# Why is the group 'intolerant-furs' banned?



## insane_kangaroo (Aug 15, 2011)

I see many users who are followers of the group tolerant-furs are those which indulge in illegal activities like doing drugs, some in to bestiality, pedo here and there.

I was curious why intolerant-furs is banned. What's wrong about being intolerant of people who break the law and flaunt it?

While I don't know what types of people joined intolerant-furs, I'd like to believe they are intolerant of people who break the law.

If intolerant-furs remains banned, tolerant-furs should be banned as well due to the type of people who join the group.


----------



## Xenke (Aug 15, 2011)

Wow, you really do find the most retarded things to go on about.

"What's wrong about being intolerant of people who break the law and flaunt it?"

Yea it doesn't say that. It says "If you don't like it...Relentlessly Mock it."

Nope, doesn't seem like a group promoting the harassment of others at all.


----------



## insane_kangaroo (Aug 15, 2011)

The group can be reconfigured. I don't see why it deserved a ban. An admin should've messaged the group owner warning about harassment.

I was bothered seeing the tolerant-furs group tag on people who are breaking the law and was seeing if there was an intolerant-furs group.


----------



## LizardKing (Aug 15, 2011)

insane_kangaroo said:


> I don't see why it deserved a ban. An admin should've messaged the group owner warning about harassment.



Maybe they did. Maybe it was full of (now deleted) "FUCK YOU, BABYFUR SHITBAG FUCKS" submissions and journals. Maybe they _just didn't give a fuck._


----------



## BRN (Aug 15, 2011)

insane_kangaroo said:


> The group can be reconfigured. I don't see why it deserved a ban. An admin should've messaged the group owner warning about harassment.
> 
> I was bothered seeing the tolerant-furs group tag on people who are breaking the law and was seeing if there was an intolerant-furs group.



The idea of "intolerance" wasn't banned, _though it's fucking obvious that it shouldn't be promoted_. A particular group with a particularly immoral code of conduct was banned, which just happened to have the name 'intolerant-furs'. The name doesn't make that group the objective standard for the concept it named itself for.


----------



## insane_kangaroo (Aug 15, 2011)

That could very well be the case. If so, I'd like to take it over and turn it in to an intolerance against illegal activities group.


----------



## BRN (Aug 15, 2011)

insane_kangaroo said:


> That could very well be the case. If so, I'd like to take it over and turn it in to an intolerance against illegal activities group.



  In essence, a redundant broadcasting station for one man's subjective take on an  optional moral code.


----------



## insane_kangaroo (Aug 15, 2011)

SIX,

there have been several furries, including myself, which have maintained a certain level of observation of the community. Some individuals who observe have turned certain people in which get arrested, others under federal investigation for crimes like child pornography. I think it would be good to have some sort of watch group, to make it clear illegal activities will not be tolerated on FurAffinity or in the furry community.


----------



## BRN (Aug 15, 2011)

insane_kangaroo said:


> there have been several furries, including myself, which have maintained a certain level of observation of the community. Some individuals who observe have turned certain people in which get arrested, others under federal investigation for crimes like child pornography. I think it would be good to have some sort of watch group, to make it clear illegal activities will not be tolerated on FurAffinity or in the furry community.



 Owning a group will not help you achieve this end. Defending against amorality and exposing persons conducting illegal activities is good. But that is not the definition of "intolerance"; broadcasting "intolerance" is not something I agree with. The idea reeks of broadcasting petty propoganda over personal taste; "intolerant_furs" is not about the protection of children, but about the active suppression and deliberalisation of other people.


----------



## insane_kangaroo (Aug 15, 2011)

Hmm, perhaps a different name, similar to how there is neighborhood watch.


----------



## LizardKing (Aug 15, 2011)

insane_kangaroo said:


> Hmm, perhaps a different name, similar to how there is neighborhood watch.



Neighbourhood watch? What about Watch Your Step?

Or WIWAC - Wish I Was A Cop.


----------



## insane_kangaroo (Aug 15, 2011)

WYS was a failure because whats-his-name went after any furry who performed an action which was stupid in his view. I'm advocating a group which watches for illegal activities, especially pedophiles, on FA/Furry.

People need to be better netizens and start making reports to the police over illegal activity.


----------



## Xenke (Aug 15, 2011)

insane_kangaroo said:


> I'm advocating a group which watches for illegal activities, especially pedophiles, on FA/Furry.
> 
> People need to be better netizens and start making reports to the police over illegal activity.



I'd certainly hope you'd only go after people for whom you actually have reasonable proof, instead of dragging them through the mud on suspicions.


----------



## insane_kangaroo (Aug 15, 2011)

I've not reported anyone or have the result end in an official investigation unless there was solid evidence.


----------



## Xenke (Aug 15, 2011)

insane_kangaroo said:


> I've not reported anyone or have the result end in an official investigation unless there was solid evidence.



I'm just saying it since you're advocating for this in a group setting. Based on many of the people I've seen on the internet, people are fast to condemn without any evidence.

Just voicing a possible concern.


----------



## Ozriel (Aug 15, 2011)

Because many "tolerant" furries bitched that it was a group to troll the tolerant furs..instead of tolerating it.
I liked that group...and I think I watched it.. I dunno.


----------



## Fay V (Aug 15, 2011)

If you want a group with a different objective, and a different name, then why not start a new group?


----------



## Smelge (Aug 15, 2011)

Fay V said:


> If you want a group with a different objective, and a different name, then why not start a new group?



Why start something new, when you can hijack an existing cause and it's members?


----------



## Fay V (Aug 15, 2011)

Smelge said:


> Why start something new, when you can hijack an existing cause and it's members?


Because the behavior of the members killed it in the first place?

"oh my, it looks the building to your arson recovery group burned down, join our group!"   three months later the leader baws at city hall for closing his building down because it kept catching on fire.


----------



## Volkodav (Aug 15, 2011)

ive wanted to know this for a while

& no, sorry, the users dont get groups banned, the people who dislike it do
nobeastiality and stopfuckinganimals were STRICTLY anti-drama, yet the zoos had no problem going to the groups and picking fights.

intolerantfurs was the same way. they didnt call anybody out or anyhing but this didnt stop the chickenhawks and dogdiddlers from harassing the members of the group


----------



## jcfynx (Aug 15, 2011)

We are intolerant of your intolerance.


----------



## Volkodav (Aug 15, 2011)

jcfynx said:


> We are intolerant of your intolerance.


join intolerant-furs!!!


----------



## Iudicium_86 (Aug 15, 2011)

Because nothing of value was lost. 

Besides, isn't 'intolerant' just another word for 'bigot, hater, monomaniac, segregationist, prejudiced, etc?


----------



## Volkodav (Aug 15, 2011)

Iudicium_86 said:


> Because nothing of value was lost.
> 
> Besides, isn't 'intolerant' just another word for 'bigot, hater, monomaniac, segregationist, prejudiced, etc?


Not if you look at it the way IK is, which is the way I was looking at it.


----------



## Fay V (Aug 15, 2011)

Iudicium_86 said:


> Because nothing of value was lost.
> 
> Besides, isn't 'intolerant' just another word for 'bigot, hater, monomaniac, segregationist, prejudiced, etc?



No in the same way that sharing =/= communism. You can be intolerant of something without being a bigot. Personally I'm really intolerant of putting arsenic in the water table, I'm intolerant of murder and child molestation. Usually it's when people can't back up their intolerance that they are bigots.


----------



## Iudicium_86 (Aug 15, 2011)

Clayton said:


> Not if you look at it the way IK is, which is the way I was looking at it.


 


Fay V said:


> No in the same way that sharing =/= communism. You can be intolerant of something without being a bigot. Personally I'm really intolerant of putting arsenic in the water table, I'm intolerant of murder and child molestation. Usually it's when people can't back up their intolerance that they are bigots.



Which is all fine. However, the particular group in question did not follow any such guidelines. Not much use in a group who's intro is "If you don't like it...Relentlessly Mock it." IK implied more credit than warranted for such a group. But as already suggested by others in this thread, a better route would be to make a different group with much more agreeable and non-hate-mongering guidelines.


----------



## Fay V (Aug 15, 2011)

Iudicium_86 said:


> Which is all fine. However, the particular group in question did not follow any such guidelines. Not much use in a group who's intro is "If you don't like it...Relentlessly Mock it." IK implied more credit than warranted for such a group. But as already suggested by others in this thread, a better route would be to make a different group with much more agreeable and non-hate-mongering guidelines.



i'm not saying that the group shouldn't have been banned. I was just pointing out the fault in the statement intolerance=bigotry


----------



## Iudicium_86 (Aug 15, 2011)

Fay V said:


> i'm not saying that the group shouldn't have been banned. I was just pointing out the fault in the statement intolerance=bigotry



Which I understood. And I didn't make the post without knowing it's faulty implication, I'm "Intolerant" of certain things myself as well. I was just using the terminology of 'intolerance' in context of it's use and purpose of this group in question.


----------



## Devious Bane (Aug 15, 2011)

Instead of bitching, OP should have just made a group like_ Intolerant Furs_ and then ask why it was banned(assuming it gets banned).
Most obviously, it did something that made someone with massive amounts of egotism/whiteknights really upset. Since this is the furry fandom and not life, it got banned.


----------



## Andy Nonimose (Aug 15, 2011)

insane_kangaroo said:


> WYS was a failure because whats-his-name went after any furry who performed an action which was stupid in his view. I'm advocating a group which watches for illegal activities, especially pedophiles, on FA/Furry.
> 
> People need to be better netizens and start making reports to the police over illegal activity.



Yes, we know you get a hard-on when it comes to pushing your moral agenda. :V

Policing an international community with a whistleblower group is pointless. Laws in different countries, including limited extradition, leave room for people to thumb their noses at said group.

If you want to proclaim your morals, the group Straight Edge Furs is up your alley. If you wanna play furry police, make your own group and call it "Douche Patrol" or something revealing like that.


----------



## Volkodav (Aug 15, 2011)

Andy Nonimose said:


> Yes, we know you get a hard-on when it comes to pushing your moral agenda. :V
> 
> Policing an international community with a whistleblower group is pointless. Laws in different countries, including limited extradition, leave room for people to thumb their noses at said group.
> 
> If you want to proclaim your morals, the group Straight Edge Furs is up your alley. If you wanna play furry police, make your own group and call it "Douche Patrol" or something revealing like that.


Do you know what straight-edge means?


----------



## Andy Nonimose (Aug 15, 2011)

Clayton said:


> Do you know what straight-edge means?



Using it as an example of one of those anti-substance groups, since OP mentioned drug use earlier.

Go whiteknight some other crazy. :V


----------



## Volkodav (Aug 15, 2011)

Andy Nonimose said:


> Using it as an example of one of those anti-substance groups, since OP mentioned drug use earlier.
> 
> Go whiteknight some other crazy. :V


Straight-edge doesn't mean anti-substance. "Straight-edge" is what some people use to identify themselves as choosing to live a drug-free and promiscuity-free lifestyle. They aren't about hating drug addicts and kicking the teeth out of people who smoke cigarettes, they just choose to live a clean lifestyle.

I don't understand what that has anything to do with intolerant-furs.


----------



## Andy Nonimose (Aug 15, 2011)

Clayton said:


> Straight-edge doesn't mean anti-substance. "Straight-edge" is what some people use to identify themselves as choosing to live a drug-free and promiscuity-free lifestyle. They aren't about hating drug addicts and kicking the teeth out of people who smoke cigarettes, they just choose to live a clean lifestyle.
> 
> I don't understand what that has anything to do with intolerant-furs.



Nice attempt at a red herring, but as I said, an example of a high-horse group and the point was that IK spends too much time being the nosy neighbor of the furry community.


----------



## Fay V (Aug 15, 2011)

Clayton said:


> Straight-edge doesn't mean anti-substance. "Straight-edge" is what some people use to identify themselves as choosing to live a drug-free and promiscuity-free lifestyle. They aren't about hating drug addicts and kicking the teeth out of people who smoke cigarettes, they just choose to live a clean lifestyle.
> 
> I don't understand what that has anything to do with intolerant-furs.



probably the same, the name does not make the group. The original intent of straight edge is about not doing substances, but many straight edge groups are known to have a chip on their shoulder and try to push their own views on others.


----------



## Volkodav (Aug 15, 2011)

Andy Nonimose said:


> Nice attempt at a red herring, but as I said, an example of a high-horse group and the point was that IK spends too much time being the nosy neighbor of the furry community.





Fay V said:


> probably the same, the name does not make the group. The original intent of straight edge is about not doing substances, but many straight edge groups are known to have a chip on their shoulder and try to push their own views on others.


 Did you bother reading the About Me of the straightedgefurs group?
No? Go read it right now and maybe you'll learn that no, they're not into hating on drug-users.


----------



## Andy Nonimose (Aug 15, 2011)

Clayton said:


> Did you bother reading the About Me of the straightedgefurs group?
> No? Go read it right now and maybe you'll learn that no, they're not into hating on drug-users.



Did I ever say that the straightedgefurs group hated on drug-users? No. Proclaiming one's moral code and hating on the code of others are two different things. Take your strawman argument elsewhere.

Believe it or not, I did read it. I also read up on the history of said group. Just because the FA group doesn't advocate it, doesn't mean that there aren't members within it that do.


----------



## Volkodav (Aug 15, 2011)

Andy Nonimose said:


> Did I ever say that the straightedgefurs group hated on drug-users? No. Proclaiming one's moral code and hating on the code of others are two different things. Take your strawman argument elsewhere.
> 
> Believe it or not, I did read it. I also read up on the history of said group. Just because the FA group doesn't advocate it, doesn't mean that there aren't members within it that do.



That was directeda t both you and Fay. The "they dont hate on drug-users" was directed at Fay.
Okay well I've never met a straight-edge person who wants to go on a murderous rampage against drug users. You're probably reading into myths!


----------



## Judge (Aug 15, 2011)

What exactly is wrong about Pedophiles, babyfurs, bestiality, ect.?


----------



## Andy Nonimose (Aug 15, 2011)

Clayton said:


> That was directeda t both you and Fay. The "they dont hate on drug-users" was directed at Fay.
> Okay well I've never met a straight-edge person who wants to go on a murderous rampage against drug users. You're probably reading into myths!



No True Scotsman...nice. :V

For every group, there are crazies. See: Furries.


----------



## Fay V (Aug 15, 2011)

Clayton said:


> Did you bother reading the About Me of the straightedgefurs group?
> No? Go read it right now and maybe you'll learn that no, they're not into hating on drug-users.



Again it's just a comment on the intent of the group versus the behavior of the members. The intent is not to hate on drug users or alcohol drinkers, fine. That does not mean that people that identify as straight edge don't do that. This is the case with a lot of things I can make a group about not liking milk, I can say the intent of the group is just to bring together others that don't like milk. However if members of the groups start to hate on others that like milk, the group will become known for that. 
Intent is one thing, but if the behavior doesn't match then the group is known for the behavior.

Edit: I did not ever say that straight edge people go on murdering sprees. I said that some act high and might. SOME not ALL. Some people use their own lack of drinking to try and appear better than others. So naturally people start to associate negatively with the group. 
Don't play games of extremes when it adds nothing to the discussion.


----------



## Evan of Phrygia (Aug 15, 2011)

This reminds me of the burned furs.Especially because the need to express self-righteousness leaves no winners.Why isn't the option of "Oh, they believe what we don't, that's humanly possible, i will now choose not to worry about it" viable?The protest campaigns against the polar opposite is questionable to begin with.Whether or not intolerant-furs were truly being heartless prudes to others, there's still a clear problem when we basically declare war on whatever is not our standards.I mean, really. The only thing any furry has in common with another furry is that they are part of the fandom. Why is it hard to understand this? Let the furfuckers and tolerant furs have their ways if it doesn't truly affect you. If everyone just stops acting out about their fetishes and intolerance, we might just be able to get any-fucking-where as a motherfucking fandom. Let them be who they wish, and stop shoving your fucking problems with others down their throats. If they give you no harm, stop fucking caring.


----------



## DarrylWolf (Aug 16, 2011)

"Tolerant" people will become hateful and mean if you don't agree with them 100%. You know who else you have to agree with totally or they'll get mad- little spoiled brats, that's who. No one could be truly tolerant because those who do not share their opinions they are bigoted against and curse at them when no one's looking- it's like pointing a gun at people and saying "I'm a pacifist." Intolerant furs would have been a great way to expose the hypocrisy of those who preach "tolerance"- of the people with ideas they like. Besides, tolerance only means that you "put up with" some person without truly loving him. I could have just tolerated the smells of my upstairs neighbor's cooking until I tried some of the curry she made, which was restaurant-quality. So rather than tolerating her cooking, I actually learned to enjoy it. Why just tolerate somebody when you can love somebody?


----------



## Torrijos-sama (Aug 16, 2011)

I don't believe that Intolerant-Furs should have been banned.

Most groups that preach "tolerance of all things" often do so to bring their questionable, unjustifiable beliefs under an umbrella with other beliefs and traits that are justifiably tolerable. So, individuals could attempt to place intolerance of things like child pornography on the same level as racism, antisemitism, or ethnic hatred.

Intolerant-furs, however, would have permitted users to express their contempt for things which are unjustifiably "tolerated" within the furry community, including misandristic feminism, pedophilia, bestiality, stupidity etc., and as such would permit users to express their feelings towards elements of the Furry Fandom which might violate the law or which might infringe upon the rights of others/be detrimental to the public good/wellbeing of others.


----------



## Verin Asper (Aug 16, 2011)

DarrylWolf said:


> "Tolerant" people will become hateful and mean if you don't agree with them 100%. You know who else you have to agree with totally or they'll get mad- little spoiled brats, that's who. No one could be truly tolerant because those who do not share their opinions they are bigoted against and curse at them when no one's looking- it's like pointing a gun at people and saying "I'm a pacifist." Intolerant furs would have been a great way to expose the hypocrisy of those who preach "tolerance"- of the people with ideas they like. Besides, tolerance only means that you "put up with" some person without truly loving him. I could have just tolerated the smells of my upstairs neighbor's cooking until I tried some of the curry she made, which was restaurant-quality. So rather than tolerating her cooking, I actually learned to enjoy it. Why just tolerate somebody when you can love somebody?


Problem is everyone tolerates, its just to various degrees of how much each person can tolerate. Like how a long time ago a gay group was happily bashing females in a journal. Folks came to point out what they were doing was wrong and that group demanded that folks should just tolerate them...sadly folks then pointed out "why should we tolerate you when you just came from bashing females"


----------



## Volkodav (Aug 16, 2011)

Fay V said:


> Again it's just a comment on the intent of the group versus the behavior of the members. The intent is not to hate on drug users or alcohol drinkers, fine. That does not mean that people that identify as straight edge don't do that. This is the case with a lot of things I can make a group about not liking milk, I can say the intent of the group is just to bring together others that don't like milk. However if members of the groups start to hate on others that like milk, the group will become known for that.
> Intent is one thing, but if the behavior doesn't match then the group is known for the behavior.
> 
> Edit: I did not ever say that straight edge people go on murdering sprees. I said that some act high and might. SOME not ALL. Some people use their own lack of drinking to try and appear better than others. So naturally people start to associate negatively with the group.
> Don't play games of extremes when it adds nothing to the discussion.


Oh whatever, dude.
We were talking about straightedgefurs. Straightedgefurs does not do that.
If you want to continue thinking straightedgefurs does that, that's your problem.


----------



## keretceres (Aug 16, 2011)

I have a strange feeling that I have come across SXE before... they are like an Asexual, Hippy Brigade minus Drugs and Alcohol right? 

Tbh, Groups get banned for all sorts of silly reasons. If they want to reform, under a different name, no one really will stop them unless the behaviour that got them disbanded in the first place continues, and even then some times it is ignored... People have an inherent capacity to go: | > Care. | after a while but they still do like a good witch hunt every now and then; a group that gets off on being hateful to people that do things they [the group] finds uncomfortable, makes a great scapegoat. 

I don't know anything about Either of the groups mentioned by OP personally, though I will say:
_
I don't use drugs and I don't drink Excessively, I'm not a diaper/baby fur. I don't engage in Bestiality._ 
Does this mean I should get a flag and wave it? :V



JesusFish said:


> misandristic feminism


THANK YOU. I have been trying to remember what Man/boy hating Feminism was called for nearly a month now.


----------



## Volkodav (Aug 16, 2011)

JesusFish said:


> misandristic feminism


A couple of my neighbours are like this.
We just call them "man-haters" cause I mean let's not butter it up.


----------



## keretceres (Aug 16, 2011)

Clayton said:


> A couple of my neighbours are like this.
> We just call them "man-haters" cause I mean let's not butter it up.



I have to use it in an essay... So I can't really call them man haters... as much as I would LOVE to see my lecturer's face... *I have a feeling she is a man Hater*


----------



## Volkodav (Aug 16, 2011)

keretceres said:


> I have to use it in an essay... So I can't really call them man haters... as much as I would LOVE to see my lecturer's face... *I have a feeling she is a man Hater*


I bet it would really grind her gears to see you talking to the class instead of her. [assuming this is a public-speaking type deal]


----------



## keretceres (Aug 16, 2011)

Clayton said:


> I bet it would really grind her gears to see you talking to the class instead of her. [assuming this is a public-speaking type deal]


We debate a lot. She hates me >:3


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Aug 16, 2011)

For once I agree with the psychologically compromised marsupial. More needs to be done on the part of furries to make sure the more dangerous aberrations on the site are reported to the proper authorities.


----------



## insane_kangaroo (Aug 16, 2011)

Kit H. Ruppell said:


> For once I agree with the psychologically compromised marsupial. More needs to be done on the part of furries to make sure the more dangerous aberrations on the site are reported to the proper authorities.



The problem is people don't know how to make a police report, are afraid to make a police report, or have misconceptions as to how the system works. There needs to be better clarification for people to be more involved.


----------



## Volkodav (Aug 16, 2011)

insane_kangaroo said:


> The problem is people don't know how to make a police report, are afraid to make a police report, or have misconceptions as to how the system works. There needs to be better clarification for people to be more involved.


I thought we were all supposed to be tolerant!!!
Don't tell me there are.... *CLOSE-MINDED PEOPLE OUT THERE!!!*


----------



## Grandpriest (Aug 17, 2011)

insane_kangaroo said:


> WYS was a failure because whats-his-name went after any furry who performed an action which was stupid in his view. I'm advocating a group which watches for illegal activities, especially pedophiles, on FA/Furry.
> 
> People need to be better netizens and start making reports to the police over illegal activity.


If this is done responsibly, I support this.  It "could" help lessen the excessive rule-breaking if done, correctly.  How that would be done without spreading around too much drama, though, is still unknown to me.



Clayton said:


> Don't tell me there are.... *CLOSE-MINDED PEOPLE OUT THERE!!!*


Of course not!  What gave you that silly idea? *serious face*


----------



## Volkodav (Aug 17, 2011)

Grandpriest said:


> If this is done responsibly, I support this.  It "could" help lessen the excessive rule-breaking if done, correctly.  How that would be done without spreading around too much drama, though, is still unknown to me.
> 
> Of course not!  What gave you that silly idea? *serious face*


It does happen, it's just not as obnoxious as WYS was.


----------



## Garuru_Wolf (Aug 17, 2011)

I do find it a little ironic that the OP is always talking about enforcing rules, yet he has two blatant rules violations on his FA and one of his journals mentions how he threatened to do something illegal... =x

Intolernet_furs does sound like it was made just to troll the tolerant_furs group, based on the name. Not saying that's what happened, but it possibly wasn't the best name choice. I like the idea though. It's the method that you have to worry about.


----------



## insane_kangaroo (Aug 17, 2011)

Garuru_Wolf said:


> I do find it a little ironic that the OP is always talking about enforcing rules, yet he has two blatant rules violations on his FA and _*one of his journals mentions how he threatened to do something illegal*_... =x



Mind pointing out where you feel I was doing such?


----------



## Devious Bane (Aug 17, 2011)

Garuru_Wolf said:


> how he threatened to do something illegal... =x


I have journals claiming that I did 9/11,
*Who gives a shit?*


----------



## DarrylWolf (Aug 17, 2011)

Tolerance really should not be our goal, love is our goal. My aunt, after her cancer diagnosis went through radiation therapy whose side effects caused her to throw up nearly every meal she tried to eat and lose her hair. Do you think she loved the fact that she could only keep carrot puree and matzah for weeks on end or that she was the bald lady? No, she merely tolerated those temporary measures, for the sake of beating her cancer, which she did. "Tolerance" does not mean, nor will it ever mean, truly loving someone or something but just "putting up" with that person or thing.


----------



## Volkodav (Aug 18, 2011)

Devious Bane said:


> I have journals claiming that I did 9/11,
> *Who gives a shit?*


Ground Zero... so this is where the first guy got AIDS..


----------



## rodox_video (Aug 19, 2011)

"Intolerant furs" was created to lampoon the fact that a lot of not-so-tolerable people (zoophiles, etc) were joining "tolerant furs". That and maybe a few other things. It was a gimmick group, and it probably (hopefully?) wasn't intended to last.

There's a small chance that ZooFurs was shuttered because it had a journal where the organizer of the group was promoting an IRC channel where he (through a lot of the typical winking and nudging) hinted that group members could talk about animal molestation openly. This journal was flushed when the group was closed. The two anti-zoo groups were then shuttered to create the appearance of "fairness".

(Far more likely: members/supporters of one or both groups were flinging trouble tickets at each other like mad and the administration wanted that shit off the table as fast as possible.)

 I never saw the usefulness of the FA group system as it is, simply because there is none. It's not even a hack, just a shared account with a bunch of badges to repost. It would be nice if it was more than that, but I digress.



Grandpriest said:


> If this is done responsibly, I support this.  It "could" help lessen the excessive rule-breaking if done, correctly.  How that would be done without spreading around too much drama, though, is still unknown to me.



Simple. If you see something genuinely criminal and fucked-up, don't plaster it all over the imageboards and Livejournal. Work with other people who might have seen what you saw, people you're sure you can trust. Carefully assemble a package of information, and run it by the authorities. Do not post publically about it, do not pass go, do not collect $200. 

You don't want tell anyone until the other shoe drops, because once you've made that report you are now a part of a real criminal case and you do NOT want to explain why you've fucked it six ways from sunday by running your mouth on the internet and tipping off the suspect.

All of this requires maturity, responsibility, discretion and good judgement. It is not fun, nor is it easy.


----------



## Kimor (Aug 20, 2011)

I sense some problems with your plan, IK.  Personally, as a former member of law enforcement, I don't think that I'd take a call like the ones you describe seriously.  Second, I'm not entirely certain what illegal activity you are referring to.  Cub porn is not illegal, according to my reading of the laws, and thus there is nothing for law enforcement to do.  It may not be _good_ to post and you may find it immoral, but I doubt that a law enforcement officer would actively investigate the posting of cub porn.  

Now, if a user is actually soliciting a minor for sexual activity, that is another matter entirely.  However, unless you are proposing setting up dummy accounts to try to message people and get them to say something incriminating along those lines, I'm not entirely certain what such a group would accomplish.  If you _are suggesting _setting up these accounts, you should probably know that unless you are actually a law enforcement officer, the charge is unlikely to stick.  Because you are not yourself a minor, soliciting you for sex, even under the guise of a minor, is not illegal. 

In short, I think that the mods are perfectly reasonable in banning the group, as it looks like quite the fountain of potential harassment.  If you have concrete ideas about what sorts of crimes you plan to prevent and how you plan on preventing them, feel free to post them.


----------



## Volkodav (Aug 20, 2011)

Kimor said:


> However, unless you are proposing setting up dummy accounts to try to message people and get them to say something incriminating along those lines, I'm not entirely certain what such a group would accomplish.  If you _are suggesting _setting up these accounts, you should probably know that unless you are actually a law enforcement officer, the charge is unlikely to stick.  Because you are not yourself a minor, soliciting you for sex, even under the guise of a minor, is not illegal.


Not to mention that's considered entrapment.
Buuut law enforcement does that too. I dunno.


----------



## Kimor (Aug 20, 2011)

It's only entrapment if it basically eliminates the defendant's opportunity to resist.  The perennial case of entrapment involves a child porn consumer who quit after it was made illegal - the police sent him hundreds of advertisements over 5 years, and eventually he tried to take them up on one of them - that's entrapment.  On the other hand, if a private party does it, or if the police don't coerce the defendant, it's not entrapment.  Take note, though, that if a private party is doing it, there are likely to be problems in evidence collection and admissibility, as the chain of evidence is extremely questionable.


----------



## Browder (Aug 20, 2011)

insane_kangaroo said:


> I see many users who are followers of the group tolerant-furs are those which indulge in illegal activities like doing drugs, some in to bestiality, pedo here and there.
> 
> I was curious why intolerant-furs is banned. What's wrong about being intolerant of people who break the law and flaunt it?
> 
> ...


Hello.

The group intolerant furs is banned for being a group whose only use is to harass other users. On it's front page it says "If you don't like, relentlessly mock." FA does not support unsolicited relentless mocking  or drama-mongering.

The 'type of users' who join the group tolerant furs has nothing to do with the group itself. Furthermore the 'type of people' you describe should be reported as individuals should they admit to illegal activities or to things that go against FA's TOS or AUP. The group itself is a group that promotes understanding, and as such does not violate any site rules.

I hope I was able to answer your question! 

Thread closed.


----------

