[mrick]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Israelis are Lying Sacks of Crap


Does this qualify as "otherwise objectionable"?

"While using 2+2 website, you may not post or transmit any unlawful, threatening, abusive, libellous, defamatory, obscene, pornographic, profane, or otherwise objectionable information of any kind"


[/ QUOTE ] If you can both a) prove it, and b) demonstrate you needed to make such an inflammatory statement in a given context, then why should it be objectionable to a rational person and violate the T&C?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is all very charming but still extremely smelly.

Andyfox is of course being the adult here but I doubt if his adult approach will find many supporters.

It's really very simple - and we can use your own pseudo-logic to demonstrate : Suppose poster A puts up a post that for the very first time, ever, in the history of 2+2 alleges that Italians are "lying sacks of crap". According to your logic he would have to prove it! Guess what, I agree. The poster should have to prove it. Trying to prove that would lead to the meat of poster A's proclamation (and most likely show that he was wrong).

Now, if poster A by some miracle demonstrates that indeed "Italians are lying sacks of craps", such a statement can be posted on 2+2 without any problem. But what if poster A cannot prove it? Would this mean that nobody, ever again, under any circumstances, could claim on 2+2 that "Italians are lying sacks of craps"??

But this would be not just a dishonest rule, it would also be wrong! For the simple reason, that logic and arguments never stay stale; they advance, change or augment. What if poster A used arguments a, b and c and was defeated on them -- but now I present argument d? Is this new argument never allowed to see the light of day on 2+2? (You can see the absurdity of such logic, if we were to follow this about poker. The ranks of hands, for example, would have been set in stone years ago!)

Therefore, as andyfox succinctly demonstrate through the example he gave, the rule should be interpreted as either (a) no inflammatory statements whatsoever about any nation, person, group, etc, in which case Felix Nietsche is due for a ban, --or-- (b) hey, you folks can argue whatever the hell you like, as long as the mods keep it civil and not repetitious.

Goes without saying that I vote (b). You, on the other hand, essentially vote for a variant which goes "No inflammatory statements, etc, about Jews and Israelis", implying that it has been established that Jews and Israelis are NOT lying sacks of crap (I happen to agree with this, but that's not the point) AND that it has also been established that Islamists/Arabs/Palestinians are lying sacks of crap and therefore anyone can freely post this "truth". Ergo, according to your logic, one can insult FOR EVER Arabs and Muslims, while one can NEVER insult Jews and Israel.

2+2... A place full of magic mirrors.