Fnord wrote:
Cornflake wrote:
It doesn't appear to be advocating actual, calculated violence - it reads more like expressing anger at the lack of activity by police at the time of the shooting.
"Blood for blood" is not advocating violence? I sincerely and respectfully disagree.
It's a question of degree and intent, neither of which is apparent in that thread. Often things don't
literally mean what they say and this is one of those times. Wishing that there should be some form of "blood for blood" punishment is just that - a wish expressed in hyperbole and anger blowing off steam about a past event.
I don't doubt that actual, meaningful plotting (in public?) with the clear intention of causing harm to someone -
1. wouldn't be done in public and
2. would be very easily seen for what it is.
But this isn't it.
League_Girl wrote:
Why was this thread locked with no explanation?
viewtopic.php?t=408155 Oops, mea culpa: I checked the wrong checkbox.
Apologies - now unlocked.
_________________
Giraffe: a ruminant with a view.