ID: 36245
Original ID: 7960170
From: Relkceh
To: Dragoneer
Title: No reply needed...re: account user Blazger...Investigative results.
Content:
Apologies for likely adding yet another note to a likely note-filled inbox.
I have years of investigative journalism experience under my belt.
Dealing with founded and proven facts often leads to a cold and
calculating view of the world...yet in this instance...as in several
others I've reported on...I find myself hard pressed to shove the
situation into a one objective hole.
The legal and ethical dilemmas aside (the first being clear cut, the
second purely subjective), the sudden shedding of light on this
situation still smacks of underlying malice.
Was account user Blazger right in what he did? Honestly, I don't believe he was.
Was account user Angelo blameless in the situation? Honestly, overall, I don't believe he is.
Should it have happened at all? No, definitely not.
The more I delve into this, the more I find that ethics and moralities
with regards to the fandom seem to be way out of sync with the rest of
societies norms. While supporters on both sides of this rift have their
own beliefs about what happened, I cannot help but put it all down to
one simple fact...that furry art scews the sensibilities of those who
view it, and of those who partake in the fandom. Furry pornography is
sexual deviancy. If people with to follow societies laws and moral
views on life, then furry porn IS sexual deviancy. Hell, homosexual sex
was, and often still is, considered deviancy.
Those who partake in the furry fandom seem more often than not to be
drawn to real life "deviancy"...not just sexual, for that matter.
Underage drinking, cyber sex between minors, cyber sex between minors
and adults, overt sexual encounters between minors and adults and
minors. While the argument of whether or not pornography leads to more
sex/rape/exploitation etc is still on-going, one cannot escape the truth
that in the furry fandom, you're more likely TO be affected by it than
not.
The law states that shota, for example, is illegal, yet says nothing, as
far as I know, about the legality of anthro porn. Yet it can be easily
argued that shota/cub porn is to pedophilia as anthro porn is to
bestiality, especially in the eyes of "normal" society.
Where does the line get drawn between allowable and bannable? And who
gets to decide that this is right and this isn't. That argument is
still ongoing between supporters of same-sex marriage and those who
wield the Bible as proof that it should not be.
Finding that "deviancy" is more likely in the fandom, casts both parties in a more suspect light.
One was 16, the other was 22...and while there are differences in
opinion between 18 and 21 being the age of maturity...just because the
law says so...doesn't mean they are...especially in this fandom.
While it seems I am defending Blazger...I am not...I'm merely pointing
out the vagaries of facts in this case...for in my experience there are
few situations where everything is clear cut and is as it is.
Ordinarily, 22 with 16 would have me siding with the "victim". Ordinarily...yet this particular case seems far from it.
Angelo claims he was distraught over what happened, yet waited 4 years
to come forward...during which time he has been witnessed as having been
in the same room as Blazger and not only been cordial, but friendly.
With this accusation springing forth at a time when Blazger is
under...what can only be described as "siege" for various actions and or
inabilities on his part...makes the accusation suspect and convenient.
Not untrue, in part...since by both parties admissions the event
happened. However, the "victim's" claim that it was undesired and
caused much distress is certainly suspect.
What happened should not have happened. Period. Blazger should have
wielded more restraint, period. Sex between a minor and adult,
regardless of maturity (a vague idea in itself), should not happen,
period.
Both individuals were affected by the base deviancy of the fandom
(master, pet, sex, pornographic art and stories), and both should have
wielded more restraint, the onus being upon Blazger, who was clearly the
adult.
Does this mean Blazger should be burned at the stake. Ordinarily, yes,
even I believe that much. But with the facts as they are, and with the
as yet unknown ministrations of unseen hands working with what I am sure
to be malice in this regard, no. Furthermore, it seems unlikely that
what happened was based on manipulation or predatory instinct (unlikely
since the state of mind of the "accused" is certainly beyond anyone's
knowledge), and that what happened...happened. While not an excuse in
and of itself, it is still an extenuating circumstance.
That does not cleanse Blazger of guilt...though it should make him
particularly fortunate that his transgressions in the past have not
become a guillotine...or should not become one...that particular
decision resting in your hands.
Many thanks for sitting through this. I ask not for prosecution or
dismissal, but rather a closer investigation into the true reasons for
these sudden accusations.
I would dearly love to put a "GUILTY AS CHARGED, SUFFER!" sticker on all
this and be done with it...but my gut, and my investigations, tell me
that there is more to this than meets the eye...and that though what
Blazger did at the time was legally and morally wrong, extenuation
circumstances may yet lead to a suspension of punishment.
My derision of the offense is countered by my derision of those who
would maliciously use such accusations not to clear the slate and gain
closure, but to gain retribution of some sort from something which may
never have been as bad as it has been made out to be.
Again, my thanks.
No reply needed.
Original ID: 7960170
From: Relkceh
To: Dragoneer
Title: No reply needed...re: account user Blazger...Investigative results.
Content:
Apologies for likely adding yet another note to a likely note-filled inbox.
I have years of investigative journalism experience under my belt.
Dealing with founded and proven facts often leads to a cold and
calculating view of the world...yet in this instance...as in several
others I've reported on...I find myself hard pressed to shove the
situation into a one objective hole.
The legal and ethical dilemmas aside (the first being clear cut, the
second purely subjective), the sudden shedding of light on this
situation still smacks of underlying malice.
Was account user Blazger right in what he did? Honestly, I don't believe he was.
Was account user Angelo blameless in the situation? Honestly, overall, I don't believe he is.
Should it have happened at all? No, definitely not.
The more I delve into this, the more I find that ethics and moralities
with regards to the fandom seem to be way out of sync with the rest of
societies norms. While supporters on both sides of this rift have their
own beliefs about what happened, I cannot help but put it all down to
one simple fact...that furry art scews the sensibilities of those who
view it, and of those who partake in the fandom. Furry pornography is
sexual deviancy. If people with to follow societies laws and moral
views on life, then furry porn IS sexual deviancy. Hell, homosexual sex
was, and often still is, considered deviancy.
Those who partake in the furry fandom seem more often than not to be
drawn to real life "deviancy"...not just sexual, for that matter.
Underage drinking, cyber sex between minors, cyber sex between minors
and adults, overt sexual encounters between minors and adults and
minors. While the argument of whether or not pornography leads to more
sex/rape/exploitation etc is still on-going, one cannot escape the truth
that in the furry fandom, you're more likely TO be affected by it than
not.
The law states that shota, for example, is illegal, yet says nothing, as
far as I know, about the legality of anthro porn. Yet it can be easily
argued that shota/cub porn is to pedophilia as anthro porn is to
bestiality, especially in the eyes of "normal" society.
Where does the line get drawn between allowable and bannable? And who
gets to decide that this is right and this isn't. That argument is
still ongoing between supporters of same-sex marriage and those who
wield the Bible as proof that it should not be.
Finding that "deviancy" is more likely in the fandom, casts both parties in a more suspect light.
One was 16, the other was 22...and while there are differences in
opinion between 18 and 21 being the age of maturity...just because the
law says so...doesn't mean they are...especially in this fandom.
While it seems I am defending Blazger...I am not...I'm merely pointing
out the vagaries of facts in this case...for in my experience there are
few situations where everything is clear cut and is as it is.
Ordinarily, 22 with 16 would have me siding with the "victim". Ordinarily...yet this particular case seems far from it.
Angelo claims he was distraught over what happened, yet waited 4 years
to come forward...during which time he has been witnessed as having been
in the same room as Blazger and not only been cordial, but friendly.
With this accusation springing forth at a time when Blazger is
under...what can only be described as "siege" for various actions and or
inabilities on his part...makes the accusation suspect and convenient.
Not untrue, in part...since by both parties admissions the event
happened. However, the "victim's" claim that it was undesired and
caused much distress is certainly suspect.
What happened should not have happened. Period. Blazger should have
wielded more restraint, period. Sex between a minor and adult,
regardless of maturity (a vague idea in itself), should not happen,
period.
Both individuals were affected by the base deviancy of the fandom
(master, pet, sex, pornographic art and stories), and both should have
wielded more restraint, the onus being upon Blazger, who was clearly the
adult.
Does this mean Blazger should be burned at the stake. Ordinarily, yes,
even I believe that much. But with the facts as they are, and with the
as yet unknown ministrations of unseen hands working with what I am sure
to be malice in this regard, no. Furthermore, it seems unlikely that
what happened was based on manipulation or predatory instinct (unlikely
since the state of mind of the "accused" is certainly beyond anyone's
knowledge), and that what happened...happened. While not an excuse in
and of itself, it is still an extenuating circumstance.
That does not cleanse Blazger of guilt...though it should make him
particularly fortunate that his transgressions in the past have not
become a guillotine...or should not become one...that particular
decision resting in your hands.
Many thanks for sitting through this. I ask not for prosecution or
dismissal, but rather a closer investigation into the true reasons for
these sudden accusations.
I would dearly love to put a "GUILTY AS CHARGED, SUFFER!" sticker on all
this and be done with it...but my gut, and my investigations, tell me
that there is more to this than meets the eye...and that though what
Blazger did at the time was legally and morally wrong, extenuation
circumstances may yet lead to a suspension of punishment.
My derision of the offense is countered by my derision of those who
would maliciously use such accusations not to clear the slate and gain
closure, but to gain retribution of some sort from something which may
never have been as bad as it has been made out to be.
Again, my thanks.
No reply needed.
ID: 36338
Original ID: 7934550
From: Relkceh
To: Dragoneer
Title: Pedophilia accusations against accounter user Blazger (objective note)
Content:
Having stumbled across this piece of drama I find myself compelled to send you a note in its regard.
While the accusations are severe, and should be punished if true, I find these accusations very...convenient...and suspect.
Following the trail back to its origins...it seems to be based on a rant
journal that has met with multiple retaliatory replies spread over FA
and LJ...effectively a...
X: you suck
Y: you suck
X: you suck
Y: you suck
X: RAPE!
Its kind of convenient that these accusations come four years down the
line at a time when the accused is under fire from multiple sources
seeking his "downfall", and seem to be seeking any means to achieve that
goal.
Having been in London when a leading paper decided to "Name and shame"
pedophiles, and witnessing the fallout, I'm very concerned when
accusations are made under such circumstances as exist now.
They posted pictures of several dozen convicted
pedophiles...sadly...some of the photo's were rather...aged...by several
years...resulting in innocent individuals who bared only a passing
resemblance to the actual predators being targeted, harassed and
assaulted, and said newspaper taking a "We cannot be held responsible
for the actions of our readers"
While knowing neither party...I nonetheless am concerned that the furry
mob-mentality rule will reign in such matters...and hope that your
investigations into it are objective. My experience journalistically
makes me very cautious in such matters...especially given what I had to
witness during above-mentioned papers foray into kangaroo justice.
With thanks.
Original ID: 7934550
From: Relkceh
To: Dragoneer
Title: Pedophilia accusations against accounter user Blazger (objective note)
Content:
Having stumbled across this piece of drama I find myself compelled to send you a note in its regard.
While the accusations are severe, and should be punished if true, I find these accusations very...convenient...and suspect.
Following the trail back to its origins...it seems to be based on a rant
journal that has met with multiple retaliatory replies spread over FA
and LJ...effectively a...
X: you suck
Y: you suck
X: you suck
Y: you suck
X: RAPE!
Its kind of convenient that these accusations come four years down the
line at a time when the accused is under fire from multiple sources
seeking his "downfall", and seem to be seeking any means to achieve that
goal.
Having been in London when a leading paper decided to "Name and shame"
pedophiles, and witnessing the fallout, I'm very concerned when
accusations are made under such circumstances as exist now.
They posted pictures of several dozen convicted
pedophiles...sadly...some of the photo's were rather...aged...by several
years...resulting in innocent individuals who bared only a passing
resemblance to the actual predators being targeted, harassed and
assaulted, and said newspaper taking a "We cannot be held responsible
for the actions of our readers"
While knowing neither party...I nonetheless am concerned that the furry
mob-mentality rule will reign in such matters...and hope that your
investigations into it are objective. My experience journalistically
makes me very cautious in such matters...especially given what I had to
witness during above-mentioned papers foray into kangaroo justice.
With thanks.