Showing posts with label Wolfaboo. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Wolfaboo. Show all posts

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

Tuesday, February 11, 2014

Why the Anti-Wolfaboos are Very Delusional

 Another Important Article that is against hatred and a false term to cause more hatred.
From an "old" journal from a website called Deviant Art, I wanted to spread awareness of something horrible spreading.
Note: Not all may have the same views, some may be less delusional, some may be more.

You know those anti-hunters going around, teaching that it's abusive to there right to live? Often, a lot of "wolf-fans" often wanted to protect there favorite animal: "wolves". Then around, a lot of ranchers (or hunters) came around, bashing a lot of those who wants to save them, I heard it was because of some so called "wolfaboos" coming and threatening them because one happened to hunt down a wolf.

Now, the reasons as I would say that those Anti-wolfaboo groups are moronic is based on a ton of reasons.

Now I like to point out that, these groups (or "movements") were made by a lot of "anthropocentric" people. So lot's of times, they are going to be using old casual dictionary to "prove" that there idea of other animals "not" being as important are a "fact". Sadly, lot's of people grew up thinking we humans were morally higher than other animals or in a sense, so it's no wonder why these people often don't realize the pain and suffering other creatures has. They tend to think it's alright to "hunt" a wolf or any creature considered "not-endangered" but not OK to hunt the non-endangered animal: Homo-sapiens. So a person who is sadly "anthropocentric" at the heart is most likely not going to be open at all with the fact that killing another creature is in fact, a terrible thing just like killing the same species.

Now here is some myths, theories, and facts I like to point out:

Myth 1: Grey-wolves are not Endangered - Theory: I heard that a lot, but I also seen reports that they still are. Maybe they are, or maybe they aren't. Maybe deeper research for sure needs to happen.
Myth 2: Killing wolves are OK, because it's not Murder - Fact: "Murder" is very casual these days now, but the only reason why our current "murder" is considered bad, is because of the un-consent killing of another being (Like a human animal). However, "killing" another non-human being without the form of consent, is in fact the same problem as killing a human-animal. Our current definition of "murder" does not scientifically change the fact that we are not "more important".
Myth 3: Killing a wolf is OK because humans are more important. - Fact: This is also clearly based on the "Anthropocentric" (Or "speciesism") belief about the so called "We are only special" belief. There has been a lot of proof that we do in fact are equal living beings and we are not separated from the term: "animal". We are clearly animal beings too, and we have the ability to stop what we can do that is considered abuse.
Myth 4: It's OK to like or even love a wolf, but it's not OK to feel connected with one, or deeply protect them - Fact and Theory: Let me be honest, who the hell has the right to tell others how to believe? People done this with Humans, why the hell can't people for once, selflessly do this for another animal?
Myth 5: Humans are superior to Wolves - Fact:…
Myth 6: In that movie "Alpha and Omega", the designs look nothing like wolves, therefor the designs suck and the whole movie sucks. Fact: Soo.. while you guys claim your opinion is a "fact", your saying that because a creature does not look like a creature on this planet, tends to now suck? Have you ever heard of designs before? Have you ever heard of a giant f***ing mouse that talks that looks nothing like a mouse on this planet before? Your opinions about this because they look nothing like these wolves on this planet, are just, opinions, not a fact. Not only that, but I happen to like the designs as "Anthro" and disney like creations. The designs are great as it's own thing.
Myth 7: Alpha and Omega - Wolfaboo the movie! Fact: A movie about wolves doesn't always mean "It's a super extreme obsessed" thing. Even if it was all about wanting to save wolves, which I find to be a you know, a good thing.
Myth 8: You are not a wolf! - Theory: Once again, telling others how to believe eh? I hate people who attack "otherkin" or whatever it was called. Sorry, I'm not very sure what "Otherkin" is again, so I could be wrong. But when someone is wanting to pratice there own "animal" from there own spiritual belief, it's very offensive to send these kind of messages, unless it's to people who are confused a bit about there 3D incarnated form I think. The "You are not a wolf!" crap isn't a 100 % proven thing.
Myth 9: Sparklewolves are a threat - Fact: Sparklewolves are just a new creative form of a new kind of wolf. Remember mickey mouse, vampires, Disney dogs, etc? If that's a threat, then Humans with wings, new kinds of dogs, Mickey Mouse, and any movie that has a talking non-human animal is a "threat" because animals (Including humans) don't do that on here. It's called "Freedom" and "Sci-fi".
Myth 10: Sparklewolves are not normal - Fact: Normal isn't real, get over it.
Myth 11: Wolfaboos are always extreme and dumb - Fact and Theory: I will agree though, some wolfaboos may have caused them selves to live a depressed life, and then claimed false "facts" over already proven facts, but although a lot of believes from them that were claimed to be "dumb" are not proven to be false like I explained, in fact, some may have been proven to be facts. Most haters will pretend there opinions are facts, unfortunately.
Myth 12: A wolf can't kill a certain animal - Fact: You know, there is no "scientific" saying that one specie will always be able to kill another or around. For example: A tiger may be able to kill a wolf, I think, not sure but however, sometimes, a wolf could kill a tiger. It's often by luck. Like how it is when humans kill each other, or if one tried to kill another animal. Know what I mean? Fact is that it's by luck.
Myth 13: The group is a accurate informational group - Fact: As I study, and such, that is not nearly close to true. I will admit though, there might be bits of correct information in there but most of it, is just opinion, bigoted, prejudice views as I explained more above.
Myth 14: The groups is a true lover of wolves - Fact: This is a joke right? There is two differences that need to be connected to prove that, you need to have that in your mind, and your heart, and if you did, you would also not hunt them down, for any reason. The only time it's fine to shoot one is if maybe you were being attacked by one and you had no other option to live I think, but I'm still open about this part. Remember though, that's also considered fine if a human did that to you also. Don't you need to protect your self?
Myth 15: We need this group because some people threaten us because some personality did not like wolves. - Fact: While it's not good to threat a person who honestly answered a question of "Do you like wolves" by saying no, however, it seems very odd to make this whole group, that isn't even going to work.
Speaking of not working:
Myth 16: This group will get rid of wolfaboos - This will never work, nor is it needed.
Update! 2-11-2014
Myth 17: "Anti" doesn't equal "hate" - Fact: In a way, yes and no. This isn't hate: "Anti-Hate" "Anti-Being-Fat-My-Self". THIS is:
"Anti-Brony" "Anti-Wolf" "Anti-Spiritually" "Anti-Gay" "Anti-Furries" "Anti-Sparkle-Wolves" "Anti-Gamers" "Anti-Sonic" "Anti-Equality" etc...
A f**king horrible excuse for more hatred to say that for the purpose of those kinds of things. This is one of the worse myths I ever seen.
*Update done*

And there are many more bad examples. I just don't want to go back in there and see all this bullcrap that's in there. It's very offensive to me, and yet I don't even think I would be considered a "wolfaboo" since I don't think I am controlled by the glory of wolves to pain or something, not sure.
I personality hope this group isn't going to cause spreading anywhere, and me seeing this stupid "Wolfaboo" word being pushed around on trailers of that wolf animated movie, I am kind of worried, if it wasn't for that, I probably would not have to worry or probably even have found this term in the first place.

Also, if one threatens a hunter for killing "there species" then no wonder, you killed another being, it's just as bad as killing another human. If a human doesn't deserve to "die", that also has to go for the same for "wolves" too. I just put that here for the sake of equallity, I don't think I am saying that we should kill another human for that I think.

I want the world to be filled with tolerance and love, no violence or hatred. People has the right to be them selves, get over it.

Note: Perhaps not all anti-wolfaboos will have the same views, of course, I'm not sure but I do remember there groups are often badly judgmental on how others like to enjoy there favorite animal.

As a person who cares deeply about the equality of every creature, including humans: You guys should learn something about this, I recommend looking at the wiki article link I put in on the "Myth 5 claim" area. Though, I'm not sure about all of it.

Also, if I get a bunch of unusual hatred comments on here, I might have to disabled the comments.


CC: No-D Attribution - Yes, I am using a bad license
When re-posting a blog, please do not modified the whole thing. AND THAT INCLUDES POSTING A PICTURE OF JUST PART OF IT, INCLUDE THE WHOLE NEXT TIME.
Being inspired, to make your own words is fine though.

Wednesday, September 18, 2013

Nothing Wrong With Wolfaboo - Sometimes

My Thoughts on Wolfaboo

Hello, this is my thoughts on one of those "Making up a word to describe people, then bashing anyone who fits in it" things.
I heard about this, when looking around in some comments, looked it up, and it talks about a guy who gets so obsessed with wolves.

Wolfaboo -Not a real dictionary name!-:
Wolfaboo is a term for someone who is overly obsessed with wolves. "Wolfaboo" comes from the word "weeaboo", meaning someone who is overly obsessed with Japan. Stereotypical wolfaboos believe that the life of a wolf is greater than or equal to the life of a human, and often defend—or even glorify—wolves killing humans, often with such arguments as "That person probably deserved it!" They are also known to commonly misspell the plural of wolf; instead of "wolves", they type "wolfs". The term has also been used to describe furries, especially those whose fursonas are sparkledogs. They are often looked down upon by therians for making them look bad.

Yes. I got this from a a Furry wiki site, the non-dictionary term doesn't even have it's own US-Wikipedia, so I had to use the top research of wiki for it. I would use urban, but urban isn't always stable, and there are copies of a word sometimes. So Wikifur it is!
Anyway, I want to share my thoughts on it.

Is it really necessary to start bashing anyone who happens to like wolves so much? I mean what about "Humanaboo", there are people way too much obsessed with humans and thinks Humans are the greatist animals in the world and put out bullshit myths claiming that other animals like "wolves" for example don't have equal  living value like humans. And the sad thing, a lot of people don't have a problem with that claim.
Or what about Dogaboo, Birdaboo, Cataboo, etc? I never see much people complain about those.

So back at Wolfaboo, is it bad? Dumb, etc? Well, if liking wolves, a lot, more than Humans means Wolfaboo, then no. People personality has different likes, and I don't think it's fair to judge those who has a deep personality with this Animal, the same way who has a deep personality with the Human Animal, or whoever. Nor is it dumb to believe you (Your inner part, maybe physical if possible) even are a wolf, some groups seem to believe that, and we need to learn to respect other people's believes and not force "humanaboo" crap over others.

Here is another thing, if liking wolves so much, that you think they are magic, made you believe that they are Equel, to Humans, and to every other beings, and made you belief that Humans has been harming nature, and destroying the lives of other animals. Then isn't that a good thing? I personality had a thing with wolves, (And I kind of do still) and it made me think like this I think. It made me realize that every animal on the planet (Including humans) are equal and killing any creature is bad, equality. We Humans, have been damaging this whole planet, practicing our major ego in us all, thinking that we are the only special beings on this planet, which a bunch of load bullshit! I agree, we are special, but so is every living creature on this Planet, and beyond. Anyone who judges people like that, are basically denying the truth and wants to keep there ego going. It's kind of sad.
Even another example is that I see people make fun of those who likes to make different styles of wolves, (You know those rainbow creatures you sometimes see on random websites?). They judge the "wolfaboos" who likes to makes a new kind of created things based on what they like from there own spirit (As I like to call it), just because it didn't look like wolves on here. Really? I think a real obsessed person would basically judge drawings that are different. Whining about the way the creative creation looks like. "No! They don't have rainbow hair! They don't have sharp chests like that! No No nonono!!!" I think the only problem I am seeing is these kind of people. Not those who wants to make new possibilities that are supposed to be different when it comes to this animal. maybe?

Though, there are those who are so obsessed, they can give out bad non-fact claims that could be dangerous. Like claiming that they would be harmless automatically, if one were to probably met one all the time, and such. (Some are harmless, I saw this picture online, and there are probably more evidence) And there are those who make non-fact claims claiming they can fly (The ones on this planet), grey wolves are rare, etc. Now this is the only time when a Wolfaboo can be a bit dumb, honestly. But it's not dumb to believe flying ones can exist through realms or something. And drawing them is not anything bad, any shape or form.
But having a deep connection with the specie, believing that they are special/magical in spirit (Like any other creature or something), even having a Therian or Otherkin believe, or making your own type of wolf creation like with rainbows, etc, or going against hunting for the love of them, and many other kinds of things with them, that isn't hurting anyone, isn't a bad thing. I see nothing wrong with a personal belief about this creature, and I find it so offensive how people like to bash those for who they are for things like this.
I know there are some heavy "obsessed" fans that can cause some issues, but I don't think it's fair to make this whole name up to bash any fans who loves wolves so much, and want to embrace for who they are and such. If it's just for people who wants to make lies about certain claims on this world like what I said, I kind of understand, but it's not nessesory to make up this whole word that is "Wolfaboo" and then judge those who might fit in still.

I really want wolf fans and any other fan of any creature to stand up, the hatred is the only thing that needs to end. It's getting annoying, bad.

And yes, hunting wolves is downright wrong. Or hunting any creature for example, and judging a person who wants to "save the wolves" from hunting because they love them, think they are great, or think they connect, is down right disgusting! Hunting is bad to life because we are animals too, and hunting down any other creature, basicly causes not only pain and suffer, but ruins the natural process of life.

Did anyone ever seen those offensive pro-hunting groups on a website called Deviant Art? It's sick. I notice this after noticing talks about this around this... Internet.

If I had to say anything about my self, yes, I do like wolves I think. I am open about them, and might feel connected once and a while, and I am against hunting of them, and I do like seeing some of those "sparkle wolves" sort of. And I see nothing wrong with that. The only thing I see sick and disturbing is the haters. They need to get the heck over it.