I don't get what's the problem.
Would the alternative be "sure, let's let the sex offenders in"?

Just because other people might be heinous in other ways, to use those people as reasons why this may be unjust is just whataboutism.
And quite frankly, to imply that by doing this they're "just fine" with letting kids around murderers and such is just bullshit. You really think that recursive logic is what's driving it?

You know better.
Stop whining.

Why shouldn't sex offenders be let in? They've served their time. There's nothing special about a convention that gives them exclusive specific access to a vulnerable population.

Anyone 15 or under has to be with a guardian at all times. I think 16 -> 17 year olds are smart enough to handle themselves.

Children who will be age 15 and below at time of registration check-in are not required to present government-issued photo ID, but must register with and be accompanied by a parent or legal guardian at all times in any official convention area including, but not limited to, the Dealer’s Den, Artist Alley, Corral, Art Show, all panels and dances. Parents and guardians will be held responsible for damage or problems caused by their children.

That's fine and all.

I'm just really weirded out by the whole Scarlet Letter analogy here, because that's just not the same thing.

Why not?

So the solution simply is to also ban those you mentioned who have committed violent crime. Everything fixed.

I think the proper solution is to not bam people for things done in their past. I don't think people should be prevented from engaging in society at large unless there are very good compelling reasons.

For example I would support excluding felons who have committed fraud from a very sensitive high risk job like doing money counts at a casino.

But I don't think a furry con falls under this category.

I mean... at least with the banner or tattoo they could still join in...

lol

People are really missing the point here.
It's a retarded double standard.
One evil is kicked out while another evil that's just as bad gets let I with welcome arms.

No offense to Whitekitten.
But I use the Cub vs Snuff topic a lot when pointing out the hypocrisy of the Fandom.

Cub is the epitome of degeneracy, but fapping to a beheading or disembowelment is perfectly natural.
It's ironic.
SJW Leftists typically oppose rape or oppression but freely fantasize about it.
And if you call them out on their hypocrisy, you're either Kink Shaming, a Purist or Alt Right.
Especially if you debate them.

So I fully understand where this journal.post is coming from.

Big Brother Furry wants your personal information.....

For security......

To be clear all the things I was saying about facebook passwords and such was a slippery slope example argument. They're not actually doing that (yet).

Honestly I do support the decision though I think they may have went a bit overboard in just doing a blanket ban without looking at the reason they're on the sex offenders registry. I think it's stupid that people can get put on on it for getting too drunk and getting caught peeing in an alley. Pedophiles I definitely would not want there as the reason that registry was made in the first place [at least one of the big ones] was due to repeat offenders.

That being said those convicted of serious violent crimes I think should also be restricted, mainly those that have repeat offenses for getting into fights that result in injuries, and especially those that intentionally killed someone else.

Why should murderers be allowed at the local Starbucks then? Why should they be allowed anywhere? What's different from a convention and any other business?

If you support sex offenders for a second then I don't think the problem is with the convention people

I'm pro sex offender.

I assume that was a joke (or at least hope it was), because either way I am also irritated places do not run heater background checks for other crimes as well, however and I need to be very careful with how I word this-

First of all: I will never accuse anyone of being anything illegal; sex offenders, murderer, thief, etc.. Why? Because not only is that also a crime in itself (slander), but it is entirely unfair to spread rumors and cause people's lives to be destroyed, especially if you have no weight behind your words.

Second of all: That being said, my main concern about this post is that you're coming across it wrong. You should have left it at "why not ban other criminals too?" because (and again please read "first of all") now it could accidentally make others think you are supporting sex offenders or worse. I do not (and I cannot stress reading "first" enough) wish for them to accuse you of either being one or supporting one, especially since the way you worded seems almost as if you are defending someone who is one.

Tl;Dr just please be careful with how you phrase things. For your own sake, you need to be safe.

The biggest problem throughout all of this is that a convention meant for adults and specifically has rules for minors shouldn't ban people for an offense that doesn't really pertain toward them. Not only that a portion of 'sex offenders' can be kids who got the shit end of the stick. I have a friend myself who was 17 and involved with a 15 year old but they were labeled a sex offender because they were just a hair of being considered an 'adult' for the state while they're bf/gf was considered a minor which took YEARS of court proceedings to get that removed.

Most times we think 'sex offender' we think of like some 50 year old with a 10 year or some shit when that's not the case most of the time. The 'legal' adult age in some states is a meager 16 or 17 and they can be labeled a sex offender by dating someone that's a year or so younger than them. So it's good to keep that in mind when considering all of this too. Just as a food for thought while you read the rest of my words below.

It's similar to being age checked at Wal-Mart because the presence of alcohol is there even if you aren't going to the alcohol section. If you're not 21, sorry you can't come in there's alcohol here. Oh you're just looking for a tank top? Sorry, no freebies. 21 or go shop somewhere else. It's putting a weeding process where one isn't needed. Now if this was like a playground or a Build a Bear or whatever it'd be more appropriate. But it's not. It's a goddamn furry convention where it carters toward adults.

I honestly don't really care what people think :V I have a gallery of grinder porn and female torture snuff. I've already gotten death threats for that. I don't think that saying that "I think sex offenders shouldn't be banned from a place when there's no direct contact with unchaperoned children" is going to leave me any worse for wear.

And there's nothing wrong with defending sex offenders. Or murderers, or serial killers. They're people too, as much as it may pain people to acknowledge it.



First they came for the sex offenders, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a sex offenders.

Then they came for the felons, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a felons.

Then they came for the perverts, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a perverts.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

—and none of us could go to Furry Fiesta, which was fine because a special-interest convention run by private individuals is not government oppression. Everyone then shrugged, and went to one of the many other furry conventions, none of which had yet even considered the extraordinary brilliant move of banning perverts and therefore their entire pool of potential attendees. We then patted ourselves on the back for not succumbing to childish slippery-slope arguments, and agreed to stop invoking Niemöller over trivial, ephemeral issues, so we could stop triggering Godwin's Law like some raving lunatics who post journals on FurAffinity.

There. That was so easy.

—and then we realized that nobody claimed that going to Furry Fiesta, was government oppression. Everyone then understood that when we defend the periphery we defend the core. We collectively pushed back against bad decisions now because if we don't they'll be more likely to precipitate in towards the center. We realized that if all conventions banned sex offenders, there would be none for them to go to, and "just going to another convention" would not be an option. We also understood that the original poster has connections to other furry conventions that have already had to deal with this very same issue. We then patted ourselves on the back for trivializing the general trends of pedo-panic ostracizing a portion of society for which it does very real harm. We understood that although an issue doesn't affect us directly, it isn't trivial or ephemeral to those it does lasting harm.

There. That was so easy.

tbh i think it depends on the type of offense. but if were only talking child molesters i dont know why they would ban them since furry fiesta isnt a school nor is any part of it child exclusive. its not a play ground, its a convention with probably 2% of the attendees being kids. i see it like a slippery slope since at that point they could ban sex offenders from everywhere, which isnt fair since their sentence doesnt include that
not to relate a furry convention with a gun show but im pretty sure felons can go to gun shows as well. your just not allowed to bring loaded gun or ammo (i cant remember specifically)
basically- i dont get why cons think theyre at the same risk as a school. schools=children with 1/30 suveillance vs cons=1-2 parents bringing a child
i guess if you wanna play devils advocate there could be 13-17 year olds who arent being dragged around by their parents on the con floor that are at risk but they should know better. and that also applies everywhere so might as well ban sexual offenders everywhere (which is ridiculous)

Specifically you're not allowed to be in the convention area if you're 15 or younger without an adult present at all times. So I don't see contact with minors being an issue. Which would be the one reason I would agree with banning sex offenders.

Of all the hills you could possibly choose to die on, "sex offenders deserve to attend furry conventions too" might be the weirdest one.

I don't think furry conventions should be in the business of banning people for crimes committed in the past, especially doing it in an inconsistent way. If it's okay for furry cons to ban sex offenders, why don't we ban them from gas stations, Meijer, and Starbucks? Why let them in the library?

It's one thing to say sex offenders aren't allowed in positions of responsibility involving minors (like being a teacher, or a daycare sitter), and another thing to say they can't go to a convention where they'll have no contact with unchaperoned minors.

Pretty sure it's not a "hill to die on" it's got more impact than that. Keeping in mind a guy getting drunk and peeing in public can get him thrown on said list, that limits people who literally made one ill thought out mistake to the same rule as people who rape children... That's like, oh, i dunno, labeling someone who does marijuana as being as bad as a guy who tortured and killed 50 people.

In neither situation does the former example make the person as bad as the latter example, but they would be treated the same as the latter.

As well what you are seeing is the start to a purification-test. A scenario in which the people in power (in this case, the convention holders) get rid of one bad seed they are sure can be gotten rid of without question due to the reprehensible reputation they have, then follow up with the next in line. It is an old authoritarian method for removing dissidents and eventually it will reach a point where they will have rules in place to stop anyone they choose at their own discretion. Ever said something bad about them? Maybe you didn't like one of their popufur buddy's OC. Maybe they don't like yours. They'll have a rule to stop you from entering in place.

It's the old "Show me the man and i'll show you the crime" logic. They'll make rules to ensure you've broken them.

Let me explain what I think Whitekitten is trying to say.

One thing they mentioned is the matter of being banned "regardless of offence." In many areas, what counts as enough to make you a sex offender can be incredibly broad, with some incredibly minor offenses such as public urination having the exact same punishment as molesting a child. There's more to the topic but I'd probably butcher it in my explanation, look it up.

Yeah, usually in most places that I have been to like if you sign up for a club they'd do a background check on you. I do agree with you and whitekitten, I was just saying the way he/she phrased it seemed awkward.

Again, I am and will NEVER accuse anyone of being anything, I just want whitekitten to be careful as to avoid the flag she would get from others.

So I do apologise for my very first comment, maybe I misunderstood, but I'm well aware now after that. As for Whitekitten's Commissions, I sure as Hell am a fan myself, not gonna lie~

That's why it's called "fantasy"

You know, I never really thought too hard about the ban until I read your post. I could see how this could be the start of an authoritarian slippery slope.

Exactly.
This seems to a trending trope lately and it opens people up to all kinds of abuse.

wowo

bruh moment

Honestly I think this is just a political ploy, I think there will be 'CERTAIN' folks who this rule will be overlooked for. They're really trying to get ahead of the MASSIVE, MASSIVE scandal that's coming in the furry fandom. Where kids come out five, ten years after the convention, say they've been molested and they couldn't tell anyone because that person was 'ideologically' or otherwise untouchable.

Imagine if this was some convoluted ploy to restrict one hyper-specific person without having to name them directly.

yeah what are the odds