Board Thread:Community Voting/@comment-24561237-20140909222759/@comment-26929881-20140911005541

Nehpets7000 wrote: LegoSuperBowser wrote: Skully Of House Lannister wrote: LondonDauntlessCorvair963 wrote: Vonness11` wrote:

Nehpets7000 wrote:

LondonDauntlessCorvair963 wrote: Basil Karlo wrote: after talking with Spy, I don't really think this term should be allowed. much like "retard", it's never really used in a non-insulting context (there is one that can be used, but I've never seen it used here.) I'm fine with "idiot" being used in a non-serious context, but I've always viewed this one as a word where (joking or not) it's still offensive.==Current vote== This is dumb IMO. A douche is an actual thing. Just kick someone if they use it as an insult. Same with penis and retard, because those are actual scientific terms. LDC, I can't think of a context that 1st word could be allowed to be discussed in on here.... Per this. What reason do we have to talk about genitalia on chat? None, but why should we block a scientific term? lol Because we're immature morons who fear terms for things we have on our bodies? *DERP* They're hundreds if not thousands of sites of chats were you can freely talk about your body, or others all you want, Skul. But even though we don't talk much about LEGO brick toys, we have limits. And just because you think that there's nothing wrong with it, doesn't make it right. For example, They're Christians on right? I, being one of them. Let's say you want to talk about Jesus. But He in your mind, is either fictional, (non-existent) or just a part of history, nothing else. (just a plain man) So you know I'm on chat, and maybe Obi or Drew. Would you start saying things about Him being racist, or Mexican, or that He's in hell, or any other things about Him like that with "Jesus" followers in the helm of chat? I'm sure you'd want to be the least bit respectful. I know this isn't the best of examples, but it comes down to the core; are people going to respect others for their so called "innocents", or "innocents because of their believes", or just say that they shouldn't be on if they really don't want to this kind of stuff? Has the wiki banned profanity because of the innocents of others, or because they simple don't want to fall into the modern internet?
 * yes 14
 * no 8
 * neutral 3

Maybe I communicated my message well enough for someone to get my point/s. LSB, While I think I agree with your point, your analogy was terrible.... Sorry, but I blanked out when I had to use something that fit Skul's description.