And you somehow think you DON'T have your head up your ass thinking you're all-knowing and understanding?

Jesus Christ... *facepalm*

Your rating: None Average: 4 (1 vote)

Well, indirectly. It was more effective that way.

The interesting part is that when a post is artificially supported, others are more inclined to vote the other way, since it's "rated wrong" (even if they don't know of the support); thus, once fraudulent votes are identified and the totals recalcualted, the commenter tends to be in a worse position than they would be otherwise.

Your rating: None Average: 4 (1 vote)

Now I'm wondering what the key difference was between you vagueing about the person(s) in 2010 vs reading Ravvy for filth less than two years later...

Your rating: None Average: 4 (1 vote)

Ravvy went out of his way to throw presumed aspersions on another person's voting patterns, so I felt a little more justified in rubbing his face in it.

People often justify attempts to game the system by theorizing that "everyone's doing it"; or that they deserve a bonus for figuring out how; or occasionally that the world is against them, and they're evening things out. Few are willing to admit to themselves that they're seeking an unfair advantage over others.

Once revealed… well, in the above case, we didn't see him again, at least under that name. Others took an extended leave of absence. Guilt and shame can bite hard.

Your rating: None Average: 5 (1 vote)

Some of the comments in that thread haven't aged so well such as GreenReaper's prediction here:

It's been suggested that the impetus comes from credit card providers. If so, they're shooting themselves in the foot with this kind of action. Long-term, it'll only help more direct payment systems such as Dwolla get a foot in the door.

Last month I received and email from Dwolla that all money should be removed from any accounts since they are shutting down.

Your rating: None Average: 5 (1 vote)

I guess they got a foot in the door only for it to be slammed on them. ;-p

It looks like they figured out there's more money (or easier money) to be made in licensing their transfer service to other businesses. In fact I was under the impression that they'd done that years ago, but perhaps they re-launched another such system.

There's a larger scope for fraud, money-laundering and reporting when dealing with consumers.

Your rating: None

Being under probation allows searches at any time.
Usually we get a lot of protection from the constitution regarding search and seizure.
Does a LIFETIME revocation violate the constitution? I don't know
I wonder how often this sort of sentence has been given in the past.

It might very well ultimately be decided to be unconstitutional, who knows.
But it's one violation of constitution that "Toast" should enjoy.
Because they really could have given a much stiffer sentence.

Your rating: None Average: 2.3 (3 votes)

I don't think Toast is gonna enjoy it though. Clearly I believe that searches at any time in his home is a violation of the person's right when the person has already completed the sentence.
Regardless I hope it gets declared as unconstitutional. Though I wonder if the person can petition off of it?

Your rating: None Average: 5 (2 votes)

Ah, but he hasn't finished his sentence, because it was 70 months in prison *and* a lifetime of probation.

Your rating: None Average: 2 (4 votes)

You might be right actually.
Though as a sentence, he's kinda gotten a life imprisonment sentence in a way. (sort of like life imprisonment with parole) where one main difference is that a parole close thing is actually gonna happen by law maybe.
I know it's "probation", but it does sound a little similar. Heck, "parole" might actually be less restrictive. If probation is more restricted, then basically he's likely gotten a punishment worse than "5 to life imprisonment" if parole is granted at the fifth year.

Anyway if it's part of a punishment, then it's a cruel and unusual one as a punishment.
I hope someday this unconstitutional form of punishment will get outlawed soon.

Your rating: None Average: 3.2 (5 votes)

You have a chronic problem with mixing up who is the offender and who is the victim here

Lol get fucked

Your rating: None Average: 3 (4 votes)

Diamond Man is living proof of the dictum that stupidity, in the long run, is more of a threat to the world than outright evil.

Your rating: None Average: 2.3 (3 votes)

The likely fact that you want some people to suffer because of some past is an example of evil. You're just as bad as someone who wants to hurt people in the first place.

Your rating: None Average: 1 (2 votes)

"OH NO!!! DIAMONDMAN IS EVIL BECAUSE HE BELIEVES IN SECOND CHANCES!"
DO you fucking hear yourself?

Your rating: None Average: 1 (2 votes)

I mean, that's what you're kinda saying, or maybe even are saying that Anon (visitor -- Sun 9 Dec 2018 - 07:35.

Your rating: None Average: 4 (4 votes)

And proof of the extreme tolerance furry fandom has for even the most mentally defective.

A dry and unembellished 6-sentence article has unleashed a massive torrent of diarrhea from Diamond Man. How did it strike a nerve so badly? Perhaps we'll be seeing headlines about him soon.

Your rating: None Average: 2.7 (3 votes)

"Lol get fucked"
And Diamond Man can't accuse you of wishing harm on him, since all the offending fucker would have to do is say "I'm sorry", and then whatever might be misconstrued as "harm" done to him is magically erased! ^_^ lol

But then, what else would you expect from someone with such a grasp on morality that he thinks all of humanity needs to die just because of a few meanie-heads on the internet?

Your rating: None Average: 2 (4 votes)

The victim and the criminal are human beings, and "If you punch someone in the face back for punching yours, you're just as bad as the person's first action." Revenge will never be justice.
Believing in revenge is something that is fucked up.

And people like you are why the sex offender registry is slowly being changed and maybe even abolished.

Your rating: None Average: 3.3 (4 votes)

LOL, no, the victim is a victim, and the criminal is a criminal

Retribution is the oldest form of justice, and remains an element of deterrence. Civilized places no longer poke out people's eyes but being removed or shunned and losing privileges is a fair consequence of doing harm.

Put "Abolish the sex offender registry" on a big sign and take it to your local bus station, and go yell about it to the biggest guy you see. Be a big brave Diamond Man and do something in real life instead of splashing diarrhea on furry websites.

I dare you to grow a spine and do it :)

Your rating: None Average: 3 (4 votes)

Seriously tho Diamond man. It isn't funny to see how irrationally worked up you have gotten about 6 sentences of facts about a man who pled guilty to facilitating rape of children.

Are you feeling OK? Do you need help? Have you thought about maybe doing something positive to work out this problem you are having, like picking someone who is actually innocent or wrongfully convicted and may deserve help?

Your rating: None Average: 2 (4 votes)

"LOL, no, the victim is a victim, and the criminal is a criminal"
And they are both human beings. You can't change the mere facts just because of some labels.

"Retribution is the oldest form of justice, and remains an element of deterrence. Civilized places no longer poke out people's eyes but being removed or shunned and losing privileges is a fair consequence of doing harm."
Of course it's the oldest or maybe it is likely. You know what was also oldest as in a long time ago or likely? So many death penalties being used by law in the most horrible ways possible. But we got rid of a lot of them because they were just bad. Retribution was never really moral because it was one of the oldest delusions in the world and that can change to be less. Parts of the world already is taking this direction.
And even though I am not too sure on Toast's side, even under retribution, it's completely unfair to it to do that to anyone who only merely possessed certain illegal images. And yes, I say that because it's very wrong to consider someone who had no intention that tries to help make more to be as bad as someone who completely chose to make more certain illegal content. Hell, it's even unfair to people who made it without violence unless the victim does suffer as much.

Also Norway doesn't believe in the retribution delusion most of the time, and guess what? It's one of the most top 5 successful systems in the whole world.

"Put "Abolish the sex offender registry" on a big sign and take it to your local bus station, and go yell about it to the biggest guy you see. Be a big brave Diamond Man and do something in real life instead of splashing diarrhea on furry websites. "
You should stop spreading diarrhea.
And like it or not, I have every right to disagree with your political propaganda.

"Seriously tho Diamond man. It isn't funny to see how irrationally worked up you have gotten about 6 sentences of facts about a man who pled guilty to facilitating rape of children."
The fact that you're the one who calling me irrational because you are so emotionally upset by research, rehabilitation, and pointing out obvious facts shows how more irrational you are.

Though I wouldn't be so damn surprised if you completely ignore the logic, research, and facts. If you're seriously this delusional to believe that criminals are not human, then I think it's publicly clear that you're this messed up. Maybe you should get a life probation to see how you like it if I did believe in that. I wouldn't even be damn surprised if you like that a teenager that committed suicide over some pictures on the computer because of the current law.

Your rating: None Average: 3 (4 votes)

Yes you're a massive creep.

Your rating: None Average: 1.5 (2 votes)

Just because you're offended, doesn't make you right. :)

Your rating: None Average: 1 (1 vote)

Just because you'e in denial doesn't make you safe to allow within 1000 feet of children and small forest creatures

Your rating: None Average: 1 (1 vote)

Your SJW attitude is probably further proving my point to the fact that being emotional like this doesn't equal to being right by default.

Your rating: None Average: 3 (2 votes)

Diamond Man hates the "SJW Attitude" that prevents him from freely fucking kids

Your rating: None Average: 2.7 (3 votes)

"Maybe you should get a life probation to see how you like it if I did believe in that."
Just so we're on the same page here, being in possession of and perpetuating the creation and distribution of child pornography doesn't deserve life probation, but HAVING AN OPINION on how the legal system is not in the wrong here DOES deserve life probation. Good God... *facepalm*

(Yeah, you "don't believe in that", but you'll go ahead and suggest it anyway as a means of lashing out, then accuse OTHERS of acting on their emotions. I'd say you're a fucking joke, but jokes are actually FUNNY.)

Your rating: None Average: 1 (1 vote)

I don't believe in it by heart, but maybe you deserve to be on it until you learn your lesson would be better.

Your opinions probably "creates a demand" for it anyway. :)

Your rating: None Average: 2.7 (3 votes)

When most people get to toddler age, they notice that some humans are different from other ones. Some sit to pee and some stand and they don't all come in one size.

In this case we have humans who did a crime, and ones who didn't.

Your rating: None Average: 1 (1 vote)

It's almost like you don't realize that humans are meant to be all have a single form of personality and physical changes. Are you now saying most people in the world are not human now?

Your rating: None Average: 2.8 (4 votes)

Now we get to your convoluted rationalization of why it's totally ok to fuck kids

"They're just human"

Shine on you crazy pedo diamond

Your rating: None Average: 1.8 (4 votes)

I never said it was ok to do that. Just because you want to make me look that terrible doesn't mean you're allowed to dictate that.

People like you acting like that is why faith in humanity just doesn't much exist.

Your rating: None Average: 3.3 (3 votes)

You looking terrible requires nothing more than you breathing our air

Your rating: None Average: 1 (1 vote)

I hope you get sued for spreading false information toward someone then.
Same with anyone who supports false information.

FLAYRAH IS PARTLY PROMOTING MORE HARM THAN WHAT TOAST DID LIKELY.

Your rating: None Average: 2.3 (3 votes)

https://www.deviantart.com/wwwarea/journal/Flayrah-Is-Mainly-a-Socialist-Propaga...

Yes, because being against pro-pedophilia sentiments and the ability to down-vote comments (a practice which you yourself engage in as frequently as you complain about it, you fucking hypocrite) means "socialism". Stop throwing around popular political buzzwords as if you have any clue what they mean.

"Is this even legal?"
Yes. It is COMPLETELY LEGAL to call bullshit on someone saying that pedophilia and the creation and distribution of child porn isn't that big of a deal. It is COMPLETELY LEGAL to speculate that anyone who so vehemently stands up for this kind of criminal behavior either engages in it himself, or at least has an interest in it. It is COMPLETELY LEGAL to agree with the penalties inflicted on those who would do children harm.

It's called the 1st Amendment, you fucking idiot.

Conversely, you're free to say whatever nonsensical gibberish you want, and most of us here are intelligent enough to recognize that point instead of crying "YOU CAN'T LEGALLY SAY THAT BECAUSE IT HURTS MY FEELINGS!!!!" like you're constantly doing. However, freedom of speech DOES NOT MEAN that there is freedom from consequences. The government can't oppress you for what you say, but if you insist on saying that child molestation isn't that big of a deal, people WILL challenge that position, and you'd better be prepared to deal with the consequences. (And contrary to every thought in your twisted head, no, being against pedophilia DOES NOT come from a place of hatred or evil.)

"I am not too sure on law."
You know what's funny? So many of your journals include some token mention of how people should "stay safe and obey the law." Why then get so bent out of shape any time a child predator is placed on the sex offender registry? Last time I checked, molesting children was AGAINST THE LAW, and letting people be aware of those who might do their children harm was PERFECTLY LEGAL. So we should obey the law, unless it has anything to do with molesting children, because THOSE laws are just SO UNFAIR.

No. You're not allowed to spout this kind of garbage and THEN get pissed off any time someone says "Excuse me??" as a result. You don't like it? Don't SAY it. (That's not censorship, that's just common sense.)

Your rating: None

A reminder: "socialism" contains "cialis", which is a spam filter trigger. If you post and you get a nasty popup error, you probably hit that. Please don't then post essentially the same thing three more times; we'll get to it eventually if it is not actually spam.

Your rating: None

Crap... Yes, you mentioned that c i a l i s thing in an earlier post, didn't you? My apologies. I was wondering what the issue was, my bad.

Your rating: None

Well, at the very least, this should prove that we're not a pro-"socia-ma-jiggy" propaganda site if we can't even say the word without being auto-deleted!

Your rating: None

C-Alice is now the most Capitalist company out there, because through their branding and spamming advertisements, they single handedly defeated soc-alice-ism

Your rating: None

I'm basking in the presence of a special gem who makes journals titled "Mental Illness Continues as Usual" and "the hate agenda against me" and has chosen a furry website to represent their demons.

Your rating: None Average: 1.8 (4 votes)

Some things you do actually does mean soci___sm sometimes. If you go out and force your opinion against people as people, and bitch about others for defending the fact that "pedophiles" are still scientifically human beings, then it's clear it's a form of socia__sm. Though I never said all 1 star ratings were bad.

___

But is it legal to flat out spread false information toward other people? I'm pretty sure saying that someone "defends f***ing kids" when it's not true is something that I believe should not be legally allowed if it's not a law. If law, it's likely have something to do with the word "defamation".
I'm pretty sure that journal was talking about that.
Also, IT'S COMPLETELY LEGAL to disagree with legal speech with many of the pathetic arguments that support cruel and unusual punishment.

___

Actually you can't exactly say whatever you want. Some things has consequences made by law. Not all speech is protected speech. What is defined as libelous under a law here if any is not protected speech.
And you need to understand that if you go out and emotionally attack me for being rational on what is abuse or not, you need to realize that your behavior also isn't free from people like me reacting to it.

___

You can still suggest staying safe and legal and personally disagree with some laws. For example, I find certain copyright laws wrong, even though I say that in journal.
Yet, even in the case with Toast, I didn't even complain that he could get legally arrested. I was complaining about how far punishment goes.
The sex offender registry is illegal as in, it's against the constitution of rights. People can respect law and still argue that some are too far.

If a legal expert can recognize that the offender has learned his or her lesson, and experts can tell that the person is least likely to offend and if so, then it's stupid to keep the person on it out of fear.
Plus sex offender registry doesn't work a lot and has caused a lot more harm than good.

Actually I'm allowed to spread some things you call "garbage". :)
If people react like a dick to me, I'm allowed to be pissed at it. your reactions aren't protected from legal consequences protected by the first amendment maybe.

By the way, folding comments out of ratings is censorship alone. Is it a violation of the first amendment, I doubt it, but it's still "censorship" alone.

_______

By the way, thank you for sharing the journal!

Your rating: None

Socialism is an economic/social system, characterized by worker control of the means of production

Your rating: None Average: 5 (1 vote)

(Damn it, I didn't log in and I got hit with the socialism spam filter myself.)

Socialism is an economic/social system, characterized by worker control of the means of production of economic value.

Your rating: None Average: 1 (1 vote)

I was using the term soc___ism in part reaction to the soc___ism claim of the furry fandom. If that word is more limited to something else, maybe it was better to say it's a bit like soc___ism then and my apologizes of not using the word right.

I think I was trying to connect main of this website to the idea of social control. And with the bad reasons.

Your rating: None Average: 3.5 (2 votes)

Well, that's not what it is, and that's not what this site is. Also, this article contains only seven sentences.

Your rating: None Average: 3 (4 votes)

7 sentences that shook Diamond Man's world. You know a nice little flower can grow from a mountain of shit. But we got the reverse.

Your rating: None Average: 1.8 (5 votes)

Also, this article contains only seven sentences.

So? Doesn't change many of the things I've said on here is still on topic maybe.

As for soc___ism, I mean it doesn't much matter. I just wonder what the correct term is if that word isn't it.

Your rating: None Average: 3.8 (4 votes)

"Doesn't change many of the things I've said on here is still on topic maybe."
Again with the "maybes" at the end of every other sentence. I love how, by your own admission, you have NO IDEA what you're talking about. lmao

Your rating: None Average: 2 (4 votes)

I say that a lot to be safe. But if I had to guess, I'm more sure that I am.
I'm pretty sure complaining about a punishment that tries to ruin someone's life, and that punishment is part of this article's mention is on topic.
Besides, My first comment was very small.

And to anyone who rates my comment like that likely proves my damn point about this website's main problem. XD

Your rating: None Average: 1 (1 vote)

Jesus Christ, he's still here.

I mean, he's attracted a crowd of anons like flies to shit, which isn't helping (hello, anons! I know it's fun to dunk on the idiot, but please SHUTUP so he will, too! MAYBE?).

Your rating: None Average: 2.3 (3 votes)

Calling me an idiot when you are the one that spreads out a flat lie, and acts like you're usually right, while ignoring a lot of criticism, and act like I can't be mean to you. Are you a fucking troll?

Your rating: None Average: 3 (1 vote)

I'm literally telling the anonymous commenters to stop trolling you, you big dumb idiot.

Do I post non-stop on your goddamn DeviantArt account? No, not even when the content is literally entitled "Flayrah is a Socialist Propaganda Website." You're fucking calling us out, and I'm all like "whatever". Meanwhile, we post an article that has jack-diddly-squat-fuck-all to do with you, AND YOU WILL NOT LEAVE US ALONE. And then you call me a troll, because, once again, DIAMOND MAN DOES NOT KNOW WHAT WORDS MEAN.

Also, you're five starring your own comments again, aren't you?

Your rating: None Average: 2 (4 votes)

You still called me an idiot, you dumb idiot.. It's like you didn't even read the comment...

Me spreading the word by calling out a website out of my own sincere reasoning, and standing up for myself against your flat out harmful lies doesn't sound like trolling to me..

It's kinda hard to find a definition of that kind of trolling, but here is this: (NOTE: SPREADING RESEARCH IS LIKELY TABOO HERE!): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll
I asked if you were trolling because you we being hypocritical, flat out saying a lie toward before, acted like I'm the rude one, and much more insane things. I asked (didn't claim) you were a troll because of that.

And also you're calling me "broken" in another comment.

You likely don't know what many words mean...

Your rating: None Average: 3 (2 votes)

Hi Diamond Man, here's the part of your linked "research" that describes what you're doing here, on Blogspot, on multiple DeviantArt accounts, and wherever else:

a person who starts quarrels or upsets people on the Internet to distract and sow discord by posting inflammatory and digressive, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the intent of provoking readers into displaying emotional responses and normalizing tangential discussion, whether for the troll's amusement or a specific gain.

Your rating: None Average: 1 (1 vote)

by posting inflammatory and digressive, extraneous, or off-topic messages

with the intent of provoking readers into displaying emotional responses and normalizing tangential discussion, whether for the troll's amusement or a specific gain.
Plus, what the troll does... I'm pretty sure that disagreeing itself, and posting criticism isn't trolling likely. If I agreed with you, then you're a troll, so is that Anon, 2cross2afflication, and many more..

To say that my main activity is "trolling" is just flat out pathetic. Standing up against false information and warning people of the dangers of a terrible website like this is not trolling.

Your rating: None Average: 1 (1 vote)

My bad, I didn't mean to blockquote the rest.
Fixed second blockquote:

with the intent of provoking readers into displaying emotional responses and normalizing tangential discussion, whether for the troll's amusement or a specific gain.

.

Your rating: None Average: 3 (4 votes)

Go away then weirdo, if we're so dangerous.

Your rating: None Average: 1 (3 votes)

Again, likely proving further of my point. And you're saying that while you're a horse furry. But... you are likely dangerous though. Aren't you a person that has in the past tried to encourage suicide?

Nope, I won't go away, I have every damn right to react to your non-sense on here. That includes 2cross2afflications false claim toward me.

Your rating: None Average: 1 (3 votes)

As long as I can react legally in a way that's legal. Just in case. :)

Your rating: None Average: 3 (2 votes)

"I have every damn right to react to your non-sense on here."
But somehow you can't put it together that we have every damn right to respond to your nonsense about how child porn isn't that big of a deal with someone as innocuous as "Yes it is."

The movie 'CLUELESS' is less clueless than you.

Your rating: None Average: 3 (2 votes)

"someone as innocuous as "Yes it is.""
someone = something

oops lol

Your rating: None Average: 1.8 (5 votes)

If what you say is legal, maybe that speech is a right, but that doesn't mean I can't respond to it with my legal speech. Which you bitch about, and Equivamp forced me to say somewhere else. So who's the idiots who don't respect the concept of free speech?

And by the way, mere possession on some images shouldn't be seen as a big deal as making it because actual certain points (you have a hard time trying to disprove) exist.

Your rating: None Average: 3 (2 votes)

"So who's the idiots who don't respect the concept of free speech?"
...You. YOU'RE the idiot who doesn't respect the concept of free speech. We're the ones saying "Don't say these things if you don't like people disagreeing with you," while you're the one trying to figure out ways to criminalize people for having a negative opinion about child molesters.

"mere possession on some images shouldn't be seen as a big deal as making it because actual certain points (you have a hard time trying to disprove) exist."
..."Actual certain points exist"?

-Possession of child porn is wrong.
-Well, it SHOULDN'T be!
-Why not?
-Because the sky is blue!!
-...What does THAT have to do with anything?
-It's a certain point that actually exists, which is therefore relevant!! PWNED!!!

Just... HUH?

Your rating: None Average: 2.3 (3 votes)

So I don't respect the concept of speech because I use my likely freedom of speech to disagree?

Certain Points:
Mere possession of certain images is not the same as making it. And hell, doesn't the federal law treat it differently too.

Mere possession of certain images does not by default equal "intention to promote".

There is no evidence that mere possession of certain images actually hurts a child miles away by default.
___
If you freak the fuck out and say I shouldn't be allowed to give any legal thoughts on that, then it's clear you don't respect free speech.
Free speech isn't meant to appeal to your feelings by default unless all legally protected speech is something you love.

"-Possession of child porn is wrong.
-Well, it SHOULDN'T be!
-Why not?
-Because the sky is blue!!"
Even though my arguments are about how far punishment goes, can you prove that mere possession alone of certain pictures is "wrong"?
What proves it to be "wrong"?

I know making such content is wrong because a child is hurt in the process of it. Though I'm not sure about the sexting court cases.

In one example where no abusive events are happening, someone finds a piece of illegal porn on the street.

Your rating: None Average: 2.3 (3 votes)

Good news everyone, the government has declared one exception to freedom of speech. If you see Diamond Man, any person over age 18 is allowed to hold him down and duct tape his mouth shut. And any minor is legally allowed to kick him in the balls until he admits his apologism for child rape and promises to never do it again.

Your rating: None Average: 5 (1 vote)

"And any minor is legally allowed to kick him in the balls until he admits his apologism for child rape and promises to never do it again."
Any minor doing that will die of old age before that happens. lol

Your rating: None Average: 1 (1 vote)

Pathetic, very pathetic. At this point, you're mainly exposing this main one sided, and propaganda website even more.

Your rating: None Average: 1 (1 vote)

No, not yet I'm not.

Your rating: None Average: 1 (3 votes)

No, not yet I'm not.

What do you mean "not yet"? :)

Your rating: None Average: 5 (1 vote)

:^)

Your rating: None Average: 1 (1 vote)

It's really funny, it's to me as if don't realize how sad your two comments are. All they likely do is expose you, and this website more probably.

Your rating: None Average: 3.5 (2 votes)

You'd THINK shutting up would make him go away, but remember, this sad waste of life has said on multiple counts how horrible this website is, how he's going away, etc.... and yet he ALWAYS comes back, secure in the knowledge that we closed-minded bigots will object to anything and everything he has to say.

Without drama, he LITERALLY has NOTHING to live for.

Your rating: None

Yes, he's broken, but some of us live here, and we'd like the outbreaks to last as short as possible, so please don't feed him until he leaves (yes, I know, hypocritical of me at this point).

I'd rather he spends the next two months grumbling quietly, working up his nerve for another foray to our comment sections on his own portion of the Internet where I don't have to look at him rather than spend the next two months ... just leaving evidence of his fucking existence where I can see it.

Your rating: None Average: 3.3 (3 votes)

This may be a tough comment to face, but it does have to be noted:

Maybe what is occurring to your comments here is not a bug, nor problem, but instead the very thing the feature was designed for.

Your rating: None Average: 3 (2 votes)

So it was designed for overly emotional anti-rational people to promote censorship toward people who DARE question non-sense?
If that's what it's designed for, then this might even further proves my point.

Mainly the review I've made earlier this year mainly does pretty good job explaining this mainly flawed system.

Your rating: None Average: 2 (4 votes)

U mad

Your rating: None Average: 2 (2 votes)

Further proving my point I see???

Your rating: None Average: 3 (2 votes)

"I personally think anyone who supports saying sh** like that toward people who never said such thing deserves to be in prison by law for 5 years.

Disclaimer: I am not too sure on what the law says."

Congrats, Another-Diamond-wwwarea; you don't know what the law says, you just somehow know that it's deplorable, and anyone who agrees with it should be prison because agreeing with the law is worse than collecting child porn.

Your rating: None Average: 1 (2 votes)

Guess somebody doesn't realize that "I personally think" from my side is more focused as a "vote" for law involving that in some way if it isn't already.
Besides, libelous speech is illegal in many places.
Also agreeing with a law that ruins a person life might be promoting such law, which the law on itself, is actually worse than the act of merely collecting certain illegal content.

Not only that, but merely believing in a law results in an evil mindset, worse than someone who hurts others without intending that. Especially in a case where we are talking about conduct that hell, even many laws today might treat less serious than the act of making it despite such cruel and unusual punishment anyway.

Post new comment

  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <img> <b> <i> <s> <blockquote> <ul> <ol> <li> <table> <tr> <td> <th> <sub> <sup> <object> <embed> <h1> <h2> <h3> <h4> <h5> <h6> <dl> <dt> <dd> <param> <center> <strong> <q> <cite> <code> <em>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

More information about formatting options

CAPTCHA
This test is to prevent automated spam submissions.

About the author

Equivamp (Kile Onasi)read storiescontact (login required)

a machiner and Zebra Pegasus from Kansas, interested in paleoanthropology, spider man and star wars

Kile "Equivamp" Onasi is the online pseudonym of a WikiFur Colleague, hobby artist, and fursuiter.