RE: NOPAL4U Guidelines 1.0

[valued-customer]

Words are not violence. Even if the account holder was indeed seriously making a death threat, censoring them is not preventing them from carrying out the threat. Furthermore, if the threat was serious, it was already made. No violence was prevented in that censorship action, even if you do consider words violence (except some theoretical future threat, which hasn't been made yet and may never have been).

Comments

[abusereports]

WARNING: IF YOU REPLY TO THIS ACCOUNT YOU WILL BE FLAGGED, YOUR REP HARMED AND ALL OF YOUR REWARDS REMOVED. DO NOT ENGAGE WITH THE TRASH. YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED

[sgt-dan]

Sorry @abusereports yet I felt it was necessary to educate @valuedcustomer as his comment and subsequent statements were uninformed.

Do what you deem appropriate, I have no control over yours or, anyone else's actions for that matter.

[amico]

I understand that we have different visions and I respect your ideas.

I love Marshall Rosenberg and I follow his simple principles of non-violent communication: my experience is that it changes your world!

A warm hug
@amico

[valued-customer]

I am not a fan of violence myself. However, the points I made aren't about being violent. Either the speech undertaken wasn't actual violence, or it was. If it was, muting the speaker afterwards didn't prevent violence, which had already occurred. However, speech isn't violence, it's communication. Since speech can't be violence, muting the speaker can't prevent violence.

Either way, no violence was prevented. I am a fan of factual reality, and prefer it non-violently. That's why no harm came to anyone or anything in the making of this comment. All my comments have that feature.

All comments do.

[sgt-dan]

I will neither upvote or downvote this comment yet I do find it necessary to respond. I am not familiar with International Law, but in the United States threatening life or limb is considered a terrorist threat. I quote Article 18 of the U.S. Code:

18 U.S.C. § 2332b(c)(1)(g) makes it a class C felony, punishable by 10 years imprisonment, for someone to willfully threaten to commit a crime that will result in death or great bodily harm; the threat is made with the specific intent that it be taken as a threat; the threat is so unequivocal, unconditional, and specific as to convey a gravity of purpose and immediate prospect of execution; the threat actually causes fear in the victim; and the fear is reasonable.

Sorry dude, in @themarkymark's and my Nation, it is the Law of The Land.

[valued-customer]

A threat of violence is not violence. It doesn't matter if it's against the law. Everything that is illegal isn't violence. My contention in this conversation is finite. I pointed out that no violence was prevented by muting. That was the limit of my claim.

Here's the relevant portion of my last response to @amico:

"Either the speech undertaken wasn't actual violence, or it was. If it was, muting the speaker afterwards didn't prevent violence, which had already occurred. However, speech isn't violence, it's communication. Since speech can't be violence, muting the speaker can't prevent violence."

"Either way, no violence was prevented. I am a fan of factual reality, and prefer it non-violently. That's why no harm came to anyone or anything in the making of this comment. All my comments have that feature."

"All comments do."

You do not respond to my claim. You have changed the subject. You're apparently claiming, if you're responding to what I actually said, that if something is illegal it is violence - or you're not responding to what I did say at all.

Do read what I said. Either respond, or state outright that you are going to change the subject, because that's what you did.

Please reconsider your comment.