NATION

PASSWORD

Woman Hangs and Burns Pit Bull

For discussion and debate about anything. (Not a roleplay related forum; out-of-character commentary only.)

Advertisement

Remove ads

User avatar
GothicLust
Diplomat
 
Posts: 544
Founded: Nov 11, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby GothicLust » Fri Jan 28, 2011 5:01 pm

The Corparation wrote:
Vetalia wrote:
Genocide only applies in human terms.

Genocide is defined as:
the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group
While not people, you can designate pit bulls as a race. Besides I don't know of any comparable term for animals.

Welch's is responsible for the genocide of grapes! No, that's not the right word, it's a grape holocaust! Seriously man?
Image

User avatar
Blouman Empire
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 16068
Founded: Sep 05, 2007
Ex-Nation

Postby Blouman Empire » Fri Jan 28, 2011 5:04 pm

The Bleeding Roses wrote:
Nanatsu no Tsuki wrote:
What was incredible naive? A dog doesn't know any better. It doesn't know what a bible is or if it means anything to anyone. Dogs chew things.

My dogs have never eaten a book in their lives... It's called training.


That's because all your dogs a Toy Poodles they couldn't even bite an unusually large cockroach
You know you've made it on NSG when you have a whole thread created around what you said.
On the American/United Statesian matter "I'd suggest Americans go to their nation settings and change their nation prefix to something cooler." - The Kangaroo Republic
http://nswiki.net/index.php?title=Blouman_Empire

DBC26-Winner

User avatar
The Corparation
Post Czar
 
Posts: 33884
Founded: Aug 31, 2009
Corporate Police State

Postby The Corparation » Fri Jan 28, 2011 5:05 pm

GothicLust wrote:
The Corparation wrote:Genocide is defined as: While not people, you can designate pit bulls as a race. Besides I don't know of any comparable term for animals.

Welch's is responsible for the genocide of grapes! No, that's not the right word, it's a grape holocaust! Seriously man?
Image

No they aren't systematically trying to eradicate the species in its entirety as you advocated doing for the pit bull. Plus grapes are inanimate objects, while they are alive they have no feeling, dogs are alive, have feelings and are moderately intelligent depending on the breed. They also, unlike grapes are soft and fuzzy.
Nuclear Death Machines Here (Both Flying and Orbiting)
Orbital Freedom Machine Here
A Subsidiary company of Nightkill Enterprises Inc.Weekly words of wisdom: Nothing is more important than waifus.- Gallia-
Making the Nightmare End 2020 WARNING: This post contains chemicals known to the State of CA to cause cancer and birth defects or other reproductive harm.
Prop 65, CA Health & Safety
This Cell is intentionally blank.

User avatar
The Floridian Coast
Minister
 
Posts: 2979
Founded: Sep 09, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby The Floridian Coast » Fri Jan 28, 2011 5:06 pm

Faith Hope Charity wrote:
Arkinesia wrote:Oh, it's in South Carolina.

I swear to god every person in that state was dropped on his head as a baby.



prejudice is real.


Realizing some US states have generally dumber/ignorant/primitive populations isn't really prejudice. I've lived my whole life in Florida. I know it's infested with rednecks. On top of that I have to deal with all the Scino's in my city.
Philosophy: Epicurean/Marxist Synthesis
Politics: Democratic Socialism, New Left, Progressivism
Supporter of OWS - Registered Democrat - Positive Atheist
"Where were you when they passed us over for the lotteries of birth? Complacency conditioned to suffer. What's the price, what's it worth?" - Strike Anywhere, Detonation

User avatar
Vetalia
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 10459
Founded: Mar 23, 2005
Corporate Bordello

Postby Vetalia » Fri Jan 28, 2011 5:07 pm

The Floridian Coast wrote: Realizing some US states have generally dumber/ignorant/primitive populations isn't really prejudice. I've lived my whole life in Florida. I know it's infested with rednecks. On top of that I have to deal with all the Scino's in my city.


Try going from Ohio to Georgia.
Economic Left/Right: 1.63
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 2.05

User avatar
GothicLust
Diplomat
 
Posts: 544
Founded: Nov 11, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby GothicLust » Fri Jan 28, 2011 5:09 pm

The Corparation wrote:
GothicLust wrote:Welch's is responsible for the genocide of grapes! No, that's not the right word, it's a grape holocaust! Seriously man?
Image

No they aren't systematically trying to eradicate the species in its entirety as you advocated doing for the pit bull. Plus grapes are inanimate objects, while they are alive they have no feeling, dogs are alive, have feelings and are moderately intelligent depending on the breed. They also, unlike grapes are soft and fuzzy.

I think we might be buying our grapes from different places. My grapes are indeed soft and fuzzy and sentient.

User avatar
Blouman Empire
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 16068
Founded: Sep 05, 2007
Ex-Nation

Postby Blouman Empire » Fri Jan 28, 2011 5:10 pm

The Corparation wrote:They also, unlike grapes are soft and fuzzy.


Grapes that have been left on the vine to long or have gone off are sift and fuzzy.
You know you've made it on NSG when you have a whole thread created around what you said.
On the American/United Statesian matter "I'd suggest Americans go to their nation settings and change their nation prefix to something cooler." - The Kangaroo Republic
http://nswiki.net/index.php?title=Blouman_Empire

DBC26-Winner

User avatar
The Corparation
Post Czar
 
Posts: 33884
Founded: Aug 31, 2009
Corporate Police State

Postby The Corparation » Fri Jan 28, 2011 5:14 pm

GothicLust wrote:
The Corparation wrote:No they aren't systematically trying to eradicate the species in its entirety as you advocated doing for the pit bull. Plus grapes are inanimate objects, while they are alive they have no feeling, dogs are alive, have feelings and are moderately intelligent depending on the breed. They also, unlike grapes are soft and fuzzy.

I think we might be buying our grapes from different places. My grapes are indeed soft and fuzzy and sentient.

I sincerely doubt the sentient part. I also doubt that dogs posses full sentience. They are towards in the animal scale of intelligence. Where lowest is the amoeba and highest is a tie for second between Dolphins and Chimps. First is people.

Blouman Empire wrote:
The Corparation wrote:They also, unlike grapes are soft and fuzzy.


Grapes that have been left on the vine to long or have gone off are sift and fuzzy.

Okay. Add one fact to my list of facts about grapes.
Nuclear Death Machines Here (Both Flying and Orbiting)
Orbital Freedom Machine Here
A Subsidiary company of Nightkill Enterprises Inc.Weekly words of wisdom: Nothing is more important than waifus.- Gallia-
Making the Nightmare End 2020 WARNING: This post contains chemicals known to the State of CA to cause cancer and birth defects or other reproductive harm.
Prop 65, CA Health & Safety
This Cell is intentionally blank.

User avatar
Australien
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1167
Founded: Feb 08, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Australien » Fri Jan 28, 2011 5:19 pm

The Bleeding Roses wrote:
Nanatsu no Tsuki wrote:
Especially when you call a dog 'devil dog' because it chews your bible. Hello! It's a dog, it doesn't know any better. If your precious bible means so much to you, put it somewhere where the dog won't reach it. She's more an animal than the poor canine she hanged and burned.

That's incredibly naive... Dogs do have the capability of thought.
A properly trained dog won't eat books...


That being said, it was a Pit Bull. The entire breed should be eradicated like small pox.

And we should eradicate pit bulls for what reason again? Because one owner in South Carolina has trained a single one poorly?
My Political Compass:
http://www.politicalcompass.org/printablegraph?ec=-2.12&soc=-1.95

The death of one man is a tragedy, the death of millions is a statistic -Joseph Stalin

User avatar
The Norwegian Blue
Minister
 
Posts: 2529
Founded: Jul 21, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby The Norwegian Blue » Fri Jan 28, 2011 5:21 pm

The Corparation wrote:
GothicLust wrote:I think we might be buying our grapes from different places. My grapes are indeed soft and fuzzy and sentient.

I sincerely doubt the sentient part. I also doubt that dogs posses full sentience. They are towards in the animal scale of intelligence. Where lowest is the amoeba and highest is a tie for second between Dolphins and Chimps. First is people.


Dogs are sentient, and amoebas are not animals. A lot of people misuse the word "sentient" to mean "sapient" and "animals" to mean "anything alive and not a plant." The latter in particular is rather a pet peeve of mine.
Last edited by The Norwegian Blue on Fri Jan 28, 2011 5:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Women are as good as men , I dont know why they constantly whine about things. - Reichskommissariat ost
...if you poop just to poop, then it is immoral. - Bandarikin
And if abortion was illegal, there wouldn't be male doctors - Green Port
Stop making a potato punch itself in the scrote after first manifesting a fist and a scrote. - RepentNowOrPayLater
And...you aren't aroused by the premise of a snot-hocking giraffe leaping through a third story bay window after a sex toy? What are you...I mean...are you some kind of weirdo or something? - Hammurab

User avatar
Embrihated Koalas
Diplomat
 
Posts: 638
Founded: Nov 28, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Embrihated Koalas » Fri Jan 28, 2011 5:44 pm

I just couldn't read the article since I am a huge fan of dogs, especially the pit types, felt like responding, but reading the article would just continue to fuel my anger,
Pitbulls are great dogs willing to give their own live and skin for their owners and his / her close ones, yeah their are some rotten eggs in the basket, but that's in every breed, I mean Labradors or poodles would probably never make the headlines since their not breeds that we would see as dangerous or in any way aggreissve... Again how judgemental have we become
"There needs to be a zombie film made in an IKEA store."
"That koalas are horrible drinkers"

User avatar
GothicLust
Diplomat
 
Posts: 544
Founded: Nov 11, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby GothicLust » Fri Jan 28, 2011 5:49 pm

The Norwegian Blue wrote:
The Corparation wrote:I sincerely doubt the sentient part. I also doubt that dogs posses full sentience. They are towards in the animal scale of intelligence. Where lowest is the amoeba and highest is a tie for second between Dolphins and Chimps. First is people.


Dogs are sentient, and amoebas are not animals. A lot of people misuse the word "sentient" to mean "sapient" and "animals" to mean "anything alive and not a plant." The latter in particular is rather a pet peeve of mine.

I knew I would never have to back down on that you being smarter than me thing. This is one debate I'll win! (although, I do not know anyone stupid enough to disagree)

User avatar
The Bleeding Roses
Minister
 
Posts: 2593
Founded: Antiquity
Ex-Nation

Postby The Bleeding Roses » Fri Jan 28, 2011 6:01 pm

Blouman Empire wrote:
The Bleeding Roses wrote:My dogs have never eaten a book in their lives... It's called training.


That's because all your dogs a Toy Poodles they couldn't even bite an unusually large cockroach

My purebred field type English Springers take offense to that.
The Parthenese Confederation
Parthenon
Intergallactic Hell
The Bleeding Roses
West Parthenon
Former GDODAD/Metus Member

User avatar
Blouman Empire
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 16068
Founded: Sep 05, 2007
Ex-Nation

Postby Blouman Empire » Fri Jan 28, 2011 6:03 pm

The Bleeding Roses wrote:
Blouman Empire wrote:
That's because all your dogs a Toy Poodles they couldn't even bite an unusually large cockroach

My purebred field type English Springers take offense to that.


You taught your dogs to read?
You know you've made it on NSG when you have a whole thread created around what you said.
On the American/United Statesian matter "I'd suggest Americans go to their nation settings and change their nation prefix to something cooler." - The Kangaroo Republic
http://nswiki.net/index.php?title=Blouman_Empire

DBC26-Winner

User avatar
Embrihated Koalas
Diplomat
 
Posts: 638
Founded: Nov 28, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Embrihated Koalas » Fri Jan 28, 2011 6:05 pm

Blouman Empire wrote:
The Bleeding Roses wrote:My purebred field type English Springers take offense to that.


You taught your dogs to read?

dogs are clever enough to do over 70 commands so yeah reading could be a possibility
"There needs to be a zombie film made in an IKEA store."
"That koalas are horrible drinkers"

User avatar
Ardchoille
Retired Moderator
 
Posts: 9842
Founded: Apr 18, 2004
Democratic Socialists

Postby Ardchoille » Fri Jan 28, 2011 6:21 pm

Okay, okay. We have established that several posters -- GothicLust and TBR among them, but I've only looked back over the past two pages, there may be more -- made a generalisation along the lines of "(All) pit bulls should be eradicated."

We have also established that several other posters -- The Corparation and Gauthier among them -- know that generalisations in debates have a fatal flaw: they can be particularised.

And we have established that said posters know that reductio ad absurdum is a seductively sweet way to show the weaknesses of a generalisation.

Well done. Consider the debating points awarded.

However, this is not a formal debate, it is a civil discussion.

If your opponents concede the point (or "clarify their views") by saying "I never meant ..." or "My actual views are ..." or "No, you misunderstood, what I believe is ...", then continuing to hammer them with statements along the lines of, "But you said ..." or "You say that now, but look at your own words (quote) ..." rapidly becomes uncivil.

Now, I understand that you may be doing so because this is not a face-to-face discussion. People may read just the OP and the past couple of pages, as I did just now, to get a feel for the debate. So posters often feel that an argument made on one page needs to be refuted on the same page, or as close to it as possible, even if this means repetition and angering the opponent.

Fine. But there is a point where the balance of this tactic crosses over from "refuting" to "angering".

If your opponent's replies show signs that you are angering them, maybe you should stop. If you anger them too greatly they may feel constrained to ask for Moderation assistance. Which may lead to a mod deciding that you took it too far, and dinging you for flamebait. Or it may lead to the mod deciding that the complaint is just using the "mods as weapons" tactic, and dinging the complainant.

And though you may then feel badly done by, because you were "just arguing" and didn't say anything personal, you won't have a leg to stand on. Because, though this is a debate and discussion site, the absolute standing rule, the foundation of all the others, is play nice.

Of course, there's also the possibility, when something like this makes it as far as Moderation, that the mod who picks it up may decide that people have just temporarily forgotten that they're arguing with other real people.

They may even have time, on a slow and lazy Saturday morning on a for-once-comfortable Australian summer day, to explain a point for any newbies who happen to be reading.

Thus: Gauthier, cool it. The Carparation, cool it. Anyone else who has been doing the same thing, evaluate your posts, figure out if want to take the risk of a warning, but I'd advise, cool it.
Ideological Bulwark #35
The more scandalous charges were suppressed; the vicar of Christ was accused only of piracy, rape, sodomy, murder and incest. -- Edward Gibbon on the schismatic Pope John XXIII (1410–1415).

User avatar
Embrihated Koalas
Diplomat
 
Posts: 638
Founded: Nov 28, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Embrihated Koalas » Fri Jan 28, 2011 6:27 pm

Ardchoille wrote:Okay, okay. We have established that several posters -- GothicLust and TBR among them, but I've only looked back over the past two pages, there may be more -- made a generalisation along the lines of "(All) pit bulls should be eradicated."

We have also established that several other posters -- The Corparation and Gauthier among them -- know that generalisations in debates have a fatal flaw: they can be particularised.

And we have established that said posters know that reductio ad absurdum is a seductively sweet way to show the weaknesses of a generalisation.

Well done. Consider the debating points awarded.

However, this is not a formal debate, it is a civil discussion.

If your opponents concede the point (or "clarify their views") by saying "I never meant ..." or "My actual views are ..." or "No, you misunderstood, what I believe is ...", then continuing to hammer them with statements along the lines of, "But you said ..." or "You say that now, but look at your own words (quote) ..." rapidly becomes uncivil.

Now, I understand that you may be doing so because this is not a face-to-face discussion. People may read just the OP and the past couple of pages, as I did just now, to get a feel for the debate. So posters often feel that an argument made on one page needs to be refuted on the same page, or as close to it as possible, even if this means repetition and angering the opponent.

Fine. But there is a point where the balance of this tactic crosses over from "refuting" to "angering".

If your opponent's replies show signs that you are angering them, maybe you should stop. If you anger them too greatly they may feel constrained to ask for Moderation assistance. Which may lead to a mod deciding that you took it too far, and dinging you for flamebait. Or it may lead to the mod deciding that the complaint is just using the "mods as weapons" tactic, and dinging the complainant.

And though you may then feel badly done by, because you were "just arguing" and didn't say anything personal, you won't have a leg to stand on. Because, though this is a debate and discussion site, the absolute standing rule, the foundation of all the others, is play nice.

Of course, there's also the possibility, when something like this makes it as far as Moderation, that the mod who picks it up may decide that people have just temporarily forgotten that they're arguing with other real people.

They may even have time, on a slow and lazy Saturday morning on a for-once-comfortable Australian summer day, to explain a point for any newbies who happen to be reading.

Thus: Gauthier, cool it. The Carparation, cool it. Anyone else who has been doing the same thing, evaluate your posts, figure out if want to take the risk of a warning, but I'd advise, cool it.

so just when someone is angry just because your right means that you need to cool it? OK weird
"There needs to be a zombie film made in an IKEA store."
"That koalas are horrible drinkers"

User avatar
Fartsniffage
Post Czar
 
Posts: 30902
Founded: Dec 19, 2005
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby Fartsniffage » Fri Jan 28, 2011 6:29 pm

Ardchoille wrote:Okay, okay. We have established that several posters -- GothicLust and TBR among them, but I've only looked back over the past two pages, there may be more -- made a generalisation along the lines of "(All) pit bulls should be eradicated."

We have also established that several other posters -- The Corparation and Gauthier among them -- know that generalisations in debates have a fatal flaw: they can be particularised.

And we have established that said posters know that reductio ad absurdum is a seductively sweet way to show the weaknesses of a generalisation.

Well done. Consider the debating points awarded.

However, this is not a formal debate, it is a civil discussion.

If your opponents concede the point (or "clarify their views") by saying "I never meant ..." or "My actual views are ..." or "No, you misunderstood, what I believe is ...", then continuing to hammer them with statements along the lines of, "But you said ..." or "You say that now, but look at your own words (quote) ..." rapidly becomes uncivil.

Now, I understand that you may be doing so because this is not a face-to-face discussion. People may read just the OP and the past couple of pages, as I did just now, to get a feel for the debate. So posters often feel that an argument made on one page needs to be refuted on the same page, or as close to it as possible, even if this means repetition and angering the opponent.

Fine. But there is a point where the balance of this tactic crosses over from "refuting" to "angering".

If your opponent's replies show signs that you are angering them, maybe you should stop. If you anger them too greatly they may feel constrained to ask for Moderation assistance. Which may lead to a mod deciding that you took it too far, and dinging you for flamebait. Or it may lead to the mod deciding that the complaint is just using the "mods as weapons" tactic, and dinging the complainant.

And though you may then feel badly done by, because you were "just arguing" and didn't say anything personal, you won't have a leg to stand on. Because, though this is a debate and discussion site, the absolute standing rule, the foundation of all the others, is play nice.

Of course, there's also the possibility, when something like this makes it as far as Moderation, that the mod who picks it up may decide that people have just temporarily forgotten that they're arguing with other real people.

They may even have time, on a slow and lazy Saturday morning on a for-once-comfortable Australian summer day, to explain a point for any newbies who happen to be reading.

Thus: Gauthier, cool it. The Carparation, cool it. Anyone else who has been doing the same thing, evaluate your posts, figure out if want to take the risk of a warning, but I'd advise, cool it.


That is probably the best, and most comprehensive, "cool down" post I've ever seen.

Bravo. :bow:

User avatar
GothicLust
Diplomat
 
Posts: 544
Founded: Nov 11, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby GothicLust » Fri Jan 28, 2011 6:34 pm

Ardchoille wrote:Okay, okay. We have established that several posters -- GothicLust and TBR among them, but I've only looked back over the past two pages, there may be more -- made a generalisation along the lines of "(All) pit bulls should be eradicated."

We have also established that several other posters -- The Corparation and Gauthier among them -- know that generalisations in debates have a fatal flaw: they can be particularised.

And we have established that said posters know that reductio ad absurdum is a seductively sweet way to show the weaknesses of a generalisation.

Well done. Consider the debating points awarded.

However, this is not a formal debate, it is a civil discussion.

If your opponents concede the point (or "clarify their views") by saying "I never meant ..." or "My actual views are ..." or "No, you misunderstood, what I believe is ...", then continuing to hammer them with statements along the lines of, "But you said ..." or "You say that now, but look at your own words (quote) ..." rapidly becomes uncivil.

Now, I understand that you may be doing so because this is not a face-to-face discussion. People may read just the OP and the past couple of pages, as I did just now, to get a feel for the debate. So posters often feel that an argument made on one page needs to be refuted on the same page, or as close to it as possible, even if this means repetition and angering the opponent.

Fine. But there is a point where the balance of this tactic crosses over from "refuting" to "angering".

If your opponent's replies show signs that you are angering them, maybe you should stop. If you anger them too greatly they may feel constrained to ask for Moderation assistance. Which may lead to a mod deciding that you took it too far, and dinging you for flamebait. Or it may lead to the mod deciding that the complaint is just using the "mods as weapons" tactic, and dinging the complainant.

And though you may then feel badly done by, because you were "just arguing" and didn't say anything personal, you won't have a leg to stand on. Because, though this is a debate and discussion site, the absolute standing rule, the foundation of all the others, is play nice.

Of course, there's also the possibility, when something like this makes it as far as Moderation, that the mod who picks it up may decide that people have just temporarily forgotten that they're arguing with other real people.

They may even have time, on a slow and lazy Saturday morning on a for-once-comfortable Australian summer day, to explain a point for any newbies who happen to be reading.

Thus: Gauthier, cool it. The Carparation, cool it. Anyone else who has been doing the same thing, evaluate your posts, figure out if want to take the risk of a warning, but I'd advise, cool it.

Is it civil for them to follow me from one thread to another and make claims that I support genocide? Because that is what happened.

User avatar
Ardchoille
Retired Moderator
 
Posts: 9842
Founded: Apr 18, 2004
Democratic Socialists

Postby Ardchoille » Fri Jan 28, 2011 7:03 pm

GothicLust wrote:Is it civil for them to follow me from one thread to another and make claims that I support genocide? Because that is what happened.


That wasn't the subject of your complaint in Moderation. Mods will certainly look into any such complaints.

For reasons given here, I personally think a GHR is usually the more appropriate way to go, but whether via GHR or Moderation, please provide links.
Ideological Bulwark #35
The more scandalous charges were suppressed; the vicar of Christ was accused only of piracy, rape, sodomy, murder and incest. -- Edward Gibbon on the schismatic Pope John XXIII (1410–1415).

User avatar
GothicLust
Diplomat
 
Posts: 544
Founded: Nov 11, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby GothicLust » Fri Jan 28, 2011 7:07 pm

Ardchoille wrote:
GothicLust wrote:Is it civil for them to follow me from one thread to another and make claims that I support genocide? Because that is what happened.


That wasn't the subject of your complaint in Moderation. Mods will certainly look into any such complaints.

For reasons given here, I personally think a GHR is usually the more appropriate way to go, but whether via GHR or Moderation, please provide links.

Their quote from me saying all pits should be killed is from another thread, not this one. I went on in that thread to clarify my opinion for a good 10 pages and eventually converted to NOT killing all of them. They are well aware of this and continue to bully me and follow me from that thread to this one saying I believe in genocide, animal abuse and all manner of things I did NOT say and I asked them to stop and they did not.

User avatar
Panzerjaeger
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9856
Founded: Sep 15, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Panzerjaeger » Fri Jan 28, 2011 7:11 pm

Caninope wrote:
Panzerjaeger wrote:It is an initiation rite for all citizens of that State. :lol:

I take offense to this.

EDIT: I might not be good proof against this idea though...

Pfft you would. :p
Virginia über alles!
Friendly Neighborhood Fascist™
ФАШИЗМ БЕЗГРАНИЧНЫЙ И КРАСНЫЙ
Caninope wrote:Toyota: Keep moving forward, even when you don't want to!

Christmahanikwanzikah wrote:Timothy McVeigh casts... Pyrotechnics!

Greater Americania wrote:lol "No Comrade Ivan! Don't stick your head in there! That's the wood chi...!"

New Kereptica wrote:Fascism: because people are too smart nowadays.

User avatar
Ardchoille
Retired Moderator
 
Posts: 9842
Founded: Apr 18, 2004
Democratic Socialists

Postby Ardchoille » Fri Jan 28, 2011 7:48 pm

Embrihated Koalas wrote:so just when someone is angry just because your right means that you need to cool it? OK weird


No. You are drawing a general conclusion about an overall rule from a single example about a specific situation. That may sometimes get you the right answer, but sometimes not. For this specific situation, read my previous post. For the rules, this is the reliable source.

Note that moderation decisions are applications of the rules, tempered by circumstances, content, intent, poster history (and, where relevant, the phases of the moon and what quarter the wind sits in).

@ GothicLust: Your post in Moderation noted. Checking. Other posters, take relevant responses to the Moderation thread, not this one.
Last edited by Ardchoille on Fri Jan 28, 2011 7:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Ideological Bulwark #35
The more scandalous charges were suppressed; the vicar of Christ was accused only of piracy, rape, sodomy, murder and incest. -- Edward Gibbon on the schismatic Pope John XXIII (1410–1415).

User avatar
Kruplyan
Diplomat
 
Posts: 568
Founded: Jan 06, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Kruplyan » Fri Jan 28, 2011 8:14 pm

This has to be the most random and useless discussion I've seen on here since I joined...

User avatar
SaintB
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 21714
Founded: Apr 18, 2007
Ex-Nation

Postby SaintB » Fri Jan 28, 2011 8:47 pm

The Corparation wrote:
GothicLust wrote:Welch's is responsible for the genocide of grapes! No, that's not the right word, it's a grape holocaust! Seriously man?
Image

No they aren't systematically trying to eradicate the species in its entirety as you advocated doing for the pit bull. Plus grapes are inanimate objects, while they are alive they have no feeling, dogs are alive, have feelings and are moderately intelligent depending on the breed. They also, unlike grapes are soft and fuzzy.

I respectfully disagree, let your grapes sit on the counter for long enough and they become soft and fuzzy,
Hi my name is SaintB and I am prone to sarcasm and hyperbole. Because of this I make no warranties, express or implied, concerning the accuracy, completeness, reliability or suitability of the above statement, of its constituent parts, or of any supporting data. These terms are subject to change without notice from myself.

Every day NationStates tells me I have one issue. I am pretty sure I've got more than that.

PreviousNext

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bombadil, Cekoviu, Ecradia, Ethel mermania, Fartsniffage, Godular, Gormwood, Ifreann, ImperialRussia, Imperium Anglorum, Liriena, New haven america, Saiwania, Thanatttynia, Thomas More, Torrocca, TURTLESHROOM II, Uiiop, Valrifell

Advertisement

Remove ads