Yes Zoobear (Aka Grubbs Grizzly), You're in the Wrong

AskPapaBear's owner has decided to respond on a journal somewhere which can be located here.
Here is my previous blog attempting to help certain furries who are just as important as anyone else.
Just in case, here is the website of "askpapabear": http://www.askpapabear.com/

At this point he's now depending on another "poll" (not actual, but you might understand where I'm coming from) (fallacy), to decide that he's acting good or not, which is another problem I've has had with him in the past, and as a victim of Papa Bear's attacks, and probably even discrimination, I'm going to stand up for myself and victims of certain discrimination and argue why AskPapaBear or Grubbs Grizzly isn't a good person, and as a victim of his hurtful comments that he has caused himself.

Remember, no popular opinion will ever change the truth.

I Am Not A Troll
To say I'm a troll is an insult. Grubbs shouldn't have a right to call me a troll for activity that isn't trolling.

Being sincere out of care legally, for the lives of every furry that is just as important as any human being isn't trolling. Saying it's a terrible thing to refuse forgiveness in a furcon is not trolling, and saying he's disgusting for saying so is also not trolling.
Criticism is not trolling.

A huge example of trolling is posting disgusting and hateful comments for the pure sake of entertainment. 
Here is the Wikipedia page of trolling: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll 

In Internet slang, a troll is a person who starts quarrels or upsets people on the Internet to distract and sow discord by posting inflammatory and digressive,^[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the intent of provoking readers into displaying emotional responses^[2] and normalizing tangential discussion,^[3] whether for the troll's amusement or a specific gain. 

I don't think being on topic, and caring about victims of the sex offender registry for example, especially over crimes that has little to no victim in it, is a form of "trolling".

So Why Do I Call Him a Terrible Person?
No matter what anyone things, popular opinion will not change the likely fact that he's made mistakes.

A List of Some of His Mistakes
PapaBear supports not forgiving people who's changed at all furcons. 
Like it or not, every furry is a human being, and has every human right to be as happy and be part of a community. If you deny someone's who just trying to come back into a legal community, you're destroying the hope of being accepted.
This also likely promotes suicide, as suicide in many cases might be a hard to avoid choice.

PapaBear considers anyone who's made certain mistakes are less important than those who has a "perfect" past. 
I can see this the moment he considers it's a "waste" of work for a certain furcon to have a more trust system for the sake of still accepting those who's changed.

PapaBear thinks anyone standing for forgiveness because that person made a mistake is "selfish" or "just for oneself", and even consider that to not be a true form of caring for others.
 This was one of the most disgusting arguments I've experience. This was one of those terrible attacks he's caused, and it's even worse of him to completely out of nowhere state this on that Flayrah post.

PapaBear defends "consequences" like It's automatically justified.
Out of denying anyone who's truly sorry and for wanting to be accepted again. I'm actually not kidding. This was one of the most disgusting things he's ever said to anyone who's changed and shows remorse.

PapaBear is AGAINST many furries seeking forgiveness at furcons and probably more.
Here is a quote from him:

Forgiveness can be sought in the churches, temples, family homes, and therapist offices. A furry convention is not the place. If you seek redemption, Anon, go beg forgiveness from your victim. Then seek counseling.

PapaBear blames victims of certain non-forgiven behavior.
I argue ex-perpetrators can be victims too.  Anyway, he's blamed that not forgiving is only the fault of the person who's done a bad act in a past. This is disgusting because choosing to not forgive is a fault. It's a choice, PapaBear doesn't have a right to dictate against logic and blame the person who isn't the same person anymore. At this point, PapaBear has used another example that hurts the hope of those who changed.

Here his the quote pasting he's said, which also covers the "consequences" part:

Last point: Violent actions have consequences. In this case, one of the consequences might be that you are never accepted at a furcon again. Feel bad about that? Maybe you should have thought about consequences before you raped, beat up, or killed someone. The fact that you may be banned from a furry convention (really, the LEAST of your worries), is a reflection on you, not other furries. Don't blame them for the consequences you suffer.

 By the way, nobody actually said they did any of those three things.

PapaBear cuts into separate comments from me, and said that I'm "overreacting" and my reactions is "absurd".

Out of nowhere, PapaBear claims I suffer from autism (out of nowhere of that too) by replying to an anonymous person attacking me.
I'm not gonna say that's all he said. He talked about certain issues involving "insults", and so on.
From what I could understand the comment might not sound as bad as some people might think in the bold part, but what bothers me is the out of nowhere part, and the claim that he's said I said I had autism. I've tried to look for that on his website he claims I posted, but I cannot find it.

Note: I am not attacking "autism". I actually think some cases of autism can actually partly be a gift when it helps the person become more intelligent.

PapaBear claims I'm being irrational.

__________________________
All of my experiences came from the page Grubbs Grizzly shared.

I wouldn't call him a terrible person just for the sake of it.

Putting certain mistakes aside, he has expressed enough evidence to show that he's against the idea of many furries seeking forgiveness, and supported furcons banning those which includes those who's changed at the same time. I went ahead and expressed how betraying he was to those who are changed and wants to move on legally, and then PapaBear consider even that as some form of attack likely.
He's claimed I'm "threatening" his PapaBear website, and claimed I was "insulting" him for posting my warning for those who's not perfect by suggesting them to avoid it because it's likely Papabear would deny hope of those seeking forgiveness.
I don't want many furries to get a feeling of suicide and/or depression or more of depression whenever PapaBear says what I fear he may say due to certain words he's said himself.

After some of that, and that he's calling me a "troll" for that, and some of his mistakes, this is why I said he's a terrible person likely.

The only apologize I have is for claiming he's worse than a child molester, but only because that was way too braod. But could I compare him in terms of harm to people's life? I might, and because there are actual good reasons why. Comparing him to certain harmful people because he has attacked many people, denied legal hope, and is against many legal furcons trying to have a better way at banning those who are still a threat, is not trolling, nor is it an attack.

But in the end, he's acting like I'm some "troll", even though I've had my legit concerns with him. That's just a terrible thing he's done, and no furry and/or non-furry can change that fact.

He's attacked many people, and he's in the wrong for that.

AVOID Askpapabear.com!

For the sake of truth, and safety, this furry website does NOT legally help all and does NOT accept all furries as people alone. This website has shown a history of denying certain furries (e.g. for being zoophilia through polls) and one of the worst things is that this guy, assuming this is the same, has posting some disturbing comments on a Flayrah (review) article partly reporting prejudice rules used for a furcon.

If you are a furry who's been put on the sex offender registry over a mistake you regret and don't do anymore, especially if such mistake was not violent and far more less preferred, and wish to be accepted as a person and want to find advice through legal messages, one of the things you should avoid is Askpapabear (http://www.askpapabear.com/).

___________
Some Effects of Some Sexual Record History
There are several family members and friends who has suffered due to prejudice and other insane effects caused toward victims of the sex offender registry and/or other negative things toward many people all because of a long regretted past. Reports of suicides strongly exist, depressions continue to exist from people who has done wrong but regret, and close friends and family has suffered because of these negative unfair consequences forced upon many of those who regret.
Not only this, but the sex offender registry has caused harassment and even the worst crime of all which was unlawful killing.

Some people who are on it may also be furries who are strongly wishing to move on and be happy in life for legal following reasons, and even some of those may be very young. It is horrible, and disgusting, and just as bad as violent child sexual abuse to treat a young person like crap because of a past mistake when the person who is suffering is supposed to get legal help.
It is extremely disgusting to force a person to be alone by never allowing them to make friends and be part of a legal community.

Papabear likely doesn't accept furries who regret and consider them to be less important than those with a "clean" record.
___________
The Disturbing Comments
Papabear's comment:

As a private entity, FC has the right to limit access to its convention, as long as doing so is not based on race, religion, sex, gender, nationality, etc. Banning someone with a criminal record falls in line with, say, an employer not hiring someone because they have such a record. I support FC's decision in this matter.

"I support FC's decision in this matter."
Reply to such comment:

No offense Papa Bear, but I had a lot of faith in you being open and accepting. If you support making people lose their jobs and/or never be happy in life because of a record while it's possible a lot of those people changed, then you have completely lost a follower of your blog.
I thought you were open and accepting? But if you support making people lose their jobs and/or never be happy again in life legally, then I can no longer support you.
I believe that the company has a right to remove someone, but you're saying that directly to something that is directly not allowing it rather than "may". That's what I mean.

 Papabear's reply:

You are not getting what I'm saying. How can you lose a job you never had? An employer has the right not to hire someone with a felony record. If I were an employer myself, I would not deny someone just on the basis of their past record. A lot of things come into account. Now, in the case of FC's policy, we are discussing violent criminal records, such as murder, rape, and pedophilia. You might not be aware of this, but the criminal justice system does not have a great track record for rehabilitating people. Indeed, people who go to prison are often worse for the experience. Add to this that a number of furcons have had to close because of attendee misbehavior, thus ruining conventions for everyone, and I agree that convention organizers have a right to be picky about who comes to their events. Another example. Here in Palm Springs, there used to be biker rallies allowed. Biker gangs would come here, drink, and often get violent. This happened year after year until the city said, "No more." Is it unforgiving and closed-minded to not let the bikers back to the city to cause pain and mayhem?
No offense, "Anon," but you don't get it. Sorry I lost you as a reader. Sounds like you need to keep reading it.

Replies to such comment:

I'm not very upset at you for saying they merely have a right to ban people for such record reason. Heck, I think they have a right to ban people for any reason legally. If they ban furries for wearing a pink fursuit, they have the right. Is it a stupid reason? It could be argued as "yes", but they still have a right. Though of course, people are allowed to legally criticize it.
I'm upset because you merely said "I support FC's decision in this matter.", like you agree with the rule itself being right, as in, the proper answer or "morally right". And that you may even have hinted at supporting the idea that anyone with a past record should never get a job.
And posting the comment here where the article was kinda wondering if this rule should be accepted as in the right answer or not maybe.

To add another reply, let me address your other main point.
Yes, a lot of bad things happen at furcons, but that doesn't mean we should by default ban every single person from the place just because of a bad record involving sex crimes, and not all sex crimes were violent. And I'm pretty sure I was focusing on that alone, not every single record. Though "pedophile" is merely attraction, I assume you mean child sexual abuse?
I believe in legaly protection of any legal furcon. But it would be far better if they were being more realistic on any person instead of including a ban that automatically includes those that actually changed. It would be better if this was more about certain recent people for example.
If someone, with or without a criminal record of a sexual offense has had a recent history illegal sexual behavior or some very suspicious activity that wasn't alone illegal, I would be more in support banning that person from entering because it's very likely the person is gonna cause trouble.
If someone, with a criminal record of a sexual offense, especially if such offense was small especially if based off at a young age, completed a necessary sentence and has had no history of bad behavior, still dreamed of a carrier, and was denied because of a past mistake, that just isn't good. This paragraph is what I'm more on the topic is. If you were truly supporting a rule that goes that broad to include those that really are not monsters forever, that's where I felt betrayed in terms of trust..

 Papa Bear's Reply to Last Part or Maybe Both

I'm sorry, but you actually expect the furcon admins to spend hours, days, weeks evaluating cases to see whether or not they merit consideration for entrance to a con after having been jailed for a sex offense? That is unrealistic. You apparently have no idea how busy these people are to organize a con. It is more important to protect the integrity of the con and the safety of its NON-criminal attendees than it is to protect the feelings of a couple people who have been found guilty of a serious crime.
Do some people change their ways? Yes, that happens. More often than not, however, sex offenders and people guilty of violent crimes such as assault and murder have serious mental and emotional issues that require the treatment of trained professionals. It is unfair to insist that furcon admins deal with this. They are not social workers, they are not the police, they are not psychiatrists.
If you're so offended by convention rules, the answer is simple: don't go to the convention.

The five main things:

• His "I support FC's decision in this matter." message did not look like as it's to the possibility right to ban, but rather, it was for the rule itself which also exposes this as a "moral good" decision to yet many other furcons, and many other jobs.
• his likely delusion that people with no record are "more important" with consideration that legal effort of those with past mistakes are a "waste" but isn't for those with no bad past. That is extremely disgusting of him to say!
• And not only that, but he has literally reacted against the criticism that a company can have some work to help trust certain people.
• Plus, it's likely clear he treat "criminals", even those that ALREADY payed for their crimes as a different.
• And finally, he acts as if every sex offender has serious mental issues and compared all of them to terrible crimes.

Papabear acts prejudice, promotes depression, and thinks many people with bad records are "less" important (discrimination) than those with a "clean record".

Update 12/26/2018: Due to further comments. It's very clear that my prediction of this person being a closed minded and non-accepting person is true now. Same with maybe some of my other claims. Once again, a negative prediction is correct maybe. There may still be updates without "Update". Update Done
__________
Did PapaBear Violate Trust Involving Privacy?
Update 12/26/2018: Never mind, according to a comment by the same name, the comment partly meant a possible comment on Flayrah.com somewhere. Update Done
__________
GO TO A REAL EXPERT LEGALLY AUTHORIZED
Even Papabear himself said he's just for entertainment and not for the following:

Disclaimer

"Ask Papabear" is for entertainment purposes only.

Papabear is not a trained therapist, physician, or social worker, and the author of “Ask Papabear” will refer readers to licensed professionals in cases where such recommendations seem in order.


Thank you.

Still regardless, if you want legal help as a furry. I can maybe suggest the following site:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/therapists
NOTE: I am not too sure on this website though.

And legal help from me? Well, don't worry, I am a true open and accepting of other person, I will not betray you unlike some people. Though I'm far from being an expert.
We all make mistakes, but everyone is still human after all and each human should have a right to be happy while living as long as the law is followed.

__________
MY DISCLAIMER
Furcons should be legally protected, but there is nothing wrong with suggesting some more careful legal review to those with bad past rather than ban them by default for trust. A broad discriminating rule by banning all people with bad history is not a good answer.

Victims of those bad pasts should be happy, however allowing those who has caused such bad past does not violate a victim's right by default, nor does it prevent the victim from legally enjoying a furcon. Banning someone for some personalities of a victim is only personal at this point, especially since action and people are two different things.

Sorry if I made a mistake or more in this article.
Even though I've left a non-supportive message toward such person, and asked him to not reply, he's allowed to comment here on this blog...

Message to 2cross2affliction

 Since commenting this on that website will likely get more hidden by those who abuse the rating system for their emotion, I will paste it here where they cannot hide it.

I might post this in a more known area outside of Flayrah too.

Note: I have likely modded for fixing. What I paste might not have the structure correct.

_______________________________________________________

2cross2affliction, I'm pretty sure I understand why.
Likely they enjoy people have their lives ruined through perversion of justice because of past mistake and/or out of the myth that someone who merely possesses are the same as those who do it. It's like claiming that it's a fursuiter's fault just because such person made a fursuiter when someone else committed a robbery in the suit, in an example where the person who made it did not intend that robbery.
Stop pretending you are some all knowing person who likes to lower class anyone else because they dare disagree with you! It's selfish and egoist.

Just because a comment restricts it, doesn't mean it's an offense to get around it automatically. Besides, there are cases where you're not logged in and for some reason I could vote it unless my IP changes.
If for example there is an AGREEMENT agreed upon stating that I can't alone, then yes there would be a rule. But a separate situation that has no clear word on it is likely different.
I'm not the "idiot", many people like you who lies toward people, and spreads false biased beliefs are likely.

You do not understand anything about morality a lot. You continue to hold on to the belief that SOMEHOW it's Toast's fault or partly for the person who made it in the first place, yet you provide no concrete proof.
Ever heard of free will? And ever heard of all those links and research you kept ignoring? All you do is depend on fear, and likely support a punishment that violates the 8th amendment and human rights.
You also don't understand even more as you went in (and I apologize if that isn't what you said) and flat out said that I am defending f***ing children when I didn't.
You don't get it do you, just because something is a rule, doesn't make it moral by default. To "abuse" the mark as spam feature to hide something that is likely libel is probably justified. And I am not "exploiting" children's suffering, I am stating Toast isn't as bad as the perpetrator unless he did aid the person intentionally, or did something else that does. If the person did something worse, then he's worse than whoever it was that abused the child.

You need to stop acting like you know everything when you don't. Especially when you go out and yell (and again, sorry if that's not exactly the case) that I somehow defend f***ing children and ignore research and what likely is a fact?
When are you gonna admit that you are not always right?
When are you gonna admit that you don't have a perfect past?
When are you gonna admit that you fucked up so much when you flat out lied to the public toward me if you did? When are you gonna admit any of that?
You're wrong sometimes, and no, that's not "an insult". Seriously folks, this is the same person that said disagreeing with a critic = insult if I'm not mistaken!
___________________

In response to:

Diamond Man, you don't understand why people are angry this guy has child pornography; I don't expect you to understand why people are angry that you are exploiting a glitch in the comment rating system.
And, yes, there is no written "please don't upvote your own comments" warning because the fact that you can't upvote your own comments while logged on is the warning. If you can't do something logged in, you're not supposed to do it, period. Most people understand this rule automatically; there is no written warning, and yet you're the only idiot who has to have his hand held and told "No!". The point I'm trying to make is you don't understand basic human morality on this inconsequential matter, so maybe your opinions on the morality of matters such as, oh, I don't know, CHILD FUCKING PORNOGRAPHY!!!!! are not based on a full understanding of the morality of the situation, either.
It's really the same issue, Diamond Man; you don't exploit bugs in the code to get what you want. You don't exploit children's suffering to get what you want. And you don't get that.
So, anyway, now that you've been told, you don't have to understand; I'm just going to strongly advise you to stop now.
Or, hell, keep on doing it. Maybe you'll actually get banned. That would be nice.

_______________

I also want to respond to another message posted by him:

Here is my message:
Don't go posting flat out information.

Journal: https://www.deviantart.com/another-realm/journal/2cross2afflication-Claims-I-Defend-Kids-775099417

Does Equivamp Wants to Ruin Someone's Life?

Hello, it's me again, I normally don't want to continue to talk about Flayrah page by page, so this might be the last sub article mentioning a part of Flayrah, after posting a comment being honest by expressing how infuriating it is to see people support cruel and unusual punishment (a form of perversion of justice), I've gotten an interesting barbaric reply from Equivamp himself:

Please look at this article too:
https://multiversefeeling.blogspot.com/2018/11/flayrah-irrational-for-thought-attacks.html

I might of said I didn't want to update the review of Flayrah, but I think this one deserves an update which involves this story. Might do so later.

Flayrah Irrational For Thought Attacks Again

A while ago, I've talked about Flayrah (Flayrah.com) and have already posted a review that I believe should be spread. Here is the review:
https://multiversefeeling.blogspot.com/2018/02/flayrah-is-poor-furry-site-review.html
If you're rational, and wants to debate calmly there legally, I suggest taking a look at the review there before you go.

Anyway, I've found an article that reported that someone has gotten lifetime probation after release from prison because of mere possession of certain illegal porn. I have commented as a concerned individual merely complaining that such double jeopardy, or worse, known as "life probation" was just one of those things that were perversion of justice, and completely cruel and unusual, all for a few bad pictures found on someone's computer.

As expected from such comments, the general cult of the website got offended, abused the rating system (as usual), and posted some childish immature comments back.

Here is some pictures of the comment thread:

This further once again exposes an agenda that promotes ruining people's lives all for a certain mistake or more, even over to the point when such mistake or mistakes are far more small.

I was thinking about updating the review, but thought it would be better to make a separate page about the update.

Sorry, But "Cyber-Bullying" IS Real

Note: Sorry if I got something or more than one thing wrong.
In reaction to this: https://www.theodysseyonline.com/cyberbullying-isnt-real

It is very likely that this person has never experienced what it's like to be cyberbullied, or at least, this person still doesn't understand that everyone's brains are not going to be the same as hers.

Not only that, but this person victim blames anyone who commits suicide by cyberbullying by saying the following: "Honestly, if someone blames texting or online activity for their suicide... they are insane. Cyber-bullying is not real! If someone who is online and not actually pestering you in your physical, real life is powerful enough to force you to suicide without meeting you or knowing you, then you are the weak one."

This is just disgusting on so many levels. This person is dictating how a victim should feel. According to this logic, saying such thing is no different than saying saying it's "weak" or "insane" when a child commits suicide because an adult said "take your clothes off" and then posted it online. It's also no different than when someone discriminates you in real life.

The internet is nothing more than just a communication and there is zero evidence to suggest that being miles away causes a difference. Words on the internet can effect the brain, just like the examples I put out (example of child exploitation and real life verbal discrimination). This person is obviously deciding with no real backup evidence that words on the internet are magically different, and this person has yet to understand how physiology works.
That has failed to prove that discrimination at school with real life words are different than discrimination with words on the internet in terms of abuse.

There are many effects of cyberbullying, and many people need to have a social media life.
If someone uses a social media life and gets harassed 24/7, that is an issue. Sometimes blocking won't work. Another problem is that many people can backlash against other people's safe and legal work because they are in a prejudiced stage for example. This unsafe environment causes the victim to feel less accepting and less hopeful just like being at a work place, or school. Another problem is how many forms of the internet can put terrible labels like slut shaming over people on the internet, causing it harder for the person to openly express themselves, just like in real life. Posting false information about someone is dangerous and hurtful and "turning off your computer" or "blocking" isn't going to prevent that.

Many examples I've used can effect the brain physiologically and some of these can be itself threatening regardless of how one feels.

So again, to call someone "insane" or the "weak one" is a very idiotic and evil thing to do. Anyone who said that are no different than victim blamers of child sexual exploitation or verbal discrimination in real life.

Addressing Further Comments

"If someone is harassing you online, you have so many options to get rid of them and ignore their presence; none of these options is suicide."

"Option one: turn off your computer or your cell phone. Get out of whatever app this person is harassing you on. This will allow you to cool down and think about your actions and theirs and be able to not have to listen to their comments on whatever social media they’ve targeted you on."
That won't work for everyone: Some people need to use the internet for social life, just like in real life. Some people also cyberbully others for some things not being wrong, telling the victim to change so the cyberbully can get away with it is morally wrong.

"Option two: block the person annoying you on whatever social media they are using to contact you. By doing this, you will be unable to see their comments and they will be unable to properly contact you and force you to commit suicide (if you are this weak). Yes, the person can just create a different account to harass you on, but then you can continue to block that new account. It is not that hard! "
Will that stop people from spreading false information about you? Will that stop people from talking behind you behind their backs like in real life? Will that stop insane harassment?
And really for your last sentence? It can possibly get hard, and to dictate that it's not a big deal over other people who have less control feelings is just wrong.

"Option three: Report the user who is “bullying” you online and try to get their account taken down and suspended. In this, the user will be unable to stop anything from going too far if the social media site does take down their account and suspend them from creating more."
I was a victim of one person trying to cyberbully me by making public hate arts directed at me. The person was suspended from the website, at least twice, but did that stop the person from stalking many of my accounts, did it stop the person from making updates with other people about me? Did it stop the person from going to another website with imitation, hate art, lack of credit of art, did it stop the person from downloading fictional child pornography increasing the risk of getting others in trouble, and what might be false information outside of the imitation issue? I don't think so.

"Option four: be strong and don’t be so easily persuaded by text on an electronic screen telling you what to do and to end your existence. This will show that you are not weak and that you are in fact a smart person who can make decisions for themselves instead of basing everything around what others think or tell them."
Bullshit, that's like telling victims of child verbal sexual abuse to stop being "weak" or telling those of discrimination at school to stop being "weak".
It's true that some people can survive cyberbullying, but the same can be said for bullying, and child verbal sexual abuse, and even child molestation.


There is no evidence that online communication is different than communication in real life as the internet is mainly a tool to communicate to real people as well. Growing up in a real life place is no different than using social media as an alternative, and many things on the internet can be similar to the issues in real life places, while some things can also be direct real life threats.

• Verbal abuse on the internet is verbal abuse in real life.
• Sexual harassment on the internet is sexual harassment in real life.
• Sexually talking to minors on the internet is the same thing as sexually talking to minors in real life.
• Slut shaming on the internet is the same thing as slut shaming in real life.
• Defamation on the internet is just as bad as defamation in real life.
• Publicly shaming homosexuals on the internet is no different than publicly shaming homosexuals in real life.
• Threats on the internet is no different than threatening in real life.
• Putting rude labels on another on the internet is no different than putting rude labels on someone in school.

All these examples are all communication to a real person in some way. 
It doesn't matter if you know these people or not. 

This person's ignorance and insane amount of stupidity is just disgusting, and I hope this person realizes how stupid of an article that was to make.

Interesting Article
http://waitsover.com/think-cyberbullying-isnt-real/
   

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: https://another-realm.deviantart.com/journal/Objective-of-Critiquing-Exists-725881839
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 probably 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

 NEW UPDATE 12/3/2018:
2cross2afflication straight out spreads dangerous false information.
I'm talking about that area with the claim that I am defending something horrible.

Reacting to a comment that had nothing to do with defending having sex with children.

And there are many people on this website who is part of the agenda that promotes ruining a person's life.

Older:

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, and that's censorship.

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.

Just recently, I wanted to add a bit more stuff GreenReaper very much said recently in 2019 (note: pasting might make layout slightly off):
 

I think you're trying to say there's an objective measure of quality, based on the construction of argument, and therefore if you're making well-reasoned, well-constructed arguments, you should be rated highly. But you're way off base. Quality is in the eye of the beholder. If they don't agree with your argument, they'll consider it to be a poor comment, or at best OK; certainly not great.
If essentially everyone disagrees with a comment, it's terrible and doesn't require further consideration except by the masochistic. That's what folding tries to do: eliminate suck. Non-controversial comments don't suck, or at least not enough to deserve folding. Even controversial ones tend not to fold - just fade, to represent the weakness of their support by the community.

Not only I argued that quality is not in the eye of the beholder, but even another user went in and stand against the idea that it is in the eye of the beholder.
You can probably guess what happened to comments in terms of ratings system.
I got spammed and censored with the effects of low ratings, no matter how well I try to argue why quality is not in the eye of the beholder.

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.

Conclusion
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 system is 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.

2/10

Terrible

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.

What a Bunch of Bullcrap

The only reason why I still continue this is because of a story which can be found here:
https://another-realm.deviantart.com/journal/JettTheWolf696-and-Criticism-721296199

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).