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