R.C. Fox charged with criminal possession of child pornography
News out of Aliquippa, Pennsylvania from September announced that one Carl R. Rickwood was charged with 20 counts of dissemination of child pornography. It has recently been revealed that this perpetrator was actually a furry by the fandom name of R.C. Fox. A full breakdown of the documentation can be found on a video by Ragehound.
R.C has been a prolific member of the fandom, having his own fursuit since 2014, and also attending and volunteering for multiple conventions. They were also slated to run a disc jockey session at the upcoming Furpocalypse until this news was brought to staff's attention and they indicated they would not be in attendance. They were also featured in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette piece 'Meet the Furries'.
Since the news emerged, R.C.'s social media accounts on Twitter, Fur Affinity, and even YouTube have been removed, renamed, or disabled. As of now no arrest can be confirmed.
About the author
Sonious (Tantroo McNally) — read stories — contact (login required)a project coordinator and Kangaroo from CheektRoowaga, NY, interested in video games, current events, politics, writing and finance
Comments
Quote from the Gazette piece:
Guess those kids had a good reason, allegedly.
Communities always have to deal with moments like this, and always far too often, where people who seemed so normal are doing actions that are promote the harm of others in private. Even if they did not harm the children directly in this case, patronizing such content creates demand. Even worse it also immortalizes the most traumatizing point in a young human's life that will haunt them into adulthood knowing a copy of it is out there, being used by others for their own demented ends.
For the love of everything if anyone reading this comment has any of this kind of content on their hard drive, wipe it, and never seek it ever again. For everyone's sake. There is so many legal ways to get one's rocks off, there's no need for this trash.
Have you seen Happiness, by Todd Solondz... As far as I remember (I haven't seen it in forever) it's a portrait of a pedo played with absurdity. An absurd part is how he's for the most part a good dad, it's other kids who are harmed, not his own. It's a weird contradiction that people have. Anyways, people who hoard that kind of stuff may be desensitized to it but not targeting kids themselves. So yeah, creepy and awful and illegal for good reasons like demand, but it doesn't mean proximity alone was dangerous. I guess we'll find out more later when courts handle it. Stop by on Monday, this opened a can of something I'll publish.
It's 2017, and the fact that we're still required to explain the unacceptability of child porn is almost as offensive as the porn itself.
Yes, the drink-spiking, child-raping dad in Happiness is shown to be a loving father. So too is Joe Pesci's sociopathic gangster (based on a real person) in the movie Casino, and so were -- sorry to break Godwin's Law, but it has to be done -- many Nazi officers. It's hardly a defence, Patch.
That got misunderstood... I mentioned a movie portrayal that kind of illustrates how someone may not harm a kid just by being close to them. Which isn't a defense any more than saying crystal meth isn't dangerous to the owner if they don't use it. It's still illegal and harms others. RC may not have been harmful as a fursuiter (who knows, maybe he was) but there's another crime involved and I'm also offended if someone defends CP, sorry if I garbled that.
Man I need more time to watch movies, I havent gotten to the new Blade Runner yet. Reason is this giant article on the way which adds a lot to this.
Funny thing about nuances, I was looking into gossip about attention-whoring and that RC did offensive fursuiting at a vigil for Pulse shooting victims. But two sources said he was asked to.
They would understand if they saw the movie because the single funniest line is about how the father would not molest his own son.
hey, let's ask Foxler about molesting kids, right? that's funny too, right? dotard.
Given where he lives, that's a long way to go to attend a vigil
That one was in pittsburgh.
Pedophilia is an obsessive-compulsive disorder, so with pedophiles, yes, proximity alone is a risk. The majority of men arrested for child pornography display pedophilic profiles, and collecting child pornography rather than just viewing it is another risk factor.
Key term "arrested for" might make a big difference, according to the "gold star" kind, which is a whole other discussion we don't need because it's off topic and this one is about RC. And yes you're right about risk that makes restrictions on where they can live.
Point taken, it's just good to know what risk means. For example because winning the lotto is rare doesn't imply a winner cheated (there's some fallacy named for that.) Because this guy was arrested doesnt mean fursuiters are dangerous or anyone condones it. A good thought for the perpetual topic of representations.
I'm not sure that's true. Do you have any actual data that backs it up? 'Cause from the information I'm aware of, >90% of child sexual abuse is committed by family members. There is very little risk of child molestation by strangers.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2014/08/sex_offend...
In any case, when it comes to R.C. Fox, it's not clear what danger he would've posed. Perhaps you are aware of what sort of link there is between consumption of child pornography and actual sexual assault but there is a general tendency that consumption of child pornography leads to lower incidence of child sexual abuse.
http://www.hawaii.edu/PCSS/biblio/articles/2010to2014/2010-porn-in-czech-republi...
On a more general point, it seems like restrictions on where most sexual offenders can live and sexual offender registries do not actual improve the situation. In fact some of those restrictions, though not for cases of paedophilia, were being lifted in California.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/crime/2015/04/california_s_sane_...
"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~John Stuart Mill~
I'm just curious how he managed to think pedophilia is OCD. Like, I understand if there's a link between the two, but I'm pretty sure that most pedophiles don't engage in predatory behavior because they're afraid something bad will happen if they don't.
Would you fuck off with that shit? You've been grasping at that one straw for so long it's prone to snap any day now - or the minute any of us can be bothered to find one good study to counter your one fluke study.
If this was a case of someone being persecuted for writing or drawing things of that nature, I'd be in agreement with you. Indeed, every time I hear about a furry being investigated or charged for "child porn", my gut wouldn't be surprised if there were no actual children or porn involved.
We have a big enough problem these days as it is with police and governments pushing the envelope to see just how far they can stretch legal definitions in their never ending campaign to "create" criminals out of otherwise harmless people without people like you muddying the waters.
Go join fucking NAMBLA or something. That's not illegal. YET...
I already pointed out the partyvan-sized holes in that study to him like, months ago.
did..did.. you really just attempt to defend pedophilia?
Good god, Roman Polanski, what the fuck is wrong with you!?
I did not. I cited sources showing how commonly held beliefs are not supported by the available evidence. It might be old-fashioned in the post-truth world but I tend to prefer going with what the evidence says rather than what everyone feels is correct.
"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~John Stuart Mill~
right. in the meantime, you're posting articles that defend pedophilia out there so you can be "factually correct".
so when does your card to NAMBLA expire?
None of those articles defend paedophilia. In fact, I find it very concerning that you would rather not be factually correct if it clashes with your preconceptions. That's the very thing that Trump is often mocked for, his complete denial of reality. I'm also not even sure how one is supposed to have a discussion if you completely dismiss evidence against your position and see it as having an agenda.
"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~John Stuart Mill~
I didn't completely dismiss anything. Dismissing it would imply I didn't read it.
But I think I'm uncomfortable reading flayrah so long as you're a writer to be honest.
Bye, Felincia?
Sounds good. If you're uncomfortable it means you're being challenged and exposed to new ideas. It means you have an opportunity to grow and, at the very least, learn about other people's viewpoints. If you are entirely comfortable all the time then you are deep inside your comfort zone and from there your growth will stagnate.
"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~John Stuart Mill~
No, it means I believe that you are promoting pedophilia. and as a victim, I won't stand for it.
You could just ask me if that's what I'm doing and I could quickly tell you that your belief on that matter is very much incorrect. I also don't know where you got it from because nothing I've written supports it.
"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~John Stuart Mill~
WHAT'S THE MATTER
TOO CLOSED MINDED TO HEAR IDEAS THAT CHILD MOLESTING MIGHT NOT BE WRONG?
LOL SNOWFLAKE
Dude, if you believe someone to be an unabashed pedophile, I hardly think said person would take being compared to one of the greatest film directors of all time as an insult.
So, never mind me munging up by throwing in some seperate topics, but here's how I really feel about this. http://dogpatch.press/2017/10/23/r-c-fox-arrested/
I'm from this neck of the woods. I'm 35 miles southeast of Pittsburgh.
In PA, these charges carry a 7 year jail sentence per offense.
So if found guilty, he's look at at 147 year sentence, which can run concurrently.
From the movie Take the Money and Run:
"Virgil Starkwell is tried on 52 accounts of robbery and is sentenced to 800 years in federal prison. At the trial, he tells his lawyer confidently that with good behavior he can cut the sentence in half."
"Charged" doesn't equal "convicted."
"Possession" doesn't equal "purchased" nor "downloaded" nor "sought."
Beware of things easily implied through "news" sources.
People are innocent until proven guilty here in America.
...He admitted to it lmao
Whether he's guilty or not, admitting he has or might have pedophilic pornography is plain retarded. I'm more shocked by the retarded admission itself than by the fact. The admission serves no purpose but a faster conviction.
Lying increases severity. If you are guilty and you can1t hope for getting away due to lack of evidence, then admitting can work in your favor.
Confessing to the one they found, maybe...but confessing to an additional 50 files they didn't yet know about? C'mon, man. Edit: Wait, you're already arguing he's guilty? Then what the fuck are you doing?
Like for a plea bargain? interviewed by police outside his house is a funny place for that. Also coerced confessions are a thing. The guy gets a defense even if chances don't look good for him.
"People are innocent until proven guilty here in America."
No they're not. I'm so God damned sick of that myth.
Preliminary hearings have been made and the case and charges are moving forward, Boozy's tweet thread:
https://twitter.com/BoozyBadger/status/925919465052753920
BoozyBadger made a post about this case earlier this week: One For The Furry Jury: R.C. Fox and the Amazing Summary Execution.
Very good post. RC seemed to be pretty well known and I have tips that he's still in contact with friends who say he's "an emotional wreck."
If he did it, throw him in the deepest hole in the system, cover it over, and let him die forgotten. No excues, no 'extenuating circumstances', just the scum of humanity that should never see the free light of day again. Furry doesn't even enter into it. If it happened to be one of his interests, his loss is no loss.
Is that helpful? There's high level and low level offenses ranging from "got in trouble for peeing on a tree" to "a whole institution covered up victims and then they got mocked by 2 Gryphon". Cramming it all in the same box involves myths about reoffending that can be less likely than with other crimes. Everyone pays a cost for having an underclass that isn't allowed to do better, execution costs more than life in jail, there's a reason for levels. TBH if that's taken for granted, one category that might use a touch more "same box" treatment is aiders and abetters. Like 2 Gryphon.
Of course it's a very emotional topic that can make you mad, that's healthy. Or one that can twist people into carrying unhealthy life long grudges that erupt when they bring up the topic to others out of context. Like, blaming an entire con they don't go to, and projecting grudges at people who talk about the con and have nothing to do with their problem. Well no use blaming pitiful people if you can just avoid their lashing out. But there's sane ways to treat it. Boozy has a good post for ya.
Throw him and Gerard Jones in the same cell -- they might at least collaborate on some decent slashfic.
I honestly think people should stop treating possession the same as actual harm or worse. What promotes crime is something that directly tries doing that maybe, not something that mistaken some people leading to abuse. I've been reading a lot of stories about those lives who are ruined for just possession, and that's just sad.
But to call him a perpetrator in the same sense as if he's a rapist is just terrible.
Especially if someone was possessing it for lawful reports, or legally for court, or research. Research is no excuse to do it, but just a moral argument maybe.
I hope the person regrets and never does it again though, but still. To say it "creates a demand" is fear basing.
Account abandoned and probably will make a new anonymous account with no trace of evidence of it being me. I think it's justified.
Your ethics are as terrible as your taste in movies.
And your opinion is shit then.
I don't seem to see any valid argument coming from your side. People like you are making this site look even worse than it did before. Just saying.
Yeah...research...Kleenex-funded research maybe
Can you prove your points? When I see a bunch of emotional upsetting people abusing ratings, attacking people for different tastes in movies, acting emotional instead of giving out any logical point and talking in a "haha you are wrong because I said so." attitude, the less this site is "food" for thought.
People like you are making the furry community look like a bunch of hypocritical social justice warriors. Probably fucking worse. Even a stupid administration on here has attacked me for giving out my thoughts. This website is fucking shit and it refuses to improve. There are a lot of better websites than this that probably allow others to debate in a mature way and without censoring others. Also why do we have ratings if idiots are rating other thoughts down because they are emotionally upset?
Star me down all you want, but it doesn't change anything. I'm thinking of writing a review to show how much of a failure this community is here.
Oh, no, guys, Diamond Man is going to write about us!
"Prove your points"; could you maybe ARTICULATE yours?
Also, Jesus, your comments haven't even folded; get a grip, dude.
I did enough I believe. If you want to read stories I read I'm sure the stories are still up. Some points can be alone good without link if the logic in it is enough. Regardless, you are still required to make a good argument.
Yeah,I am going to write because as a disappointed person, this site deserves a lot of criticism. This oh no I assume as sarcasm just exposes more of the failure this site is. Hell that deviantart journal I made on that realm account might get more views than this place.
Yeah, I'll take that bet.
Depending if I got a reply with certain words or not, this might be my last comment, but I am completely open to rating my own comments up now and maybe even abusing it since idiots are rating comments of personal attacks up like the comment from a cyberbully known as Oliver are being stared up. And mine with criticism is being kinda censored.
Yeah, it just shows more how right I am more.
"One sided, not all criticism is accepted, personal attacks are, bad arguments accepted."
If I am going to write my own comments without being censored and/or rated unfairly I would instead write it somewhere else where that can't happen and in places that gets more attention than this place.
All comments would get treated equally unless it's illegal and/or personal attacks. Not that one side is automatically as good, but there won't be an environment that gives the illusion that someone's point is less good because of popular opinion, shit rating, and/or other certain things.
I don't know if the owners of this website are with sides of those furries making the furry community look bad, but I still generally stay the same here.
I barely star anything myself, and the system, well I don't worry about it, it's its own thing. As far as the "owner" I think they had spent a lot of time implementing the system that they are not really looking to change it anytime soon.
The time to look into that is if they update the Drupal infrastructure of the entire site at this point, which would be a higher priority; given how much html knowledge and outdated buggy code is behind the scenes on the site itself.
The comment system is the least concern at this point, but you really couldn't have expected to say an unpopular political opinion and not get blow-back on it?
To me, the story here is just saying what happened, and if one disagrees with the laws it is okay that they express that, but discussing it on a Flayrah forum isn't going to change US law.
As far as being "attacked by an admin" if you're talking about crossaffliction he is no longer on editing staff, he quit around May 2016. There are only 4 people who are technically staff now: GreenReaper, Dronon, myself, and mwalimu.
Thanks for the much more civilized reply. I probably won't agree with everything you say though but yeah I guess.
I wish the ratings were just removed entirely or allow others to disable their own ratings over theirnown comments. I think either of those would be a better improvement, otherwise, it's just an unfair system. Some behavior I think also caused a couple of other furries to leave.
I think my comment was more of a reply to some of the things you said in another comment and some other ones maybe.
Yeah I know it's a bit taboo but I still think when it comes to this site, I would have a bit of hope. But I guess I was a bit wrong. However just because there are some overly emotional people on here, doesn't mean I can't criticize them.
As for laws, I probably shouldn't expect anything to change fast. However I do feel that the more people stand up about it, some effect to change in the long run might. I've heard some laws changing because of more of those who stand up about it.
Account abandoned and probably will make a new anonymous account with no trace of evidence of it being me. I think it's justified.
Flayrah's comment rating system is fair. It works the same for everyone, including myself.
What I think you meant is that it does not result in equal visibility. But that is the point.
It is an axiom of the system that some comments (and, to a lesser extent, commenters) are better than others, and - given that readers have limited attention spans - we should try to ensure that they are read. Likewise, some comments are worse, and so should be less visible.
What content is better and worse is subjective; if the average person thinks your comments are significantly worse than those of others, the system is likely to be bad for you. But unlike many moderation systems, it does not preclude you from making comments, including individual comments which are good enough to be widely seen.
It is also not a zero-sum game: in my experience everyone is able to post comments which are considered good enough not to be folded; but often they choose not to. The rating system provides a consequence to that choice.
And that might be the general problem. It allows idiots to make good criticism seem like it's less important and serve some bad illusions. It even effects me kinda when I read a good comment that has been rated down.
I don't think it's fair to see a good comment with good reason to be rated like crap but see a comment like that Oliver comment be rated high. I'm so glad this one furry debate site doesn't have this system.
Account abandoned and probably will make a new anonymous account with no trace of evidence of it being me. I think it's justified.
Populism, demagoguery, whatever you want to call it. It's not a good system. It's just appealing to a might(or size)-makes-right mindset which is neither constructive nor good for society. It rewards the status quo and punishes minority opinions regardless of the relative merits of any idea expressed.
"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~John Stuart Mill~
Naw, he wasn't talking about me; he was bringing up "admins" before I was involved.
I think he was talking about Equivamp; why does everyone think Equivamp is an "admin" of Flayrah (or, for that matter, that Flayrah has "admins" to begin with)?
Equipvamp is an admin of wikifur I believe, and I think people confuse this place with wikifur a lot.
Particularly if that person's name is Xxydex.
Actually I think I was. It involved you treating me like crap because you hated me involving some article. I remember a comment section but can't seem to remember where.
Account abandoned and probably will make a new anonymous account with no trace of evidence of it being me. I think it's justified.
You went over my head and whined to Green Reaper when I didn't want to delete your article (and in fact defended it), and I asked for apology or at least some sort of clue that you understood why that was maybe a bit rude of a thing to do.
If you know where my comment is explaining why I defended the article deleting thing, I think you should link it on here.
Im on my phone, and I can't remember. It would be too much effort for me maybe to find it on a phone.
Account abandoned and probably will make a new anonymous account with no trace of evidence of it being me. I think it's justified.
Too much effort for something that probably won't change anything.
Let's just hate each other in peace, how about that?
Found it.
https://www.flayrah.com/6467/zootopia-reaches-certified-fresh-status-100-fresh-r...
Your comment, then mine.
Edit: Sure, we can hate each other in peace, but I probably wanted to let anyone else know what happened.
Account abandoned and probably will make a new anonymous account with no trace of evidence of it being me. I think it's justified.
You deleted an article.
Either people already know why I hate you and call you mean things ... or they don't care, Diamond Man.
I wasn't explaining why I hate you to other people; I was explaining to you because you're kind of an idiot and need things explained, at length, to you.
Jesus, fucking, Christ, now would you just fucking go already?
"I wasn't explaining why I hate you to other people; I was explaining to you because you're kind of an idiot and need things explained, at length, to you."
I'm just gonna stop right there.
And this is partly why the site is failing. A furry insulting another furry by calling him/her an idiot without proof. It's like you didn't even read the reply criticizing your points.
Next time, don't make up rules and keep them invisible and then blame those who don't who don't see them to follow them.
Account abandoned and probably will make a new anonymous account with no trace of evidence of it being me. I think it's justified.
See, that's the problem, Diamond Man.
These "made up rules" are just being polite. You went over my head; that's considered rude in polite society.
I'm not saying you violated a rule of Flayrah. You violated a rule of the world. One that's not written down, because you're supposed to know this. This is how you get along with people; on Flayrah, at work, within in your family. I hate you because you did something people who are hateable do.
When I told you, as your editor, that I want to keep the story, publicly, you don't go run to Green Reaper and whine about it and make him take it down, because that's humiliating to me. And, yes, Green Reaper is completely culpable here to; if you're paying attention here, bud, thanks for publicly fucking me in the ass on that one. Really fucking appreciated it.
It's frustrating on top of this, Diamond Man, because you don't even realize you pulled a passive aggressive dick move on me. Passive aggressive dick moves aren't against the "rules"; but they are passive aggressive dick moves! Goddammit, you stupid, stupid, stupid idiot, it is not against the rules for me to punch my cat in the face. She's my cat; I can do whatever the fuck I want to her. But punching my cat in the face would be a really shitty thing to do. So I don't.
I'm not mad at you for breaking a fucking rule, and that's the worst part of it; I was fucking intellectually cucked by a fucking moron who, if this comment thread is anything to go by, has an above average chance of being both a pedophile and a Nazi!
Now, please, politely this time.
Dear Mr. Diamond Man,
Hoping this message finds you well!
I hesitate to bring this up, but I may have a slight request of you. I know you owe me no favors, though if I recall correctly, I did five star multiple stories in the archive by you in a successful effort to keep them from folding. This was done anonymously, of course, so you probably weren't unaware, but I'm asking for an indulgence, anyway. And I think my request will be beneficial to you as well!
Well, anyway, would you kindly stop commenting, posting, or otherwise interacting with this website, as you obviously do not like us, and we obviously do not like you.
I have no idea what you could possibly gain from continuing to be here, and can think of a number of things that might be actively harmful to you, so for your own sake, as well as the sake of those readers/contributors/etc. of Flayrah who would prefer not to see you and/or comments with multiple uses of extreme profanity, leaving and never looking back is almost certainly the best course of action for you.
Looking forward to never seeing you again!
Signed,
crossie
XOXO
NOTE: As quoting, the person's text HTML editing may be overwritten, so please don't take the quotes 100% to be his now. XD
My text is in bold to make things easier to see when it's my response.
"These "made up rules" are just being polite. You went over my head; that's considered rude in polite society. "
That can be VERY subjective. So why bother calling me an "idiot" because mine is different?
"I'm not saying you violated a rule of Flayrah. You violated a rule of the world. One that's not written down, because you're supposed to know this. This is how you get along with people; on Flayrah, at work, within in your family. I hate you because you did something people who are hateable do."
Oh yeah? What about you then? You insult me several times, and possibly out of the belief that two wrongs make a "right" when it doesn't. So why are you being a hypocrite since clearly you're not polite to me anyway. I also could of saw that you talk crap about furry and sexual things too.
Besides, what is a "polite" rule when all that may subjective?
Sure, I kinda have a similar thing, but only when it's not violating the golden rule. If I directly say someone's fictional safe shipping is "wrong" because I find it disturbing, then I exposed a mindset that I don't believe in natural rights. The article thing though, I think that's different especially since writing and who gets to delete it might of been subjective.
Like... for example, an owner has EVERY right to not allow a guest in the house, even if it was out of mean behavior.
"When I told you, as your editor, that I want to keep the story, publicly, you don't go run to Green Reaper and whine about it and make him take it down, because that's humiliating to me. And, yes, Green Reaper is completely culpable here to; if you're paying attention here, bud, thanks for publicly fucking me in the ass on that one. Really fucking appreciated it."
I don't exactly remember that was the reason.
"It's frustrating on top of this, Diamond Man, because you don't even realize you pulled a passive aggressive dick move on me."
You act as if you're an editor, then you own EVERYTHING of the article, when you don't.
Who was the one that gave the article idea in the FIRST place? Who was the one that did the root of the work here?
So what if you don't want it deleted, I cannot vote no?!
Aren't you being the dick here? O_O
Also, I think I ran into the admin because he was the owner of the site, right?
"I'm not mad at you for breaking a fucking rule, and that's the worst part of it; I was fucking intellectually cucked by a fucking moron who, if this comment thread is anything to go by, has an above average chance of being both a pedophile and a Nazi!"
Wow, let me make sure I'm not at tumblr SJW... Damn, this is depressing.
I'm no pedophile and I'm not a nazi, but it's funny as if someone was, there points "can't" ever make sense even though they do.
Also, I was editing this comment a lot. I wish it didn't effect the updates every time I edit it. XD
Account abandoned and probably will make a new anonymous account with no trace of evidence of it being me. I think it's justified.
Yes, you've made it abundantly clear you're not going to apologize.
I mean, you don't even have to admit wrongdoing; just a "hey, man, didn't realize I hurt your feelings, sorry about that". But once again that's ... just not something you understand. You don't understand why what you did is maybe not completely as cool and okay as you thought it was, so you of course don't understand what the point of an apology is.
I mean, that's the thing I'm realizing, here; I'm more upset at GR here, and I take it on this ... person, and I've explained, as noted, in depth why I was angry at him. Meanwhile, if I'd just explained to the one guy who is capable of social graces, I'd have gotten some closure. Green Reaper may also not agree with me on the correct course, but, I mean, he's at least intellectually capable of realizing he's cheesing someone off and trying to fix that problem.
I mean, even in the original comment where I explained to Diamond Man what my deal with him was (the comment linked to by Diamond Man; the one that he thinks is so horrible nasty meany mean meanypants! to him) I began with an apology!
I also finish the comment with another apology.
And in between those two apologies, I complimented you!
I may have been lying through my teeth and that apology was as fake as Trump's tan (I honestly don't remember), but I really tried to at least offer my hand in, if not exactly friendship, at least peace.
I mean, look at this thread; the first time anyone differs in opinion, you instantly say, and I quote:
Not exactly Mr. Nicey Nice McNicepants, there, Diamond Man.
I can't believe I'm still trying, but I honestly am, because, unlike you, I realize I'm being a jerk, and I feel bad about that. Whether or not the anger causing the rudeness is justified or not is beside the point; it's still rudeness. I'm really, honestly, trying to make you a better person, Diamond Man.
You've been rude. You've been rude to me; you've been rude to Equivamp; you've been rude to Oliver; you've been rude to Green Reaper; you've been rude to Flayrah's readership and staff in general; and that's just this thread, Diamond Man!. (You've also defended child pornography, which, um, don't do that, but that's a whole 'nother ball of wax; let's worry about the rudeness now.)
Yes, some of the people here were rude to you, but as you so eloquently put it yourself:
Here's another one of those rules I just totally made up, Diamond Man; when somebody begins an address to you with an apology, and then tries to explain why they were upset with you, maybe, I don't know, before you start douche-bag-splaining why they're wrong about their own feelings, maybe start with an apology of your own. Then sure, run your mouth about how you feel, that's your right but, goddamn, at least make the same good faith effort the other party is.
Fake it if you have to, Jesus. If you can't, fuck off.
No, really. You have better things to do. So fuck off and do them if apologizing is beneath you.
Also, protip: If you don't want people to think you're not probably a Nazi, don't say "SJW". 99.9% of people who say "SJW" are, were, or will become a Nazi at some point.
Continuing my debate. On my side, the note still applies I guess.
"Yes, you've made it abundantly clear you're not going to apologize."
I'm sorry... that you think you deserve an apology.
It's probably better next time I write an article to a place where an editor knows that it's not completely his/her article and the editor doesn't act like the entire article is 100% his/hers.
"I also finish the comment with another apology."
The way you said your comment didn't sound like an actual apology though. If you're talking about something else, then never mind my little message here after what I tried to quote.
"I'm sorry I'm mean to you all the time; it's really not right, even with this reason."
..."But unless you've got an apology of your own, you can go fuck yourself."
"I may have been lying through my teeth and that apology was as fake as Trump's tan (I honestly don't remember), but I really tried to at least offer my hand in, if not exactly friendship, at least peace. "
So wait, you admit it was not a real letter entirely? You were actually faking it?
"Not exactly Mr. Nicey Nice McNicepants, there, Diamond Man. "
If someone is going to directly attack me with their *ahem* OPINION, then those are one of those opinions that don't deserve respect itself. I think it's completely OK to not tolerate an opinion if it's like that.
"You've been rude. You've been rude to me; you've been rude to Equivamp; you've been rude to Oliver; you've been rude to Green Reaper; you've been rude to Flayrah's readership and staff in general; and that's just this thread, Diamond Man!. (You've also defended child pornography, which, um, don't do that, but that's a whole 'nother ball of wax; let's worry about the rudeness now.)"
Translation?: "You are rude because you said some things I just don't agree to."
Like... explain HOW I was rude? How is me going against discrimination rude? And how was I "rude" to Green Reaper for example? And how the F*** am I rude for having a different opinion on child porn? What's RUDE is bashing me for questioning the emotional beliefs of that crap for example.
And it's not that I "defended" child porn, I was making arguments more around it and some that MIGHT sound a little for it, but I never blatantly defended it.
I just wanted to question stuff like "It creates a demand", "it hurts the victim" and/or that it's treated like it's "rape", all in terms of possession alone. Why? Because those arguments can be bad and compared to a LOT of things that may be legal. Those arguments are horrible and dangerous alone. And hell, I even said I hope the person doesn't possess child porn again.
I'm not perfect, as I said in a old comment, but your new comment claiming I'm rude recently in a list like that is... WTF?!
I got the balls because I don't care that much about my reputation here, probably because I f**king have a huge problem with society in general because there are a lot of beliefs that are bullshit.
I got the feeling you're not understanding a lot of things. Oh wait, does that count as being rude?
Account abandoned and probably will make a new anonymous account with no trace of evidence of it being me. I think it's justified.
I was thinking, remember when you used to add an apologetic clause awkwardly stapled to the end of every sentence? I think I told you to stop doing that; good job on avoiding that, but you may have overcorrected ... just a pinch.
Okay, I'm an expert on rude, so I can help you here; calling people's opinions shit is rude. That's something you did this thread. That's just rude. That's something rude people do. You can disagree with someone's opinion, and think they are wrong, and even beneath you, and that's not wrong. But you can do those things without saying "your opinion is shit."
A more polite response to Oliver might have been to say "well, I disagree with you, and also believe you are attacking me personally, and I would prefer you not to do that." Or, you know, just ignoring the semi-anonymous commenter nobody knows completely. That would have been a good one. It's not what you were saying, Diamon Man, it's how you said it.
But let's look at something positive; you are improving your writing. If nothing else, "your opinion is shit" is grammatically correct, so, good on you. In fact, your punctuation is correct, like, 95% of the time now, so that the other 5% can be explained as typographical error rather than ignorance (well, that and your weird fondness for ellipses, but, then, I do love my parenthetical phrases).
Your grammar and usage is still often stilted at best and just incorrect often, but not as often as it used to be. You'll never be a prose stylist, but your prose is becoming, at least, much more understandable. No longer having the aforementioned need to awkwardly insert apologetic phrases into every other sentence is helping. Even back when you were writing amazingly atrocious run-on, subjectless, contorted "sentences", the problem seemed to be you were basically getting ahead of your fingers with your thinking. A good portion of your improvement may be you've just become a better typist, and you're finally becoming the writer you always were.
Jesus, your comments here, in the middle of an angry slapfight, are better written than your actual articles.
Where did this improvement come from, Diamond Man? I mean, I don't know, was there someone or some group of people who were mean to you or made you feel inadequate in the past? Maybe you didn't want to feel that way anymore, so you took steps to up your game? Maybe you even wanted to impress them, and that's why you keep randomly appearing, like herpes, in their comments?
Or, I don't know, maybe you took a night class. Whatever.
But it still begs the question; why are you here? You obviously don't like us; I mean, you went off on, once again, a random commenter who is nobody and basically went on a "I WILL DESTROY YOU, AND EVERYTHING YOU LOVE! I WILL MAKE IT MY GOAL IN LIFE! SCORCHED EARTH, MOTHERFUCKER!" megalomaniacal rant.
You'll please take the time to notice, and Equivamp, you, too, I was completely happy to let your recent comments go without note until you threatened to attack Flayrah. When you were talking about Alpha & Omega (in a thread you kind of got called out on by someone who wasn't me, as well, so you are pretty justified to respond there), I lived and let live. When you were defending child pornography and the right to browse child pornography, I bit my tongue (and was actually privately gleeful that you'd take such an obviously dangerous, stupid and downright evil stance in front of the world and everyone; note, not "rude", Diamond Man, dangerous, stupid and evil).
But you started swinging your dick around, insulting everyone and whining about how awful this site is because one semi-anonymous troll nobody even knows who couldn't even be bothered to stay in the conversation was less than flattering to you. Furthermore, you actually threatened to take action against us; yes, I joked that this threat is basically meaningless, but you don't think that.
Once again, that even goes above and beyond "rude", Diamond Man. That's just wrong.
You started this fight, Diamond Man. You escalated it by bringing up the years old article deletion fight (I even warned the guy not to, or did you forget that, Equivamp?). And YOU still think YOU'RE the innocent victim here!
Well, you're not, Diamond Man.
You're not a very nice person, Diamond Man. You don't need to defend that; I'm not a very nice person, either. Duh. But you need to understand that.
Oh, of course, now Oliver decides to comment again.
(He's still not part of this conversation though.)
The opinion that my "ethics" are "terrible" and then even comparing that to my taste in movies doesn't deserve that respect from me. The only rude thing I'm seeing in this example is that the comment toward me WAS THE RUDE ONE. It attacks my personal preferences into movies by claiming it's "less" important than others. BUT OF COURSE, you failed to see that logic and instead, adapt the "opinion = excuse to do that!" thing? Which is even hypocritical if so considering such comment attacks "MY OPINION". Yeah, well I guess "Homosexuality is disgusting and immoral" isn't shit then because it's AN OPINION, OMG BOW F***ING DOWN NOW! Right?! *sarcasm*
Also, as for ellipses, I find that more of a style. Basic grammar isn't the only thing I want to stay on all the time.
"You'll never be a prose stylist"
Oh now I'm somehow encouraged to improve my grammar now. *sarcasm*
But I have to say for the rest of the paragraph that isn't quoted, thanks?
Actually I been commenting a lot of Deviant Art, don't even get me started, but please stop acting like I'm "mean" most of the time, maybe you should call it brutal honesty with a side of criticism maybe? And I'm not so good with article styles, but I do hope my articles at least become more understandable.
I'm still here because I have a history of this place, and wanted to check. Then I found one article, and felt the need to comment on another (this one), and give my thoughts on the subject. Then of course, Oliver attacked me and I guess that's where this fight came from.
What the heck do you mean I "threatened to attack Flayrah"? Is sending an honest review trying to address problems that are unfair an "attack" to you? Is everything I say that involves a disagreement now an "attack" to you now? I'm not trying to be mean, I'm just concern I guess.
"When you were defending child pornography and the right to browse child pornography"
It's like you didn't even read my arguments about it. Now you're just libeling me I think. Me questing non-sense beliefs about it doesn't make me "evil", "stupid", or "dangerous". Risky? I don't know but I don't depend my thoughts on fear for logic.
I said I would review the site because why not? I have sincere concerns about it, because many of the members has been causing unfair issues and there is the unfair star rating system too. Also, many reviews are just reviews probably and one was just terrible (the Alpha and Omega review) that it stifled creativity and didn't understand how character development work for many movies.
You're just saying I "started" the fight because you didn't want to be called out. I didn't even mention your name until someone else did, but still, I just wanted to use an example as to why this website was generally poor.
To act like I'm "rude" because you simply don't agree with me is disgusting, and it will probably cause others to be even MORE furious.
Read my whole comment. Thanks.
Oh and... you want to know more information about me? Here are my general thoughts on a few:
I will defend ANYTHING victimless and non-threatening likely and that includes attraction alone because it's victimless, same goes for fictional porn, consensual incest, and so on. I believe in natural human rights.
Oh and I'm against the death penalty and against life imprisonment.
As for real life child porn, I'm mixed. But please DON'T assume and then treat it like it's true automatically.
I'm actually HATED by a lot of people, but that does not matter much because depending on some "reputation" of society in general around here is more useless and depressing. I depend on actual good points, not popular opinion.
I used to care about it on here a little more, but it was causing issues, and making feel so restricted. Now that I feel more brave and less caring about some reputation around here, I feel a lot more free I guess. XD
Felt like I needed to say some general views to avoid any "reputation" expectation from anyone.
Account abandoned and probably will make a new anonymous account with no trace of evidence of it being me. I think it's justified.
Your apologies kind of suck, though. Really.
It's not that big of a deal! Please don't act like you're upset on my behalf. All he did was call me worse than a social justice warrior. It's fine. It certainly doesn't warrant all this, and I don't want him to leave. You're not speaking on behalf of the community here, you're speaking on behalf of your feelings over being "cucked" by him deleting an article he wrote. I didn't even know you had to ask permission to do that, I had just gone and clicked "delete" on one not long ago.
(And if GreenReaper really apologizes to you over something like that I'd be amazed. I don't think that's his thing. I'm not even sure he knows how?)
But this had lots of consequences, Equivamp.
I used to email Green Reaper all the time with suggestions and worries and, you know what, often just bullshit. But I stopped after the article deletion stuff. I didn't even get an explanation, is the thing.
Because of this incident, I no longer had confidence that I could go to GR and get help, that he had my back. You should be able to see where basically no longer having a working relationship with GR (and the ability to ask him for help) became an untenable problem about a year or two later.
A lot of anger at Diamond Man is misplaced, here, but his decision did a lot of harm to an important relationship.
Also, was the article you deleted published, though? If you want to kill an article you think is crap before it's published, that's fine, but not after; also, Diamond Man's piece was an opinion piece, so I went over it with Diamond Man before I hit publish. He was completely satisfied with my edits until people started calling him dumb, then he blamed me. You can see why that might be irksome.
It was published, but it was old (possibly before you were an editor? what's the timeline here again?), stupid, and didn't belong here. It wasn't an opinion piece or a review, it was just rambling, symptomatic of circumstances I won't get into publicly. I remembered it one day, looked if I had the option to delete it, saw that I did, and deleted it. I guess I forgot about this whole debacle til now.
Have you talked to GreenReaper about this stuff? He doesn't exactly make himself hard to contact, there's not really a need to like, tell him how you feel by airing your grievances on someone you know doesn't actually have the skill to harm the site by "attacking" it. This is actually the second time I've ended up in a grudge you have in the last few months (and yeah, I put myself here this time, and the other time you didn't know about it) and I just don't understand why you can't just talk to people...unless you're talking to them like this.
Diamond Man isn't the first to complain about the rating system. And he's not being unreasonable when he says we're emotional commenters around here--hello? Look at this thread. You're a good guy but you're not showing it right now.
Uh, you've never met my family ...
I'm my dad, basically. This is how we deal with grievances. (Of course, Green Reaper didn't exactly explain himself to me; he just did it. Not even a "sorry, dude, I'm the boss" message.)
I got it now, you deleted the Otherkin article. See, I liked that article; and even if you thought it was a mistake, mistakes are still part of the journalistic process. It's why we run corrections, not purge the archives. I mean, all my bullshit arguments and pissy slapfights and what not are still right here, forever and ever; past mistakes that can be used to remind me of what I need to do better.
I mean, not that it's working out right now, but whatever.
Part of it, Diamond Man, at this point, really is just looking to pick a fight, even if he doesn't know it. He spent most of his time before he wrote up his big piece on bias complaining about how we were all biased, and he wonders why nobody likes him that much. "I was just stating my opinions!"
Well, when his opinion is "I think Flayrah sucks." can he really be shocked that Flayrah's response is "Well, fuck you too, buddy!" (And you can't tell me he was ever a popular poster, Equivamp; I may be unique in hating his slimy guts, but nobody here's all like "Oh, boy, oh, boy! Did Christmas come early this year, 'CAUSE DIAMOND MAN'S HERE!" either.)
And I wasn't using you as an example not because I thought you really cared that he was being rude to you; but his complaint is we're being rude to him. Much like I chewed out that one guy about complaining that that one con wasn't inclusive enough, so we'd better kick them out of the fandom, I'm trying to point out Diamond Man's hypocrisy. It really wasn't about you, sorry if I came off as white knighting. I mean, like I give a shit about Oliver's opinions and was defending him (so, going the other way, sorry if I offended you by reducing you to simple data point to beat some guy over the head with.)
(Also, was that the other argument you were accidentally "involved" in?)
But going back to Diamond Man and his constantly picking fights (and then acting surprised when he gets in them), I mean, there's not a lot of difference between him and Perri, or Ike, or desiring_change, or, more positive example, CassidytheCivet.
All of them complain and/or complained we were unfair to them about their unpopular opinions, but on the other hand, most of them spent most of their early days only commenting to complain about Flayrah (Perri complaining mostly that we weren't covering Perri enough, Ike that we weren't "conservative" enough, desiring_change, more aimed at the entire fandom, but that we were all into bestiality, or Cassidy that Zootopia was going to suck). Diamond Man's thing was "we were biased!" against ... something. Alpha & Omega, I suppose. And I fucking worked with all of them, with them calling me a terrible person the entire time. I wasn't nice, but I was kind.
Okay, topic change, do you recall a poster named Acton? Kind of a lot like Diamond Man, with tenuous grasp on English and how she is written, except also a conservative, not like Ike. I mean, I'm sure he voted for Trump, but at least he was probably not a Nazi. And I knew him before Flayrah, when I was on the furrymedia lj group, and he had his foibles, and we all rolled our eyes, but nobody ever really went after him (and, okay, that was partially the much more stringent moderating on the lj group), but my point is, he wasn't a dick about it.
He didn't berate furrymedia or Flayrah for not being conservative enough, he didn't constantly talk about how his opinions were unpopular, and though he did complain conservatives and Christians were misunderstood, he kind of pointedly didn't complain that we were the ones misunderstanding him. He was there as a constant presence; he didn't leave for months at a time, and then come back just to cast passive aggressive shade on us, before dramatically clutching his chest and shading his eyes while asking "but why would you ever get so mad at me for opinions! Oh, what a sorry state the world is in, where, I, just an innocent little angel, can't share a thought without getting torn to pieces by this wild and angry mob! The horror, the horror ..."
Or, you know, Rakuen. We don't agree on certain issues, but he's made it clear he's part of the community. We can get mad at each other, but it's okay. We'll survive, because at the end of the day, he's not here to pick a fight. He might get into one, sure, and it might get ugly (like, just so ugly); but he actually likes the place. Or at least goes out of his way to appear to do so!
And, oh my god, Diamond Man's thing, as I pointed out originally, was fucking "bias".
Maybe, I don't know, he might want to work on his own a bit more.
Mostly I agree with you on that front; there are other articles I don't like anymore that I've kept up. Hell at some point I might do a second Zootopia review just because I think I was looking at some crucial things wrong, and now think entirely different of the movie. So, looking back o past mistakes to do better going forward, right--I probably never would have published any writing online if not for you so it's not a surprise I've picked up some of your philosophy of it, too. But I had a good reason this time, so, neener-neener.
No, that wasn't the other argument. It wasn't in public comments. I was defending you, though, if that helps.
You're right, they're not much different than Perri or Ike (the other two I didn't see much; d_c was rare when I've been around iirc, and Cassidy joined during a time I never even checked this site). But honestly, I kinda feel bad about their disgrace from here, so maybe I don't want a repeat. (I keep trying to talk to Ike when he shows up with a new Twitter account, but he can't help but get himself banned again within a day like an idiot, so maybe that's a sign I'm wasting my time.)
Acton is a dick every time he shows up. It's just hard to take it seriously because I think he's mentally a child, and seeing him on Facebook is even harder to get upset over. Acton does't start fights because nobody can read what he's saying in order to fight with him. He did criticize Flayrah (and furry news sites across the board) for "SJW"ism back when Ahmar was pissing off Sonious by deleting his comments. Called us amateur, too. To his credit, then he fucked off to the Furry Raiders Facebook group and I haven't seen him since, because I guess the guy with the singular fascination with Hello Kitty is somehow less obsessive than Ike or Perri.
Well, never mind about Acton, then. Seriously, how did I miss a sparring partner?
I was literally just re-reading Mark Harris's Pictures at a Revolution about the Best Picture nominees for 1967, and one of the big moments in Bonnie and Clyde's critical history is when the Newsweek critic, Jeffrey Morgenstern, ran a second, positive, review of the movie a week after he panned it in his original review. Reassessment of movies is a common thing critics do (okay, actually re-reviewing movies is rare), so don't worry about Zootopia. However, this is not an endorsement of re-reviewing it; on a practical level, I'm not sure a sixth Flayrah review after over two years is necessary, and I wouldn't worry. I think it did okay with both furries and the general public anyway.
Maybe a ten year retrospective (if you still give a shit about furry in general, Flayrah in specific, and Zootopia in even more specific, and/or Trump hasn't caused the nuclear holocaust), or something if they announce a sequel.
And, okay, you can't accuse me of not talking about things until I force them out in big slapfights in the comments and then keep teasing me about this big fight.
I mean, okay, not in the comments (again) but there are more discreet methods to give me the juicy details. Because I do want them. Are people stabbing me in the back; because, hooray, I'm not paranoid!
The walls have ears, dude.
NOT HELPING THE PARANOIA, EQUIVAMP.
Look, I don't want to be that guy to keep replying, but I felt the need to address this in general:
"He was completely satisfied with my edits until people started calling him dumb, then he blamed me. You can see why that might be irksome."
I don't think that's what happened exactly.
I think the article had some issues with pictures, then due to low ratings and certain commenters, I then wanted the article deleted. It was a while back, though.
Account abandoned and probably will make a new anonymous account with no trace of evidence of it being me. I think it's justified.
That's called my editing, Diamond Man.
But, anyway, back to Equivamp, I see what you're doing and it's very brave, and thanks for trying, especially right now!
I was actually just thinking about this, but you know I brought up Ike and if I was the one that had to do his story I would have done it differently.
I would have added pictures to help make it pop.
Of course, now I'm not so sure.
what
Like the way the pictures were presented was rather odd for some reasons. I think it's hard to explain. It's not that it's bad to add that picture, but it was more about how some of them were placed.
Account abandoned and probably will make a new anonymous account with no trace of evidence of it being me. I think it's justified.
In the email thread mentioned below, you said that you didn't like the way I had added a link to a review of a work you were talking about, which you believed to be "a very bias review that has nothing to do with finding any critique errors at all."
Linking other related articles is a standard part of editing on Flayrah. But you're right: I do think it is important for other views to be heard; especially views that have been polished by Flayrah, and may be of interest to readers - even if you disagree with them. Not necessarily heard as loudly, but made available.
That is one part of the "price" of submitting to a community - accepting that your views will be compared to and presented alongside the views of other members of the community. There are plenty of sites where you can present your own views without editing, comparison and/or comment. Flayrah is not one of them.
And that's one reason crossaffliction was so annoyed when you deleted the story you wrote; not only were its editor's contributions removed, but those of all the commenters as well.
In the end, I took pity on you and told you how to go about removing the story, but arguably after publication it should not have been within your power to "take your ball and go home".
Sorry I was an ass about it, and never really told you how angry I was about it before.
Equivamp talking about nailed by pointing out I only express frustration in angry outbursts instead of dealing with them directly.
The problem is that I don't see any rules about it so what you're saying about other views over my articles could just be an opinion. Also, if someone can link to that bias review, I can always remove the link too since I'm a person who disagrees.
You should warn others before making a story, honestly. It's not my fault you took pity and did something in counter of your own beliefs about what the site did.
Also, remember I am also the editor of the article... so who should decide that it stays especially since I'm the one who made it first, with the ideas attached to it and it's under my name. Nothing in the FAQ said I can't unless I miss something.
2cross2affliction shouldn't of act like he owns the entire thing just because he was an editor at the time.
It's been a year!
Well over that!
For the record, while I did unpublish that story, it's always been within an author's power to delete it unilaterally - and ultimately Diamond Man did so.
I think you took his decision too personally. As an editor - or journalist - it's natural to be invested in your work. But you have to be able to let go as well. After all, you are not responsible for someone else's decisions, and a new story will be along soon enough. In this particular case, the decision was based purely on the author's own insecurities, not because of anything you did or didn't do. In fact, he didn't mention you at all.
You may be interested in my response to Diamond Man; the immediate context was the assertion that the "purpose and end results" of Alpha & Omega were of overriding importance compared to any "objective" measurement of its animation quality:
Sadly this advice was not taken to heart; but I tried.
"For the record, while I did unpublish that story, it's always been within an author's power to delete it unilaterally - and ultimately Diamond Man did so."
Actually I thought I left it and never touched it? I recently went to my email to find it to notice it's not there anymore?
If I did deleted it (maybe forgot?) then my apologies.
You'd think if I were an admin I'd write more often! People just like me here. Or so I hope.
Drupal 6 is old, yes. But the few bugs I know of have been around for a while. Code does not rust. New software tends to have the most bugs; it's an opportunity to make new and exciting mistakes. :-)
Security-wise, Drupal 6 is still largely supported - they wrung most issues out over 39 point releases. Likewise, PHP 5.6 will fly until the end of the year. If necessary a move to PHP 7 should be doable. (Heck, it might even make things a little faster.)
Other underlying software gets updated every week or so. For example, we're on MariaDB 10.1, which was released five and a half years after I took over Flayrah, and OpenSSL 1.1.0, first released in August 2016. I'm updating to Perl 5.24 right now (hopefully won't break things). Need to talk to Timduru about FreeBSD, but as of now it's still updated.
Hey, go ahead and write your "review" of this place, I'd love to see it, but be sure beforehand to determine if your beef is with the site or with specific people. A lot of anger here over a furry news magazine that's seen better days, seems more personal to me. And maybe while you're determining things, try a little perspective, y'know?
And when you link your review here, make sure you tell us what it is, and not just drop a naked link here without context. I'm not clicking the cursed naked links that weirdos keep expecting us to around here.
It's more about specific people but however, behavior of people can party or fully make up the site.
I don't know if I will even link it, but I challenge those to find it, especially since I might comment on other sites about it.
Trying to properly explain the links won't decrease the risk, because lying exist. Not that I will lie but just wanted to try to give advice.
Account abandoned and probably will make a new anonymous account with no trace of evidence of it being me. I think it's justified.
I definitely have better things to do than look for your vague thinkpiece on an unnamed website (?!?!)
I don't think anyone's gonna link anything felonious, but things that will, for example, make YouTube think I want to watch videos about how Jews used Christian blood to make bread for Passover...or something.
Jews did פֶּסַח. That's bad enough, surely? :-p
(On the plus side, it was kind of payback for earlier, and Prince of Egypt had a great soundtrack.)
It could be sites like DeviantArt, Adjective Species, YouTube, Twitter, and/or Furaffinity. I assume you are OK with visiting those sites. XD
Account abandoned and probably will make a new anonymous account with no trace of evidence of it being me. I think it's justified.
Too much work, I don't even know where you are on those sites and they don't let you search journals afaik...
Well if you don't want to search them, then you don't have to. BTW I think Google actually helps find journals.
Not sure when and/or if it's really right to link on here honestly. XD
Account abandoned and probably will make a new anonymous account with no trace of evidence of it being me. I think it's justified.
Reply to my own comment, and not as an additional point to my previous.
Anyway, looking around, someone is 1 staring my comments like #82, and #84, because they are mad at me or just hate me in general. The ratings are not fair. Period.
I could of even found out there was an article about this somewhere... However, I'm having trouble finding it if it's there.
I'm not trying to be annoying, but it seems to make it seem like my comments are seen as "bad" or "poor" by some average viewers and it can make it hard to see my comments. Maybe this is why I complain about it.
Just wanted to point this out.
Tip: If you don't want your account to be effected by the abusive system, just use your account as a "guest" by logging off and commenting outside of the account. It won't stop ratings on the comment, but it shouldn't effect your account. This will be a tip I may give out on the article if I make it.
Account abandoned and probably will make a new anonymous account with no trace of evidence of it being me. I think it's justified.
Fuck, dude, if all you wanted to do in the first place was complain about the comment rating system and how we suck at debates, why'd you have to choose to do so on a story about someone confessing to possessing 50 child porn files and in response to a masturbation joke? Priorities, or something.
People can be concern about it. Like I'm sure my comments explain it. Not sure how I can be more clear.
Account abandoned and probably will make a new anonymous account with no trace of evidence of it being me. I think it's justified.
And in other childporn news: Good riddance, Mark Salling! He was busted with tens of thousands of photos of children being fucked but, hey, maybe we shouldn't be such censorious prudes, eh?!
Wanting someone dead especially over someone just possessing pictures. Is that what I'm seeing?
Just gonna let people think about that for a second.
Sorry if I'm wrong but at least he never made them.
This is why I question popular beliefs.
Account abandoned and probably will make a new anonymous account with no trace of evidence of it being me. I think it's justified.
Better!
You even found the delicate line between "defending kiddie porn" and "celebrating suicide" that is, like, the only leverage you've got in this fight! Not a lot though, so you should probably bail now. That would be my advice.
Also, correct me if I'm wrong, however, but were you the one to one star the comment? Because, uh, a little hypocritical; maybe just refrain from using the system you've vocally complained about earlier in the thread? Just a thought.
I don't know man, but how is my star rating hypocritical? A comment supporting suicide of someone who could of gotten help? That's just... wrong.
If the comment wasn't doing that then I apologize for acting the comment was that. Not that I will agree with it automatically though.
Account abandoned and probably will make a new anonymous account with no trace of evidence of it being me. I think it's justified.
Well, Diamond Man, maybe the original people who one-starred your comment thought your opinion was was also just ... wrong. I agree, the idea that celebrating a suicide is deplorable; however, that's just our opinion.
You acted on your opinion that what Oliver said was worthy of one-starring. Okay, someone acted on the opinion that what you said was worthy of one-starring.
You can disagree with that assessment, certainly, but they did nothing that you have not done yourself.
I need you to ask yourself why Diamond Man one-starring Oliver is fair when you disagree with them, but Oliver (or whoever did it) one-starring Diamond Man is not when they disagree with you.
Maybe the thing here, there can be a more "true" opinion. Some argue that some thoughts are not opinion. I rated it low because it promotes something that actually effects others in the long run.
The Oliver comment can probably objectively be seen as a personal attack as long if I find it that.
If he wants to disagree with me, he should of at least tried if possible.
Account abandoned and probably will make a new anonymous account with no trace of evidence of it being me. I think it's justified.
Perhaps there can be, Diamond Man, but isn't it just a spectacular coincidence that your opinion is the one that's more true in this instance? How very convenient for you!
Natural rights isn't an opinion. I can see the comment was directly violating that, and naturally I felt it was probably right to rate it as poor.
That insult comment WAS an insult, and *ahem* RUDE to other people, and I can call that out as bad because it can be argued as that.
Account abandoned and probably will make a new anonymous account with no trace of evidence of it being me. I think it's justified.
Lol, natural rights? Oliver was violating the guy's "natural right" to not have his decision laughed about?
He encouraged suicide, and even for a crime probably less serious than breaking someone's pot. Living is a natural right and I was arguing for it. I don't think he violated his right to live, but such comment can still be wrong in another way.
Account abandoned and probably will make a new anonymous account with no trace of evidence of it being me. I think it's justified.
That is the worst comparison ... since my convoluted cat punching thing elsewhere this thread, so, you know, carry on.
...
...
Defending pedophilia.
Prove it then. I need to see some points.
Possessing it doesn't directly harm, and neither does it "demand" alone. If "harm" means reminding the victim of something, then lets outlaw everything fictional, and any speech that reminds the victim of the abuse. There is a chance that can "cause harm" too. Jesus freaking Christ.
The pot thing might be worse because it's direct.
Yeah you know what? Yes, I will defend pedophile AS IN, attraction alone. Attraction is not the same as offending. So therefor, if I go against it, I'm against freedom and by freedom, I'm merely talking about the right to anything victimless and non-threatening alone. I'm not saying this is the same as possessing porn, but I just wanted to make this point.
Go ahead, call me a "rude" person, and go ahead and consider this a violation of the imaginary nice policy rule because apparently disagreeing with your empty claims is a violation to that according to you I think.
Also, stop picking a fight with me on other threads.
Account abandoned and probably will make a new anonymous account with no trace of evidence of it being me. I think it's justified.
Oh God, you're one of those why won't you debate me people, except instead of just being generally annoying, you're wanting a debate about how videos and photographs of a child being sexually abused is no big deal, man.
Yes, I'm "one of those" in terms of asking for proof. I depend on logic, not emotion. I'm not saying it's not a big deal when it comes to MAKING it. I was talking about possession alone which should never be compared to making it.
Perhaps one damn reason why I'm so pissed off at dangerous arguments is because of the stories and comments I've seen. Labeling others as sex offender for life for a mistake done before? That is something that makes me so angry.
The only time I'm not morally against making is when someone did it to his/her own body and/or consenting sexting. I do not agree these type of people should be in prison. Though I don't recommend it and I suggest avoiding any or both.
Account abandoned and probably will make a new anonymous account with no trace of evidence of it being me. I think it's justified.
And THIS is why Flayrah in general isn't a good furry site.
Thanks for proving my point more. Hopefully there is better furry sites who can take criticism. BTW, my review is up. May update it with this though. Wonder... if I'm allowed to link it.
Account abandoned and probably will make a new anonymous account with no trace of evidence of it being me. I think it's justified.
The thing is, no you don't, Diamond Man (I mean, depend on logic); you're a hypocrite who emotionally flies off the handle when you're criticized (by loudly complaining everyone but you can't take criticism). You just got angry that I made a joke at my own expense, then agreed with my assessment of the situation; i.e. that you are defending pedophilia. Logically, you shouldn't be angry at someone for pointing out an agreed upon truth. You also literally argue that "my opinions are correct, so you should keep your incorrect opinions to yourself", which goes beyond "not logical" to, well, I mean we're back at the point where it just become apparent you don't know what words mean, Diamond Man.
You've heard "logic" is a good thing, and you think you're a "good" person, so you therefore think you're "logical", whether or not you know what logic is. And I don't think you do. It's the same thing with your earlier use of "bias"; you've heard "bias" is a bad thing, and you think you're not a "bad" person, so you therefore think you're "unbiased." Ironically, this is bad logic.
And the truth of the matter is these are concepts that are just too complicated for you, Diamond Man. I could try and explain to you why child pornography is, in fact, "directly harmful" (another phrase you've picked up somewhere you don't actually understand), but the truth is, you're not really smart enough to understand, and you never really will be.
The problem, Diamond Man, with you demanding "proof" from us is not that we are incapable of providing it, it's that you are incapable of accepting it, because you don't know what "proof" is, and are mistaking your own emotional convictions as "proof". Which is the opposite of "logic".
This is the frustrating thing about you, Diamond Man; you honestly do start interesting conversations and ask necessary questions. That's why I was kind of excited to run your opinion piece; your take was rudimentary, but it would have possibly started an interesting conversation. The problem that I was unable to foresee (because I was being stupidly shortsighted) was that, obviously, you would want to remain a part of the conversation (and would have every right to do so), which would only get in the way of people who actually had a beyond rudimentary grasp of the concepts being discussed.
Some of the things I'm pissed off about isn't criticism. Making offensive jokes or saying "That is stupid!" is not criticism. When someone does that, that's a person refusing to take criticism.
Also responding with an insulting picture, is also not criticism and showed the person failed to take any form of logic.
Here was the comment, by the way:
https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ts67tVm2bJo/WnO2A5osl8I/AAAAAAAABJ8/DTJsv6NoFr0y86HBv...
I depend on logic, because I usually try to follow it. Remember when I talk about the whole argument about "demand" and stuff? Have you seen the logic I try to follow addressing such comment? That's an example. The things I'm addressing doesn't seem to be logical.
Me a "bad" person, are you saying I am? It would be funny to say that I am. Even more when you argue you're not a bad person after.
Careful when you say "truth".
I am going to guess that you believe it's "directly harmful" because a victim doesn't like the idea of someone having it and jacking off to it. Is that it? I already heard something about it, but I don't agree that's "direct harm". Do you even know what "direct harm" means? Possession =/= causation.
If I HAD to agree with you, then everything including "fiction" is "direct harm", and that here, I just made an attempt at logic again.
I know what proof is, I don't see you doing so good at it.
Account abandoned and probably will make a new anonymous account with no trace of evidence of it being me. I think it's justified.
You marked my comment as spam because it hurt your feelings? But I'm the emotional one?
When I talk emotion, I'm talking about someone responding like that because they are offended by the interesting points.
Of course, I'm emotional, but at least I try to control it and not let it take over logic.
Account abandoned and probably will make a new anonymous account with no trace of evidence of it being me. I think it's justified.
Oh, that's the problem. You, like so many others, are making the mistake that what you're...um..."arguing", is new to me, that I've never heard the same stuff from people with better interpersonal skills and grasp of language. You think you're laying down some thick knowledge, and I'm just too scared to face it, because otherwise why would I deny you the ability to showcase it to me and feel all intellectually superior?
Lol.
If you're trying to say I'm "not" arguing, then I ask... how?
I do have a lot of knowledge, and that whole "demand" thing or the whole "direct harm" thing I'm addressing is based upon years of experience, common sense, and expanded knowledge about how things work. I use stuff like "Well that's like saying... this and that" because I expand possibilities under a logic in a fictional scenario. Plus if someone wants to disagree with that, I ask for anything interesting. But some people respond with no criticism that some might call "criticism" and... well you probably get it.
Account abandoned and probably will make a new anonymous account with no trace of evidence of it being me. I think it's justified.
I don't want to hear about your "years of experience" with or "expanded knowledge" about child pornography. I don't care. That's what I'm saying. I'm saying stop. This isn't high school debate class.
Then don't respond to my comment, then.
Account abandoned and probably will make a new anonymous account with no trace of evidence of it being me. I think it's justified.
And of course, you act like your opinion about that porn is a "fact".
I don't mind hearing your attempt at trying to explain though I guess, but if I criticize it, don't act like "I'm not smart".
Oh and yes, I'm against the idea based off voodoo beliefs maybe.
Account abandoned and probably will make a new anonymous account with no trace of evidence of it being me. I think it's justified.
Okay, we're just going to do this; I know you won't understand it, but like I said, interesting conversation.
It's literally the same thing as "fur is murder". Nobody would skin factories full of foxes and minks and things if nobody wanted to possess fur products. Likewise, cows wouldn't get killed to make hamburgers if nobody ate hamburgers; they wouldn't be skinned to make leather jackets if nobody possessed leather jackets.
If you consume the product, you are complicit in making it. Being "complicit" in an action is all but the same thing as doing it; it's why we have "conspiracy" charges in criminal justice (if I help plan to kill someone, I'm not going to be considered "innocent" of that killing, even if I don't actually pull the trigger) or why they arrest the john with the prostitute.
If you possess child pornography, you directly cause it to be made; therefore, you directly caused harm to the children who are abused in its creation.
Furthermore, that's a logical argument that has been used for centuries by people to argue for or against countless things, from child pornography to animal rights to the entire economic system of capitalism. It's not my argument; it's a common philosophical take on how the world works. So, actually, the burden of "proof" here is on you.
To successfully argue against this worldview, you have to prove that "possession" =/= "causation", because that is not a proven assertation. (Alternatively, you could argue that "child pornography" =/= "harmful", but, ha ha, no.)
Please read the whole comment, carefully.
Here is why I argue that "fur is murder" comparison is bad. That sounds like a reaction to something that directly involves the act of getting of fur, if there needs to be an argument that can be compared, it's the act of moving that stuff around. However, moving fur around that's already been done isn't the same thing as getting the fur in the first place. Possession itself isn't an act of making it, and neither does it mean directly asking for more. It's just "possession", and that act is the same exact thing some government does. If there is some definition by law that tells something different than I claim, I wish for a link.
Again, nonsense, because possession isn't the same thing as planning to do the crime and possession involves an act AFTER THE FACT. Also, I don't think planning itself is the crime, it's when you make some kind of step (or another type of step). If you plan by THINKING about it, then you change your mind, you shouldn't be able to get arrested. There is also probably some places who consider voluntary abandonment a defense. I think conspiracy is a little more than just thinking. It involves a step by agreeing, and I think in some places it involves a step beyond that too as well. State example:
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=PEN&...
But even when one is guilty of conspiracy, or attempt but hasn't done it yet, I do not agree it needs to be treated as the same. That's just insane and morally wrong.
As for complicit, you mean aiding someone into committing a crime?
How the hell does possessing a picture of something that ALREADY been done (after the fact?) the same thing? Do you not understand how the law works?
If someone did not make it yet, and then someone aided the person into committing it, then the person did, then yes the person who aided is guilty as the same. If someone aided, but the crime didn't happen, it could be a conspiracy charge.
If the crime has ALREADY been done, but THEN the person tried to aid but was too late, then I don't see how such person can get arrested as an accessory before the fact.
Here is complicit, by the way: http://www.dictionary.com/browse/complicit
For your last paragraph, as I already explained, how exactly did that possessed CAUSED it to be made, when it's already been made?
If you're talking about future things, I believe (and correct me if I'm wrong with some official links) it may require a direct aiding. Increasing a view of an existing number doesn't sound like proof to me.
For your other comment:
Don't forget, I don't depend on popular opinion all the time. I am one of those people who questions stuff within taboo subjects.
Popular opinion does not equal to being right all the time.
Account abandoned and probably will make a new anonymous account with no trace of evidence of it being me. I think it's justified.
Also, here are some other things things.
State stuff:
https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2487&context=mlr
http://revisor.mo.gov/main/OneSection.aspx?section=562.041&bid=29188&hl=
Country law according to this page involving another subject:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/3
Stuff I've found online. The second one should be a statute, the first one I'm not too sure, but it might be a government website. The last might be a government site too. No .gov on two links so not sure but they could be right I guess.
Account abandoned and probably will make a new anonymous account with no trace of evidence of it being me. I think it's justified.
It's actually not a "popular" idea at all; nobody likes being reminded that their sweater was made in a sweatshop, and they are a necessary and complicit part of a system that requires sweatshops. The reason this argument has stuck around is because it is correct.
You're thinking of cause and effect linearly, as compared to systematically. Child pornography is created by a criminal industry, which is a system. The buying, selling and redistribution of child pornography is an integral part of the system; without it, the system could not exist.
Now, there will always be a certain amount of people who just enjoy creating child pornography, and they will do it regardless of whether a system is in place; but this is not the vast majority of why child pornography is created. A creator makes the product, a consumer buys the product, which gives the creator more capital to make more product, so, yes, the possession of child pornography directly harms future victims.
I mean, once again, this is Philosophy 101 stuff. Scratch that, this is "essay given to you to read and write an essay in response during Composition 1" stuff. At this point, my main concern is not that outside observers think I'm not right; I'm more worried they're rolling their eyes at me for being trite.
Seriously, I sound like I'm a high on pot freshman.
"IT'S all A SYSTEM, mannnnnnn. Dude, I'm telling you, you gotta get out of there, mannnnn, get off the grid, get away! IT'S ALL A SYSTEM! A SYSTEM! ... dude, where are the Cheetos?"
That's the level of discourse you've brought me to, Diamond Man.
Back to the note of bold and some quoting not being 100% correct due to html overwritten.
"because it is correct."
Oh yeah? Let's see then...
"You're thinking of cause and effect linearly, as compared to systematically. Child pornography is created by a criminal industry, which is a system. The buying, selling and redistribution of child pornography is an integral part of the system; without it, the system could not exist. "
Yes, that is true, but not all people are trying to promote it.
Seeing a picture doesn't directly mean the person is asking the person for example. See, if the criminal industry did it because of a view, that is the criminal's fault. Don't forget too, some viewers could be police men tracking down the criminal too. Are you saying the police man is directly hurting children in the future?
If I witness something, am I now "directly hurting" someone all of a sudden?
"A creator makes the product, a consumer buys the product, which gives the creator more capital to make more product, so, yes, the possession of child pornography directly harms future victims."
I think I'm gonna leave the "buying" part out for now and use the possession part alone in. For example, when a viewer possesses, without asking for more and/or any other bad thing, but the maker did more of it anyway, that's the maker's own fault.
"I mean, once again, this is Philosophy 101 stuff. Scratch that, this is "essay given to you to read and write an essay in response during Composition 1" stuff. At this point, my main concern is not that outside observers think I'm not right; I'm more worried they're rolling their eyes at me for being trite."
I feel though, that you're not understanding the basic forms of moral deserts here, and that if I had to agree with your fear based arguments, then that means so much more things will "hurt" others. We might as well ban fictional violence and fictional certain porn if I had to agree with your opinion.
For your second comment, I feel like you're all high in your own head, a person who thinks they knows everything.
And I assume you 1-stared my whole comment...
Account abandoned and probably will make a new anonymous account with no trace of evidence of it being me. I think it's justified.
Wow, I was so f***ing right. Many people here refuse to take criticism, and will 1-stared comment anyway because "f**k you, I'm upset." or a "hahahahah wut...!".
Yeah folks, argument against my arguments failed to see anything new and interesting? My comments (or kinda censored comments) won't change anything.
The only other person that might actually KNOW how to debate on this subject is this Pokemon fan, which of course gets 1-started a lot by the cult maybe because that person dared question a belief. And with research.
Account abandoned and probably will make a new anonymous account with no trace of evidence of it being me. I think it's justified.
I did not one star your comment. I don't do that. You do that.
I also don't whine about my posts being one starred. You do that.
That's your "debate" style in a nutshell. It's okay when you one star comments, but it's not okay if I do. You attack your opponent with whatever means you have at hand, but your opponents have to keep civil. You hold me to higher standards than you hold yourself. You're not very smart, and most of your problems with my arguments boil down to a basic inability to understand them, but this is actually a moral failing on your part.
I may attack you personally, and that may be a moral failing, but I don't complain when you attack me personally in kind. I don't like hypocrisy, Diamond Man.
Not sure if I said you did exactly.
Don't remember me saying that.
I already gave my reasons why I complaint. It depends.
Give me one example of me personally attacking you.
Diamond Man, Feb. 3, 2018, 00:01
Diamond Man,
Feb. 2, 18:58
Diamond Man, Feb. 3, 2018, 00:01
Again, Diamond Man,
Feb. 2, 18:58.
This is literally two out of the three last comments you've made in this thread, Diamond Man. Come on.
"Suppose to be the case, without proof."
If it's the same thing as claiming, then you won that argument, I guess?
I don't know if that's enough to be a personal attack. I was just saying it felt like you're one of those guys who thinks that you know everything when you kept saying something about certain porn was directly harmful.
Hey, I was thinking about this comment I'm replying to now, and honestly while I don't want to argue in this thread anymore, I figured there can actually be issues with the viewing problem after all, though, it might depend. Please I guess take my comment I'm replying to with as much grain as salt possible.
I came up with examples that if there was a situation where a maker uploads it and believes that a view = "Yes, make more", then I wonder if that's the same as "moral support"?
Though, I'm not sure. Many viewers of such porn may never know who's behind it and some who make it shouldn't be part of the criminal industry maybe.
I still want the law to require more proof if it's not a law, though, especially since that can be worrying when it comes to other things. After all, it's the same with fictional stuff, and so on.
I wanted to edit my comment, but couldn't.
In the end, please don't look up that stuff, and please follow the law! My comment shouldn't be taken as a lawyer. My thoughts at research might be wrong.
Account abandoned and probably will make a new anonymous account with no trace of evidence of it being me. I think it's justified.
You know what, fuck it, I'm gonna five star that.
Some humility; I really didn't think you were capable of saying anything negative about yourself.
I only said it because I don't want to be responsible for anyone doing something that actually gets them into trouble I think. I hate to be the guy to give wrong advice. I'm not saying I'm right, but same with the opposite I guess.
I still need to believe it's not directly harmful, or else that would mean a LOT of other things, but I don't want people to get wrong advice on the whole aiding subject, the solicitation subject, conspiracy subject and/or other subjects. Same if it's two of any in case "and/or" isn't exactly what I hope it means.
Account abandoned and probably will make a new anonymous account with no trace of evidence of it being me. I think it's justified.
Just take the compliment and move on, fuck.
The problem, Diamond Man, is not that you asked for proof of whatever you're asking for proof of (though hardly anyone has even made a claim here; isn't that supposed to be part of logic to understand that?) or that you don't "depend on" emotion (though the only people who always and completely disregard peoples' emotions are, in my experience, those with a pathological, fundamental inability to understand them anyway), it's that you're annoyingly demanding that people engage you on a subject that isn't exactly an enjoyable thing to talk about with random people on the Internet. And, can't speak for others, but you're creeping me out detailing all the loopholes you think you've found to make it okay when nobody fucking asked, and when your eagerness to continue the topic gets rebuffed, you keep going anyway.
Actually, I've talked with Rakuen on the subject before. And even though I don't think I changed his mind at all, I think it was a good discussion. On Twitter of all places, with a 140 character count limit! Your problem is not that nobody here is capable of discussing the finer points of a subject, it's that nobody wants to discuss them with you.
I made a disagreement and wanted to argue, then you replied making an argument, naturally letting me ask for proof since that's usually a good way to argue. If someone said I'm "stupid" or "terrible", they are making an argument. They must be good at it, or else it's just a bad argument.
Also... I was responding to something that was ALREADY an argument. Nobody asked for that comment, either then.
If you respond to me with some immature selfish "hole" picture like that, you lost the argument and you are just an asshole yourself. And remember, you WERE arguing with me.
Account abandoned and probably will make a new anonymous account with no trace of evidence of it being me. I think it's justified.
No, I was laughing at you. You have a silly sense of logic where you expect everyone to follow rules you make up as you go along, you can't structure a sentence so that I know what you're saying a third of the time, and you think laughing that someone killed themselves is violating their "natural" rights, and you're content to go on talking no matter what anyone wants, so why would I try to argue with you?
Right now, you are arguing, and right now you said you were laughing at me because I made certain points you probably don't agree with. Pointing that out. If you post a picture like that after I argued, it's as if you argued back with that... Even if somehow that wasn't exactly the same, it's still a response to it.
I never said laughing that someone killed themselves is violating their natural rights. I was saying it was just immature, and wrong in another sense. How do you like it if someone did that to one of your closest family members?
Account abandoned and probably will make a new anonymous account with no trace of evidence of it being me. I think it's justified.
I'm not going to argue with you about how it'd make me feel, because emotions are bad and anti-logic.
Actually I was just laughing because someone all obsessed with logic and demanding Super Rational arguments from strangers believing in "natural rights" (the epitome of "it's true because I said so") is wildly amusing, and I asked a question to get you to elaborate.
Maybe you should be more clear. Posting a picture like that, is just stupid and immature. It just looks like you posted it out of the belief that I'm wrong with being upset.
I'm not a "because I said so" person. When I argue, at least I try. I'm not expecting myself to be as perfect as possible, and hey, if I did believe so, I probably wouldn't be asking for anything interesting, maybe?
Account abandoned and probably will make a new anonymous account with no trace of evidence of it being me. I think it's justified.
You censorially one-star people you think are wrong, I respond with sarcastic and immature pictures to people I think are wrong, different strokes, the world spins on.
I think it can be objective to view that making pictures like that in response to the argument, is an auto-lost.
My side is based upon trying, your side is "You're stupid because I said so, here's a joke picture.".
I think there can be a good argument talking about that.
Account abandoned and probably will make a new anonymous account with no trace of evidence of it being me. I think it's justified.
Okay, Diamond Man, because that's what it's about with you, the validation you feel when you get to say you win, you can win.
Perhaps I meant to say you suck are arguing. Maybe it's a bad idea to say "I won" like that, at least sometimes maybe. Or I could of said "I still have the further word."?
Account abandoned and probably will make a new anonymous account with no trace of evidence of it being me. I think it's justified.
RC Fox is Dead!
Thank fuck. One less Pedophile. I dont feel bad for his Family or any of his friends.
I feel bad for the kids in the videos he distributed and watched.
Post new comment