Channeleven (5) Creepypasta (4) Criticism (38) Hall of Shame (27) Info About Some Stuff (47) Introvert (1) JettTheWolf696 (2) My Little Pony (6) Previews (2) Reviews (3) Speech (19) Stories (13) Theories (15) Tips (1) Very Interesting (9) Wolfaboo (3) World Issues (55) wwwarea (2)
Showing posts with label Info About Some Stuff. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Info About Some Stuff. Show all posts

Thursday, February 1, 2018

Flayrah is a Terrible Furry Site - Review

Don't know what happened to it's unique design. It used to have a style for it's title.

Flayrah is a site that delivers news, opinion, reviews, fiction, artwork, and "original" work.
The general motto is "furry food for thought", which is based off "food for thought".

Is Flayrah really an interesting furry site that considers "food for thought" to a lot of people though? Is it a healthy site for communities to be treated as welcoming people? Does it have a fair system for debate? And is the news usually about interesting furry stuff?

No, no, no, and... kinda? For the "kinda" part, it's not exactly what you would expect.

Some Is Interesting, Many Aren't
Many parts of the website does indeed talk a lot about furry stuff, after all, it's a furry focused site, which includes four-legged anthropomorphic characters.
However, I do not agree that just showing a furry art piece is itself interesting, and the sad problem about the site is that most of the posts are usually reviews, news of random crime, and possibly other things with little to no interesting information.
Perhaps maybe at least most of the reviews can have interesting content in them?

Sadly I so far failed to find any interesting criticism in a review I think.
One of the worst reviews I've seen was an Alpha and Omega review (the first movie's) which clearly stifles creativity by trying to call out the designs because it's not the person's thing. One of the worst parts about such review is this:
"Most characters don't stand out on their own in any way; the exceptions are sometimes for the wrong reasons. Eve (Kate's mother), for example, stands out for having a nose at least twice the size of anyone else in the film."
Even though, many movies has always had "wacky" designs on different characters of the same species before. The reason is likely because if you make them look too similar, they won't look as unique.

Many parts of the review does nothing but insult the creator's creativity and then suggesting a message which stifles creativity instead. There is nothing "food for thought" about the review, it's just a person who is being biased and unfair.

Speaking of "biased", another person made another review with a title in reaction to me talking about the subject of "biased" here. Was that one an interesting message? Well, it sounded nothing new, that argument is based upon what most people would think.

I think this should be considered food for thought for example:
Even though it's my article, I still argue it's a good argument despite me not being that good at writing. The article (or journal) linked argues a main belief that has barely been addressed and attempts to show something a lot of people may have never thought of before. It's *ahem*... something to think about, isn't it?

There are some articles that at least try to give criticism, but does that automatically make it food for thought? Are they alone interesting?

The Main Community
What counts as the main community? That would be anyone who comments and has an account. Guests might however count too especially if they have an account already. On here though, we may depend on the majority for this one and who is more known and is active. It's really impossible for a website to have everyone who is part of the community to behave the same. There may always be that one person who does disruptive behavior.

When it comes to many active and more known people commenting, it's not so good. Most of the time, it's one sided, and anyone who attempts to criticize a point may cause emotional uproar just like an average social media site where a questionable opinion is more popular than the other and anyone who disagrees will get bashed. In fact maybe, some people act like I wasn't allowed to disagree with a point in a review because they think reviews can't be questioned maybe. This emotional problem can cause drama, and if there is such system, some may attempt to rate comments to a low score out of an irrational mindset instead of an rational one. Some systems can have a "hide" system within it, and many good interesting comments can be hidden while irrational garbage comments gets praised instead. This tries ruins a good healthy relationship within the community.
Another problem is that some members are clearly assholes, as some are more for personal insults.

Yet, another problem is that the site tries to give this illusion of "reputation" and possibly another sense, making many users feel scared of possibly posting interesting criticism. This is perhaps one of the most depressing feelings to ever have on this site, and the main issue here is that some of the major problems mentioned in this sub section of the article may cause such bad feeling.

It's also possible some furries have left the site due to the community problems.

Some Pictures

A user leaving due to Flayrah's problems. I do not want to mention who, and I ask anyone else to not speak of the person's name as I assume the person doesn't want that due to a post I've seen. I do not want to drag this person into drama, thanks.
According to the user (2cross2affliction), I've somehow been rude for... having my own criticism?
Also, to be safe, here is a comment from me regarding that porn:
"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."
My comment on top, insulting comment below my comment.
Reaction (bottom comment) to my comment.
Telling me to leave. Possible hypocrisy in comment.
2cross2affliction being a complete dick now on another thread.
Part of one of 2cross2affliction's comments.
Speaking of this person (2cross2affliction), he's admitted he's rude, but I don't know if I'm wrong but to me it's as if he gets to be rude, but I can't... While that's stupid, I still argue many of the things he said is "rude" isn't rude. Anyway, this guy is seriously causing a lot of problems. He even said I'm "no victim" as if that's always the case for his mistakes just because of a mistake I could of done on there for example.

Bottom comment.
Insulting me as a writer.
Again, another insult. Coming from a Pokemon fan who gives direct links to Pokemon pornography on Deviantart.

The Rating System and Why It's Flawed
In some snapshots here on this article, you may noticed a row of stars in the count of 5. It's the rating system, a system that allows members and even guests to vote on a comment and/or article. One star is considered the poorest, and five stars is considered "Awesome".

The problem with this system is that it usually allows others to consider interesting criticism to be considered "poor" while terrible comments get praised. When it comes to emotional subjects, it gets rather abused heavily. If someone for example tried to question the popular belief among the majority of the site, the comment will likely be rated as "poor" (one star), even if you give out good links to studies. When it comes to pages like that, a lot of people there seem to be more irrational than rational. That type of behavior attempts to bash anyone who dares question some beliefs, not only reacting badly, and rating the comments down, but when a comment is rated very down, the comment will be "hidden", and you would have to click on it to actually see it, making it easier to miss the comment.

Here is a snapshot I already posted to show something that's kinda an example:
Note: I probably voted my own comment because of how unfair it was.

"Poor" votes can also happen due to just hatred for the person and I might be a victim of that too.

Why do we even have a rating system in the first place? It's unfair, and by unfair, I mean in this general problem I'm already trying to address. This rating system can also cause others to be scared to post their opinions and/or good solid points. It's mainly a tool to hide others, a tool that causes fear, and a tool that gets used in an attempt to abuse good points, and/or things that may be interesting in a good way.
The only good thing about it, is that it can also be used as a way to recommend good comments and/or comments not good or bad.

I suggest either one of these improvements for the system:
  • Ditched the "low ratings" and make a "like" system instead: Have comments have a "liked", or similar function instead.
  • Ditched any rating system.
  • Allow others to disable the ratings on their comments and article, publicly. Youtube does this for videos, by the way.
Of course, the only time I'm for deleting a comment entirely is if it was illegal.

Here is something GreenReaper (owner of website) partly said in a comment to me:
"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."
Yes, a consequence which causes multiple problems. Fear is one of those things. There can be some pretty bad arguments that is emotionally supported on the site, but due to ratings, some people are afraid to address it. Backlash can also be an issue.
For example, there is an argument claiming something of "Possession of certain porn creates a demand!" and that argument alone is itself a problem. I could say something like:
"That argument is based upon fear, and if merely possessing such porn "creates" a demand, then what about violence in video games? Doesn't that "create" a demand too? What about fictional certain porn? Won't that "create" a demand as well? What if the person possessed it for crime report? After all, the person DID view it after all, which must of effected the view count, "creating" a demand. I find that demand claim to be a poor argument. Demand should be literally mean what it means if I'm thinking right, not fear."
And what happens then? The comment will likely get 1-stared, then folded, and some making empty claims will get praised. I'm also sure 2cross2affliction will call that "wrong" and "evil" because that's what he does. He doesn't respect free speech (or rather naturally since the website may have legal rights to censor it), and he calls that type of disagreements "evil" and "wrong".

There wasn't really any attempt to make any interesting points back in such likelihood example.

The News
The news is perhaps slightly interesting. Though is that an excuse to judge it, though?
Well, first many news don't seem to offer any interesting points I think.

But at usual, it does it's job at reporting some furry related stuff. The odd part is that I often see crime reports involving children and I'm not so sure if reporting someone for possessing certain porn because the person is a furry does it's job right.

I also think certain news can rather promote harm to the individuals who need help. It's almost as if Flayrah is expecting a furry to be "perfect" and if not, they expose it like it's breaking news.

It's not a healthy furry site. It's more rotten in general. The community in general is poor, especially how part of the community acts to those who disagree with popular opinion, many "food" in some articles is more rotten, the ratings are unfair, and creates an unhealthy sense by causing fear. The news is perhaps the only slightly thing useful, but even that has problems sometimes.

The worst part about the site is probably the community. Not everyone is doing bad behavior, of course.


Also I don't think I'm so good at article editing. However I hope my article comes out clear enough. Article may get updated and has already been updated at times.

Thursday, January 18, 2018

What a Bunch of Bullcrap

The only reason why I still continue this is because of a story which can be found here:

These days, I normally don't make sub pages of other people. If I needed to add something, I would just add it to a single page if the single page is more of a general post about such person.

Anyway, according to what this article tries to talk about, this is a bunch of lies.

If he wasn't such a hypocrite on that, his post should of probably said something like this:
"Don't get me wrong, I am all for the freedom in voicing ones opinion, unless you think certain thoughts, like fictional cub porn, has certain opinions that are controversial to me, and/or if the expression is fictional child porn that is protected by the first amendment of the USA according to the 18 USC 1466A writing of that Wikipedia section involving the USA..."
And that's only for what I know so far?

Don't pretend you respect people's rights, JettTheWolf696.

That is all.

Also strongly important: Do not go searching child porn of any kind. That can get you into big trouble. If you are found guilty, you may not only get some form of punishment, but also be added to the sex offender registry for either life, or less (depends).

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:

Friday, February 12, 2016

wwwarea - Wolfaboo and Other Myths

Helping out someone. Since I'm leaving this blog, it's best to leave this last page out and to spread the truth against garbage trash based off things only appealing to emotion.

For months people has been abusing definitions, has been slandering, has been bullying, and promoting more abuse against 'wwwarea' on DeviantArt, since the Internet just lets pure garbage rise and the truth more hidden, it's time to help spread the truth again.
If you can't read the quotes, I suggest going to the links.

Spreading links and quoting the main parts from 'wwwarea' on DeviantArt:


 ≈═■▪■═╣Myths and Facts About Me╠═■▪■═≈
NEW: "You created this drama yourself" (7/16/2015)
No. Did I choose to make that video about me, choose to make that article, choose to make so much bigoted, untrue and slander about me, etc?
No I didn't. Those sick people are trying to blame the victim again, in a "You made me do this too you!" fashion.

"You're a bully/cyberbully."Now how am I a bully?
I been called a "bully" for standing up for myself, and standing up for others. I also been called one for simply bringing out there rude behavior over people not them.
I brought a person out for trying to humiliate others for having a 'fetish' over random things. But that's called constructive criticism, and for defending purposes
I been attacked and humiliated for having a different opinion about imaginary things.
I do not (or at least try a lot to not):

  • Make ED articles over random individuals
  • Mock, shame, etc. people for any part of their sexuality (This counts to 'fetishes' too)
  • Tell people what to think about themselves just because I said so
  • Bash furries
  • Slut-shame
  • Upload things like this, this, this, or even this for example. (btw, at least one of those contain defamatory.)
  • Mock, defame, humilate, expose secrets, insult, or some others about individuals publicly (All is not a requirement) for what they do, what they like, etc.
  • Depend on the majority about other people in a negative way
  • Force my personal opinions about a movie on others
  • More

"You're a wolfaboo!"Now while Humanaboo is the mirror side of Wolfaboo, I apparently did defend 'Wolfaboo' at least until I heard that 'Wolfaboo' is meant to be about speciesism (just like Humanaboo), and that you must be OVER-obsessed with wolves and other requirements.

Though some say it's about treating wolves as equal (WTF?! Why is that "bad"?)?, but heard it's really about treating wolves as superior. I'm NOT so sure about this one: Official Wolfaboo Definition
Though, this does have some superior claim and of course, OVER-obsessed things. Like simply being 'obsessed' =/= wolfaboo. It's much more. Even Bean said something like that to me (Correct me if wrong of course).

Besides, me falling in love with 'imaginary' anthropomorphic talking wolves from a 'wolf movie' and personality like them as 'Gods' it's self, doesn't make me a wolfaboo.
I even acknowledge that RL wolves here is very different maybe. Though I DO believe that yes, not all wolves are dangerous (And I think it's stereotype to say they are too, just as much as the opposite) and they CAN learn from humans, and may have 'secret spirits' like you know, that cool 'animal spiritually' thing?
btw, I know a bully who denies news (which reports actual science research too) and continue to cause more bigoted views.

"You attack people who don't like this Alpha and Omega movie!"Now when the flying f*** did I actually ATTACK anyone for not liking this movie? Oh wait, because I wanted to disagree with some reviewers? Because I wanted to simply argue them, and give my opinion back? Since when is giving actual disagreement an "attack"? And considering, I am allowed to do that, especially to unfair criticism.
"But you attacked an anti-Alpha-and-Omega group!"Well maybe it's because the group allowed to give an opinion on it? And that it was more of a 'disapproval' opinion and criticism? And considering the one who made the group went to actual fan groups and attacked them, and forcing the hatred opinion on others who liked it? And tried to get people who were not forcing anyone 'there thing' to read that hate message about fans, while fans on the other hand, DON'T make others like it. Or for that one harmless side.

I'll admit, I might of reacted a bit 'too much' about that group, like when I said 'Go boycott it' during an upload or something. I think I deleted that. But remember, the guy who made the group pretty much was not behaving about it either. And called all fans 'autistic wolfaboos', yes, an offensive anti-disability message and offensive directly to fans. While at least some fans didn't do that to those who simply disliked it.
And besides, during that time and outside of the time, I never once MADE ANYONE actually LIKE it. I was completely fine for those who disliked it I think, but there is a difference of 'disliking' vs 'going out and acting on that'. And take a guess of what I was focusing on. Go on, take a guess...

"You are a bad person for defending furries and fetishes!"
How am I a bad person for defending Freedom of Expression?
Simply being a furry and/or having a 'fetish' as one or not, doesn't hurt anyone, but trying to shame people for being either one (or both) does hurt, and according to a lot of psychology research, 'Emotional Abuse' is linked to 'actual pain'.
I'm sorry, but if people are allowed to talk crap about people with a harmless 'fetish', then I'm sure those people are allowed to talk bad about you back, or stand up for themselves. (or both).
Note: The only reason why they call them "sick" is because it's not their fetish, and that maybe they depend on the majority, which btw, is all just biases, which is clearly no different than a anti-gay/hetero person going out and calling 'Homosexuality and Heterosexual' sick.
I see no different as they are both based off the same 'personality'.
If having (for example) a 'furry fatty' fetish is disgusting, then it's clearly fair for me to say that "Two humans kissing is far worse than scat" then. They are both valid as they are all based off personality traits then. And no, 'popularity' =/= good argument. Who said it is?

"But you defend ALL fetishes, and that includes pedophile!"Let's preach again: Having a fetish is fine, as long if you don't go out and bloody hurt ANYONE. And that includes the so-called 'common' stuff.
The only pedophiles I would defend are: Those who don't go out and hurt, and/or those who regret. And I accept based off some criticism out there that arresting someone for doing something completely 'fictional' is f***ed up. Because nobody should be arrested for something so bloody victimless! It's wrong! It's just arresting someone for only thought-crime.
Seriously, and hell, I'm not the only one who has this idea as a careful thinker. (Well sometimes I'm not careful on everything)

"Fetishes are risky, so therefor, it's bad to have any one; bad to defend it"In the common heterosexual and homosexual world, there is so much more rape reports than those having a 'foot fetish', I'm sure.
But I'm sure it's about control in all. If I had to blame something you can control, then you might as well ban kids (so they don't get raped), ban traffic to avoid accidencts, ban ALL sexualities including Homosexuality and Heterosexuality, etc.

"You're not perfect"That's obvious due to some actual mistakes, but neither are you. (Yes, this myth is true)

"Defending fetishes, recolors, etc. violate my speech"
Now how on earth does using Freedom of Speech to defend something you hate violate yours? Are you bloody serious?!

"You're a bigot!"
For trying my best to argue? If that's true anyway, then everybody is a bigot!

"You're obese because your diabetic!"
I found this in a so-called "fact" list on that non-joke page about me. Apparently the OP creates the stereotype that all diabetics are 'fat'.
I am Type 1. Type 1 doesn't have a known cause, and this can happen to even skinny people. Though because of Type 1, I do suffer some weight issues now. But I'm still not what you think an obese person looks like...

"You're Selfish, Egoist, and 'Self-Centered'"
More bullcrap about me.
I don't really understand why someone thinks I'm those things for defending myself, disagreeing with people, and defending my friends.
"Yeah, I'm a really horrible person for doing that." *sarcasm*

"You don't back up any arguments!"
Umm, remember the time I linked to news side that actually had USEFUL information, news of actual science reports, definitions, etc?

"You are just like yourself on Fanpop"
Perhaps I cannot change my fights for Freedom and such.
But I never went back on there and did the same thing. The only thing I defend is idea of bypassing your ban just for the sake of your life, but only at the same time, regretting what you did and trying to start over yourself, even though Fanpop doesn't like ban evaders. But morally, I find nothing wrong with that.
As for here, I am allowed to make journals and stand up for myself, to avoid bullcrap about me, etc. It's within my rights, I have the Free Speech to speak up for myself, and etc.
For doing that, I am considered the "same person". Wow.

"You're delusional!"
How am I delusional? Anyone who said that to me, just wants to say it because they can't stand it when someone makes a good point about them.
Considering too, I was also called "delusional" for believing in the right to suicide.

NEW: "You support bestiality because you define four legged creatures as anthropomorphic!"  (Somewhere between 7/16/2015 and 7/14/2015 I think)
K, first of all, there actually is evidence of consent after doing research as a person who questions taboos, (and apparently the other way around is real, should that guy really be considered a rapist?)
But apparently, bestiality is actually a means to a creature who is 100% NOT human. If a four legged creature happens to talk, (especially show other human characteristics), then guess what? It doesn't count as bestiality. The feel and relationship seems to lean toward a creature who's really more different than a "dumb" animal (RL non-human animals) that has the same feelings as a human or beyond. Regardless of that, if they can talk like a human, then that should obviously be accepted by consent.
It does NOT MATTER if they 'Look' like a very different shape, what matters is the consent, and that's it. Otherwise, why the fuck should you judge an 'intelligent' looking creature that crosses species? It's still just a "human" inside of another shape's body. Just like walking dogs.
AND CONSIDERING, a walking anthropomorphic has 'parts' of an animal while this is kinda the same thing.

NEW: "__________John was right about wwwarea" (7/17/2015 - night)
He could never figure out how to make his claim "right".
Please don't ever listen to him (And I have the right to say that as he is involving me/my business)., he also accepted slanderous things about me, including a murder desire slander (Truth, I do not want to), made horrid harassing encouragement comments about me:…, (May report in ticket soon), and the fact that he keeps pretending his opinion is "right" over me, and etc.
He cannot argue, but he keeps dictating people about me just because, he thinks his opinion is "fact" over me when it can be argued that it's not, but he refuse to accept any debating; so in all, he's bigoted; look up "bigoted meaning" on Google.
He thinks I'm a "bad person" for making stamps, standing up against rude behavior against me (Standing up for myself), pretends I'm the same person from 'Fanpop', etc, etc. And his only possible argument is "Because he depends on 'who' and 'why'; he doesn't like it when I give my word.

BTW, if he says anything about me, then I am allowed to say anything about him back.

And sorry but I had to post this.

NEW: "I want to kill humans" (7/17/2015 - night)
Now when the hell did I say that? Because I am a misanthropic? Being a misanthropic =/= want to kill.

NEW: "You're not a victim" (7/17/2015 - night)
I didn't start it with the ED article, the video, etc. And sure, I made a mistake about the death thing, but I'm still one as I'm not the one who upload journals, articles, snapshots, etc, etc. about others in negative opinion ways.
EXAMPLE: I am a victim in THIS.

NEW: "You're a loony for what you believe in!" (9/13/2015 - night)
Apparently I been considered a "loony" by horrible people online (Including those who promote cyberbullying articles that advocate harassment, stalking, bigotry, etc).
All because I was being more open minded and more of a possible free thinker in spirituality, science, and maybe religion (sort of? idk).
Anyway, since when is it "loony" for having beliefs based off evidence, spiritual possibilities, and maybe more? It's natural and normal to reach this far out, and it's not delusional to be open minded by having faith based off evidence.
Clearly nobody clearly knows (maybe) about the spiritual world, souls, etc. Anyone callings someone "loony" for having "new" ideas makes that 'someone' who claims that, a huge selfish rabid brat as he/she are claiming he/she know everything about it when he/she doesn't and considering the way this spirituality free thinking goes, is no different than how other spiritual theories get formed. - Something almost off: We have the traditional way of meditating, but new ideas came and suggest that you can meditate by laying down in bed.


MYTH Other 1"Being defensive involving wolves is wolfaboo!"
FACT and Possibly Explanation:Umm no. Defending an obvious 'normal' part of a human. Considering though, it's not really respectful to be interfering with other stuff from your own opinion.

MYTH Other 2
"Having a cool creative wolf fursona makes you a wolfaboo!"
FACT and Possibly ExplanationUmm no it doesn't. Yet, while it's not exactly like a "real" wolf, this is more of an aesthetic style involving the animal.
People are allowed to do that with any animal. And people always did. It's an excuse to be creative. I would rather have that than a boring, generic four legged plain colored, and fully non-anthropomorphic wolf. What's the point of having that personally?
If that's "wolfaboo", then the 'aboo' term should apply to all animals, including humans. Or hell.. anything.. Proud scienceaboo.MYTH Other 3"Having only wolf drawings makes you a wolfaboo!"
FACT and Possibly ExplanationOh yeah? So it's "wolfaboo" to have that, but not "humanaboo" to have only humans?

MYTH Other 4"Wolf media fanbases are wolfaboos!"
FACT and Possibly ExplanationHow? Being a fan of some wolf media stuff doesn't make you a wolfaboo. Not even if you liked something because of wolves.
Having a personal reason counts. Just like liking something just for the story, the graphics, etc.


╠═╣Myths and Facts About Me╠═╣

Myth 1:
"You attack others for disliking Alpha and Omega!"
As much as the trolls and other cyberbullies (and maybe other) wants to believe that, that's not true.
I never cared whenever someone disliked the film it's self.
What I got upset about is not because someone simply dislikes the film it's self, I got upset about the claims around the dislike.

So for example. Even if someone LOVED the film, but made the same claims, I would still be upset.

I wouldn't be so damn upset about critics if it was proven to not be an effect into the industry who likes to spread it, and other effects.
Critics can be biased, they are not always right.

As for attacking in general. Disagreeing with them and arguing for the sake of the healthy environment isn't attacking.
If it was, then isn't judging someone for an intentional creative work (I.e. Art styles, story themes, etc.) the same thing?
Some people even attack fans for disagreeing and simply defend what they like, and cyberbully, and call them "wolfaboos" or another stupid term such as "butthurt". <That doesn't deserve much respect.

Myth 2:
"You force people to like the film!"
I do not know where this claim came from and I don't fully remember if someone ever said that (but I'm just being safe).
Offering and sharing the film =/= force.
Me arguing someone's arguable opinion =/= force.
I do not force people to personally like what I personally like, nor do I make people personally hate what I hate.

Myth 3:
You treat this as the best movie in the world.
Well, what is a 'best movie' in the world then? Isn't that all subjective?
Critique wise, there can probably be a perfect critique (legit critique) thing, but that can probably apply to 10 second films too..

Just because Frozen is more popular doesn't mean it's better to everyone else. And so on. Everyone will like a movie more than the other.
So Alpha and Omega IS the best... for some. And the same can be said for EVERY movie on some other individuals too.
I am allowed to treat this movie as a spiritual thing whatever I want. And that's a fact.
I'm more about the characters and less than the story anyway.Myth 4:
"You attack others for not liking the art style!"
Not only this is untrue, but I don't even know any fan who did that (also little bit of a reaction to a certain post by a super major egoist bigot somewhere).
Anyway before I explain, isn't claiming an intention art style as a "flaw" against an artist intending to do it, attacking? Isn't it treating personal opinion as "fact" whenever you do that?

For me, I do not attack people for personally dislike what I personally like. I do argue that an intention purpose is not a flaw, for the sake of defending against something that already interferes.I believe it's completely unfair to dictate that a creative choice from someone not you is somehow a "flaw".
But while I defend, I do not attack someone for simply disliking.. As I always say.

Myth 5:
"You personally insult people who gives out a negative review!"
I don't do that. Sure I sometimes said 'bigot' and a few other things, but only under what I believe fits with the term. (I do not say "bigot" on the first time I see something like a review I disagree with, not that I remember.)

So for example, if I said "biased", that's most likely not name calling as it's based off an argument to argue what is fair or not.
Another, if someone claims something that makes no sense, then it's also fair to say something like this: "Isn't that pretty stupid though?"
I do not go like: "WHATZ!! You are a coc suczkerz, ass face, stupid boo boo head!!!".
Nor do I say words that I use out of nowhere for no connecting reason (Which can then be personal insulting?).
So for example, if I said "bigot" to one of those reviews I hate, out of nowhere, that would probably be personally insulting.

NOTE: This could sort of apply to a couple other myths, but I probably am not perfect at this either.

Myth 6:
"You are a wolfaboo for being very defensive over this movie!"
Pretty sure I explained why I am not a wolfaboo.

I am not a wolfaboo for being defensive over this movie. The right to Freedom of Speech such as defending and disagreeing should not be labeled as "problem".
The term 'wolfaboo' (while it's a stupid immature term too) has been abused many, many times.
I feared it would apply to defenders, loving, and some other stuff, and my fears came true since a lot of people has been using that stupid term against me.

I been called a wolfaboo for promoting animal rights, defending wolves, loving wolves, defending wolf media, anthropomorphic wolf media and some more maybe.
In reality, a real wolfaboo is someone who is OVER obsessed, and treats (as arguments) wolves as "superior" over other animals (including humans).
That's the 'at least' part to me I think.

Myth 7:
"You only like this movie because it has wolves in it."
Well, wolves could be one reason why I like it, and the personal characters in it are the main reason. I like the movie for some of the characters.
So I don't know if this myth is true, but even if it was, doesn't everyone have a personal value opinion to like something?
The only problem I see in this part is judging someone on how they like something.
It's no different than liking a movie for it's story and less on characters.

Edit 11/18/2015 - 12:00 AM - I forgot to add this one:
Myth 8:
"You make the A&O look bad!"
This claim is based off blaming someone for doing something some bigot hates and frowns against the fandom for having it.
Most likely the things that so-called is belief to look "bad" are not even bad: Such as fetishes, defending, etc.
Can you believe it, someone claim I make the fandom look "bad" because I express 'fetishes' (A unfair label to random people of being different in sexuality) involving the characters I like. Not only there isn't anything wrong with doing that, I don't even remember expressing a very personal thing I like with the characters..
But if I did, it's NO MORE extreme than expressing boobs with some characters. Yet, it's not even wrong to. And no, a tamed down fetish (e.g. tamed down vore) doesn't make it anymore extreme than showing boobs without showing that part of the boobs. Or more extreme than kissing...

Anyway, I don't make it look bad. Even if I did a real 'bad thing', don't blame the whole fandom for it.
Edit done


Against ignorance, bigotry, and stupidity

Wednesday, December 2, 2015

Oh Channeleven - Why do you have to Start Fights Again?

Request used:
Got some updates on that one guy who I question as to why he's even born?

Thanks to help, I've discovered REM has been harassing a user on Youtube because Channeleven/REM doesn't like this user and continue to post harassment comments to this poor guy.


Of course, why did I say harassment? Found more comments from Channeleven:


Meanwhile, he also posted this:
 Considering Channeleven doesn't have any skill himself. Can't draw, model, or do anything so great.

Let's see if there is any more videos with Channeleven's obsessed comments about this guy?

Said the guy who use 'autism' as an insult.

Well I don't know so much about the Youtube guy, but regardless, it's still sad and hilarious to see Channel's behavior in this form.
During the same time, he also posted a journal about it here on his Deviant"Art" profile:

The History page has also been updated to expose more of his immature behavior. Not only pretty bad, but advocates legal hate speech too. (Discrimination based off disability).

I figured out the Youtube owner is just an ass like Channeleven is. Well I don't know about being the same exact.
Some bigot who has a problem with bronies and certain bronies for something not causing harm on another. He could have more hatred.
Regardless of the bigotry the Youtube guy has, Channeleven's behavior is still no different.

End of request.

Tuesday, November 24, 2015

What a sad Messed up User

Well I got another request.. and I can't believe my eyes to see such an idiot act so selfish toward 'wwwarea'.

Request Used:


This user is really disgusting.. Not surprisingly though, it's an old user.
Here is the whiny journal:
Anyways Jesse replied to my criticism of his journal as expected. I contemplated not replying to said reply to my response to his journal, however I have to prove him dead wrong now.
"Because I said so."

Now beyond this, I'll add this note:
Within the quote spacing, the black text in this style (example) are his. Messages before it are most likely mine from earlier commentaries.
Like I said, I have stalkers, but I will respond to this one because of it's stereotypical promote and discrimination." (Not like you don't watch both Funnel and myself all the time, even in our comment sections Jesse. Also you're the one stereotyping us autists as 'gifted' or 'cool' without even knowing the trials that many of us go through on a daily basis. You think that we like being abnormal, misfits, and for the most part hindered from enjoying many things in life just because you find your own depression 'cool'? Who is the stereotyping individual now Jesse?  )
 Not like you do the same thing in the first place.
No I'm not. Then again, it could be ARGUED as one in a certain type of argument (as I already explained why).
Abnormal and misfits are just man-made terms.. And just because you don't feel comfortable because you feel "awkward" that doesn't mean it's a disease.
You are still the stereotyping because you claim that it's all a "bad" thing, etc.
And I wasn't saying suffering it's self is better, but I'm saying that being outside of a comfort zone can ALSO lead to better things, arguing that the thing we all have is simply a thing we have.
Perhaps it's not good or bad. It all depends.
"Don't know who 'Jesse' is but seriously? "Debunk"? Do you speak for all people then by forcing your own stereotypical thoughts over everyone else?" (Everyone knows your name now Jesse, heck Peter has even told me about your sister who used to be on DA. Also you already revealed that we know your facebook page so yeah, quite with the charade. I know more about Autism than you ever will Jesse. I've been around people who have more problems and issues with their lives than you ever will, people with cerebral palsy, dyslexia, littoral man-children who can't even comprehend washing their hands or locking the bathroom stall door. You know nothing of special needs Jesse, I've been around all types of autists on the spectrum and I know way more about the issue of autism and our problems than you ever could.)
No you didn't. I don't think I have a sister on DA. You could be mistaking a comment that said "brother" before when I do remember back then, we ha a fake family thing, where it's not actually a 'family'. I didn't say it was exactly my Facebook.

No you don't actually.
Did you know though, that their is TYPES of 'autism'? Did you ever think of that?
I know it plenty well..
I know that everyone autistic is different for each and every individual and I am also aware that the term 'autism' has been stereotyped to describe 'different' personalities as "autism" when it's not.

"That's to some people. Thanks for stereotyping that everyone is the same" (No Jesse, that is life. I've been around these people, many of them were my friends in middle school and high school. I've been around people who have it way worse than both you and I combined. It's not 'stereotyping' when I've been around these people for six years of my life. Also not once did I ever mention that 'everyone was the same', that is just some silly thing you made up in your mind.)
 You act like every 'autistic' is the same. When in reality, they are not.
First of all, everyone is normal for being different. Second, just because it bothers some, doesn't mean it bothers all.
You don't speak over everyone else who thanks their own "disorder".
(I never said they weren't, however your version of 'different' is basically them getting pity from others and not trying to strive to bring normality into their lives, you want people to be treated like Chris Chan instead of working for this sense of normality. My version is people  facing adversity and hardship stand firm in the face of their problems and try their best to make some sort of attempt to become as normal and functioning in society as they can. Take it from someone who had to do so in real life. The only people who 'thank' their disorder are those who have worked well enough to become productive members of society despite it. )
Again, you seem to dictate by sharing the illusion that their is a single "normal". When in reality, everyone is born to experience unique stuff. If you hate Chris JUST because he has a different personality, then you are a sad asshole yourself. I am not defending his actual legit mistakes, but that was another point..
Not everyone wants to be a "normal" functioning part of society.
Some people are introverts, some are asocials, etc. and it seems you force that those lives are "bad" and that they must be like other people, your an asshole.
I'm an asocial and a introvert, and it's quite possible that I could have a 'AS' but not noticed, and I do not want to be forced to be an annoying extrovert.

Also did you know that most of the suffering isn't caused by 'autism' sometimes? A lot of that is because of the discrimination of society (The lack of support) for those who are more different.
You don't own the term over everyone else, and it's very offensive of you to say that others with it who thinks different "don't count" and/or that they must "not speak up".(I never stated I owned the terms autism or aspergers, I know the later of the two was named after Dr.Hans Asperger. First off, you're the one who isn't counting the majority of people who have life even more difficult for themselves due to autism&aspergers. Second, I never in my life would say that anyone with autism 'don't count' or that they 'don't speak up'. That is simply rubbish for me as an legally diagnosed aspie to even contemplate with my fellow autists.)
No but you act like you do.
First of all, I am not saying those who suffer and is in need of help should not get help, if they want help, they can get help. But I CAN argue that you can't cure what's inside of your head.
Second, well you have a problem for those who treat it as a gift.
"You remind me of that website that sometimes censor other autistic people for speaking up about some stuff." (Right right, because me being an actual autist, as well as  myself being a proponent for helping autists make the best out of themselves is 'censorship'. Boy what a sad and strange little world you live in Jesse, and you don't have my pity. :iconbuzzlightyearplz:
 The way you talk sounds like you are saying that "autism is horrible, and a curse, we must cure it, etc".
That's what reminded me of that website too.
Do you have any idea how offensive that sounds to parents and etc. of autism?
There are a lot of parents who accept them for who they are, etc.
2. A spelling error doesn't make someone stupid.(True, but I must say you've already have done that to yourself.)
Keep telling yourself that.
"That still doesn't mean anything. Being more intelligent is still good for those who enjoy it, and everyone can get depressed off of something."(Only the true simple minded would ever believe that intelligence leads to more happiness. The more you know about the world the more you understand the danger, the uncertainty, and the cynical nature of it correct? That would explain a lot of your fantasies Jesse.) 
 "true simple minded". What the fucking hell does that mean? This reminds me of the whole "true fan" crap.
I already understand the danger, and while I understand it, that's why I am a huge fan of activist, change, etc.
"They are probably not depressed because they have it, but more about what they are thinking about.
When someone thinks and studies a lot, of course stress may came, and etc."
(Ha! HA! HA! Patrik and myself hardly think about our Autism when talking and we both are depressed as ever worried about issues in Europe, our different ideological stances, and theism  vs atheism all the time. I know Darkminster can be depressed all the time and he rarely even brings up his aspergers unless we get into a forced discussion about it.)
That's a personal reason. I have a lot of worries about certain subjects myself too, and I thank that because it will cause me to be more of an activist for certain change. If I suffer, I am suffering because of the fear and issues that goes on, due to future and uncertainty.
People having all this is a possible lead to being smart.
 "And stop speaking for every single person out there." (The irony and hypocrisy of this sentence is so thick I could use it to snuggle up with a blanket this winter.)
"Autism Asperger is a problem because I know only some people who has it that suffers". <Your basic message in a nutshell.
 Yet, it's ALSO possible that even the people who has it (I can include my self for other labels) couldn't understand why they have this, when it's possible to self-therapy why one is upset so much.
Remember, the label "mental illnesses" is not scientifically proven.
Sometimes I hear that 'autism is a disability' but HIGH functioning sounds like the opposite.
"To some people, it is more better, to some it's not. Stop saying "we aspies", I believe that's very offensive." (I'm sorry Jesse, when you are professionally diagnosed with aspergers via the recommendation of your school and parents then maybe you may have the privilege to tell me to stop referring to people facing the same issues I face on a daily basis.)
It's possible that a lot of people suffer now is because of the way they are treated due to the labeling.
Again, I say possible. A lot of the stuff could be based off many hidden reasons..
And also, when you say "we aspies" you are saying "we" as in every single person in the world who has it. A lot of people do not agree with you.
"Umm yes, again, you are stereotyping people and I find it extremely offensive of you to tell others who is 'diagnoses' to not stand up for themselves, etc." (Once more, I stand for people to stand up for themselves and make the best they can with the cards they're dealt :iconjimraynorplz: , also how I love it how the person without Autism is telling the person with autism that he's 'offending' autistics. )
Well, just because you have it, doesn't mean you speak for the rest of them.
It doesn't matter if I'm one or not. If you get to stand for others, so can anyone else.
"So for that, screw off." (You first mate. )
You started it by reacting to a journal that wasn't directly addressed to you.

"And I know what I'm doing, it's you that don't know. You seem to think that people who has what you have are all the same." (Oh really? :iconalucardplz: Tell me how you've spent six years dealing with people of the same issues you have, as well as with others who have issues that are far worse than yours. Such as being blind or not being able to move their entire body except their eyes and their mouths. I digress though, also I don't think that. In fact I know of many autists who have it far worse than myself and this fills me with nothing but sympathy for them. Well except one guy, but he was like you and a jackass for using his autism as way to get people to feel pity for him and basically not trying to instead strive to work as many others have in adapting and dealing with society. Guess who? :iconchrischanplz: )
I've been hearing about it somewhere in my life too. Yet, people can still research. A while back ago, I've found articles about it, and had an open mind with it, etc.
I know that major issues are found in 'low functioning' people, but far less with 'high functioning' people. I've seen people who were like that.
Did you know that 'High Functioning' was removed from that book? I think people may finally be treating those who are just high functioning as a "normal" part of life, but probably with more abilities due to 'HIGH' functioning..
"Again, that's just a term, man made theory. What is an "overload"?" (Here, you just proven you know little about aspies and autists, a overload, or a meltdown is when we autists get so much sensory input or negative emotions built up inside that we basically lose it. It's not a tantrum, once it happens there is no stopping it and it must run it's course. Sort of like a chain reaction in the brain if you will. However we need to be isolated and calm down and let it all out or we may become violent or even self-destructive. )
I know about meltdowns, but at the same time, I call it an anger issue. Super emotions can happen to other people without the label too.
When I you said 'overload', I thought you were referring to the brain getting so-called "too" much information..
Also, not every 'autistic' has this not fully explained problem.

Another problem is that a lot of people with anger issues were labeled one sadly.

"And not everyone wants to be that "normal"."(You've never been in a classroom with special ed kids before then Jesse. )
Are you talking about those kids in wheel chairs and those who has a lot of other issues?
You seem to suggest that all autistic people are the same again.

You want to know why I say that? Because I've seen more people with 'autism' than you.
Stop saying that people must be changed to be "normal", a lot of people take that as very offensive, and you really need to stop stereotyping them and acting like everyone must be changed for something they are born with.(Once more, sounds like you didn't even listen to what I've said. I want people to change themselves for the better, that isn't changing people, it is them taking the initiative to do so for their own sake.)

Cool, more links to something I've known all my life. :iconclapplz:
Sounds more like you. You think I think you support 'Autism Speaks' when all I said you reminded me of it.
And that's still kinda the same, plus the idea of 'better' is very subjective these days.

Since when is it better to force HF people to be Mid-F? Knowing that HF can have positive results (Very smart), I wouldn't want to get rid of that if I had it. Even if it can have risks (like anything).
Albert Einstein was HF, and if he was so-called "cured" or didn't have it, he wouldn't be like he was before.
"You don't speak over me." (On my page I do. :icondealwithitplz: )
And on my page, I speak over you then. I guess due to it being my page (or on this blog with permission), I can speak over your autism then.
"You have your own problems, and I have my own. Don't speak your bigoted mind over my own. You are the one treating your crap as "facts" over everyone else not you."(Yep, I do have my own problems, because I have autism, you don't, and what you say is only some rubbish you've regurgitated over the internet. Once more, actually live with Autism before you go running your fingers on the keyboard to speak about it Jesse.) 
You don't need to live with it in order to make a debate.
I already know the fact that a lot of people with 'autism' thanks it, and are happy with it due to the positive sides of the so-called "disorder".
Regardless if I am one or not, people can still study it, and understand the fact that maybe labels are bad, that we should just focus on that it's neither bad or good, but rather a tool. That some people could be born with it, etc.
"Also, people can argue that certain "disabilities" can be good even if it makes them suffer. BUT ONLY in terms like; "Sad can be an important tool even though some people can suffer, and some can't. It all depends."(Still they suffer, and I personally would say I would like to be normal and not suffer than suffer, as would just about any person with a disability I've met in the real world would say.)
Getting out of a comfort zone is also a form of suffering, but we need that kind of suffering IN ORDER to gain new ideas, ways, etc.
If we never had any form of non-comfort, then we wouldn't be here.
Have to remember that suffering it's self doesn't always mean "mental illness" but rather based off what you think.
And your last part? So every person who has a "disability" doesn't want it? I don't know about that...
"So before you think it's not the same as saying those people who DO suffer don't count, but this is more of a biological argument. " (Everyone suffers with a disability Jesse, some just suffer in different ways than others.)
People suffer without it. Plus do you know what a DISability means?
Is 'HIGHER' functioning a "lack" of ability?
Also, it can be argued that suffering isn't always based off "illness" but rather, something natural.
I suffer from certain things, but I believe it would be bad to get rid of the effects due to positive sides existing.

Which also makes me reason that the term 'mental illness' doesn't exist.
"Saying my own "label" is cool doesn't violate anyone's rights." (Never said it did, just that it's ignorant and you don't know anything about Autists. )
It's not ignorant if you had a "disability" and say it was cool. Because that person with it counts.
"Actually no, everyone is a "special" snowflake, being different IS NORMAL. Plus, saying they are not cool makes you a special snowflake if I had to agree with you."(Yes, everyone is 'special' in their differences, but what you want Jesse is pity and praise where it clearly isn't deserved. Also once more, being 'cool' is quire irrelevant when discussing serious life issues such as disabilities. You must think it's 'cool' going deaf, blind, or unable to move your own body properly. ) 
You saying it's "not" deserved is arguable and isn't a fact.
And if I had that, then yes I have a right to find it cool, but that doesn't mean anything bad.
If someone is born with an ability that has extra abilities for example, then it's fair to find it cool. Even if it was lack. That's not the same as morally arguing that they have more rights, but it is fair to say that 'more is cool' if the individual finds it cool in a personal thanks idea.

If I was born with the ability to fly, then yes I will find it cool because it's a legit thing I have and it's mine. Not yours.
If you say that's "special snowflake" as bad, then it justifies even more that the term "special snowflake" is just a stupid idiotic troll term.
Yet, you probably don't know what a 'special snowflake' really is.

People with extra abilities are not morally better, but people have a right to find having those cool.

Oh and just because it's considered a 'disability' doesn't mean it's not cool to EVERYONE who has it. Same with the other way around.
"You are the only one being egotistical."(Just look at my comment section and see what others think. :) )
Depending on popularity now?
"It's my personal life, and it's not yours. It's not "ego" to defend myself and speak my mind." (This went from your biased opinion on autists such as myself to basically you taking it personally, as usual. Where is your 'facts' about Autism now Jesse?:iconevillaughplz:
It's not biased. But yours is often.
All I did was argue and debate, like anyone.
Where are your facts?

And why did you ignore the links?
"The only egotistical thing that's happening are assholes like you."(Once more, I can use this irony and hypocrisy to make a nice snuggy blanket for me. It's so thick, perfect for making blankets. ) 
You saying a man-made term of disability is always bad when not every autistic agrees makes you an asshole.
"I didn't make ignorance nor bad choices despite a couple of legit mistakes. And again, you blame me for others choosing to do this to me." (Not sure if victim complex or just a really bad case of narcissism. :iconfryplz: )
Again with that word, just because you think it is, doesn't mean it is.
But you are promoting narcissism though.
And if you start making a journal against me, then I am a victim.
"Maybe it's because that crap isn't constructive criticism, but instead it's actually 'Brutal Honesty' as I heard from another user before." (Oh no, we can't have honesty now can we Jesse? That don't do at all now will it? I'm sorry, but aren't you one of those alternative media 'truth seekers'? Are you telling me you can't handle the truth no matter how brutally honest and inconvenient it is? )
Do you know what 'Brutal Honesty' means? And thanks for admitting that "honest" is the same as "criticism" when it's not.

You claiming your opinion is "truth" because you said so, doesn't make it truth.
Maybe you can't handle the truth from a lot of those sites, and one popular word is that they talk about people making people sheep, and you're a classic example.
"I block people for good reasons." (Yeah, anyone who doesn't say what is on your agenda or speaks out against you.)
Not true on everyone.
And speaking against me? Well that can be a good reason sometimes. No different than homophobia, heterophobia, fetishphobia/etc.
 That's different. That belongs in the line of "fans, murderers, robbers, internet users, gamers, seekers, etc." That's basic dictionary.
Oh and if 'humanaboo' is a stupid label, so is 'wolfaboo'
(Oh, it's different when only you think it is, but the rest of the internet doesn't? How fickle of you. I find them both stupid, but sadly for you wolfaboo exist on the internet and there is nothing you can do to change that. :icondealwithitplz: )
More like "It's the same because I think it is" <You
It's the same because it fits well with a fair describing thing.

And sadly for you, humanaboo exist on the internet and there is nothing you can do to change that.
Oh, and that whole bullshit of "you can't do anything about it". An average sheep who doesn't believe in change, when history proved it.
"Again, the overused word of "ego". The only egoistic person is you Jared." (Wow! This blanket is so thick it's like it is made of iron! I shall patent this, call it "The Iron Irony Blanket." Rolls off your tongue doesn't t? :D)

This is why you can't argue.
"That's my post. That person was acting very offensive, calls me "ego" for defending myself with depression, and other labels that I didn't even talk about."(Yet you are not even autistic, nor have you ever had actual experiences with actual autists. I was being very 'offensive' on giving you a real life enlightenment about what is truly means to have Autism. Calls you ego? You mean I called you egotistical Jesse? Also this journal you made wasn't about your depression, it was you trying to act like you know everything about autism when clearly you don't know a hill of beans about autism. :iconhankhillplz: )
You don't know my life about experiencing. Plus I say it's offensive because you don't speak over the rest of autistic and no, you do not need to be an autistic to say that. Also, it's "autistics", not "autists".
What the hell is a "true" autistic? It's like you are the one that doesn't know what it really is.
You make a journal acting like you know everything when you don't.

Clearly, you are no different, in fact, you seem more less open minded about autism than I do..
"Apparently this person supports stereotyping and censorship to those who speak their mind and defending. Who's the real egotistic?"(These Iron Irony blankets will sell like hotcakes this winter, pun intended! Though seriously Jesse, what do you think I'm doing hm? I'm telling you the full story about how us 'oppressed' autists truly feel. Once more, you don't have autism and I do. I know more about just by experience than you ever will.) 
And just because you have it, doesn't make your opinion anymore stronger than someone who doesn't have it.
And just because you have it, doesn't mean it's OK to speak to every single person who has a similar type.
"I can't believe this guy says that 'autism' is a "curse", a "disease", etc. I mean he acts like it is, and it reminds me of that horrid 'Autism Speaks' fear ad stuff."(Here we are,  first off I never will in my entire life ever condone Autism Speaks. They are a bunch of euginics nuts who don't even have any autists in their staff. Autism Speaks, but I ain't listening! Second, what I've clearly stated above is that I believe people need to work their hardest through adversity to overcome their issues and make somewhat of a normal life in society for themselves, at least to the best of their capabilities.)
Not everyone wants to be an extrovert. A lot of people accept their lives as the way they live. Plus, you can't ever make an introvert to an extrovert, they are born with it. So just like 'autism', you can't make their lives change all the time..
Yet, some 'autistic' could just be introvert, but a big example problem is that people has been stereotyping autism a lot.
"Anyway, everyone is different. Some people thank their "label" and some people don't like it. However, biological arguments can still apply and either way, to those who do suffer and don't like it, there is NOTHING wrong with trying to get help. But to say that it's "bad" it's self. That's speaking to everyone and yet, that could still be arguable in a biological way." (Most don't, true, there is nothing wrong with seeking help for issues. However one must also try to help themselves first, this is where you falter Jesse. You don't even try to change yourself for the better, you just want to go down like a sinking ship without trying to patch up the holes. You are just like Chris, using your disability as a mere card for pity and sympathy.This is coming from someone with the same disability you've been stating you know about, when clearly you don't.)
One must? Who said so? A god somewhere? Or the cult of society?
I don't need to change myself for the "better" because I am already better. Their is that 'narcissism' as you say that's only from you. You say I am "bad" because you said so when in reality, I never did anything wrong in general.

Actually no I'm not. If someone HAS a 'disability', they have a right to defend it as it is.
It's not the same as saying it's an excuse to be an ass.. even though I wasn't being an ass either.
And maybe YOU are using your 'disability' as a mere card then too.
BUT it is an excuse for certain things because certain 'disabilities' due lack certain things.
"Like for example again: I can suffer from a depression, but I can still argue that it can be OK to have it because depression can have the possibility to lead to better things. Know what I mean?"(Once more, you go off your intended topic to bring it all about yourself, way to use a strawman autism argument to further your own agenda. ) :iconclapsplz: 
Who's the one who says it's bad to treat suffering as good and who's the one who treat that "disorders" are always bad, no matter what those people who 'has them' thinks?


Another reason why these people lost.

By the way, here are the links the person possibly ignored:………


End of Request