I said something along the lines of:

“Wow, I haven’t had a reason to smile ear to ear in a while.”

Along with

“Nah, the more dead corpos dragons, the better.”

In response to some liberal going off about how violence is never the solution, not mentioning how this murdered dipshit has personally overseen a system that perpetuates harm, suffering and death (violence) in the name of profit.

…

Good ole’ civility clause.

Whats the paradox of tolerance?

.world mods have never heard of it I guess.

  • Red Army Dog Cooper
    31·
    6 days ago

    The person is no longer liing so you cannot call for violance aganst a living person for expressing glee to them

    I also feel like wanting death to IDK the bacteria that causes the plague, or taberculousis, should not be a banable office but that is a bannable creature

    also does wanting a hamburger count as calling for violace aganst a cow… a living creature?

    Not only does what the banns are for not break the rule, but the rule is so broad as to be useless and cripple most conversations

      • Red Army Dog Cooper
        51·
        6 days ago

        ok so lets look at his the tos is “We do not tolerate threats of and calls for violence in any form against any living creature.” is that correct. so if something is already dead, like a porkchop, we can both agree that I can threaten a porkchop because it is already dead and so not living. This would be the same as a corpse, a corpse is no longer a living thing, so cheering a death AFTER someone died it is not advocating violance to a living creature its a dead creature. There is nothing incorrect or absurd in that statement

        now lets look at it agian “We do not tolerate threats of and calls for violence in any form against any living creature.” Well, Mosquitos, Bacteria, plants, funguses, are all “living creatures” so I ask in ernistness does using anti-biotics not technicaly qualify as violance on a living creature? what about the Eradication of the guinnie worm? wanting to harvist a field? all of them are violance on living creatures, is this an unorthodox take yes, but it is not abserd, it is simular to the Jade view, and it is consistent with the rules you have set forth.

        You cannot argue that an interpretation you do not like is abserd, you can say that is not the interpritation that the mod team follows, thats fine, I already have issues with your moderation policies but that is fair, but to say that following your rules to the letter but not nessicarily the spirit is abserd, that is just bad rule writing.