Red Army Dog Cooper

but I know he in innocent, are you saying I do not know he is innocent?

Look once is a fluke or vendita, but if this becomes a pattern…

1/20th of school shooting numbers and we will get it

Just once, will save no lives, make this a pattern, and lives will start to be saved

plants are a living creature, so they have to be breatharian

also someone who is dead is not “any living creature” Interesting bacteria and guinea worms … and plants do fall into any living creatures… so the rule says calling for a harvist, calling for anti-biotics, and calling for the end of Guiea worms are aggenst TOS

I mean, are you saying that me following the rule and not the arbitrary spirit of your TOS is a stupid argument, no its not stupid, yes its in grey or bad faith, but its not stupid. Rules should be able to cover atleast grey faith arguments, or atleast attempt to. If your rules can only work if read in good faith, and we can all understand the sperit it is written in they are worthless

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.

Look it is not the time, sure the time is reasonable, the issue is what you have chosen to do this over, your reasoning for it, not only has it not technicaly violated the letter of the TOS snippits that have been posted, it is also the moral call, which side are you on, when the CEO who made a fortune by letting others die … is killed, do you let the people discuss it and cheer the death of someone who caused so much suffering, or do you assist the Capitalist class, and supress that sentiment, YOU have to make the choice.

the issue we have is not its a day, its that you chose to help the capitalists

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

24 hours for chearing someone who is responsable for the death of thousands, is not refusing someone life saving medical care not violence? Is this not the paradox of tolarance you folks always harp on about?

John Brown did nothing wrong

This Shoter did nothing wrong

If you consider human life sacred, then you would consider that CEO evil, and then would ballance that his death is a net positive.

John Brown Did Nothing Wrong

I used to work in IT, and both then when I was on my personal time, and now, I do not love helping people, but all it takes is someone else doing it poorly would annoy me enough I would end up helping someone

not ne… your .world yeah your banned

Well we would not have a legal fraimwork to do this agian

I think its the same crime period, reguardless of who tries it.

Double jepordy, I would hope cracks would atleast become glaring if that happened

Absolutly not, your scielence is what a normal person does, the glance is creepy

I would argue if we got a jury to say he was not guilty because shooting a Rich Ghool was Defence, it would cause FAR more worries than a simple nulification.