Some people were upset by my earlier proposal

[appal_jack]

67. wah-wah, boo fucking hoo. (jury results here)

Last edited Fri Apr 5, 2013, 03:16 AM - Edit history (3)

I sent the alert, and I'm perfectly comfortable having done so. The jury called it right:

At Thu Apr 4, 2013, 01:25 PM you sent an alert on the following post:

A modest proposal for people who think no massacre control is needed
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022615268

REASON FOR ALERT:

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. (See <a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=aboutus#communitystandards" target="_blank">Community Standards</a>.)

YOUR COMMENTS:

I know that the intention of all threads with "modest proposal" in the title is to post something controversial, but this OP is advocating the random massacre of children. Not cool by DU standards, no matter how you stretch them. Also, does not further any rational discussion in any way, shape, or form.

A randomly-selected Jury of DU members completed their review of this alert at Thu Apr 4, 2013, 02:06 PM, and voted 5-1 to HIDE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT and said: Sickening and not helping the cause.
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT and said: not amusing or clever
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT and said: This post is over the top and hardly a modest proposal. I appreciate that gun control and gun rights are topics with a great deal of passion, but this is simply beyond acceptable.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: This is clearly an expression of righteous anger and I am not offended by the words on the page or the horrific absurdity of the proposal. Proper decorum vs. satire? No matter how dark or scathing, I vote for the satire.
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given

Thank you.

If the issue of gun control is as cut & dry as you pretend it is, dsc, just advocate repealing the Second Amendment. Or save yourself some time and admit that you have no chance of doing so. Our Constitution protects the expression of dangerous ideas (via the 1st Amendment), because dangerous ideas are necessary and potentially helpful to an open society. The Constitution also protects the possession of potentially dangerous (but also potentially helpful) tools via the 2nd Amendment. Privacy and waiting for due process can be dangerous (or helpful) to society; we (should) protect them too, as enshrined in the 4th and 5th Amendments.

Your post was offensive the way that Jersey Shore is offensive: it was stupid and had no redeeming value whatsoever. DU deserves better. NO ONE is against 'massacre control.' Killing people in anything besides a desperate defensive situation is already illegal, and should of course remain so. Heck, few if any here are against gun control entirely. We have a lot of gun control in this country. Whether we need more, and what type is worth debating, but only rationally. The less hyperbole, the better.


-app