There are cases when they should be mentioned. It is nice but naive to think that all people need to lose their mistrust or hate of us, or minorities in general is a well-reasoned explanation. I think if there are people out to get you you should know about them, so as to take precautions, be extra vigilant about security, and not be surprised if they choose you for their attacks. Many of these people operate from a flawed assumption that they are protecting children or that their religion (as they misinterpret it) commands their stilted view of morality. They are unlikely to change the views which are embedded in their psyches and which, frankly, I think they enjoy. These views give them a sense of community also.
That was a good post about an important lesson, Raccoon. ( There once was a time when I thought all AB/DLs were trustworthy. Things have changed. )
Thanks for your vote of support. Your "however" wasn't necessary because I agree with them too. As soon as Babymullet pointed out the problem I changed it; I thought it was important enough to ask Moo his opinion; and I am glad Bittergrey chose to comment. We now have it on good authority that we should be careful how we use links.
That would eliminate the problem of people linking to 'bad sites' but what about if someone wanted to link to...say...Understanding Infantilism aka Bittergrey's site? Some people here might not be aware of the site's existence and thus a link to it would be welcome (and welcoming!)!
Wait there's a website called god hates furries?
