Boise furry arrested, accused of having sex with cat
Ryan Havens Tannenholz, a furry living in Boise, Idaho, has been arrested after being accused of having sex with a cat.
Police investigators say Tannenholz, 28, had "sexual contact by penetration" with the animal at a Boise house on several occasions between January 2012 and January 2013. An arrest warrant was issued on July 31, and he was arrested on August 1. Police did not specify how the alleged activities came to light.
Tannenholz was charged with six felony counts of crimes against nature, and one misdemeanor count of cruelty to an animal. If convicted, he would face a minimum of five years in prison for each of the felony counts, and up to six months and a fine for the misdemeanor charge. Tannenholz’s bond was set at $250,000; a preliminary hearing is scheduled for August 16.
In the furry fandom, Tannenholz (also known as Kodiakhusky53 [FA], Canislupissapian85, furryone66 and ryanwlf33) is a fursuiter who portrays himself as a black and white "sparkly husky" (Bubblegum Husky), a blue fox (Kismet Fox), or a purple canine.
About the authorHiggs Raccoon — read stories — contact (login required)
a (No longer a Flayrah contributor)
Given the photos on his older FA account, I have to wonder if it was just cats. [Edit: Yes, I believe he's guilty.]
The account in question seems to have been suspended a couple of years ago, perhaps due to events noted in these artists-beware posts about his then-girlfriend, who is a fursuit maker. A commissioner mentions receiving "threats" from both their accounts, and calls them "well known scam artists".
If he wasn't accused of that sort of abuse, would those pictures have painted any red flags for that sort of behavior? Because the pictures of the huskies seem pretty harmless, animals sleeping in cute poses or looking cute. So I just think that, and your corresponding comment on the canislupis FA account, is reading into things based on the arrest - hindsight 20/20 though there is also the chance he'll be found not guilty of those charges.
Of course if he is found guilty then I hope receives the scorn that should come with such a crime.
No, there's nothing particularly troubling about the photographs on their own, just in context. He did mention in one that he'd managed to get a animal back easily, but I suspect this was a case of having to give it up for adoption due to family pressure. That said, a long-term friend seems to have thought he couldn't care for it.
It is articles like this do not do the fandom any good at all. I am sure someone will do a search on this guys name and it will list Flayrah with the story. Oh look. A furry. He was a furry. Well that makes sense.
I disagree. This article helps fans by informing them of someone they may wish to avoid associating with.
Moreover, furry fandom is best served by publicly ostracising people who break such laws, not hiding them under a rug.
Would you criticise the Idaho Statesman for bringing Boise into disrepute by reporting on this?
Really, what says "We don't condone or normalize this" than posting an article about the guy. His affiliation with the fandom was going to come out at one point or another.
I really don't consider this person part of the fandom--certainly not anymore. It's the same thing when someone steals something from your house at a party--you don't invite them anymore to things.
It's far better that we have a place like here that lets us have an actual news outlet that isn't straight up saying 'man who has sex with animals is a furry.' The article I was linked literally says it.
If we say nothing, then the idiotic mass media machine is allowed to write our history--none of us should want that.
It doesn't matter if YOU don't consider him a part of the fandom. If he identified with it , unfortunately , he is part of it.
Maybe this guy isn't exactly socialy apt, maybe he has a lot of enemies because of his misbehaviour, and maybe someone tried to get back at him. He has been accused, no evidence was presented, and since it's a jerkwater town in Idaho where nothing exciting ever happens, the local media are cashing in on some moral outrage.
You can't have sex with a cat, and if you tried certainly not multiple times. It is anatomically impossible.
Really, I don't think this is a guy I'd like to ever meet, but I'd be very careful with prejudice.
If you want to play journalist, at least be professional about it.
The fandom doesn't need the "service" of your tabloid blog.
Our coverage of this story does not appear sensational or prejudiced to me; however, as previously requested, we have implemented rating-based article visibility, so if you feel it is inappropriate, you are welcome to rate it down.
There are documented instances of people penetrating cats. It tends to cause damage, which is why it is a crime. Presumably the police would not have made the arrest without probable cause.
The old "if he isn't guilty, why was he arrested?" fallacy.
If that's the case, why not just skip all those unecessary instances like trials and judges, and shoot him right away. Like in the old days.
Because there is still the chance that he is innocent. That is why he is described as "accused".
If he is acquitted or the charges are dismissed, we would gladly publish a story on that as well.
1) He never said that he was guilty--
2) The article never said that he was guilty--
3) You might also have your own fallacy which is making you see things that were never said: Namely the "They call themselves a furry, so they that means they can do no wrong" fallacy.
So in your world a furry should never be able to be arrested because no furry can do any wrong?
This isn't like putting a bomber on the cover of a magazine which is more known for glorifying rock stars. The intent of this being here is not saying this is what we're about. It's saying if you do this behavior there are consequences for it. And yes, not all furries are wonderful people you'd want to take home to your mother.
I've noticed a decrease in arrests for this behavior within the fandom, those were reported here too. That, I hope, means the behavior itself is on the decrease.
If you're looking for a group of people who are going to blindly look the other way when one person does something wrong just so they can let protect the feelings of the masses, the group you're looking for is the Catholic church--- actually I can't even say THAT with 100% certainty now because the new pope at least seems somewhat rational.
If I were arrested for whatever reason, I'd expect it to be stated here. If not for anything then, "you may not be seeing articles from this guy for awhile".
However, that being said, even though we despise making a 'heirarchy' in this fandom and saying that X is more important than Y. Looking at those screennames I can say this guy wasn't that creative... and creativity does have an impact on how far you can go in the social aspects of the fandom (pro tip, don't use numbers unless you're a robot character or a Lilo and Stitch Alien).
So was he a furry? Well, he called himself one, but he certainly wasn't one with any weight. His FA hadn't been updated in a year, and no one shouted at him for a year (minus GreenReaper's, which I think itself was in poor taste). If people expect us to answer for what he did, it'd be like asking the manager of the Red Sox to answer for a Red Sox fan who went to a game or two for kidnapping women and being a sexual predator--- it makes no sense.
Re: 1) - He assumed him guilty in his very first comment: "Given the photos on his older FA account, I have to wonder if it was just cats."
Re: 2) - No, but put the person in question on the virtual pillory anyways.
Re: 3) - No, you're wrong. Actually I said "Maybe this guy isn't exactly socialy apt, maybe he has a lot of enemies because of his misbehaviour [...] I don't think this is a guy I'd like to ever meet". So I'm not assuming he's a saint because he's a furry.
Not just the virtual one... the Idaho Stateman is an actual newspaper... and by the way news about a person getting arrested before they go to trial is the rule of this world not the exception, and it always has been. The result is alway people in the public sphere or 'comment section' making judgement of guilty or not guilty before a trial is even had. Should it be that way? That's debateable. Maybe you should write to your local congressman about making it against the law for the press to say someone was arrested?
Though I will agree on that first point, the comment in response to an arrest may not be an appropriate one. Especially since that was not what he was arrested for. It's not fair to anyone who has photos of their pets on FA who are not engaged in such behavior. Though why it's okay for pet/car pictures on FA was never something I understood. Pets are not furry, they are pets.
As an individual expressing their personal opinion, I believe the subject is probably guilty of what they have been accused of. However, that is not what Flayrah is reporting.
The primary author of the story is Higgs Raccoon; my editorial contribution in this case was limited to conciseness tweaks and finding and linking addition user accounts and fursonas.
Flayrah publishes both "feel-good" stories about the fandom and those which may be seen less positively. Our editorial and comment policy is permissive so as to represent the entire range of community viewpoints.
I think it's fair to say this person is a furry. He went to furry conventions and has several fursuits. The linked FA pages were probably suspended over a year ago.
What needs to be understood is that just because a person is a furry does not make them a good or bad person, any more than being a resident of Boise does. Nor does it imply anything in particular about the fandom. There are hundreds of thousands of people around the world who may rightly claim to be furries.
What does matter is the reaction. As Sonious pointed out, individuals in certain religious organizations made a habit of refusing to pass on reports of sexual abuse to those in authority; and when they did, said persons often took no action. Furry fandom will be defined by the action we take in response to such reports, and our level of transparency in doing so.
Again, I have to agree with Draconis and the various anons. These kinds of stories make Flayrah look like a tabloid. Leave these kinds of stories for the furry drama and anti-furry sites.
Flayrah IS a furry drama and anti-furry site.
So you're saying he's been accused... which is exactly what the article says.
Do you need a dictionary? I'll mail order one to your house.
I do not see where an Idaho Statesman was involved. Just police "Police did not specify how the alleged activities came to light" If it alleged, then it is just possibly spreading rumors about someone. When and if, this person then the story becomes credible.
The Idaho Statesman is a local newspaper which is linked as a source to this story.
I saw that when someone else pointed it out. When there are links to other sources they seem to blend in rather well with the normal text. I have had this happen before with some other article.
As far as putting a bomber on the cover of the news. This has happened some time ago. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centennial_Olympic_Park_bombing Though Jewel was cleared of the bombing his life was hell for a while.
Hey, how about we run a poll?
I'm serious, the Nuka poll is getting a bit long in the tooth. But I don't think I'm the right person for that job, so I'll just float it here and toddle off.
"Bestiality arrest stories; yay or nay?"
(Caveat: everyone has the right to completely ignore everything, including, but not limited to, stories you don't like, suggestions for polls and any results of said polls.)
I vote nay and would be interested in seeing a poll conducted on this topic, but expand to include the whole furry sex crimes category.
Actually I was referring to the Boston Bomber being put on the cover of the Rolling Stone.
Keep in mind that all mass media outlets refused to actually report during the search for the bomber...you can't trust them to do the due diligence.
Yeah, what was it, two false accusations on people that had to do with the bombing?
Quite honestly if I, heaven forbid, were ever near an event like that and had a choice of being injured by said devise or falsely implicated by the media... I'd choose the former in a heartbeat because it's far less damaging.
That's flat out wrong. The Furry Fandom is not helped by ostracizing ANYONE of our number, under almost any circumstance. The Furry Fandom is best helped when we band together for the sake of our community, not drop one of our own the minute something controversial happens that might, oh no, reflect negatively on the Fandom. For some stupid reason this Fandom has decided that the best way to protect itself is to constantly play by the outside world's rules, and try to meet their standards, because we seek their recognition. Well, if we do that, why did we make our own rules, and recognize ourselves as different in the first place?
Yeah, this guy does seem like a bit of a douche, and he certainly had stuff coming to him, but that doesn't mean he isn't still a Furry, and that means he still deserves to have his Fandom stand up for him.
Just because he was arrested, doesn't mean he is guilty. Just because a law exists, doesn't mean the law is just or right. He may have been a douche, and he will get what he deserves, but he will not get more than his fair due from his own Fandom.
Zoosexuality is not inherently wrong. It is a definition of our culture that has deemed it wrong, regardless of how loving, or how cruel the act is. I am not a Zoophile; I have no desire to have sex with an animal. But I have talked with Zoosexuals, I have partied with them, worked with them, and they have upheld my causes so I will uphold theirs. Hell I may have even slept with some at one point. Who knows, it is not like, even in this Fandom, they can be outspoken about it. I think that every time the Fandom denounces Zoosexuality it denounces itself. Furries are definitely not Zoosexuals, but when the rest of the world comes crusading against Zoophiles, and bestiality, do you really think that the hate will take the time to differentiate between the two? It might hurt the Fandom's image you say? Well who cares. Why did we break down those social barriers, and make a community and safe haven for those who think like us, act like us, and ARE us if we care so much about the thoughts of the rest of the world. This Fandom can stand on its own. It doesn't need newspapers or news stations recognizing us as valid. WE recognize us as valid, and we can't continue to do that if we are going to denounce our own at the drop of a hat, at a mere arrest, without any trial, but a trial by the media.
Greenreaper, after reading what is being said below I have come to the conclusion that you grossly overstepped your bounds as journalist into making him guilty from sentence one. This man is already going to be tried by the Boise media, we don't need to try him under our own. You are NOT going to do to him what you did to Xanth.
We're not the Zerg, we're a group of individuals. There's no hive mind. You can't tell the entire of furry who to and who not to stand up for. For someone who's saying we make our own rules, you're certainly taking the ones that have already been presented by other outside groups:
"There's a special place in hell for women who don't support other women."
And what if that woman committed a crime? If every woman doesn't pay for their defense are they going to hell? Even if said woman believed that particular woman was guilty?
Group-think such as this is a dying creature. I know it seems unfair to minorities who didn't get a chance to take advantage of it's corrupting influences, but most groups really want to be individuals, not have someone telling them who they should or should not support.
Support him if you want, but do me a favor and leave the title furry out of it, or you can keep the title and I won't be one, but I'll still support anthro works.
And Flayrah didn't do anything to Xanth. Seriously, you sound like Castro of Cleveland saying that "well it's these women's fault I was able to kidnap him." If you're blaming Flayrah for the arrest and conviction of Xanth-- there's just something really off about that.
And I guarantee you this, if it wasn't reported here, you'd blame lulz.net or vivisector. And if they said nothing you'd scour high and low for anyone saying something negative about him and blame them. Because you'll blame everyone but the very person who committed the act. So then one starts to wonder: what do you get by excusing him? I'm not going to make accusations but your 4th paragraph in combination with this sociological behavior is pretty brow-raising.
I'll say if this is more then just a coincidence, you should stop what you're doing. Because you can finger point all you want, people will see through it.
I can and fucking WILL put as much distance as I can between myself and people who fuck animals. If someone is a dick, I don't fucking care if they're a furry. I'm not going to defend criminals who I happen to share interests with just for the sake of 'community'.
I'm NOT going to say he's guilty or not. That's not my place, and we don't have all the information. I WILL say that if he is, I sure as hell will ostracize and avoid him, and no, I really won't feel bad about it at all.
As for the 'zoophilia isn't wrong' thing... No, the fetish in and of itself isn't wrong. I don't care what people get off to. Raping a small animal IS wrong. Cats are small. Raping a cat is going to do some damage. THAT is what is wrong.
Unless specified, I speak only for myself in the comments, as do other contributors. The editor hat is off.
I think it is wrong to have sex with anyone (including a non-human animal) who is unable to comprehend the risks that they may be undertaking; or who is unable to resist the person concerned. Regardless of what others think about us, I don't want to be friends with people who do that; and I want to know if they do, so I can avoid them.
This is not a new or uncommon position, nor is it counter to the mores of furry fandom; rather the opposite. If people want to have sex with animals, they should first give them the intelligence and the freedom to make an informed choice.
As with other things, fantasy is fantasy; but when it meets the real world it has a real impact and so real consequences.
Well, your "helpful article" was picked up by the huffington post - they're explicitly quoting you. And the huffpost article has already been picked up by gawker. The thing is going viral right now.
Judging from your proud defensive posts, I gather your penis size has just doubled. Congratulations.
Read the comments. Most of them are along the lines "I didn't even know what "furry" was, until today.". Yes we have now hundrets of thousand people, who were introduced to the furry fandom by the headline " Furry arrested accused of having sex with a cat".
No, furry fandom was not "best served by publicly ostracising people who break such laws". People who read this articles don't give a damnif this was one furry in a million, or if he was guilty or not. That is not what they wil lremember. They will have the association "Furries are cat fucking weirdos" edged forever in their heads because of that headline.
Thanks to flayrah it just became a lot harder "to avoid associating with" this guy. You did the opposite of what you claimed. We're now all automatically associated with this guy in the eyes of millions.
And who did it? YOU DID.
I doubt this article has been read by the entire of Huffpost's userbase who are typically more interested in politcal actions than what some random pervert is doing in Idaho.
And here's the question. If we didn't pick this up who would have said these people would NOT have picked this up? Who would have said they would not have quoted the commenter on the original article who said "their neighbors said they were all involved in this furry thing"?
A man once abused a peacock (who was not a furry), it was not posted here, still got on Huffpo. So it doesn't seem we're Huffpo's gateway into all animal abuse stories, now does it?
If you read these articles they do not this very contention and difficulty expressed by posting this type of thing here. That there are assholes within our group that make a convienent scape-goat for people to tease us with. Seeings as HuffPo is liberal, if they think all furries are like this guy, then all liberals are like Anthony Weiner.
I don't think they do, because the article addressed that. You're worried about numbers and even the slightest possibility of misinformed idiots. Guess what? That's humanity.
Yea, and after people found out that a few catholic priests had sex with minors they totally blamed the individuals rather then the church.
Sorry, but if the word "Furry" appears in the title and in the first paragraph, people will assume that members of the furry fandom are more likely to have sex with animals just like people assume that priest are more likely to abuse children
Hello, apples and oranges.
Churches were responsible for a vast coverup. People's judgement about churches has plenty of substance and reason for concern.
Furries have done nothing of the sort. There isn't substance to such an assumption. Of course if it happens, you cant solve all ignorance in the world. But you can simply go on enjoying your hobby without chasing approval from ignorant people. And actually, its a trivial issue because the main reaction to furries is that people have no idea what they are.
Zaush. Adam Wan. FurAffinity may not be as grandiose of an "institution," but let's not forget the "advice" Dragoneer tried to impart after a certain incident.
Honestly, when furries try to distinguish themselves from society at large--usually higher--from what I've observed, I don't think we're as different as some of us would like to believe. Sure, we may sugar coat (furry coat?) our vices (and sure, our virtues, too), but take off that head, I'd bet you'd find a societal parallel staring right back at you.
On topic, I don't think performing sexual acts with a house cat is a good idea at all. Nope.
Who? Sorry, I don't waste time following piddly little fandom dramas. I found a bloated gossip thread that seemed to amount to unsubstantiated he-said she-said accusations, painting this Zaush character with the same brush used on Julian Assange. You won't score any points with that highly debatable form of controversy. Please don't break anything while bending over backwards, trying to compare that to a generations-long institutional coverup by the churches.
If that example is supposed to be like, priest abuse, then Dragoneer is the pope or something? Riiiight...
What power does Dragoneer have besides being able to ban someone off a free, niche website that doesn't even make any money? None.
And he's supposed to be some kind of arbiter of justice? He did something wrong by reserving judgement? Without evidence? I think not! Actually, if he were to get roped into supporting a vengeful accuser doing a false reputation smear (exes never do THAT, do they? Riiight...) then he's fucked from the other side by liability for abetting slander/libel on an innocent person. Yeah, accused people have rights, too. They really do.
The bottom line with what you brought up, is if an adult has -direct- knowledge of a crime, it's up to THEM to report it. Not a secondhand hearsay-receiver. And it's a job for cops to investigate. Not a hobby website manager. Dragoneer did nothing wrong. And if it wasn't reported to cops by the direct witness, we can take that as a sign it had no merit to be reported. That's how burden of proof works for accusations.
Your example isn't a granular piece of a bigger whole. It's simply granular, as in, so microscopic it's meaningless. Bad individuals do bad things sometimes. Welcome to humanity!
Furries aren't different from society at large. Neither are they similar to the Catholic Church and it's scandals. We're equals here and nobody has the power to be corrupted that way.
Back on topic: yeah, leave house cats alone.
The peacock incident is irrelevant to me because it doesn't associate anything bad with furries. And in this case, yes, you were Huffpo's gateway to the one furry animal abuse story they needed to fill their need for a "silly season" article.
And it doesn't matter what the article addresses. All people are going to remember is the headline and the association "furries" and "fucking cats". That's how headlines work.
You don't know anything about publicity, do you?
Well, you don't get the media inquiries. But I do. I've been running a con for 20 years, and the PR fallout of these stories drops right on MY head. I know what I'm talking about.
Here's the thing, I'd be more than happy to say this guy is not a furry. In fact, I said so much in response to the comment on the original news article that linked him to being a furry long before Flayrah posted it.
However, there is something getting in the way of him official being not a furry, and that is our "tolerance" and "everyone who calls themselves a furry is a furry" mentality.
You can't have it both ways, either the group should have some control over who no longer can qualify as a furry if a line is crossed, or we have to accept that these despicable individuals are furries because they call themselves one.
As I said, someone who abuses an animal really has no interest in animals having equal ability to that of humans. Because people who abuse want to de-humanize those they abuse. To make it so they can't talk, can't get help. So if he's de-humanizing the animal by abusing them, I can't see how he could possibly want to treat animals or have animals empowered with human cognition.
Therefore to me he's not a furry. And if someone asks about this specific case this is what you say.
That "not a furry" thing doesn't work. If a basketball player murders someone, is he not a basketball player because of it?
"No true scotsman" is the name for the fallacy.
Sometimes furries are flawed because that's part of being human- semantics about it doesn't really change anything.
I think what Sonious is trying to say is that, by doing 'x', this guys is going against the very heart of the fandom. By treating an animal as less than human (sexual assualt without consent=dehumanizing, whether it's an animal or otherwise) the person is shrugging off the whole 'anthromoph' or 'animals with HUMAN characteristics' idea.
While I get that one doesn't necessarily have to consider animals as having human characteristics in real life in order to be a fan of anthro characters, that was what he was getting at. Like...are you really a fan of basketball if you go around stabbing basketballs with pitchforks... that would be a closer metaphor than a basketball player randomly murdering someone: there's no parallel to what the man actually does.
But treating animals like shit when you're in a fandom that revolves around animals and humanizing animals? See how there's a connection between the actual act and the 'identity' there?
Clarifications aside, unfortunately if someone identifies as something, people are going to connect their hideous acts with said identity. Same as any other group, this would/does reflect on us, whether we 'accept' him as being a real furry or not, so in the end it's all a rather moot point.
Again, stop the drama. Huffpo posts those articles from many sources. Do not pretend that this tiny site is the gateway for all of them. If they didnt get it here, they would get it elsewhere, as you've been shown.
It sounds like your ostrich approach to publicity is the reason why your con is trivial in comparison to ones outside of furry fandom. Maybe if it wasnt run by an amateur, more people would even know what furries are.
Now I'm going to start making a drinking game where I'm going to have to take a shot everytime an anon says "ostrich"--
I'd never heard of that use of the term until tonight. Yay first shot! :D
I guess it's better to be an ostrich with your head in the sand, than a peacock :p
And it has now also spread to various Dutch sites in under a day. So viral, yep.
Doesn't even qualify as "bacterial". This is not the next Gang-nam Style. And if it is humanity truly has gone sad.
Still, bad publicity, especially this kind of, doesn't help.
And a furry news site actually documenting it doesn't work in our favour either.
So you'd rather have people get the same news from somewhere else than here, and assume we hide abusers as a rule? Yeah, look at how that's working for the catholic church. But actually, nobody in furry fandom has any power to corrupt. It's made of equals. So, practice your opinion by example and don't talk about the story; the rest of us will discuss like adults.
You're really pouring on that "Catholic Church" angle, aren't you?
Apparently though they didn't need us to do it. Maria T in the comment section of the original article made the connection 11 days ago, 2 days before this article was posted.
Sorry to burst your bubble but - a story about this cat abuse is on the webpage of the New York Daily News, that's New York as in New York City. Seems to me that's pretty viral.
It's very dramatic to pretend that this story began on this tiny site. You might convince yourself that it did, if you spend far too much time wanking over trivial furry-fan in-group gossip and drama, and no time reading news from the rest of the world. But actually this site is just a quiet little messenger passing along info from other sources that are no secret to anyone, thanks to the internet.
Be grateful that at least this messenger delivers with it's own statement, instead of staying silent while some place far less friendly gets the quotes. Because if it wasnt linked here, it would have been linked some other place run by nasty people who think all furries deserve to be crapped on, instead of realistic people who are think just your opinion is crap.
Gawker is crap, too. Their company has an agenda to maximize views for profit by printing anything and everything that will stir the blood of dumb people. It sure worked for you didn't it.
This blog on the other hand, is just some people's hobby. That includes free and open discussion without a profit motive. Which this story is. Don't pretend it affects you more than anyone else who discusses it. Actually, it doesn't affect you if you don't identify as an animal abuser. Anyone who is going to falsely associate you with one is not someone whose approval you need to chase. Get some dignity and stop throwing dramatic fits towards people who are able to discuss news like grown ups.
It didn't begin here. But huffpost got it from here. Without flayrah they'd never known.
You're full of shit. As if the internet doesnt pass information if you pretend it isnt there. You misspelled "ostrich" in your nickname.
That's an interesting theory, but I have actual evidence that proves that if Flayrah hadn't said anything people still would have known he was a furry.
This story was published 9 days ago as of this comment.
This comment on the original linked story made by Maria T, a non-fur, was made 11 days ago where she makes the link between the alleged and his furry activities.
So no, your statement is clearly false. You clearly underestimated the gossips in Boise.
While it's true that a commenter there figured it out first, I believe Cheetah is substantially correct about the origin of the Huffington Post story; they and other sites cite Flayrah as a source.
These other sites have plenty of other sources for similar stories they have already posted. They wouldn't have held back from posting it if Flayrah had refrained from posting news. Please, let's keep this a place where news is reported and not fluff.
Who gives you extra?
Flayrah's being read by thousands of people?
HOLY CRAP, THAT'S AWESOME!
(Seriously, Equestria Daily gets more comments on their average post then we get views; kinda depressing sometimes.)
I really wish it didn't take a death or a crime to get to those numbers...
First off, I think you overestimate the impact of quotation on my anatomy. (Norns reproduce through kissing.)
Next, I accept your assertion that some may think less of furries as a result of the disclosure of such information, but I don't think the evidence supports your assertion of millions turned against furry fandom for decades to come.
Readers of Gawker and the like are there for entertainment purposes; the comments there bear this out. This is the same news organization which posted such gems as "'Furry Convention of Unacceptable Adults' Scars One Hotel Guest's Cheerleading Children for Life" and "No One Is Free When Furries Are Oppressed".
Moreover, Flayrah is not a furry PR agency, with a mandate to make the fandom look good or to increase its size. We are a furry news organization and our overriding concern is to report information which we believe to be of interest to our target audience. If other organizations choose to use our reporting to inform or entertain their own audience, that is their business. Our objective is not compromised by their actions; if anything, more furries will read our stories as a result, and be informed.
I'm sorry if their reuse makes your life harder - I have no enmity towards you as a person - but our goals are not aligned here.
Such a story might formerly have spread through word of mouth or private mailing lists. Our current size renders this infeasible; moreover, they depend on being friends with those "in the know", and for it to be in their interest to pass such knowledge on. Your comments suggest event leaders would suppress distribution of certain stories, just as you've suppressed certain goods.
This is why Flayrah and other fandom websites and organizations should not be led by convention staff (and why I resigned my own staff positions). There is too great a conflict of interest to be both a honest reporter and a loyal con-runner and promoter.
I hope whoever is doing searches online for furry will also note the majority of articles on Flayrah are either of good works furries are doing or creating.
I'm of the opinion that ignoring a problem will not make it go away, we need to recognize there are creeps in the fandom because acting like we don't know will only give them further safe haven - and this in turn just hurts those furs who want nothing to do with that sort of behavior or notoriety.
I'm certain if he is proven innocent of the charges Flayrah will report it in a follow up article, I may not read Flayrah enough to know if they've ever done a sort of 'smash and dash' on someone's reputation but I haven't seen it in any of the bad furry series of articles that pop up once in a blue moon. Personally I find them useful in reminding me to keep my eyes and ears open around furs I don't know personally.
Stop reporting about shit like this. It makes all furries look bad because of the deranged actions of a few individuals.
What is this, the new online furry version of the "Sun"?
Welcome to the real world. Other segments of society (or fandoms) are plagued with individuals such as these,... and they have to deal with their presences and deeds likewise.
>>It makes all furries look bad
"Wow, Reality!. What a concept!". - Robin Williams
Not talking about it would actually make us look WORSE.
I'm not going to lie, the cat-felon puns that seem to make up most of the comment in the news article itself actually made me chuckle.
Still, I used to hang out around this guy pretty frequently when I was more active in Boise's furry community. Ehhh, damn.
I have to admit, the I didn't expect a cat.
Then I wondered if Crusader Cat had annoyed someone recently that they reported his cat blowjob incident to the police after all these years.
"crimes against nature"
You don't see that one a lot.
I remember an old Law and Order episode where a necrophile is arrested and accused of raping a comatose woman; he's a red herring, but is still taken to trial for the whole sex with a corpse thing.
The judge, unaware of the case, says, "So was it a live animal or a dead body?" Unfortunately implying everything would be okay if you just had your way with a dead animal.
And what about the plants? They're living things too, and are certainly part of nature.
Ethically I'm not sure where you draw the line there. Most laws against necrophilia are aimed at preserving "dignity", but we butcher so many animals that this doesn't seem like a great argument. Should it be illegal to have sex with a steak?
They also largely apply to "human remains", "human bodies" or (more vaguely) "corpses". Connecticut and New York (probably) include dead animals. In Wisconsin, a judicial panel noted that sex with a person requires affirmative consent; however, the state must still prove its lack beyond a reasonable doubt. (This probably doesn't apply to animals.)
This makes us look bad. Nyan...
Nope, it makes him look bad.
For those making the argument. "Well no one would find out he was a furry if you didn't posted it here and it was only posted on anti-furry or furry drama sites." I have evidence that proves you incorrect.
A reader of the Boise Weekly had made the connection without reference to this article(comment section here).
So no, if furries "say no evil" it does not lead to people "think no evil" or "speak no evil". They'll just note that furries aren't addressing it, and you can bet if we don't more people who abuse animals will walk right on in because they'll note we'll give them a pass.
A lot of furries if you Google search their RL name will turn up the results. If only the anti-furry sites make these connection, then that means they'll more than not start decrying that furrys "Don't want you to KNOW" about this, and thus are HIDING something.
I'm not saying witch hunt by people who are clearly unqualified to do so, such as furries are not. Nor do I wish to see people playing armchair detective. However, if someone is arrested or convicted by actual cops it's better to acknowledge the fact then to claim that the arrest is some sort of witchhunt.
Of course if one is addressed in public about it, if you don't want to deal with it, play dumb if one can afford to (you don't need to give out information on something that has nothing to do with you, nor be expected to), or tell the truth and play on the emotion rather than bogging down with the details of the case. Such as: "I didn't really know the guy personally, but if what is said was true than, as a furry, I find what he did to that poor animal despicable."
To say the word 'tabloid' to describe this news which merely spoke about the arrest is insulting to the pretentious douche-baggery that goes into real tabloids. I mean, those people work hard to bring you the most frivolous non-sense on celebrities 24/7. Meanwhile actual newspapers talk about the arrests of locals all the time. And don't think of blaming this on current attitudes/newpapers BECOMING tabloids. Arrest articles were happening even Murdoch was a fetus.
It's not the article that is behaving tabloid-ish, it's more the commentators.
It certainly does not take long for a story like this to gain comments :P
HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!
Sigh... That's what response this story deserves the most.
It's dubious to speculate about (censored) with a cat. That verges into the category of stuff never done by anyone except Mr. Slave. (Trust me, I'm a rat in San Francisco... ha.) Maybe other things happened but lets keep it real.
There's definitely an issue about projecting guilt out of a newspaper notice, and risking being a sucker for a telephone game. (Hello, NJ FurBQ hoax, and countless non furry examples like Richard Jewell mentioned above.) But many people don't care about risk because it falls on someone else.
But there's no responsibility for a news source to avoid reporting facts, out of false duty to a Kurt Vonnegut style granfalloon.
IMO, people should already be aware of these things and not need to discuss it. This story doesn't deserve more than a handful of specific, non-meta comments.
Okay I am someone close to this situation and those who probably reported. I have knowledge that this is probably indeed false, and was done by a very spitful manipulative individual. Also known in the furry community. If anyone wants to hear what I have to say privately message me.
I hope for the feline's sake this is the case. Time will tell.
By the by, you can't send private messages to visitors--- just so you know.
If you can show evidence for a motive to set someone up, (like more than suspicions), please get in touch through my profile and I'll do my best to see if the story deserves a new update. It's a good thing to do when stories get distorted.
Well, this person is either the worst (but really lucky) manipulator or the best manipulator ever to even try "call cops on a sex with a cat accusation" ploy.
I would most definitely like to hear your side of this, please e-mail me at firstname.lastname@example.org as you posted as an Anon and there is no way to contact you.
I would be sharing this with his attorney and not here if what you have to say is true. It's no good to go revealing the hand to the prosecutor.
I thought this would go without saying, but apparently some are jumping through this hoop... if this wasn't set up to see who would jump in the first place.
I was not aware of this situation until I read about it here. I have not seen the evidence and I do not know if he is guilty or not.
I do feel the need to point out that it is EXTREMELY rare for zoophiles to go after housecats (or small dogs for that matter). They overwhelmingly tend to go after larger dogs and livestock. I know more about this kind of shit than anyone ever should, and none of what I'm seeing here sits quite right.
In fact, the more I dig through this guy's online accounts the more trouble I have believing he's a zoo. Even with the stealthiest zoophiles there's always some association or some clue and I am seeing none of that here.
Well, I have to say, rodox_video is one of the Vivisector/lulz types (more the former than the latter, though he may not wish to claim either group), so this is getting weird.
I have to admit, the "several occasions between January 2012 and January 2013" kind of is eyebrow raising, unless we're talking multiple cats. Because (and I'm trying to put this delicately) even a large cat would probably not survive the experience. On the other hand, he may not be a zoophile, per se, but just a guy who gets off to this sort of thing because it's wrong; in that case, he'd be less likely to care about the physical well-being of his victim.
I suppose if this is a sadism thing it's possible, since, as you said, he wouldn't care about his victim's survival. He certainly wouldn't be talking about it online as even other zoos would go after him.
However, I can't shake the impression that if he was doing something nasty, he'd be too dumb to avoid hinting about it somewhere. He doesn't exactly come off as a master manipulator.
(for the record, I don't work with vivisector that much anymore and I positively despise lulz)
I only go to lulz because they have a flash board which a. is pretty divorced from the main board, but b. pretty dead for the last year or so, so I don't even visit there often anymore. And Vivisector banned me, so I took the hint ... though I lurk occasionally, just in case someone posts something besides "FA sucks, guys!" We get it; FA sucks. Can we move on?
Last I checked, this story still hasn't made Vivisector; I've already done this joke, but the "why are you posting furry news on the furry news site?" commenters may have more in common with Vivisector than they'd like to admit.
Updated mug shot: http://www.adasheriff.org/inmateroster/details.asp?pid=1052925 ("arrested on Aug 1" link no good anymore).
Sadly I agree with Cheetah 100% on this. Reporters are lazy and Greenreaper built them a breadcrumb trail to all this guys accounts linking him to the fandom. This is made worse by Greenreaper sifting through all the posts and coloring seemingly benign ones as scandalous for outside observers following his breadcrumb trail. I understand the desire to rant/rave/ gossip like any online forum but as an editor here I feel its not professional or appropriate because outside observers/ researchers or even criminal investigators may see GR as credible because of his position. He has already been quoted. That would not be the case for joeblow ranting on the net. If you want to stir the pot it's a free country but I'm dissapointed it was done under an identity that is viewed as an ambassador to this website and the fandom in general. I see nothing wrong with the story, all the links to his furry stuffs is fair game but something the fandom could do without, however the personal comments on the pages seem very inappropriate given GR position here.
Reporters are lazy? Speak for yourself, ostrich.
If you agree with cheetah 100%, then we're going with the premise that huffpo wouldnt print such articles from other sources, and wouldnt know of this story if we pretended it didnt exist. But that's false.
I just came here from The Sun reporting on it in the United Kingdom. What a reach this article seems to have had.
Good. Now a few more people have seen furry fans discussing news like adults do, instead of seeing rumors about furry fans from secondhand sources. And they are free to check the front page, and be disappointed out of more drama by seeing a bunch of completely non scandalous fan news.
Here's an interesting story http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/photogallery/top-ten-bestiality-arrests-of-20.... Of the top 10 cases of bestiality, only 1 involved a furry. Does this mean mundanes are 9 times worse when it comes to sex with animals? Sheesh. I'm so sick of furries being spotlighted when something like this happens. Zoophiles are a tiny minority, not the norm.
I agree with Cheetah too. Thumbs down to Flayrah for posting this article. I enjoy this site but I'm so tired of these "furry in trouble" stories popping up here.
To me, the Flyrah admins only post these kinds of stories so their site can get plenty of hits. And then Amazon Associates, Google Analytics and Google Adsense can send them a nice check for placing tracking cookies in our browsers. (I found these cookies via the Ghostery plug-in for Firefox.)
It also undervalues Flayrah to many furs as a trustworthy site for news about the fandom. It drags this site down to the level of Vivisector, Lulz and ED.
You really think Flayrah gets enough hits to get checks from those people? Hahahhaa.
Not really , no. I am on a major site, that gets tens of thousands of hits an hour, and we barely get a few hundred bucks a year.
Now, if you actually SOLD stuff through here.. that'd be different.
Well, wouldn't you be surprised; I've just come back from the Flayrah fursuit orgy session that we traditionally hold on a huge pile of hundred dollar bills, and am on my way to snort cocaine off the tits of one of those mail-order Russian "tame" vixens.
I keep the job at Pizza Hut because I like the hours.
Let's keep those sweet, sweet hits rolling in. This story is going to finance that porn movie starring Julia Roberts and a team of sled dogs. (Hmm and maybe Greenreaper will raise our writing fees, and help me think of more up to date references than a dirty joke from the 80's.)
I can sense that FurryNewsNetwork is trying to revive itself. If judging by the opinions shared by some, I think it should really tailor itself towards positive only news and they may gain some traction.
It'll be like a Fox News, for foxes.
That being said, furrys are certainly not alone in showing ire for press that highlights a corrupt individual within the group. The government does it all the time.
I can see alot of parallels with governmental issues that highlight corruption or need for reform:
You can bet your bottom dollar that when people were covering things like "Abu Grad" or "Gitmo" they were considered anti-American and trying to make America look bad and "emboldening the enemy."
Likewise, alot of furries see all external media as our enemy, so when they do post this story they certainly play into that narrative. However, is that our fault? Or is it the enemies? Why is the enemy not sharing the story of the wonderful things that happen in the group to their followers?
More often then not because while American news is both pro and anti-government, the enemies of America will repost the stories that show the corruption, while sweeping under the stories that show the goodness in the citizenry...
Some would argue that American press does the same with that of foriegn nation's (like China's) stories. And certainly certain branches of our press do in fact do just that.
Maybe it's about time THAT non-sense be put to an end. That the press actually report things as they are and not selectively pick stories based on the narrative they want to send. Or because it gets the most views or is the most marketable.
"That the press actually report things as they are and not selectively pick stories based on the narrative they want to send. Or because it gets the most views or is the most marketable."
Pfft... dream on...
What does "the press" even mean? It used to mean newspapers. A few of them even used to have standards! Are you going to put billions of dollars into reviving that corpse?
Long form journalism still does have some highlights, some in depth magazine pieces. TV news networks are pure rubbish.
There is a firm sense among those that analyze media (i dunno, maybe public radio's On The Media show) that the post internet, post-gatekeeper age means fragmentation, static and bubbles of information. Blogging IS the press as much as anything else. Anyone can do it, if you can get heard through the static. It goes out to more filtered audiences. Basically, it's up to YOU to share the story you want. If it's a story like this, you want people to find it here instead of somewhere less favorable.
Ay, we all have dreams I guess, media has changed. It's basically one big psychological warfare it feels at times. Sometimes one has to see through their perceptions and learn to read between the lines. To know as much about the author as the content they provide to get to the truth of the matter. Because you have to see the world in the way they see it and then analyze where their experiences might lead them askew. It's about understanding behaviors, and then making an assessment.
It's a tricky thing to do, and even I get it wrong sometimes. However, I think as people get better at analyzing information, mis-information gets easier to detect, and eventually it becomes less and less effective.
But that may be just another dream.
You're totally right. It's about being a smart, informed reader. And I think it's smart to believe that the more democratic media gets, the more smart readers can steer media agendas towards more truth.
Orson Welles' Citizen Kane is revered as one of the most important movies, because it modernized movie storytelling and brought self-awareness in it's narrative about media. The movie making backstory is equally important, for how Welles' career was ruined by the politics of studios and going up against the Hearst newspapers. Consider how that movie tells a story through fractured narrative, where ultimately, there are many truths that intersect or overlap, but no center and not one of them can dominate. (Kirosawa's Rashomon followed it's influence too.) It's a relevant concept when discussing democratic media.
Flayrah's content is primarily determined by submitters, not editors; topics reflect what our contributors think is interesting and relevant to the site and its audience. This type of story may not be to your taste, but many readers feel the opposite.
We do not make money from cookies, only if you click on an ad or buy a link; and you are welcome to block them. Indeed, registered users can disable ads and featured product sections in their user settings (Edit > Block configuration).
In almost four years of operation, we've earned less than $50 from Google AdWords (in theory - they only pay out at $100), and $130 from Amazon Associates (covering four months of hosting for the WikiFur/Flayrah server). Both are described on our about page; as noted, we refuse solicitations for sponsored posts or links. The type of stories suitable for affiliate links (e.g. reviews) tend to attract few visitors.
Holy crap! What a weird world I just stumbled upon. I won't judge you people, I'm sure you're not all like this dude but I'm outta here.
Haha, it's not for everyone man. Get out there and do what you like.
The bad news is that you will be getting every single reply here in your email inbox for the next week or so. So, have fun with that. And thanks to HuffPo, this party just got started (hey, as far as I can tell, nobody's defending kitty-diddling yet, so this almost works out to a win).
Kitty-diddling. This stories been up a week and that's what I came up with?
It's the internet... give it time.
This is what happens when you live a life free from God. A life without faith in Jesus is no life at all.
I'm actually kind of enjoying this outsider perspective thing because it makes me realize some things.
As a furry, I always worry about stories of individuals like this having negative implications on myself and my friends. However, I can at least be relieved in the fact that I'm not an atheist. It seems that any crime committed anywhere will always be blamed on the lack of religion and/or those who aren't religious.
Heck, there's nothing in the story that claims what this person's religion affiliation was or was not. It's still the Gentile's fault.
See what happens Furry?!
See what happens when you FUCK a CAT in the ASS?!
You guys seriously need mental help... therapy, anything. Aside from this sicko, dressing like a furry animal? I've lost all hope in humanity... you all have issues. Get jobs, get off the blogs, and seek professional help !
Being furry animals is our therapy, dummy.
We're doing just fine minding our business. Why don't you mind yours? Take your own advice and work on your boundary issues.
Have a job, was determined healthy by an actual psychiatrist this year, you got me on the blogs thing though.
I have three jobs, actually; one of which is being a soldier in the national guard.
I am a responsible person who pays my bills, works full time, and happens to enjoy costuming (fursuits and cosplay alike), and creating artwork.
Just like any other group of people, this fandom is made up of all sorts. Yes, this guy is a bad apple if he indeed committed this crime. However that does not mean that we condone this behavior or that we are all psychologically inept. We, as a fandom, often help each other out of tight financial situations, and donate to charities.
Look up "Furnandos", for instance.
Letting your opinion on an entire group be swayed by one article--by one bad apple--is not something to be proud of. You may as well claim that all Anime fans are sickos that are into groping random women on public trains, while you're at it.
If we as a community want to be known as a family friendly society, we need to take a hard stand against this behavior. What this person is accused of doing goes against what we want to promote. This guy was abusing this cat and it is truly disgusting. It wrong. It is not only a crime against humanity but against our community.
I do care about what the public thinks because I want to walk out in public and be accepted for they way my
Character is: I am a family friendly character and sure as hell don't want to get assaulted for someone assuming the wrong thing about me. News like this poses a serious threat to fursuiter out there.
do star wars/star trek fans get posted on star wars forums and get publicity when they are ACCUSED and arrested for crimes?
So there are two outcomes and responses to this.
Anyways I can't imagine a safe way to have sex with a cat unless it was the size of a tiger guy is a idiot if it's true and should be fined etc.
Of course if it turns out he is a zoo then circumstantial evidence will convict him anyways even if he is innocent and didn't cause injury to the cat or have sex with it. and if that were the case that'd be bullshit.
Yes, they do:
Pedophilia and Star Trek
Man Strangled Wife After She Smashed 'Star Wars' Toys
^ And: this story on many Star Wars forums
You actually raised a pretty good point, although Furry fandom is different than those ones. (It's about it's own members as much as any movie/story).
Now, here's a question for you. Would the fandom for Michael Jackson be more or less healthy, if allegations about him were never publicized?
Michael Jackson was a person, It'd be different if a title read
"Man Accused of Pedophilia who is also a Michael Jackson Fan. . .also he Drinks Milk."
First hit on Star Trek fans and public exposure of their wrongful deeds on Google.
Star Wars fan are more mellow.
...And it's pedophilia with the Trekkies. Guilty Zoophiles deserve jail, Pedophiles deserve worse.
...And Patch wins the News Pole Position. That will teach me to read all the responses before adding to the discussion.
Why do none of the stories mention what happened to the cat?
Probably because they don't know. My understanding is that the cat is fine now, but the only place I've heard that is in a comment to a private LiveJournal community, so I can't cite it.
The cat got screwed; that's what happened to the cat.
Well, actually, now that I think about it, this does bring up an interesting legal thought experiment; if a man is accused of screwing a cat, he is presumed innocent until proven guilty. If he is proven guilty, then the cat was screwed. However, since he was presumed innocent before, and with no outside observer to verify if the cat was actually screwed, would the cat be unscrewed until the guilty verdict came in, therefore meaning the cat was retroactively screwed by the guilty verdict? Or is the cat both screwed and unscrewed at the same time?
I'm curious what exactly he is supposed to have done with the cat. None of the articles I've seen tell that, but most comments seem to assume it to be intercourse.
Now, I'm not claiming to know anything about house cat anatomy, but I very much doubt that that is the case if the cat is doing fine now, unless you have some huge house cats over in Idaho and/or he has the smallest member in the world.
The cat got ... wait, no that didn't work out so good the first time; though I will say I can go my entire life without learning the nitty gritty details.
(I do like the small penis theory, though.)
I would just like people to know, that since this article has been posted, and picked up on by other journalists during a month where congress is in recess, and there is nothing else much going on in the world, that this is what shows up when someone Google searches "Furry Fandom"
I would still like an answer to this question: Why was it necessary that this be covered?
- You want this to be a source, before a worse place is a source. News doesn't go away just because you don't post about it. This kind of story can and does spread without us.
- Seeing it here with mature discussion mitigates the bad meaning of the story by itself.
- Coverage is the opposite of a coverup. When something bad happens, we're like the neighborhood watch.
- News about a furry is furry news. Being in the news (the Statesman) is noteworthy by itself.
- This is a place for news, not propaganda or marketing. News covers ALL stories, not just good ones.
- A reader can browse the rest of the site and get acquainted with the positive. And now they're more aware of what we really do.
Now, can we please not go over this again?
What made all the difference was that Higgs and Flayrah were the first to report that Ryan was a Furry. The original Idaho Statesman story said NOTHING about that.
Its Higgs and Flayrah's fault for all the viral attention this story has received from Google. Had Furry never been mentioned this story would have remained local.
If you guys were smart and wanted to promote a positive image to the Furry fandom you would post an editorial blasting Ryan and other offenders for this kind of sick and disgusting behavior. But the Flayrah staff is too busy humping their plushies, jerking off to furry porn, crapping their pampers, or having sex in their fursuits to do so. I guess thats OK with you while having sex with animals is not?
Captain Obvious says: Read The Fucking Thread, please.
Higgs and Flayrah were not the first to connect the alleged abuser with his active membership in furry fandom. That happened in the comments to the Idaho Statesman article itself, by a non-furry.
And even if it didn't, "Truth will out." It's better to have it here for open, mature discussion, than as a circulating rumor even among furry fans themselves. Because depending on ignorance to hide flaws is a frail shield indeed, and news is better than rumors.
Nobody needs to make an editorial about the obvious. We don't condone murder, either, and nobody needs to editorialize about it. But if there's a furry murder, then we'll report that too. And OK, I will be smart and not mince words: if you feel that casting flimsy aspersions at messengers is the appropriate response to a message, please go fuck yourself. Or grow up instead.
Let's drag out some tired links you shouldn't need to be reminded about:
Whatever consenting adults do, no matter how weird, it has nothing to do with abuse or crime and it's not the business of preachers, grudge holders or bitter virgins.
I suspect most furs would prefer the things you describe; they harm no other living being, nor are they illegal.
Whether the facts of a story tend to promote a positive or negative image of furry fandom is immaterial to whether we will cover it. If you think our intent is to alter the fandom's reputation, you misunderstand the goal of our journalism.
With regards to an editorial, I have given my own own opinion above quite clearly in the comments, which have been requoted on at least one other news website along with the story itself. It is Flayrah's practice to encourage such matters to be debated within the comments, as our editorial staff is insufficient to represent all viewpoints.
I sure as heck hope that's not your image that you put up there.
Oh wait-- it is.
If you're taking a snap-shot of Google at a particular moment just to prove your point on Flayah, you're putting it up there for all time to make people think that that's what Google ALWAYS says about furries.
The links in question are in it's "news" subsection which changes as the news changes. Your image puts it up there for all time. Individuals lookin at it out of context will believe that's what always shows up when you look up furry. They won't know it was by some furry trying to win an argument on the internet.
Kind of hypocritical, no?
So take the image down, or be a hypocrite. It's your choice.
"Why was it necessary that this be covered?"
To make you ask questions; okay, that was originally supposed to be sarcastic, but, you know what, that's actually a decent response. It's always good to ask questions. But also seriously, the seven elements to newsworthiness are:
1. Timeliness (The more recent something happened, the more it will interest readers.) - Well, it was timely when Higgs posted it ...
2. Proximity (If something is close to us, it is very likely to matter to us.) - In this case, the proximity is that the story involves a member of our little social group, rather than geographically (excepting you happen to live in Boise, too, of course).
3. Conflict (Conflicts are newsworthy because we want to know who's winning and who said what.) - Not really much conflict in the actual story (you don't need all the elements to be news, just enough), but we definitely have conflict covered anyway.
4. Possible future impact (If something is happening right now that means we will either progress or suffer a consequence, it's pretty newsworthy.) - Well, you yourself brought up a consequence of this story; it makes furries look bad. Ironically, the opponents of this story being run are actually proving that the story is newsworthy.
5. Prominence (What happens to important people is important to us.} - Admittedly, this guy was a nobody (and I doubt the cat was that famous, either), so this story does lack prominence.
6. Human interest (Humans like hearing about other humans interacting, living, being, experiencing.) - This is also pretty much lacking; however the blog entry I Googled to refresh my memory of the elements (and am quoting from) does, ironically, contain this line: "And, because we are animal lovers and pet owners, our furry friends might make the news, too." This story is seriously not what the post's author is talking about when describing "human interest," but it's one of those macabre little jokes the universe sometimes throws up for you, and you just gotta go with it.
And finally ...
7. Shock Value (Is it weird?) - Yes, that's an element of newsworthiness, and if you don't think a guy screwing a cat isn't this, you've got problems.
So, we've got 1, 2, 4, 7 and maybe 3. Even not counting 3, four for seven ain't bad.
So, in answer to your question, "Why was it necessary that this be covered?"
It was necessary that this be covered because we are a news site and this is FRIGGIN' NEWS!
It's local news fo boise, at most. Blown out of proportion. Now it's global news, damaging to an entire community. Because kindergarden wannabee-journalists don't know fuck about journalism and the responsibilities of an editor.
The media are an attention economy. You totally don't get the point why this article on this blog here was not journalism, no service to the fandom, but instead did permanent, irrepairable damage to our community that might takes decades to recover from.
Local news that has to do with somemone being arrested for animal abuse always blows up to a global level.
Remember that man who had sex with a peacock I talked about earlier who was not a furry and whose story was not on flayrah?
Here are are just a small spattering of the news organizations that ran that story:
And that's just the first page of results...
Your homework... find me an example of an animal abuse story that never left the local level.
You still don't get it.
I don't care about animal abuse stories in general. The web is full of weird non-news.
I care about furry sex offender stories concentrated in one single blog that draw the connection between the furry commmunity and a completely unrelated offense of a deranged individual making it look like he did it BECAUSE he was furry.
"Cat rapist was a furry" is as irrelevant as "Spree Killer was a gamer". No matter how true the underlying correlation is, the implied causation is not, yet still that's what the world believes if you put it on your headline.
And the headline in question was here on flayrah. We don't have to deprecate our own fandom. I don't know where this perverted lulzian masochism to smear your own community comes from, but it must stop.
Well if we didn't put it in the headline you'd be asking "Why should I care?"
You said it yourself, you don't care about animal abuse, you only care about it when it's a furry doing it. And since you do admittedly care, shouldn't it be known to you?
You're assuming that people haven't become desensitized to headlines at this point. That every group has had a headline that has made their social clique look bad and thus look beyond it with the understanding that just because this one person in the social clique did this doesn't mean they all did it.
Anyone with half a brain would know that.
Feel free to tell any individual that indicates otherwise that they're a moron, because indeed they are. Don't worry about them either, they're too busy believing everything they see on television to come up with any world impacting opinion of their own. They will only wait from their media masters to make their decisions. They're not going to influence anyone else.
Sure this whole fandom image thing was an issue back before news an instantaneous phenomenon. Sure the tactics taken by Xydexx and Kage were very much necessary at the time they were made because no one in furry though about media relation AT ALL. However, the world has changed in 20 years. People all hate "the media" far more than they hate the fandom. Hell if a Klingon had to have a drink every-time Fox News decried the media, they'd be under the table (and they ARE "the media").
Everyone worth a damn looks at a news headline with skepticism. NO MATTER ITS SOURCE. Who read the entire story and sometimes find, as I have that the headline was completely wrong to what the content was presenting. There will always be the neanderthals who don't, but they're too busy with themselves to worry about things such as perceptional theory or word's influence or impacts on societal structures.
The important thing is not to let a story like this put you on the defensive. Spin it. Attack the person back. If it's a reporter you can ask: "Is it true that BBC reporter Jimmy Saville was engaged in pedophilia acts? Doesn't that say that all reporters are engaged in the activity?"
They'll drop that generalization pretty fast.
In fact if you wanted to do something "Viral" prehaps that is thing that should be spammed in the comment stories of all news stories that put a social group in the title like this one. Just the comment. "Jimmy Saville was a reporter who was a pedophile, therefore it is safe to say all news reporters are pedophiles."
If this happens enough, maybe reporters will get the point. Heck do it on these ones, and any of their derivative ones and see what happens. Do it for all fandoms and groups. If this is a problem in the media, make the entire media address it.
However, I do have the feeling if the word furry was taken off the headline and instead his ties were only left in the article, you or another would be arguing it shouldn't be here because the headline indicates no connection with the furry fandom.
You cannot win against a censor: if you give an inch, they'll want the whole mile.
There seems to be some misunderstanding here about our goals, so let me lay it out for you:
This story is not on Flayrah out of a desire to prove that there are bad furries in the world.
This story is here because it is a) about a furry, and b) involves a crime of particular interest to our audience.
We probably would not care if a furry was arrested for, say, drug possession or drunk driving. Such crimes, while perhaps similarly serious in the eyes of the law, are not similarly offensive to furry fans.
The title states the location of the individual and the fact that they were a furry – necessary because otherwise a furry reader would not know why they should read it – the fact of the arrest, and the nature of the accusation. All standard stuff.
Now, other news sites feel this is newsworthy not because the subject is a member of a community they serve, but because a fan of anthropomorphic animals allegedly committed a crime involving sex and animals. (To their credit, some covered the community's concern, while others merely exploited a perceived relation between the topics.)
It is these stories you have a problem with. You're blaming us for enabling them – ironically, by doing our job well – yet you offer no solution other than not to cover stories which are of interest to a sizeable portion of our readership. That other reporters might use such information to make the fandom look bad is not a sufficiently compelling reason not to report it.
The issue is unlikely to be resolved unless you can explain how a public news website can communicate information to its readers without giving the same information to the rest of the world, and how we would justify doing so without looking like we had something to hide. (This seems like a question without a solution to me, but perhaps others have ideas.)
The most common furry crime I'd say is fraud.
As in taking money for a commission/suit and never delivering.
Probably because no one has been smart enough to develop a thing called a contract yet, is why people don't go to jail/get sued for it.
Because then you would have the lads that cry that furries are trying to "whitewash the sick side of furry", because it warns other people in the fandom about potential problem individuals, because it is what transpires in real life,...
...And sometimes you need or wish to know about it. Necessary?. It depends if you wish to be informed, or be in denial.
Welcome to reality, enjoy your stay.
Wowzers, I'm not tossing any stones here but I'd like to say does anyone really have the right to say get "raped in prison" on all his profiles? I could understand if he confessed but really guys he has not even had his day in court. Guilty or Not everyone deserves a fair trail and the guy is still human. If he's guilty hope he can get help for his issue. If not hope people don't make someone's life miserable over injustice.
That's all I wanted to say.
Unfortunately that happens alot, and it's not uncommon for people accused of something to be considered guilty automatically by a subset of culture. This is why many emphasis a trial by jury. There were incidents in the colonies prior to the establishment of the constitution in the US where this was prevalent.
Salem, Massachusetts being a popular example.
Of course the constitution hasn't prevented this from happening still, the Red Scares of the 50s and 60s and the concept of terrorism today similarly plays on emotions.
Since this kind of story hurts the fandom and causes people's emotions to get high it is no surprise that many furs may lash out and distance themselves and vent via these means.
"Unfortunately, gasoline often burns.", he said, then tossed his cigarette into the puddle.
So you're saying this article CAUSED these people to behave in this despicable manner? Instead of blaming the reprehensible individual for their own action you would instead blame the messenger for the reactions of those who received the message instead of the person receiving the message being an idiot?
It's people with that kind of logic that rule countries that arrest reporters. It's the press's fault for reporting factual corruption and making people angry about it. If they didn't they'd love me more. To jail with them.
Thank God you run a convention and not a country.
No I'm saying this very article caused people worldwide to think that we ALL behave in this despicable manner by putting the word "furry" in the headline while in reality that is the most irrelevant information.
>>"This very article caused people worldwide to think that we ALL behave in this despicable manner by putting the word "furry" in the headline"
Damn straight!. For me it was this article (http://www.thejakartapost.com/bali-daily/2013-01-03/policeman-reported-molesting...) that set my conviction in stone that all (ALL, by Jove!) Indonesian Law Enforcement Officers in Bali are Child Rapists.
No, don't try to dissuade me otherwise!. It was reported in the internet and it it said POLICEMAN! in the headline too!. Next time I land at Ngurah Rai International Airport, I will walk up to the nearest officer and yell to his face "Child Molester"!. That will teach him a thing or two.
Adaptive reasoning and critical thinking are for squares.
Well, nice to know you're not like everyone else. But I am in a representative position, I actually give interviews to the press, I actually negotiate contracts for my convention - I am actually getting targeted right now by a right-wing anti-zoophile group who believe (or want people to believe) that my convention is a covert animal brothel. Yeah, that's an outrageous, absurd claim, but they went to people we depend on (public offices), and showed them articles like that, and I found myself in a very awkward defensive position - although there was not a single grain of truth in the accusations, and the guy speaking was clearly a lunatic.
Really, from my perspective, this looks a lot different than from yours.
No matter what you say, I *KNOW* articles like these have a big influence on public opinion, and I *KNOW* it causes damage, because the damage happens right before my eyes, it directly interferes with what I do.
Now get off your horse and stop trying to convince me of a theoretical view of reality when I have stuff dropping on my feet every day.
I empathize with those who have to deal with those who are generalizers. Especially those with power, such as parents, government, etc.
However, this was part of your job before Flayrah even existed. The media liaison position was not made in response to Flayrah. It was made in response to the media. Yes, they have a tenancy to go for the lowest denominator of events, however that is more that unusual is more interesting than the usual. It's not our fault these particular outlets decided to choose this one to report and ignore the rest.
In fact when we look at furry, isn't it's unusual-ness the selling point of it. The idea we each play our own unique characters.
Though not all of the media haven't really ignored the rest. The Space Marine copyright story for one of our authors was of interest outside the fandom. The rebuttal to the Christchurch's fabricated article was caused by Flayrah. It put their press on the defensive over their article. There are times when we have helped your job as much as you claim we have burdened it.
The irony for me is that the more I look into it, the more human it all seems, as much as we like to think we're different from any other nerd group, there are points where we are not.
You can provide similar arguments to those found her to those that give you trouble, hopefully they aren't anyone of any power. However, your job is to know who those in power are and twist the logic into a manner that they can understand. Learn their language.
Since you're based in Germany I'm sure the local politicians get sick of that whole Nazi thing being held over their head. That that one moment in German history is constantly used to define the German people... is that fair? Or that Germany is blamed by Greece for their economic turmoils in a more recent example-- is that fair? If it's not, then is it right to hold these historical moments of sorrow against furries?
Once you know who you're talking to, you'll know how to talk to them. Come up with a plan. In fact, if this wasn't on Flayrah yet this still went viral as you put it, would you have had time to prepare for it? Or would you have been blindsided? As you said you don't read these kind of stories.
Knowing is better than not in the fight against ignorance. Stay strong, and may your convention be successful.
EDIT: The response was edited before I summitted the response. I have to say, I don't know when this incident occured, but it is clear since your convention is still around, you won. Battles like this happen all the time, but it's good that you had won this one.
I don't know if this was caused by an article on Flayrah itself, however, you can use the comment's section as evidence of the fandom's response to these individuals. The concerns we have, the fears that develop. It will give a full story onto the very real passion we have for our group, and the great negative feelings we have towards those that abuse animals.
If this article wasn't posted here, furries would have no centralized place to show their disdain, something your enemies would take advantage of.
And as a second note let me thank you for sharing your perspectives on these things. It would be very easy for these things to go unsaid. To ignore articles you don't think should rightly exist as some form of boycott. However, these concerns about the effects on community and everything should be said, even if they are unpopular on this site.
You had no obligation to do so, but you did. It's a hard thing to talk about one's fears, but they are indeed real.
Get a hold of yourself, you are similar to a Republican talking about the non-existance of global warming.
I can, and have, provided you mountains of evidence to show you that articles of similar manners that have spread in similar fashion that had no connection with furry. I have shown you that people outside the fandom made the connection themselves 2 days prior to Flayrah's article being yet published. If you read all the articles on this manner you would also note that not ALL of them credit Flayrah, they instead credit the locals for making this discovery.
And lastly, your statement that everyone worldwide saw it? Hilariously proves your delusions. No not everyone sees the coffee stain on your shirt, you just think everyone does because you're giving into the self delusion that all people have that everything revolves around them and sees what they see. 8,000 people is hardly a small town, no less the world. In fact that's mathematically: (Rounding down to seven billion) .000001% of humanity. And of that 8,000 they clearly don't see it in the way you believe all of them do. They're not as dumb as you like to make them out to be. You're generalizing humanity because they generalized you.
You can look at all that evidence and choose to ignore it, but you are then merely propagating belief, not fact. I'll leave you to that. Of course I am curious as if all these news organizations took these up without Flayrah, who you'd shift the blame to.
Perhaps we should blame an asshole who allegedly decided to abuse an animal while masquerading as a furry. Because if he didn't do what he did, then NO articles would have been written about it. And if he does end up being innocent, then blame the person who falsely accused. Go for the root of the problem, not the stalk.
And with that I'm done. You'll believe your delusions to your death. I just hope it doesn't impact your life in a negative manner.
You are delusional, because I said "people worldwide", not "everyone worldwide" and I never disputed that articles of similar matter have spread.
I have explained to you multiple times that I have a problem with proactively putting the "furry badge" on cases like these, suggesting causation where there is only coincidence.
READING. LEARN IT.
Get over yourself. You're like a child sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling NO! MOMMY NO! While sonious patiently schools you. I feel sorry for people who have to work with you to run a con without a solid base, if a lone lunatic can shake your confidence.
"Goth" music has a subculture full of creative people who often go against the grain of mainstream and might deal with bullying. Ever hear of the Columbine massacre? They have had far worse than this reported about what their music supposedly causes people to do. Its just as ridiculous. They dont waste time on dumb debates like this over whether they should even talk about news like grown ups.
Whether its sex crimes or made up satanic panics, you cant stop stupid people from spreading scandal. You can't prove a negative ("we never do that") because crimes are part of human behavior. but you don't get stupid like them and pretend it's not a topic instead of answering with logic and maturity. If you do, they win.
You have no idea what you are talking about, Mr. Armchair Conchair.
Did you notice, there's a PR and journalism professional disagreeing with you up there?
This thread has plenty of professional cred in it. I run a business and negotiate contracts. It's work to run a furry con that brought 1066 people, but that's not more than what other people do.
It's interesting if you want to tell us about your job of marketing a fan convention. But don't expect a news site to do propaganda or marketing instead of news.
Former reporter here, too; Cheetah, at least lay off the "you guys don't know what you're talking" because, I assure, you WE KNOW WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.
No, him being furry IS THE RELEVANT PART!
Did you not read about the PROXIMITY part?
Look, the problem with Cheetah (him and pretty much everyone whining like little bitches about this thing) is that he doesn't want a news site which publishes news; he wants a newsletter that publishes propaganda.
Well, I'm sorry, Flayrah isn't for these people. We're going to publish news; whether or not the news makes us look good is so beside the point it isn't even on the same star chart. If this story offends you, actually, good; you should be offended by a guy screwing a cat. But if you're offended by this story being run, quite frankly, you're a terrible person who's response to something bad happening is "ignore it if no one asks, lie about it if they do," and with that kind of worldview, I'm being really, really nice when I only call you a "terrible person."
The irony is while we've been debating this story going on it's one week mark, the mainstream news already moved onto the Forbes using Further Confusion's logo on the healthcare Q and A article.
I don't understand what the problem with this story is... I mean, news is news. He was/is a furry. This is a furry news website. I found the article interesting at least- it's just a news article.
Every group or fandom is going to have strange members/incidents. It doesn't make any sense to ignore them. It'd be like news stations in foreign countries refusing to report on any crime story, so their neighboring countries won't get a bad impression- or the general media not reporting any news of violence in the off chance that aliens popped by, watched our news, and decided they didn't like what they saw. News websites are meant to cover -the news-, and that means the good and bad.
It was reported because the accused offender was a furry. That makes it furry news. So what's the big deal? The person/event in the story may be distasteful, but that doesn't mean it isn't news. I'd much rather have non furries see general and open discussion of this and various other news articles, be they crime reports, or coverage of social events, or new furry book reviews- whatever it is.
It seems like it's far more damaging to our community to have people up in arms about the news article itself rather than its contents.
The main conflict here is between people's whose jobs and interests lie with Personal Relations. There is a necessity for PR, and it's a thankless jobs at times, however there is a thing that a lot of people in PR lose site on, and that is you can't please everyone all the time.
AKA the lesson learned in Dressed for Success in MLP:FiM.
Conventions want as many people to like and feel comfortable at a furry convention as possible. So naturally their leaders will frown upon anything that make them seem unmarketable. It's about business, not about truth.
Good business men will know that they can spin the facts and deal with it in a manner that cleans their hands of it. The balance is not to lie, but not to dwell on it either. Something I hope Cheetah does when being inquired in such a manner by the general public, or that he has a media liaison who can. His convention has been successful thus far, so he must be doing something right.
You'll find the main critics of these kind of articles on Flayrah are indeed media liasons and convention runners. Mainly because Flayrah's purpose of reporting events in the fandom, better or worse, conflicts with their job on making furry's the next best thing since sliced bread. Our societal group is the very product they are trying to sell.
It's ironic part is that there are individuals who treat Flayrah as a "troll haven" or "Lulz" type website because of a handful of articles they find disagreeable. They do this because of people they fear will look at furry as a bunch of sexual deviants because of a handful of incidents. In essence, they generalize to defend against generalization. Well if you hate the generalizer, don't do so yourself.
We certainly generalize the media for its activities, but I think we're getting better at segregating the truly bad institutions who are about shock value, those that are propagandist, and those that are honest even if that honesty goes against either the shock-jock or the propagandist. Both will look for what they want, and both will bitch if they don't get everything they want.
"You'll find the main critics of these kind of articles on Flayrah are indeed media liasons and convention runners"
LOL yes. Amateur con PR handlers, con-runners, and fan activity organizers sure have an attitude about amateur journalism. And we thought civic journalism has a challenge to report about the government, where politics actually matters.
You nailed it. Especially the last sentence.
Maybe I can lend some perspective on the story - Ryan, known as "Husky" to us, is one of the Idafurs group. I've known him for years now, though have had little contact with him outside of our monthly coffee meets and the occasional Boise outing (I live in Mountain Home, about forty miles east of Boise).
He is autistic and, as the result of his specific condition, very impressionable and naive, almost to the point of being incapable of making informed decisions by himself. He was in a relationship with another Idafur who is known for being manipulative, dishonest, and vengeful (I don't recall the specifics of that relationship, whether it was romantic or roomate, etc). This person is thought to have been using him for his disability income to pay for their expenses and get food (SNAP program benefits). He always seemed like a nice enough guy, if a bit odd. He had said some things to myself or other fur-friends of our group which may have been indicative of the allegations now made against him, but I cannot say with certainty he did anything of which he is now accused. There is some speculation within my group that he may have been: manipulated into performing these actions; may have been (falsely) indicated by the aforementioned relationship partner; may have done these actions entirely of his own will; may not have done any of it. There's a lot of possibilities here, but next to no known evidence. What evidence there is, that we have access to, is largely circumstantial and from questionable sources.
For my part, I don't know enough to declare him guilty or not guilty regarding the accusations made by the Ada County prosecutors. I've chosen to wait and see the outcome of the trial, if there is one (he can plea no contest, after all), and look at the evidence presented during the hearings myself.
I've suggested our group do as was suggested here, in the event he is found guilty: make no attempt to hide any of this, but publicly decry his actions and seek to help him 'get better' wherever possible. If true, this is very unfortunate for him (and the cat), but we may still be able to benefit by showing compassion and trying to help - something few people in this country do anymore. This would demonstrate our drive to be -more- human than most, more empathetic, more willing to do right.
If guilt cannot be reasonably established? Then defend him wherever necessary. The rest won't matter!
"Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so."
Sharing this with his defense attorney would be prudent, as before mentioned.
We have already. There's been several of us interviewed by his attorney, myself included. The autism would play a major role in the final decision, and there may be a related suit against the roomate/mate/whatever depending on the outcome.
Now, we're just trying to negate the consequences of the allegations (as they relate to us and the fandom) or turn them into something positive. Best we can do.
"Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so."
I do think you should stand by your friend, especially if you think he is innocent. If you choose to do so in guilt, then you are a good friend, however you cannot expect the fandom as a group to do as you do.
The reason they won't is because they too have friends, many who've been hurt by the false insinuations caused by these type of events that occur infrequently. So it's the same drive to help your friend that will drive other furs to isolate him from the fandom. Friendship is magic? Well sometimes it's the cause of discord.
Not at all - I am remaining neutral until such evidence is provided to convince me of guilt or not-guilt, and planning what I feel is the best course of action dependant upon the trial's outcome.
'Friend' is a bit off. I should have clarified: he's an acquaintance, someone I knew from the meets. We'd discussed car stuff some time ago (I was selling an engine that would have fit his car), but that's the extent of any recent contact.
"Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so."
A related suit? A suit against anyone wouldn't depend on the outcome of any trial.
Civil suits happen all the time after criminal trials. If the defense's case (or what looks like will be their case) is proven right, then not going for a civil suit would be foolish.
She wouldn't go by the name Frost would she? If so she commented on this story: http://www.kboi2.com/news/local/Ryan-Tannenholz-Sex-Animal-Charge-Arrest-News-21...
Proof or it didn't happen. If he did rape a cat the cat would either be dead by internal bleeding from being pounded or have a huge back end. and don't say he had a small weewee because that is most unlikely.
Unfortunately, this call for explanation that "penetration" can refer to any body part (like a finger) or an object. Hope that helps clear up the understandable confusion.
If this is the case it should be clarified in the article because that is not the assumption most people would make.
Im fairly new to the community and know some people who have met him before im just going to put it this way if he did it then he did it if not then he didn't. to all the people who are to thick in the head listen to both sides then pick or just stay neutral it works both ways. I on the other hand am waiting for the trial to make my decision and I hope that he didn't but if he did I have to wonder if he was told to do so and also told if it was ok by someone and that he wouldn't get caught. also does anyone know who reported it?
lol you faggots need to shup up up there, dumb ass fucking retard furfaggots, having a cat lick your dick is nothing, the reason people hate you is because you're pathetic whiney drama losers that are a waste of life and always rant off like a bunch of fucking down syndrome little kids.
How dare you lower down syndrome kids down to my level! For shame.
Mmmm...thanks for the material you guys! Those of you desperately wanting to hide/cover up this story are providing me with lots of great content to use on this guys ED article:
I've only got one of your posts on there so far, but lots more are on the way! His article is set as the AotN for the 27th and 28th, so it should get LOTS of coverage! :D
It is *VERY* amusing to me how some of you think that Flayrah is somehow to "blame" for bad publicity when it comes to the furry community. I'm afraid it's actually quite the other way around...it's those furs who make like religious fanbois and try and "cover up" and "ignore" all the epically BAD forms that are spawned from their ranks (from pedo priests to Westboro Baptist Church) that actually do the *MOST* damage to their respective communities.
That reality is most easily seen with "Adult Babies" and other age players, who although garner their fair share of lulzy/satirical airtime in mainstream media are never unilaterally accused of any form of pedophilia...but that's because in ~that~ particular community, they directly attack, ostracize, and often resort to near lynch mob tactics whenever a person is even ~remotely~ associated with pedophilic activity. Their community does not try and "hide" the fact that pedos try and infiltrate and "blend in" with their ranks to feign some level of normalcy, rather they make it *VERY* public and likewise make their attacks/hatred equally as public.
Those of you looking to hide bestiality fetishists in your community and to try and ignore what they do are effectively openly advertising to them that your community is a "safe haven" for them to "blend in" and to use your interest to mask/hide/relabel their own sordid interests.
On the flip side, making it a priority to attack/draw attention/ostracize such individuals in the community sends a blazing red flare up to would be bestiality invaders saying, "This community will not hide you, nor tolerate your activities in any form whatsoever".
Oh, uh...by the by...to those attempting to "defend" the guy...sorry kiddies, but in order to garner a warrant for an arrest it normally requires some pretty convincing evidence. Ten to one, in this case, the cops went undercover, pretended to have "like interests" and got the doorknob to send them pictures of himself raping his cat. They can't make those public of course as it would completely wreck their case, but without such material they simply would not ~have~ a case AT ALL. It would get unequivocally thrown out at some point...but I highly doubt that's going to happen here, not in a case like this where there's no real political angle to work off of.
Sometimes you see abuse of the justice system in such forms when it comes to pedo-related cases or supposed terror-related cases as they relate to posturing for political points and district attorneys looking for reelection stances...but in general no one really gives a shit about animal abusers, not to such a political level anyway. In fact I'm not even sure if Idaho actually elects their DAs, they may simply be appointed, in which case the potential for abuse is pretty well negligible in most cases.
The bad news is looks like ED admins are making accounts, good news is they will only be around during these story types, so you won't have to deal with them too much.
Don't feed the troll
Oh, I think your community generally trolls ~itself~ far better than I could ever dream of. Somehow I get the impression that you don't much understand what ~real~ trolling actually is though. PROTIP: Someone posting something that makes you feel indignant, flustered and buttmad...yeah, that's not trolling.
OMH, if you notice, Patch and Sonious have been pretty diligent defending the publication of this article; your reputation precedes you.
You will reply to every single post here made in your direction, so this is a warning to other posters and then I'm getting the hell out of here.
...you do know that like...half the ED admins are furries, faggots, or other "deviant" types, yes? You technically have to "deal" with us all the time...you're probably just not aware of it. Not just the admins either, a great many of our contributors, article editors and the like are furries and such...that's generally how we become aware of these stories.
There are those who have been on those kind of sites here, yes. The difference is is that they have more to offer than just that they are active on some entertainment site and instead bring something to the conversation other then, "look at this inaccurate article I made, this is sure to promote people to be open about bad people instead of making people put up walls even further."
If openness is your goal, you're your own worst enemy. I'm glad all of our comments here on Flayrah were glanced over by your statement on your article:
"Most furs are all for fucking animals of course, just not if you get caught and reported on in the media."
The animal fuckers thank you for that, I'm sure. Because they'll make the decent of us worry about how the stories of them getting caught will inspire phrases like that...
LOL, that's what I love about most furs like yourself...you are your own worst enemy.
ED is a SATIRICAL entertainment website, the majority of our articles specifically work by taking known/existing stereotypes and then taking them to their logical and illogical extremes, applying them to current events/news/happenings and so forth. We're not like Uncyclopedia in that we don't do "random funny", rather we do sarcastic, cynical, overly satirical style shock humor and the like.
I'm afraid it's the furries like yourself though that take your own interest to such an extreme level of ~seriousness~ that cause the most amount of damage and what actually incite so much outright HATRED of you guys.
It's sort of like...it's okay to have an interest in things, like anime, or furries, or whatever...but no one likes a freakin SPAZ! If you're the type who tries to turn an idle interest or hobby into a "lifestyle" choice...you're apart of the problem, and you're *FAR* worse than anything that's *EVER* been written on ED about furries.
Those of us on ED generally don't take ~anything~ online too seriously, least of all ourselves. We have a variety of interests, hobbies and the like...but we have *FUN* with them, we don't try and use them as an excuse to not interact socially like normal people, we don't try and use them as a substitute for real reality and we DON'T try and use them as an excuse to try and "victimize" ourselves in any way.
By your original post I wouldn't say it is I who is taking your satire too seriously...
You're making a lot of assumptions about me and we hardly even met. But I guess when you get used to making assumptions for the sake of "humor" you'll start doing it in regular conversation as well.
You're as funny as the Joker, and sounds like you share a lot of life philosophy with him. So I guess then I'd only have one question:
But seriously, is abuse of a cat funny to you?
Again, you fail to understand the nature of ED. Interestingly enough, many of ED's articles are *NOT* about the subject in the article itself. Rather, they're about the REACTIONS that they illicit out of people like yourself...THAT is what's "funny" about them. Seeking out, creating and inciting "drama llama" and "kook reactions" are largely what the game is all about. Hence the whole ~dramatica~ part...it's not just a clever name.
Ah so it's not "Cat rape is funny" it more "Good thing that cat got raped so we can have a chuckle at how people react to it."
There are children all over the world being RAPED, starved, beaten, mutilated and put into slavery...and you're baaawing incessantly over a stupid house cat? Seriously d00d...priorities...get some. Besides which, as long as he's punished for his "crimes against nature" I don't see what the problem is. Plus he'll serve as a great billboard to other would be animal rapists. You also seem to be under the delusion that this is some "isolated incident"...afraid not, kiddo. The furry community is INFESTED with animal rapists...
Most of them under the guise of, "Oh it's just fantasy!" ...all the while posting pictures of their animal hoarding adventures, pictures of themselves naked with animals and, in many cases (once they're exposed) straight out video of them fucking the family dog (see: GizGiz)...or worse.
"There are children all over the world being RAPED, starved, beaten, mutilated and put into slavery...and you're baaawing incessantly over a stupid house cat? Seriously d00d...priorities...get some."
Well I guess that's good for you and your site, you won't run out of 'comedy material'. I mean you most certainly didn't deny the accuracy of my statement and instead tried to distract-- I'm not easily distracted.
But to humor that statement as if it had intent other than that: Ever hear of the broken glass principal? Why are you obsessing over zoophiles in furry when all those thing you listed you say should be a higher priority? Are you words directed at yourself or I?
Listen man, I have nothing against your satire site, I just think your behavior is hardly satirical, unless you're supposed to be acting like the very individuals that ED thinks take themselves too seriously to be ironic...
Stop replying... for the love of god and all that is furry
Did you know that you can set people whose posts make you all flustered and indignant to "ignore"...oh...right...but then, what would you have to whine and bellyache about, amirite? *nods*
That's the problem with communists and people who hate free speech...it's not enough for them to simply ~ignore~ material that makes them butthurt...no, they feel the continual, unending *NEED* to run around trying to INFLICT their perceptions onto everyone else around them.
Yes please. Be aware, Sonious- Babymatt cums in his diaper every time you hit reply. If you do, take a shower afterward.
Except that I'm not, in fact, that's the only furry article on the site I've ever made and very rarely do I even bother contributing to other furry articles (most of you doorknobs are pretty boring to be honest).
And again, from my perspective it's about entertainment, *YOU'RE* the one who has the perception that it's pretty much the worst thing that could ever happen, to the point where you're practically screaming out, "OH, WON'T ~SOMEBODY~ THINK OF THE KITTENS?!"
Your disingenuous attempt at reversing our roles and couching it in the guise of being some sort of clever little fortune cookie passing on out sage truths makes you look like a pretentious little crotch goblin at best.
Well, you may be right about that, I may indeed in fact be reversing the roles. You realize this, however, too late. When your members come here tomorrow as this article becomes your 'article of the moment' I'd seriously be concerned about your future as an admin on the site.
In your attempts to troll I have successfully gotten you to basically say that cat rape is okay as long as a child is being abused somewhere. I'm sure a statement like that will get you an article at best and a removal from admin at worst. I doubt ED likes to be embarrassed by their representatives going on to sites and saying that animal abuse is okay. Nor do I think they look fondly when someone in a staff position gets one-uped by a mere crotch goblin.
Enjoy your stay with the hyenas, I have a feeling the laughter is about to consume you. With that, g'day.
LOL, oh you certainly are high on yourself...not to mention delusional, I'll give you that. ^__^
By the by, the article is now in the SECOND DAY as AotN...er...well, not that I actually ~mentioned~ your little board in any direct sense...well, on the forums I suppose I did, but no where on the actual article.
Oh, but why don't you "prove me wrong"...seriously, you should go sign up on ED and our forums right now and "warn" everybody about me and post all your slippery slope little strawmen and whatever other spastic little tweenage muppet fuck level fallacies you can come up with...I bet that'll go over ~reaaaal~ well for you! :D
Okay, serious question: AOTN?. Google is not bringing up any news sites, forums, or groups, mainstream, furry or critic,... Even if I enter "AOTN+furry", "AOTN+Furry+cat", "AOTN+Flayrah", etc.
Could you indicate where/what (AOTN) is this incident is being highlighted at a second day, or did you/I get the acronym wrong?.
(AOTN+furry[+cat]+entertainment, +weird, +society, +lulz, +Reddit, +Mashable, +BoingBoing, +Gizmodo, +Neatorama, +Engadget, +Lifehacker, +Imgur, +Kotaku, +Gawker,...). Hey, hit with Gawker! (duh), but just with the
AOTN+furry[+cat]+Gawker string search only on Google/Bing. =/
Google, Bing, Yahoo, nada. Okay, now I'm really curious what what the heck AOTN is.
"Article of the Now", basically just if someone actually uses the ED homepage they'll see it there (for the rest of the day).
However, most people who happen to use that particular site are more likely to use links dropped to specific pages. Only admins like himself really care what's on the home page, like other wikis.
Did it actually mmake the front page? I don't think this guy gets any respect from that crowd either; there's the adult baby angle, but he's also just annoying.
We apparently got really lucky; if he comes back, do not reply to him. He is not arguing with you; he is only trying to increase the thread's post count (it's like a high score thing with him). I would imagine the anon commenters we got actually were the threatened Ed crowd. That's how bad this guy's reputation is; ED types woul rather warn off furries to spoil his gamme in the comment section of an article about a furry living up to their darkest imaginings than attack the furries.
Xydexx looks good in comparison.
It is on their front page, yes. At this point I'm surprised Miley Cyrus didn't eclipse it, but ED I guess is content about looking at things that were relevant a month ago.
I still wasn't getting it until I saw the word (term?, acronym?) ED. Okay, so it's a page within that site. And the incident has been displayed in this page for a second day... hmmmK'.
Anyways, it wasn't a total search loss. I found some interesting sites: Kuriositas, Colossal, Oddee, Gajitz, Trend Hunter, and a few more, and a (very) strange article on "Transethnically, transablistic transfatist cisgenders" (?!. it mentions therians and furries, that’s why it came up on Google).
Danke, Sonious, for the heads up, by the by.
No problem: as far as the two days thing goes it looks like all their "Articles of the Now" stay up for two days at a time (because below it they list the prior ones, each one in two day intervals). So it's not like this was special in anyway. Just that it was new (for their site).
Wikis tend to be very circle-jerkish, but ED's is probably the circle-jerkiest where pretty much every article link goes to another ED article.
It's not really an information hub as it is an island.
I was AotN back in 2011 and I didn't hear about it until weeks afterwards.
The home page is important for those new to a subject, but I suspect most wikis get the majority of their pageviews through search. Such users often bounce right out again - which is fine if you're there to provide a service. Ad-funded sites tend to want to keep people around, though.
2011? Boy, these guys are really on the ball.
So I guess we can expect the Miley Cyrus VMA frontpage article sometime this decade, at least.
Most people do actually, the main page is generally the highest traffic page and most of the content changes daily. I think overall most people probably just check out the "Picture of the Now" and the "Video of the Now" and then if the "Article of the Now" sounds interesting to them they'll go ahead and click on it.
The Bubblegum Husky article actually turned out to be one of the more popular front page articles we've had recently. Hot topic/current event articles of course always tend to get a lot of play, but a lot of times people are looking/hoping that something a bit different/kooky/off the wall will pop up. Extreme furry/sexual depravity tends to fit the bill for that pretty good.
"...people are looking/hoping that something a bit different/kooky/off the wall will pop up..."
So earlier you said these kind of things were common in furry, now you're saying they're uncommon--
Now there isn't a phrase you've uttered here where you haven't contradicted yourself.
Well if we were a "furry kook only" site you might have a point, but we're not nor do we feature every last single kook furry article that gets made, usually only when they do something uber spectacular like get themselves arrested and plastered all over the media.
If it's generic furry attack articles you're looking for we got LOTS of those, heck we even have a "Generic Furry Article":
Lol no really... stop replying. let's discuss the ban policy over on the editor's forum.
...or what, you're going to get all indignant, flustered and fawk a feline for us? Here's a PROTIP for ya...why don't you STOP BREATHING...as a gift to humanity.
Joker was perhaps too kind--- now you're getting into Kefka territory.
Post new comment