Victims Don't Get Rights to Prevent Society Giving Second Chances to Changed for the Good People

 WARNING: NSFW content is ahead. I advise this to be an 18+ only section.

Addition Note: This is in no way against victims not wanting to be around their perpetrators within places the victim has a right to control. A perpetrator or ex-perpetrator has no right to contact their victim without consent regardless of how changed they may be.

I am not a lawyer.

 

I've been personally looking up the Christine Weston Chandler (Chris Chan as the popular name) situation where he ended up being guilty of a serious crime involving his mother. The person seems to be very mentally sick and delusional, and I find it even myself a bit sad that he is back out on the streets already with no evidence of proper treatment. It's a shame the US justice system doesn't offer any proper required treatment for these people and I wish that could change for the good.

What do I think in this situational? What should happen to Chris? I really hope he gets the proper help he needs, however I also wish society would still stop making her worse and now since the person has committed something considered "unforgivable" by some, many more people are going and/or has already started to think that intentionally making her life worse is justice because apparently, they think that justice should be about traditional punishment rather than actual rehabilitation, and yet these people wonder why people like Chris Chan continues being crazy...

I'm already seeing a lot of perverted people arguing in favor of things that do not really help Chris Chan become better, but makes her likely worse, and apparently there is this discriminating revenge-desiring idea that if a victim of such perpetrator doesn't forgive then somehow other people lose the right to forgive despite no law recognizing this. At first maybe I was looking at this wrong and maybe was referring to people who think they can forgive replace the victim (but can still "forgive" separately) but after something, I'm starting to think this attitude is in fact, just another "victims should get their revenge" attitude that does nothing but disrespects rights that actually do exist, which is yet, another issue.

From Twitter User GleamyD (or Gleamy Dreams ~ )

After someone contacted an 'amendment' tweet that completely conflicts with a fictional character believing in redemption for everyone, the person ended up arguing that somehow a victim has a right to stop other people from believing in second chances for changed for the good people and argues that somehow an ex-predator moving on with people that the victim doesn't own is a "violation" of the victim's rights. The reason the person believes this is partly due to the delusion that a victim owns the public when the victim doesn't exactly own the public. The person also argued that they can't be fixed despite evidence conflicting such an idea.

This is quite frankly why I'm not expecting people like Chris Chan to ever improve soon because apparently there are freaks who thinks it's alright to vigilante harass changed for the good people off if the victim wants it and I feel that Chris is aware of the discriminating idea that redemption is forbidden at all times for people like her. The entire reason why US prisons are so broken is likely due to the obsession with retribution (a revenge type of justice), and this is sadly partly due to the obsession with victims wanting to get even, but all this did was make many criminals worse, not to mention how hypocritical it was already. Many people has criticized this, despite some victim's wishes, because of how hypocritical it was and how it makes many criminals worse. Despite what the victim wants, it's proven to create more victims and many people has considered abolishing it.

It appears a lot of people are once again making up perverted ideas, not even recognize by law (another reason why society shouldn't be 'courts' of justice), arguing in favor of revenge based ideas making up rights that absolutely doesn't exist to take away actual rights that do (i.e. the right to exist, the right to be around the right people if any, moving on lawfully, being happy). It's extremely a form of perversion and is entirely no different than arguing in favor of public executions because some victims wants it. It's just another issue in society that does nothing but makes many predators worse. I am frankly getting really sick and tired of it. Injustice is one thing I really hate and the stupidity of society like this is what made more criminals re-offend. As a believer of psychology and understands the many consequences of it, it's clear that this perverted attitude is as responsible as broken prison systems causing offenders to re-offend.

In a good society or good community, we don't "punish", we fix and then welcome them back into society after the proper treatment. Normality is something that these people need to be brought back to and that includes the ability to socialize lawfully. Take this away, then these people are less likely to get help, less likely to apologize, less likely to do certain amends and is likely to cause more family issues. Society seriously needs to be responsible better enough by understanding this and actually stop contributing to the problem. Social death increases crime. We need to stop believing in delusions that do nothing but make justice much more harder to achieve.

https://medicalxpress.com/news/2019-10-violence-linked-social-isolation-hypervigilance.html 

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/protecting-children-sexual-abuse/201908/sex-offender-registries    (Under "Why don't they work?", in forth point.)

https://www.aol.com/news/experts-say-sex-offender-registries-dont-work-can-they-be-fixed-215957631.html

In part of the third one I think: “If our goal is to end sexual offending, we need to invest in prevention, hold people accountable, support survivors, and ensure that people with past convictions can reenter society successfully.” — William Buhl, J.J. Prescott and Miriam Aukerman, Detroit Free Press"

______ 

Addressing Certain Arguments

I also want to make a different section here as an attempt to be clearer and add some addition criticism.

"Would you still say the same thing if the victim was in a real limited public place (online chat room or real life place) with the predator?"

That really depends on the owner of the place. I would personally prefer a small local furcon to not allow an ex-perpetrator if the victim is currently in it and the victim complains but this still really depends on what the owner as it's not what the victim owns.

"People like Chris Chan need to leave the internet forever because otherwise it somehow increases a risky situation and causes fear from many other victims!"

Chris Chan violated his mother outside the internet. She simply leaving the internet and being banned from it is not going to decrease the risk. It would be great if she simply left the internet to get proper treatment during certain time, despite that, her never coming back while still being outside prison isn't going to change the risk itself much. I don't know why some people seem to think a person leaving the internet forever with respect of 'moving on' is really going to magically fix the issue.

"The victim doesn't need to welcome the perpetrator back in the victim's life."

I AGREE WITH THIS. However that only works in certain situations such as the victim's own personal spaces such as a home or otherwise personal area(s), this does not include the perpetrators life that the perpetrator actually does own, including her own social space, her own home, her family, that kind of stuff. A victim certainly has every right to not let the person back into their home and/or contact them.

"But a stranger giving a second chance to 'perpetrators' that got enough treatment to come back into society violates the victim's rights because 'reasons'!"

A victim doesn't have a right to chase after the perpetrator lawfully moving on in their own life away from the victim. They also do not have a right to go after the perpetrator lawfully moving on with their own family, social friends, or existing society in general. A victim doesn't have to 'forgive' supposedly but that doesn't prevent other people from still giving a second chance in their own life (including with the perpetrator) that the victim does not own.

"But a victim may feel less safe, so their rights are violated!"

Having personal, yet understandable feelings like that does not change the fact that one doesn't get a right to enforce vigilante forcing ideas against rights that do exist. I should also point out that when dealing with a predator like Chris Chan, we need to understand that there may be a specific risk just by being outside of prison alone. Internet or not really doesn't change the risk at this point judging by the fact that she committed the offense outside the internet. She's in society either way, so what else is there? Prison? Well that won't happen likely unless she does something else that makes her go there, which wouldn't be good.

"Well, I still argue that people like her shouldn't be allowed to live a fulfilling life in society."

Then don't be surprised that they refuse to get help, refuse to give disclosure (properly) to their victim(s), and stuff like that.

"Well, it's only their fault for doing that, not us."

This is one of the most delusional tone-death arguments I've ever seen. This is the "la la la, I'm not responsible for this!" argument this big society likes to believe in and it's despicable. This is clearly no different than arguing that US prisons are not responsible for partly why the recidivism rate is very high. Psychology is real, and there is no evidence that free will exists. Even then, the likelihood pattern is there and many people are different.

"Well, some criminals didn't re-offend despite treated bad, so that proves my point!"

No, that's not really how it works. This is about likelihood at least, and it's been very clear that bad behavior such as US prison treatment does likely increase offending rate. When one country got rid of a similar US style prison, the rate noticeably went down. I don't even really need to explain this do I? There is research by research that society refusing to let these people have a good pathway to come back to, does increase more problems. This has been studied, realistically theorized, and very likely proven. It's real.

________

These type of predators are clearly broken individuals that need to be fixed/cured. We need to fairly make sure that happens and if society continues to make up more "excuses" that do nothing but discriminate against human beings, then they continued to being part of the problem. One big important thing that needs to be promoted is the separation of human beings and actions. And I firmly believe if society refuses to actually do the right thing, then I side with ex-predators keeping their name in secret if it's the only way to have a family, and/or socialize lawfully and be happy. This doesn't stop the victim from healing in their own life.

I think one thing that inspired me to make this article is due to an experience I've had with another person. This person was accused with doing certain things, but turned out to be likely false. During the time, many including myself believed the person was guilty, the person ended up attempting suicide (likely due to banishment from certain communities), and this really pissed me off at the idea that the person can't come back ever. One person argued that if improved, they should come back with better watching but one delusional freak replied saying something that means "Nope, 'consequences'" and sadly got some more upvotes.

Let's normalize criticizing this part of society with good words. I'm pretty sick of injustice.

Everyone can properly be redeemed. End of story.

Article might update...

No Furries, Certain Kind of Violence Is Not Always Morally Correct

 WARNING: For adults only.

Apologies for any incorrect info and I do argue to respect the law.

NOTE: I hate fascism. It's disgusting.

This is mainly meant to argue against a message that seemingly include people with mere specific thoughts or for lawfully spreading it, as by definition, it's possible to LAWFULLY COMBAT THOSE TYPES OF THINGS with NON-VIOLENCE. Because of this, disagreeing with the dangerous broad message does not logically mean defending Nazis getting away with fascism.

THIS IS NOT AN ARGUMENT AGAINST LEGALIZED SELF-DEFENSE...

I would sympathize if the message was only talking about the WWII Nazis who were attempting their crimes, and/or similar enough, however this is a more modern world (?) and the label "Nazi" may have expanded and some furries admitted to wanting people assaulted for mere beliefs alone (which is possible to control), which naturally means the old saying might not exactly work as "perfectly".

 Plus even if the "violence is not an answer" was involving war sometimes, that still might not intend to allow fascism and other bad stuff to take over the country as it's possible sometimes a response in a war could go too far. For example: "They've should of arrested that guy who was responsible for 9/11 if it was possible instead of killing him which might perpetuate vigilante revenge in society."

______________

"Violence is not the answer!" has always been a debate for a while, and even sometimes is debatable in war itself if I recall right, but some furries seem to be ignorant of that and seems to supports harassment to those that has the similar mindset of such idea, even to the point of violence which I will explain further down here...

The furry fandom is almost the worst thing to ever exist in this world, considering it's filled with vigilante delusions. The furry fandom seems to have this third-world limited mindset where they prefer violence as an answer in wrongful cases. Recently some furry wrote down a message requiring people to tick a box saying that it's always morally correct to punch a Nazi. A person who saw that stood up against the possible vigilante idea and rationally pointed out the fact that it's political (because that is a political opinion by definition) and said that violence shouldn't be an answer.

The furry ended up trying to call out the reaction in a Twitter (of course) thread where many dangerous delusional ideas went. Some argued that it's always self-defense, and doesn't care about law. Some believe it's even not political. Some also believes that anyone who disagrees is also a "Nazi". So that means that if I call out vigilante violence toward someone who has fascist beliefs where the violent reasoning is because of the beliefs itself while the person isn't acting out, then I would too be considered a "Nazi" even though that is incorrect. That also means that these types of furries are advocating physical assault to people who merely disagrees and reason lawfully (this attitude seems to sound fascist itself actually). A person in the war was also sort of "canceled" for calling out the hypocrisy of advocating illegal violence by some other furries.

This issue is an example of a fandom that further proves lack of civility and intelligence. These people in the fandom seem to forget, or refuse to believe, in the fact that there are better civil ways to deal with certain "Nazis". If someone is a "Nazi" but isn't actually attacking and isn't planning to, then clearly that is an example of someone who likely has rights to not be assaulted, and if you disagree with that, then you may need to be properly investigated by law. There is evidence that some of these "Nazis" don't act out on it illegally (if I'm assuming the term right of course), and if you can't see the difference between that, then you need to get proper treatment. This attitude some of these furries have are the same type of attitude that would falsely accuse someone as supporting what an awful criminal does just because that someone doesn't agree with the perverted idea that these people "deserve" to be beaten up in prison. As some might know, I am against the "death penalty" in the USA partly because I find it hypocritical, but that doesn't mean I agree with what the person did.

While it's true that fascism is bad, it's also true that stooping down to a low level by violently attacking someone just for having beliefs alone (which is not the same as victimizing by just having them) is also bad. It's clearly possible to fight against such awful belief with lawful activities (such as calling it out lawfully). Of course, some Nazis do try to attack and I would care less about punching them out of actual self-defense morally, however it's also true not every single "Nazi" does attack and to say that punching them is "always" self-defense regardless if this is out of the claim that "all Nazis" are trying to illegally act or some other belief, is morally debatable and dangerous.

It's clear this type of subject is the type of subject where many people seem to prefer to turn off their brain, which isn't what a first world society does. One can't claim one isn't a Nazi when you support vigilante violence as an answer for someone having mere thoughts alone, or using it as revenge. You are not properly fighting against fascism by engaging in vigilante violence for thought alone. Also if you support calling someone a Nazi to the public just because the person doesn't find violence as the answer in specific parts, and you believe Nazis should be punched, then you are advocating physical assault on someone for not agreeing with you about the topic of violence, which is clearly not okay.

Special Update: Due to a certain someone becoming a victim of false accusation, this only further proves my point. The fact that some of this furry fandom has stooped this low proves how entirely screwed up it became. These people in the fandom do not deserve to be labeled as people with "good" morals when they stoop down to such a low level, especially when they falsely accuse non-Nazis as "Nazis" just because they believes in "violence is not the answer." in certain scenarios. The fact that this childish fandom went this low, proves my entire point as to how this fandom clearly lost it's morals almost entirely. Many there claim "love and tolerance" (sort of) but then proceed to stoop down to levels of revenge when dealing with some people, this issue in general, and maybe now even to the point of wanting to assault people just for a different opinion (the thing in this topic) that isn't intended to defend certain things like Nazism. They, after all, likely is the same fandom that is responsible for fueling certain criminals to react negative to getting proper treatment (which counts as enabling them to abuse more living creatures) as they have no understanding of psychology. End of Special update

Two furries that are actually acting sane (related to someone else BTW).

__________________
Two Different People Examples

Someone lawfully shares certain fascist like beliefs against certain fictional anthropomorphic characters, and tries to ruin people's lives by heavy but lawful public call-outs with many supporters. What should happen to said person? The answer: Lawfully fighting it in certain ways. Have better policy on lawful websites, lawful speech against it.

A fascist breaks into a certain party that forbids people like the person and starts attacking people. The answer: If punching morally reasonable enough to fight back to protect the people, then it's morally justified. If security can make it in time to take out the Nazi then that is justified instead but if punching happened anyway out of honest and reasonable thought then it might be forgiven.

_________________

There is no evidence "every" Nazi is engaging in illegal activity.

Disagreeing with the perverted message does not make you a Nazi and nobody has a right to label you such thing unless you fit the definition of "Nazi".

Some of these people might have different kinds of beliefs and are trying to lawfully share them.

It's not lawful to punch someone without their consent for a mere belief and/or trying to lawfully spread such beliefs if possible. Immoral violence should not be normalized. Anyone that does anyway should be arrested for it, just like any other unjustified violence.

Even if a Nazi with a belief were to act out on it in the long term, if could be possible for the police to arrest the person before it's too late assuming legally possible, or other lawful ways maybe. It's possible some attempted crime can be caught without resorting to violence This is not to discourage legally self-defense by the way, this is just another separate point for very special scenarios.

The idea that all of them (if this includes what I assume it includes) should be violently attacked is a political belief because the idea that vigilante violence should be allowed is an opinion about people in the country(s). If political is still too much, it still remains a debatable opinion.

If the term "Nazi" in their eyes were only including those who were actively attacking people then I might be on board (depends I think).

_________________

Article might get updated.

Zrcalo Has Gone Too Far, but Same With TransphobicLss

There has been some drama and serious stories involving someone known as Zrcalo (main name, I assume) and if I'm reading right, there has been exposure of such person as being into minors, doxxing victims, claims of supporting bad specific people, promoting suicide, and specific other bad stuff. There was also a part (but I don't think is enough as being a predator itself) where I hear there was "jokes" that went way beyond "Adult Swim" humor.

Here is an example video that addresses maybe some of his behavior:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oxFaDzCB7l0

A group account known as TransphobicLss has done some exposing about some of the behavior, and I can maybe be thankful to that as it can be important whenever a person is still a threat. I don't fully agree with everything, but that doesn't mean I have to dismiss everything about it because of so. I prefer to have my own opinions on this matter.

Despite some things, there are indeed moments where I find TransphobicLss going a bit too far at times and I think, TransphobicLss really should be criticized for some things. I unlikely mean to come at such group of people as some kind of typical "EXPOSURE" type treatment, but more of one of those civil criticisms to some of the things that brought to my attention. Note that I probably won't exactly try to address every disagreement (for example, I don't agree that it's wrong for the 18 year old "Shark" (Aiya mainly) to use a good account as a distraction away from animals, after all, how it's managed might be debatable), but I would rather focus on some dangerous arguments and with likely no date order.

In one main highlight, I find TransphobicLss does lead on to focusing too much that it leans to 'stalking' someone and at times try to expose some as way more bad as to what they really are, and while I don't know Aiya well, I did hear he's a teenager and I feel like 24-7 stalking of him might in itself be a form of abuse, and considering 18 is not a magic number for age. This isn't to say that it was wrong to expose certain things, just I would rather be a bit careful about it. It's a bit complicated.

---

In one post, there has been an accusation saying that Aiya is as bad as Zrcalo, and the only claims of reasoning I've seen was that Aiya was said to be promoting zoosadism and "grooming" (I'm really skeptical of this one, which at one point later down here might show my reasoning). The other reasoning was that this person was 'talking' to a specific person and had some kind of manipulation similar to Zrcalo.

I have to disagree. Zrcalo did a LOT of things such as doxxing victims, likely 'orbiting' a minor, and so much more. In this involving Aiya, all I'm likely seeing is possibly a solicitation of likely a lesser thing (that I am unclear of, it doesn't show a lot of context), a mere talk with a specific person (which isn't really an offense if I recall right) and some kind of possible attitude with emotion which is probably nowhere near as bad as Zrcalo. I think it's unfair to use this to suggest that he's equally as bad considering Zrcalo did so much more worse things. The reason why I cared about this is because Aiya is a teenager who is still underdeveloped, was groomed (I think), and while a victim still has the possibility of being an abusive person alone, that still doesn't change that this is likely falsely accusing him to get more and more people to hate such person. I think that's not a really good way of dealing with a person that needs professional treatment. Remember too, just because he's guilty of something doesn't mean we should be abusive about it.

---

---

During another part of TransphobicLss, there was some accusation against something as "grooming" when it likely isn't. One of them involved making r*pe jokes involving minors. It was a bit hard to tell if the person was literally saying that it's grooming by itself. The person also likely suggested that it wasn't "Adult Swim" humor because not even Adult Swim makes blatant jokes like this (I can somewhat agree that yes, it's too far too). There was also a claim maybe that it wasn't even a joke... However this person did something that further suggested that making a joke about p*dophilia around minors is the same as grooming and even went on to liking a Tweet arguing that 'Adult Swim humor' cannot be shown to kids (during a topic of people that was included in 14-17) with a very bad poor argument saying that kids go to bed too soon as an attempt to justify that a program that partly allows minors 14 and up is exclusively to adults.

https://twitter.com/TransphobicLss/status/1617260949949546496 

The Tweet that was liked in question...

This in my opinion was one of those most silliest and dangerous things I've ever heard (mainly the tweet TransphobicLss liked). Why do I care, even though I even found the exact jokes too far too and knowing Zrcalo is still a bad person? Because it's extremely concerning to call something that many adults do online and on certain shows a "groomer" for this. This is sort of equivalent to calling a parent a "groomer" because they let their 15 (or even 12) year old watch an episode of Family Guy. Not only that, but Adult Swim is not only mainly TV 14, so many minors actually usually stay up until 12 AM and Adult Swim can even be accessed mostly any time on the official app. There are even many parents that let many teenagers watch it. I'm pretty sure I was one of the kids that were allowed to watch it. I am not going to call my parents "groomers" because of that... The creators of say, Family Guy knows that many teenagers will see their show (which even has p3dophile jokes in it) as they likely know about this, intentionally lowers the age rating with some censorship, and still proceeds to publish it.

To say that someone making an "Adult Swim humor" style joke without actually being into minors* in front of 16 year olds, is committing predatory behavior, is not only insanely ridiculous but this is exactly the same as accusing thousands and thousands of creators who didn't feel like they needed to censor strictly their lawful media knowing certain ages will likely see it. It can be debatable whether one thing can be 'appropriate' or not for some ages to see, but to force an overly strict idea and then accusing someone as predators or "groomers" over something like that, is morally questionable... There are so many people online who were following content strictness rules and law but didn't act as strict, and to argue they are predators because they didn't feel like they needed to limit some of their stuff as 18+ only when the rules and law didn't require that is a bit too far. Also there is PG-13 certain movies, T-rated certain games too. Even certain MA 17 games... Are the creators of those predators too by default? Are the parents who suggested one of these a predator? *Note: This is more scenario. Zrcalo might actually be into actual minors. This is strictly more focused as a separate point.

Maybe making an Adult Swim "style" (e.g. Herbert careful sensitive joke?) joke in front of 16 year olds might be considered too far by many? I don't know and maybe I need to know, but I do believe there is a very big difference between someone who mentioned a debate, joke, or maybe somewhat adult desire, lightly mentioning sex as a topic without restricting it to 18+ and not caring if minors will see it, than someone who is actually attracted to minors and is trying to act s*xually in front of them for pl*asure reasons or trying to meet them. If it really turns out that it's too far all this time involving people who were never attracted to children, then can we please at least just not treat these people like they are a threat to children over it? A parent who let a 7 year old watch Family Guy could improve but still shouldn't be treated like an actual predator for it still.

---

---

In another post, there was strange arguments about a specific company (*** Dragon) that makes certain products and while I don't remember seeing that this person went against a such company, I still want to say that it's ridiculous to go after many furries who purchased some of these because of moral panic feelings about zo*philia or one of the creators. I don't know if this deserves a highlight, but I guess I'll allow it.

---

---

I think I remembered something else but I can't remember so I'll just mention that there may have been an accusation of someone by claiming the person was dating a minor like the person was a p3dophile. At first it sounds reasonable, but then it was said there was a two-year age gap, which isn't p3dophilia... I also heard the person made a specific topic too open, but I don't think that's evidence of a person by definition being p3dophilie. Remember, a parent technically exposing a 7 year old to an episode of Family Guy (while that is too far because of rating requirement) was more of a stupid action, and can be something shamed, but that doesn't justify treating the parent like they are automatically a p3dophile who can't see their kids anymore...

---

_______

Whenever I see the "canceling" side of furry. I have often seen a lot of questionable things so far. I have an extreme hatred to a lot of the culture as a lot of that part of furry has often gone too far and prefer a socialist style fandom. Some even going against four-legged anthropomorphic animals doing smut because of LEGS while still supporting something being exactly the same psychological nature (It's either all that or not), but I can probably still see some good in this account despite some mixed feelings, so I won't exactly view this as one of those accounts (like the account that partly "exposed" KaimTime for having some 'feral' NSFW account), for now...

I wish this person could stop coming up with weird moral ideas because I think stuff like that is what drives concerning specific individuals away. I feel like this person overly exposes people, likes terribly and dangerous Tweets, and heard this person wanted people in prison over a victimless fictional specific outlet (I mean yeah, it's concerning but prison for victimless is still too far). I also think the person needs to be careful about how they handle bad people directly other than what I already mentioned. At the moment, I won't entirely give up on this individual(s), but I'm not sure how long that will last.

I also want to suggest someone in that account to make a better and lawful document on Zrcalo bringing up very big highlights that are for sure, predatory behavior, including the doxxing thing, death wishing, promotion of suicide (was even to a victim I think), and probably some other very serious stuff. If the r*pe jokes need to be brought up, I would rather show concern if the person is being so serious with it in some way or share the argument that it's not appropriate to explicitly make jokes like that in front of minors (because like I said, I do believe that went too far in another way). Right now the account is a big mess. Many of the very serious stuff is usually being buried. I would rather have a nice clean and lawful document (it would be a nutshell maybe in comparison) re-exposing a lot of the horrible stuff.

Maybe I'm missing a few points and I don't mind a healthy debate here. Disclaimer: I don't think I am a friend of Zrcalo, or Aiya, not that it matters. Sometimes I find some random stories online and might notice some interesting things.

Article might get updated.

Bunch of Furries Are Possibly Responisible for Animal Abusive Behavior

  WARNING: This isn't a place meant to be read for minors. If you are a minor, do not read. I do not know if it's too much, but I put this warning here anyway.

 

A while back ago, there has been a bunch of evidence suggesting Kero The Wolf (A large known 'furry') is guilty of zoosadism. One behavior was deadly to the animal, and there were specific other offenses involved. As someone who has a care for many animals, I certainly wouldn't trust such a person to be around my pets, and seeing how he has shown no regret for his actions he did to those animals, I can see and understand a lot of concern involving this individual.

For some reason, some people's ways of handling him, just stinks. For some weird, strange, and somewhat mind boggling reason, some furries are acting like they can gatekeep the fandom (they literally aren't allowed to do that due to human rights) and seem to act as if him being "in" the fandom is somehow the ultimate crime and that the ultimate goal seems to be that he should be witch hunted out of it, as if that will solve the problem. It's as these people seem to forget the fact that he's outside of prison still, still has no evidence of him being fixed (getting proper treatment, which is destroying his evil desires from inside), making him still a threat, and is possibly around real animals. I sometimes wonder if these furries even really care about real animals, or cares about clout and/or wants to protect an 'image' that doesn't even exist? When I see an individual being a threat to animals, I really don't give a rat's ass about him being a furry. I would care how risky it is involving him being outside of a proper facility, it's not him being technically part of a specific community that nobody owns and isn't itself a real place.

If I had to care about him being online, the only risk I can really see is that he might start finding other people online to aid offensive behavior involving animals and/or contact finding more animals. Him leaving a certain fandom having nothing to do with real animals, isn't going to fix that problem. If I was worried about him existing online, I would be worried about him being around the wrong people. This could either be him having a large enough platform (furry or not), possibly finding the wrong places in private, and/or probably one or more than one other things. If he wants to be a furry so badly, but prefer him doing so safely with good people alone lawfully, then I don't think I would care.

Am I saying that he should come back to main online when he's still a threat? No. Despite that, I mainly just don't get the obsession with trying to kick him out of a place that has nothing to do with real animals, as if that will break apart the entire surface. People in the fandom are not anymore or less morally obligated to do something right about him than anyone outside of the fandom and these people need to realize that going after Kero's innocent's interest (such as him being furry) is not magically going to save animals or restore what happened, and you know what? It might just make it worse to do so.

Are Furries Pushing Him Into Re-Offending?

When dealing with bad people, society has a type of responsibility as to how they handle it, similar to how prisons do. Science clearly shows that psychological effects from other people are real, and it's been proven that if you treat criminals like animals, they will less likely be fixed and have a higher chance of reoffending (here is an interesting video). There has been evidence for this involving prisons, and there has been evidence suggesting how main society treats a specific group of people actually increases the risk of further abusing. -article 1- -article 2- These are mainly examples, of course, but they do go in favor of this theory involving specific individuals not in prison and not on some registry.

Some might argue that the criminals in prison are different because they are in prison. Remember, they do release many people eventually, so the chance of re-offending outside of prison due to past-treatment is obviously there and therefor can be compared with social issues dealing with certain other people outside of prison. There might also be indirect effects from what happens in prisons too.

For a while, I have often seen god-awful responses to how they handled Kero, and recently I've seen some furries on Twitter stooping down to a low level by intentionally promoting harassment by asking people to bully Kero, and even going out of the way to even shame people for refusing to engage (so much for nazi-free furry fandom). This right here is what ticked me off as someone that believes in human rights and realizes this type of trash likely pushes certain people into re-offending. If this was just an alert that Kero simply changed his appearance online for example, then I would care way less.

In my theory, I would argue that these types of furries are responsible for animal abusive behavior. I have argued this with some people and it seems they can't understand the problem. Perhaps I blame Twitter for making it hard to explain... I'll explain here...

The Main Issue?

I would like to remind that just because a person is currently a threat, doesn't mean rehabilitation isn't possible. They are a threat, so enough restriction must be obligated and that may be fair, at the same time, they MUST be treated properly and legally. If you handle it wrong, then you become responsible for the reaction of said person wrongly. If you leave less room for improvement, then you have accelerated the push of him possibly re-offending. Remember Norway prisons? They are to take in people believed to currently be a threat, and because rehabilitation is possible, they must treat them fairly while they are restricted enough. If they get treated like crap, they will more likely react negatively to the treatment. They will likely respond with more hatred too. Remember, many of these people do get released eventually.

Now it is true that Kero still has too much freedom, possibly online too. If he's too free while a threat, it's not like welcoming him back with open arms is going to much solve anything too. Yeah, I don't think it will save animals from him either. I want to point out that I'm not exactly trying to argue that we should completely welcome him back at this moment. It's mainly just that when one responds negatively to bad people, one needs to be careful, especially when they aren't that restricted in real life.

A good example response would be warning about him while he's a threat, criticizing him arguing that he's a threat and shouldn't be around animals, while encouraging him to get professional good treatment by arguing that he can get another chance at society if he puts in the right effort. Warning pet stores about him would be a good idea too.

A bad example response would be sending him death threats, doxxing him for vigilante reasons, strongly discouraging proper treatment by saying anything that means "Even if you changed, you can't come back!", and/or telling him to die. - One of these or more than one of these not only push him away from getting proper treatment, it likely creates simulation of hatred, causing him to hate other people more, possibly making him prefer staying away from getting proper treatment. That type of stuff is a complicit.

Remember, Kero the Wolf is still too free. He's not in a proper prison as far as I know, so the way he's treated is likely going to have an even larger impact involving animals (and maybe even humans too) while he's still free. There might be a chance that the good example might not fully be enough to fix the problem alone (clearly there has to be a better handling), however that doesn't change the fact that treating him wrongly likely causes him to offend faster, which is still a complicit.

Some people seem to have this idea that fully welcoming Kero back would somehow be a complicit to animal abusive behavior. There is also the idea that poorly handling Kero will also be a complicit to animal abusive behavior. You can't pick only one to be concerned about in this situation. It also doesn't matter what you call those poor handling, whether one calls it "consequences" or "justice", it won't change how debatable they are.

_____________

NUTSHELL KINDA: If you want to call out Kero assuming he's a threat, do it right. Warn people about him, tell him to get proper treatment, report any criminal activity to law, warn certain pet stores, have big main media places ban him. There can be other good things to do involving him too. If you only did one of these things for example, it's still better than nothing I guess.

Also, certain furries need to stop weirdly going after neutral furries for wanting nothing to do with it assuming the law doesn't make them do so. If people are allowed to not join the police force, then I'm pretty damn sure furries are not obligated to specially be part of special predator hunting. I'm not interested into being an active predator hunter (but I might have some sayings intentionally for the better like this main article). As long as I am not responsible for causing anyone doing harmful things, leave me out of it. I've seen some 'hunters' call out wrong people, promoting harassment, and some is anti-"feral" (don't even get me started on that one). My hatred to that side of furry cancel culture is high, even if there was some good things in it.

_____________
Article might get updated.