Monday, October 2, 2017

What Matthew Walther Doesn't Get About Morality

Just a while ago, (in July?) there was an article talking about the morality of "sex robots" and while I don't want to share a link in fear of violating rules, I will quote something near the end of the article.
The article has a picture of a random and what might be a robot doll that I can't tell if it's made for sexual purposes, that's why I'm not linking to it. Especially if it's a child robot doll.

But I want to address his last few paragraphs here:
Yet one imagines that Lin speaks for most people when he says that this cannot be countenanced. One could say that this is because it is possible that indulging in these appetites in an ostensibly harmless manner will sooner or later encourage pedophiles to seek out the real thing. But I doubt it.

The truth is that all of us at some level or another understand as if by instinct that certain desires are in and of themselves wrong. They should not be acted upon, placated, appeased, or in any sense met halfway. Most of us, one hopes, feel this way about pedophilia and bestiality (how far away are we, I wonder, from dog sex robots?), at the very least. It is the moral duty of people who want to hurt children or animals to banish such desires from their mind, to seek help, to pray — to do whatever it takes to ensure not only that they never carry out their fantasies but that they no longer have them. "Acting upon them" is beside the point; that anyone anywhere is contemplating such things is inherently evil.

Once this truth is acknowledged and it is accepted that certain impulses are immoral not simply because they have potential to lead to others' being harmed but because they are in themselves wicked, it becomes much more difficult to make the usual facile arguments in favor of everything from legalized marijuana to secular liberals' redefinition of marriage. The argument is no longer about abstract "harm" but about those old stalwarts good and evil.

Liberalism is going to need a new toolbox.
This part was talking about someone who has made child sex dolls and was claiming that such things can actually cause pedophiles to avoid acting upon it toward real children. Though (and I'm sorry if I misread this) this person goes against this in a way by dictating that it's wrong to have the fantasy itself either out of fear or some other personal reason.

Normally sort of, I would get extremely angry at this and then write a more "salty version" of my response since I'm deeply for the freedom rights of others in the privacy in another home, but however maybe I'll try to be a bit more calm and open about one side and another a lot more.

I do not agree about calling a fantasy itself wrong, but when it comes to a fantasy that not only has an attraction toward children, but including the idea of having sex with one that is not consenting, then it's a very interesting topic. The same goes for wanting to have sex with an animal and wanting the animal to not consent at the same time. The fantasy of those two may contain the attraction but they also contain the fantasy of actually directly hurting another. The second part of each is sufficient to be wrong alone, so no matter what you have or even don't have, if you have any desire or desires to directly cause harm then that can be bad.

That's the part that seems very blurry. I do believe that those who has that kind of fantasy with their sexual identity should get help to have it change. The fantasy of just having sex with young looking people and/or animals though, should (and probably cannot be changed) not change. Why? Because sexual attraction is not about directly having sex with another without consent, as consent and non-consent are separated. It's just that being a pedophile for example toward real children can contain a serious risk because children in the real world doesn't consent. Though, sexual attraction can be used as an alternative toward fictional concepts or half such as an adult acting and dressing up like a child.

When you have a mere attraction alone and wish to act on it by itself, it's very possible that someone with that can actually have the personality of refusal to have sex with real life children because they can know that it is wrong to do so. However, they want to be happy and may prefer masturbation to fictional concepts (e.g. fictional pornographic pictures of children) because those people are not real, and can be different in terms of "consent" inside the fantasy.
The same goes with non-human animals and that one is even more blurry. As a furry, I am actually attractive to four-legged characters but my fantasies usually involve "unrealistic" things involving super intelligence certain creatures and the obvious form of consent. Though we don't fully know if animals in the real world can (and there is some proof of "reverse bestiality" though) consent but my point is I'm trying to make is this: Does it matter? Even if I am slightly attractive to a real-world animal because of my fantasy (similar body parts?), that doesn't mean I will (or even fully want to) act on those animals because they are very different.
Perhaps my personal example is probably not even enough to be someone who is into "bestiality" but I might of heard that several zoosexuals believe that it's wrong to have sex with one but will prefer alternative directions alone. Some could be stuffed animals, some could be costumes, and other safe things. If someone has more personality with real animals, such the increased personalities can still be used for alternative forms of things that are clearly safe.

Because of this, this is basically no different than how being attractive to adults in the real world can be risky. It's possible an adult can not consent, and it's also possible some adults will never consent to even having sex at all. Does this mean that the sexual attraction is "wrong" because it can be used to have sex with those that are currently not consenting and/or those that will never consent?
If it's not because you can easily go toward an adult that can and is currently consenting, then the same must be said for zoosexuals and even the more risky, pedophiles. There are alternatives just like this even if such practice is based on so-called "unrealistic" thoughts.

So to say that it's wrong anyway when it's not directly the same as actually going out in the future to rape someone, then that is like calling every attraction wrong and anything else that is risky (e.g. owning a gun) wrong too. But to say it's wrong to have a fantasy including the fantasy to directly rape an actual being, then I can sort of agree.

The idea of "not violating another" is not an old meaning. Freedom for all and rights for is not something you can have with any other thing that are considered so-called "moral" or "morals".
If you went in and violated the will of another doing no harm directly, then you have done harm yourself. That's why the moral of equal is a lot more special than it sounds to some.

If you rape a child, you have committed a wrong. If you throw someone to prison for merely masturbating to a fake child, then you have also committed a wrong.
The rule to freedom is that you are free to do whatever as long if it doesn't effect (and/or will 100% effect it later) anyone. So when you go out and dictate that a mere attraction is wrong no matter why you think that, then you are against freedom, and that's wrong.

The moment you are against anything that's by itself victimless and isn't going to create a victim later on 100%, then you clearly don't respect the moral of respecting the lives of other people equally.

I also like to note that a risk is not the same thing as directly happening. All freedom has a risk, and therefor to say that a "sex doll" of any kind is wrong because of a risk, then that's exactly the same as saying "Freedom is wrong" because "Freedom" is supposed to be risky by nature.
Traffic is risky, owning guns is risky, and any other thing that isn't directly violating anyone. It entirely depends on the person.

If you understood my point then thank you. If you have any open suggestions, please leave a comment saying what they are as long if it's not illegal. Respect the law!

Thursday, September 21, 2017

Why JettTheWolf696 is an Online Bully + History

This article may get edited in the future.
There is a possible glitch forcing some text to be small. I suggest using the zoom tool if there is one.
Hello, I am a victim of the abuse this person did to me in the past.
The person has continued making mentions in the past, lied, and actually sent a disturbing comment toward me before. I am also a witness of the abuse this person has done to several other people. 

 Why I'm Doing This
Well I already explained kinda above this smaller title, but I think another reason why this needed to be made was because I am filled with so much weird pain and past abuse he's done to me and possibly another guy. Recently, this person couldn't stop mentioning me with crap, refused to change for the better, then I found a bigoted post from him complaining about other people being happy with what he finds "disturbing" and started dictating that it's wrong for others to express harmless "disturbing" stuff because of what haters think. Note that "haters" who hate on furries don't have a good reason.

I just don't really know how to say this so well, but from my own experience, he's just a terrible, lying, hypocritical, a nut and a cyberbully I've met in the past.
Sadly, this is also complicated because it's a big type of history type of post too.

 Main Info About JettTheWolf696
Also known as: RedPyramid206, JettAshfeild, JettAshfield, ValtielWolf, and possibly more.
According to an old comment found, his real name might be Chris Ashton but I'm not sure.
JettTheWolf696's farthest history I believe is that he used to use a name called "RedPyramid206" and I believe he was a fan of Silent Hill. Today, he generally loves BlackBlood Alliance (best credit?) but also according to stories, he's also had a trolling history of trolling an entirely different wolf character area having nothing to do with BlackBlood Alliance. He's also known for enjoying cyber abuse sites that has the word "dramatica" in the title.
His possible main profile is located here at

At this time (8/28/2017?), he doesn't know very much skill on how to draw, and the stuff he uses are not his but were possibly requested drawings from him.

He also doesn't tolerate freedom of expression as the moment someone expresses something harmless and is considered "disturbing", he will try to make the person look bad, and publicly attempt to shame anyone who uploads anything he consider "disturbing" or "offended".
Why he's a Bad Person
While he should still be respected as a person, he shouldn't be viewed as a good one.

JettTheWolf696 (Chris Ashton) has had a major diseased past involving other people in the past. He's trolled other groups because he hated the groups for whatever reason he's had, he's posted so much crap not being true, he's also acts like he would be "nice" to other artists but bashes some other artists because it's not his thing, he's lied, he's played as other accounts and lied about it, he's promoted harassment, possible libel, started drama with other people, attempted to dictate a group, and teamed up with other jerks against people like me.

Will this article just be left like this? Of course not! There will be sections.


He's Trolled Another Wolf Group in 2011
Sadly it's very hard to find evidence but I remember hearing something that he was part of a troll attack toward an Alpha and Omega group somewhere. I may need to do further research on this later.

He's Lied and Trolled and/or Promoted Trolling   
I'm afraid to say I don't know everything he's done on the internet. However I've been experiencing some problems with him on some years. He's trolled the Alpha and Omega Fanpop fan club with several accounts and usually in those times he's used other account names and attempt to hide his identity.
One of his trolling was under an account name called Sound_Wave_. Though he never directly admit it from his main account except this one time:
(Comment is now hidden by JettTheWolf696 (also the same JettAshfeild account).
About a year later, it was discovered that "JettAshfield" has posted a comment on Reddit:
Sadly though Kishin_Kira (JettTheWolf696) apparently claimed this person isn't him. He claimed he was a stalker of his... even though it's very questionable as to why this person believed a certain user was "wwwarea" and how similar the behavior was. He claimed he wasn't him when the same "certain user" just went on and said that he founded something on Google (The Reddit post) without even mentioning him.


Sometime (months?) later there was another troll in the name of  MRMCPANCAKE69 on the same fan club trolling the place. When the hero "certain user" went in and said another Google comment without being specific again, out of nowhere Kishin_Kira (JettTheWolf696) complaint to the comment and acting like he's not the troll or a similar comment maybe and also acted like a jerk.

What was found in Google?
A disqus account of Jett Ashfeild with a very similar icon.

The snapshot is showing two different accounts but put together to show how silly this became and the comparison.

It's not 100% proof according to the snapshot but just look at it and you tell me!

As of recently, it's very possible he came into the "wwwarea" account on DeviantArt disguised as an Alpha and Omega 7 (or 8) sequel fan to defend himself against the criticism calling out a mention I think. The account had favorites filled with pictures of wolves from BBA (A thing JettTheWolf696 is a very big fan of) in favorites, has commented on journals randomly defending JettTheWolf696, and acting hypocritical with the whole "opinion" thing like JettTheWolf696 often acts on. Then soon after, the account was closed.
Problem though is that it's still not very strong evidence to me... but I just wanted to put this out there.

He Doesn't Respect Personal Opinion
The trolling can of course, be part of this. But I wanted to show a bit more of this title and have it as a main focus in this section of the article.
 He usually claims he "respects opinions" or in a similar title. Here is a snapshot of him claiming he "respects" opinions:

An example too. So anyway as he often acts like he "respects" opinions. He doesn't and plus the moment someone slightly disagrees with his argument, he goes out and complain to the person disagreeing with the person. I might show an example of that in a little bit.

Examples of his Hypocrisy and bad Behavior with no Order:
Him complaining about a victimless fictional legal fan fiction because he finds it disturbing.

The same guy complaining about the victimless fictional because he's offended.

Agreeing to others complaining about the same creator's opinion of the fanfiction.

All because HumphreyWolfMan disagreed nicely and had an opinion by defending a completely victimless fictional story.
Recently too, just showing more anything he's offended and disturbed by, he refuses to tolerance other's personal opinion that are different than his.

He's Hypocritical
I've already shown some examples above this title.
He generally acts like he "respects" opinions but then doesn't.
Another example of this is that he goes on and accuses me of not respecting him because I didn't tolerate his opinions that is already intolerant to others, yet when I say my opinions as to what he believes, he doesn't tolerate it. 

He goes out against anything he finds super disturbing to him and makes up a reason against so-called "pedophilia" stories because (correct me if I'm wrong) he has children of his own and wants to become a father, but yet he makes fan stories about wolves and humans in loving relationship ways.
So he minds what he believes to be pedophilia against cubs that don't look like humans out of fear, yet he's fine with Zoophilia like things when people like me can have a fear of him raping animals?
And uhhhhh...

He also goes on accusing someone like me of mentioning him and say he hasn't talked to me in months.. Yet, he make mentions about me just like how the journals are mentioning him. He basically is acting that he can make mentions but I can't. Not sure if this is exactly hypocritical but still pretty sad.

Also did I mention that when HumphreyWolfMan talks bad about a certain fanfiction of JettTheWolf696's, he goes on and attempt to directly contact the person and complain?

He Might Discriminate and Personally Attack Others
Already mentioned some discrimination and personal attacks above somewhere.
If he knows anyone who's even slightly attractive to fictional cubs that don't look like humans, he might harass you, attempt to publically call it out, and/or personally attack you by saying "get help", "that's wrong", and/or other forms of discrimination. Even to people who are not attractive to children at all, and/or has a main attraction to adult things.

He Wants People in Prison for Having Certain Thoughts
Along with personal attacks and false lies.
The fact that he wants to hurt people by desiring non-consensual imprisonment for a victimless act such as thought is disgusting.

He Wants to Throw People in Prison for Just Attraction
He has expressed several hints of this and one comment was very clear, but however, I cannot show that commit as it was found under a post that encourage unlawful killing. Which I reported to the site.
Other comment(s):
 Along with personal attacks.

He Spreads False Information About me
Kinda did show some snapshots showing. But generally I found a comment from him and I could of swear it claimed that I said "Children consent" when I never said that. If he's talking about the post where I researched and heard a child might say "yes", he's still wrong I argue because I thought I argued that it's not enough to consent? I cannot show snapshot because it's under a terrible post I don't want to share. Here is this however:


The irony. I know this isn't the section... but while he's worried about someone raping children over a fanfiction involving fictional cubs looking nothing like children, I'm worried about his life when it comes to his love for wolves, and these comments.
Of course, I'm not saying I don't tolerate his personal likes for fictional characters and other things legal, but I mainly wanted to expose how bias he is and compared mine as the same in general which he doesn't tolerate maybe.


There you have it. I've suffered from his delusions and hypocrisy before. He's a cyberbully, he's a liar, he's hypocritical, he doesn't take criticism, he may depend on popular haters, he's clearly an asshole (probably connected with some of the things I've said on here), and he's possibly bigoted.

Research Stuff

This article is probably protected by the First Amendment:

Sunday, April 2, 2017

TimberHumphrey AKA Niko Zguri - Bullying and Other Problems

This is not Humphrey or maybe this is Humphrey making a face reaction to the other person.
 Some of his profiles:
Disclaimer: I do not approve of some things of what he does.

Timber Humphrey is named Niko Zguri and usually likes to give thoughts about movies and favorites his kind of things.
Usually he's not very popular and apparently has a belly button fetish which is fine.
Back then he believed in the free speech to disagree with anyone attempting to call out his favorite movie "Alpha and Omega" but then he thinks he doesn't and always seem to claim that others are allowed to have "opinions". (Note: Disagreeing alone doesn't violate free speech)

Sadly, he's two-faced. I mean, he's hypocritical, and he's also done other bad things and he's became so bad that words cannot describe him anymore. He has severally attacked ANYONE who disagrees with him. And lied to several people like me about him so called "respecting" the idea of people having their own opinions.

He's used multiple accounts to attack Norm of the North fans on Youtube and failed to admit his mistakes whenever someone like me calls him out on that.
He attacks me whenever I speak with my opinion on many problems.
He literally, and I mean literally became so bad that he threatened a person called Tom Kane to write his name on the Death Note if it was real because he hates it when an artist does something he doesn't like with Alpha and Omega.

He always thinks that "hate on A&O" is A-OK.. But in the end, he's only for hate. And I mean hate.
Anytime someone defends something, someone standing up for themselves, and so on, he acts like they aren't allowed to do that.. Anything for the positive agenda is a crime in his eyes.

Examples of his Online Bullying and Threats

He threats violence

 He death wishes and would try to cause death if death note was real

xNickTheBestx is TimberHumphrey and that picture is a "death note".
He has severally and openly attacked me online

He's completely hypocritical
He often accuses me of being some form of "attacker" just because I stated why I don't agree with a critic's viewpoint, and he's always claim he "respects" opinions.

Yet, he supports the same thing toward critics:

And yet, kinda like what I've already shown, he does not respect anyone who defends anything he doesn't like.

Uses "Mentally Retarded" as Insult to Some Critics for Praising of "The Star"
Also hypocritical.

There is plenty more, and I mean it.
For now, let's just leave this out.

Timber Humphrey is officially the worst Alpha and Omega fan I've ever met in my life and hope to god I don't ever meet him. The fact that he's threatened the worst of the worst to a creator for a movie shows that he's a major threat.
He blames victims, attacks fanfiction creators, attacks anyone who likes a film he doesn't like, he threats major problems, he thinks everything (except my speech and everything else he hates) is criticism (he disguises bullying as just "calling out"), he's a HUGE hypocrite, and with everything I said, he's an online bully, and a threat.
And yes, he calls me out for calling him out for legitimate reasons I have.

  • Timber will likely hide the accusations toward him calling him out and likely pick a random possible mistake (or so-called mistake) of the other person instead.
  • He will likely NEVER take criticism unless a large group sends amount of criticism toward him maybe
  • He will call everything he said and/or other forms of insults, attacks, and so on "criticism" and treat it the same as ACTUAL criticism.
  •  He attacks people for other fetishes not his own.
  • He attacks people's existence (worse than homophobia).
  • He believes in the worst of the worst. 
  • He will likely lie to you.
  • He will likely comment on this article page. 
  • Without arguments, he will likely insult you, attack you and other forms... unless you agree to him.
Want me to add more? OK. But please note there will be some comments I cannot show.

And yes, this article of history is protected by the First Amendment unless it's legally not allowed: