You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: LOW-LIFE DOWNVOTING MEMBERS
No, the point is that if you despise this place so much that you have to resort to levying baseless inflammatory accusations which amount to Child Rape/Abuse against the entire community and targeting large stakeholders specifically then you might as well simply stop coming to such a despicable place. It has absolutely nothing to do with downvoting, period.
While I tend to agree with you on this particular point, I do think it's important to maintain at least some tacit pretense of Uniform Standards of Evidence (USOE) regarding what constitutes a "violation".
And that's not an issue and can never be as everything is transparent and public. Right now the twat that called steem a Cesspool of Fraud and Corruption controlled by Pedophiles is denying it, as if it's debatable in the least what was said on here.
More specifically they're denying calling morky and or boldawall SPECIFICALLY offensive names.
It wasn't presented as a specific accusation of a specific crime. It was a general insult.
For example, when Jesus threw the money-changers out of the temple, he called them "a den of thieves", generally.
He didn't single any specific person out and charge them with a specific, literal, actual, legal crime.
"It wasn't presented as a specific accusation of a specific crime. It was a general insult."
"He didn't single any specific person out and charge them with a specific, literal, actual, legal crime."
Exactly! But unfortunately our friend @baah has not yet learned the difference.
Let's say for example, as many have claimed, that Walmart is a very corrupt organization which exploits its workers by keeping wages low and limiting their hours, so that they (Walmart) can avoid having to pay any benefits. While that statement itself may or may not have any basis in fact, it does not in any way suggest that a specific employee, manager, director or shareholder of the company is directly or personally responsible for the exploitation of the company's employees, even if such exploitation is true.
As another example, a few years ago as I recall, someone bought some kind of a media device from Walmart for their kid, and upon inspecting it, found it to contain pornographic material. Therefore it would be quite accurate for anyone to state that Walmart was very irresponsible in allowing an obviously returned device to be sold to another customer without first checking it more thoroughly. Such a statement however does not in any way, shape or form suggest that a specific employee, manager, director, or shareholder of Walmart was to blame for this unfortunate incident.
Likewise, making the statement that Steemit is infested with pornography and other such trash is a non-disputable fact. But like the Walmart examples above, that statement does not in any way, shape or form suggest that a specific employee, manager, director, or shareholder of Steemit is to blame for what is going on at Steemit.
Now @baah and @themarkymark may very well disagree with this analysis, but regardless, I think they will find that any lawyer, or any other reasonably educated person, will totally agree with me on this one.
Well stated.
Yes it not only SUGGESTS that because Walmart outside it's shareholders, executives and management doesn't exist but it claims that those that run Wal-Mart are exploiting their workers, even if it didn't directly say that "those who run Wal-Mart". Maybe look up the definition of Suggesting.
No, they denied even suggesting, not only specifically naming names. Heck they denied even suggesting By Any Stretch of the Imagination.