Political threads

[Necrodamus]

Im trying to understand why we have a ban on political threads and yet political threads are allowed to be posted as long as they are not conservative in view.

For instance...
http://www.zombiehunters.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=30&t=88182
this thread was all about California LEOs being exempt from the Ca AW ban and yet they are buying and selling assault weapons (I hate that term) in record numbers.
I simply posted that all civilians should be able to purchase, that LEOs should not be above the law.
Because I had the balls to tell the truth the thread is locked and buried. I received an unofficial warning about talking politics. It wasnt politics BEFORE it was only politics when I told the truth.
Yes I was insulting towards California, but hey its California!
There are a lot of comments around about other things that are insulting too, it doesnt cause threads to be L&B.

So I posted a thread from the other view, asking for no politics. Locked in less than 15 minutes.
http://www.zombiehunters.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=107&t=88203

The first thread started out just as political. It was when I started talking pro Second AMendment that it became political.
So is the rule no politics or no conservative politics?

[bigmattdaddywack]

Waiting and subbed

[Skummdogg]

Hmmm sub'd

sent via ur mums fishtank

[Regular Guy]

Well, in the moderators defense both topics were L&B'd. I'm not sure if it's so much a political thing as much as it's going to be a pissing match thing. ZS is very liberal with the discussion of guns, we talk about them a lot. We should and do avoid discussing laws about them due to the tendency for them to turn into politics or pissing matches.

I believe in the case of both those threads is the mods just didn't want a pissing match. Really, the second page of the first thread was as long as it took to get to "Kaliforistan". Once the thread gets to that point, you know it's just going to be a train wreck.

I say if you want to discuss laws/politics about guns, find another site or PM me. There are plenty of sites that you can talk about gun politics.

[Necrodamus]

I agree with you RG the thing Im asking is why are political discussions allowed as long as they are not conservative in nature. There are a lot of political threads that are allowed and a lot of times, most of the time, I just stay away. Sometimes you just have to speak up.

We can discuss LEOs having access to firearms that citizens cant, we can discuss restrictive firearms laws (to a point), but we cant discuss the meaning of the Second Amendment or the SCOTUS ruling that it is incorporated?

I have received a number of PMs from people who support me on this.
Some support me and have asked me to let it go because they dont want to see me leave or get banned. Im glad our forefathers didnt sit back and be quiet.

One other thing to consider, we are not allowed to discuss illegal activity right?
If the Second Amendment is incorporated and says the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, then isnt discussing the "right" for LEOs to purchase firearms that civies cant an illegal activity? States do not have the right to further restrict incorporated rights, we are just waiting on the dominos to fall.

[elricfate]

Im trying to understand why we have a ban on political threads and yet political threads are allowed to be posted as long as they are not conservative in view.

I need more than just examples of YOUR threads, please. I'd like to see at least five before you leap to immediate conspiracy theories.

For instance...
http://www.zombiehunters.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=30&t=88182
this thread was all about California LEOs being exempt from the Ca AW ban and yet they are buying and selling assault weapons (I hate that term) in record numbers.
I simply posted that all civilians should be able to purchase, that LEOs should not be above the law.
Because I had the balls to tell the truth the thread is locked and buried. I received an unofficial warning about talking politics.

Guess what? Law Enforcement has always had the ability to purchase things standard Citizens can't (without a handful of tax stamps), it's part of the responsibility of being Law Enforcement. Do you care that they can purchase Flash Bangs and you can't (other than trainers)? California chose their elected officials, their elected officials have put bans in place on certain weapons, vote with your feet. Oh wait, you're no in CA, so your opinion means absolutely jack.

It wasnt politics BEFORE it was only politics when I told the truth.
Yes I was insulting towards California, but hey its California!

I could say that all people who live in North Carolina fuck sheep and suck off bulls, and would it be okay because "HEY, IT'S NORTH CAROLINA"? No.

There are a lot of comments around about other things that are insulting too, it doesnt cause threads to be L&B.

I insult people and things all the time. Sometimes I get my peener slapped, sometimes it's akin to the topic and accepted as "yea, we all feel the same" -- pick and choose your battles, you know that.

So I posted a thread from the other view, asking for no politics. Locked in less than 15 minutes.
http://www.zombiehunters.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=107&t=88203

The first thread started out just as political. It was when I started talking pro Second AMendment that it became political.
So is the rule no politics or no conservative politics?

That's like lighting a fire and asking for no one else to add accelerant because you already threw a gallon on. You know better. When you start discussing the Bill of Rights, or any laws, you're asking for either a pissing contest or a hugely political discussion. Those threads get the kibosh fast, and you know it, because it's not just yours that get slammed shut. Again, I demand a lot of examples before I start believing the anecdotal evidence I am seeing from your posts.

I agree with you RG the thing Im asking is why are political discussions allowed as long as they are not conservative in nature. There are a lot of political threads that are allowed and a lot of times, most of the time, I just stay away. Sometimes you just have to speak up.

Prove it. Give me a handful of examples that show conservative politics are separated and shut while liberal politics are kept open and are never locked and buried.

We can discuss LEOs having access to firearms that citizens cant, we can discuss restrictive firearms laws (to a point), but we cant discuss the meaning of the Second Amendment or the SCOTUS ruling that it is incorporated?

There's a threshold before the shit gets so deep that it needs waders. Moderators aren't omniscient, but when they catch wind of a thread going south, they try to steer it back, and if it goes too far it gets buried. Sometimes they nip shit in the bud before it even has a chance. Discussing HOW THE SCOTUS VIEWS AN AMENDMENT is one of those that will turn to shit immediately, so I like that they're done with. You want to discuss it? Go to another forum.

I have received a number of PMs from people who support me on this.
Some support me and have asked me to let it go because they dont want to see me leave or get banned. Im glad our forefathers didnt sit back and be quiet.

Good for them. Even a blind squirrel gets a nut once in awhile. You seem to have collected a few. I don't want you banned, we've generally got along in the past, but this sudden conspiratorial swing you've taken about your political threads is irksome at best.

One other thing to consider, we are not allowed to discuss illegal activity right?
If the Second Amendment is incorporated and says the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, then isnt discussing the "right" for LEOs to purchase firearms that civies cant an illegal activity? States do not have the right to further restrict incorporated rights, we are just waiting on the dominos to fall.

You have the right to keep and bear arms. When that was written muzzleloaders ruled the world. Hey, aren't Muzzleloaders not restricted or subject to a Form 4473? Huh. Well, I guess they can have and bear arms. The legality of something is for judges to decide, not a forum where no political/illegal discussions are allowed.

Read and respond carefully.

[Regular Guy]

I agree with you RG the thing Im asking is why are political discussions allowed as long as they are not conservative in nature.

I'm a conservative libertarian and I do see how someone could see the discussions he as liberal, however, I believe they are more libertarian in nature. I read a lot of stuff that is conservative as well. Views are fine, IMO, politics are not.

There are a lot of political threads that are allowed and a lot of times, most of the time, I just stay away. Sometimes you just have to speak up.

We can discuss LEOs having access to firearms that citizens cant, we can discuss restrictive firearms laws (to a point), but we cant discuss the meaning of the Second Amendment or the SCOTUS ruling that it is incorporated?

I've personally discussed the meaning of and interpreted/discussed the meaning of the 2A. I have yet to have to be spanked. What crosses the line is when you add adjectives such as it's stupid, liberal/conservative bull shit, etc.

I have received a number of PMs from people who support me on this.
Some support me and have asked me to let it go because they dont want to see me leave or get banned. Im glad our forefathers didnt sit back and be quiet.

Sure, out in the world we can be and should be vocal about our politics. However, we all know and agree that this isn't the place for it. We have hard core liberals talking guns and, in my case, have a conservative libertarian vegetarian who talks about digging tools. ZS is a place where we can all get together without politics and discuss our interests.

One other thing to consider, we are not allowed to discuss illegal activity right?
If the Second Amendment is incorporated and says the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, then isnt discussing the "right" for LEOs to purchase firearms that civies cant an illegal activity? States do not have the right to further restrict incorporated rights, we are just waiting on the dominos to fall.

Yes, we can talk about 2A but we can't discuss the political implications.

[Doctorr Fabulous]

Or, just a general rule of thumb...

7.) No debating of politics or religion.
To help discourage any of the above rules from being broken, we make a point to avoid these types of debates. It makes it a lot easier for us to all get along and helps us stay focused on our root topics--survival and zombies. There are lots of other great forums out there dedicated to debating politics and religion if you wish to do so.

Seems cut and dry. Rather than trying to circumvent it, or bitch in a thread, use the nifty report button in a post you think begins to lean to far, or starts a political debate.

ATF hate is universal (dog shooting jokes) in the firearms forum, but doesn't get a thread L&B, because it doesn't start a discussion, just a few funny pictures of dogs looking frightened. Read through the thread graveyard, and you might notice that there are more "conservative" threads in there. Likely because the OP misunderstood the purpose of the forum.

It's a disaster prep forum, not a political change/information forum.

EDITed for clarity of mind.

[phil_in_cs]

I've been accused of being a liberal for locking political threads, which makes me laugh into hysteria.

I wasn't the one that locked those, but political baiting/trolling such as "Kalifornia" and "people's republic of Kalistan" will get things locked quickly.

If more conservative threads seemed to get locked, it is because more conservative threads get started. I used to hang out in right wing survivalist places, and quit because of the deafening echo chamber there for hundreds of people yelling the same mantras back and forth constantly. We don't allow that here on ZS, and you know what? A kid that grew up reading his dad's copies of John Birch and Lyndon LaRouche publications can learn stuff from hippies. We focus on the issues that concern us all, such as prepping, and discuss our politics elsewhere.

If you want to bitch about gun laws in California, or my peeve of the lack of open carry in Texas, there are 100's of sites where you can do that. ZS is not on that list.

[Regular Guy]

ATF hate is universal (dog shooting jokes) in the firearms forum, but doesn't get a thread L&B, because it doesn't start a discussion, just a few funny pictures of dogs looking frightened.

Well, there is a factual nature to the remarks about the ATF shooting dogs. They actually do shoot dogs, I don't think it's at all political to lament them shooting dogs. Now, once you start saying the ATF sucks and enforces libtard gun laws, then you've crossed the line, IMO. <<<Just an example, I'm not making a political statement. The law is the law and no matter what it is, it should be gleefully obeyed.

Really, I like dogs and I don't understand them shooting a dog that is not a threat. If it's a threat, sure.

[Regular Guy]

A kid that grew up reading his dad's copies of John Birch and Lyndon LaRouche publications can learn stuff from hippies. We focus on the issues that concern us all, such as prepping, and discuss our politics elsewhere.

If you want to bitch about gun laws in California, or my peeve of the lack of open carry in Texas, there are 100's of sites where you can do that. ZS is not on that list.

IMHO, this should be stickied somewhere conspicuous.

[elricfate]

Now, once you start saying the ATF sucks and enforces libtard gun laws, then you've crossed the line, IMO. <<<Just an example, I'm not making a political statement. The law is the law and no matter what it is, it should be gleefully obeyed.

[Doctorr Fabulous]

A kid that grew up reading his dad's copies of John Birch and Lyndon LaRouche publications can learn stuff from hippies. We focus on the issues that concern us all, such as prepping, and discuss our politics elsewhere.

If you want to bitch about gun laws in California, or my peeve of the lack of open carry in Texas, there are 100's of sites where you can do that. ZS is not on that list.

IMHO, this should be stickied somewhere conspicuous.

It is. In the Forum Rules section.

[Regular Guy]

Now, once you start saying the ATF sucks and enforces libtard gun laws, then you've crossed the line, IMO. <<<Just an example, I'm not making a political statement. The law is the law and no matter what it is, it should be gleefully obeyed.

I hear what your saying, I don't believe that is the proper application of my statement because we have the freedom of speech here which allows us to blasphem. Anyway, tip of the hat, this round to you.

[duodecima]

I think it's easiest to notice the stuff that you don't agree with. I see some folks commonly throwing in little snarky asides that seem to indicate a 'conservative' political bent and suspect if an equivalent 'liberal' snarky comment was made, it'd bother a lot more folks and get called out. I see at least one of the same folks engaging in mildly political snark get bent out of shape when 'conservative' figures were (factually) mentioned in connection with an unfortunate situation.

If you're on the forum, you're interested and engaged, and probably not just in disaster preparedness. This is, IMO, a great thing - but we're never all going to agree. Hell, we can't agree on what stove you should have in your BOB, it's just easier to live & let live about that, than about the politics of the places we all have to live in.

Personally, I have always known & liked folks who I might have some big difference in opinion with, politically. That doesn't bother me. And I kinda like the snarkyness most of the time. So I shrug most stuff off unless it's persistantly and overtly political OR REALLY RUDE! Manners goes a long way too.

But I don't buy that there's some 'liberal' bias to this site.

[TDW586]

I'd be interested if you could point out a "liberal" political thread that hasn't been L&B. The thread you referred to wasn't a "liberal" view, it was simply information on the fact that Cali LEO's are purchasing a lot of weapons that are illegal for non-LEO's. When you started talking about the 2nd Amendment and so on, that's a political argument.

The statement "it's illegal to purchase XXXX without a tax stamp" is not a political discussion, it's a statement of fact. If someone replied, "well that's a violation of my Constitutional rights, those liberals in Kalifornia are destroying this country!", then that is a political statement.

I'd be interested to see examples of political threads that weren't locked, that express an other than conservative viewpoint. Note that threads which stay neutral are by definition not political.

[Jeriah]

Necro: I'm going to try to provide some insight here that might be helpful. I'm not trying to be condescending, just helpful, but the Internet doesn't convey tone so if I sound like a dick, I'm sorry, that's not my intent.

Im trying to understand why we have a ban on political threads and yet political threads are allowed to be posted as long as they are not conservative in view.

For instance...
http://www.zombiehunters.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=30&t=88182
this thread was all about California LEOs being exempt from the Ca AW ban and yet they are buying and selling assault weapons (I hate that term) in record numbers.
I simply posted that all civilians should be able to purchase, that LEOs should not be above the law.
Because I had the balls to tell the truth the thread is locked and buried. I received an unofficial warning about talking politics. It wasnt politics BEFORE it was only politics when I told the truth.

Here is what it comes down to: certain topics are inherently political in nature. When you bring up The Second Amendment, or any other Constitutional Amendment, you're talking about an inherently political topic. This is true whether you're saying "Everybody should be able to own military-grade weapons including surface-to-air missiles and anti-tank weapons because that's the only way to prevent tyranny" or "Nobody needs guns because guns kill babies and we have the National Guard to prevent the Federal Government from becoming a dictatorship." It's inherently political because it relates to the interpretation of a legal document, in regards to policy, and this kind of interpretation is what a lot of political campaigns and elections are about. It doesn't matter whether you're taking a pro-gun or anti-gun stance, the whole discussion isn't permitted.

If you need a rule of thumb, try this:
If you are saying, "We are allowed to..." or "We are not allowed to...", you're fine.
If you are asking "Are we allowed to...?" you're fine.
If you are saying, "We SHOULD BE allowed to..." or "WE SHOULD NOT BE allowed to...", rethink before posting.
If you are asking "SHOULD WE BE allowed to...", rethink before posting.

More importantly, it's not something we can do anything about, as individuals, outside of the political process. If you want/believe in/believe the Constitution guarantees us/believe we inherently have more gun rights, you vote one way, and if you believe the opposite, you vote another. That's politics. On the other hand, if someone says, "I am not comfortable including a firearm in my preps because I am scared of guns/am afraid of what the gun will do/am not sure what is legal," then THAT is an area where productive, non-political conversation can occur. We can discuss what the gun laws ARE, we can discuss how to work around them (that is, stay within the law while owning effective firearms), and we can discuss potential upcoming changes ("If this passes, you can't own x anymore"). The things we cannot do are 1.) discuss the politics of the situation, such as "Vote for so-and-so and you can keep your guns," or even, "Go vote against this legislation because if it passes you can't own x anymore", and 2.) discuss non-compliance with the law as a viable option.

Yes I was insulting towards California, but hey its California!
There are a lot of comments around about other things that are insulting too, it doesnt cause threads to be L&B.

You said:

Kalifornistans AW ban is unconstitutional for civilians as well as LEOs.

The part about constitutionality was the political part, but we're past that. The word "Kalifornistan" is the part that is hateful, insulting, and disrespectful. The substitution of the letter K for the letter C, although echoed in the film Kalifornia, is pretty clearly a suggestion that the state is similar to the Ku Klux Klan (see also the low-budget Fortress of AmeriKKKa". The "-stan" ending used in Iranian and Persian place names suggests that the state is an Islamic caliphate, and by extension is a repressive theocracy and so on. All of which is inaccurate, hateful, and not conducive to friendly and productive discussions on the Internet.

I could say that North Carolina is full of inbred rednecks who fuck pigs, and their siblings, and felch their siblings' semen out of the pigs they were fucking, and everyone from North Carolina has breath that smells like a mixture of pig shit and their brothers' semen...but I won't, because it's not true, it wouldn't be nice, and it would interfere with our ability to have nice productive conversations about guns and backpacks and hiking, which is what we're here for. I've met some very nice people from North Carolina and wouldn't want to alienate them or make them feel unwelcome by making gross generalizations about their homeland. I would appreciate the same consideration for my home state.

I'm in California right now, in some absolutely beautiful country (Anza-Borrego Desert), visiting my grandmother who taught me everything I know about camping, the outdoors, nature, and wilderness ethics. While I'm here, I visited my father, who keeps a rifle I can borrow any time I visit if I want to go shooting out in the desert. I'll also be visiting many, many good friends, many of whom are preppers themselves, many gun owners and shooters, and some ZS members and lurkers. (You know we have a chapter there, right?)

So no, it's not cool to talk shit just because "Hey, it's California." Nor would it be cool for me to make generalizations about the South, or Texas, or New England, or North Carolina, or anything.

So is the rule no politics or no conservative politics?

My view on this is that most survival/preparedness boards have a conservative bias, and unabashedly so. Preparedness, and also firearms/shooting, are topics that at least in outward appearance seem to appeal more to stereotypical conservatives than to stereotypical liberals. It is my view that Zombie Squad doesn't want to reinforce this division, and wants EVERYBODY to be better prepared. So they try to strike a neutral, unbiased position. Obviously absolute neutrality is impossible, but they try to step on roughly the same number of left toes as right toes, and I think they do it pretty well. However, if you're used to Arfcom, the Kifaru forums, Frugal Squirrels, etc., then yes, a neutral forum will appear pretty liberal by comparison.

You're not alone, though. Former ZS user Arch is a really nice guy, I trained with him at MilCopp and he staked my AR's gas key for me. About six months ago or so, he became fed up with ZS for the same reasons you did. Search his name, his signature block contains links to threads in which this topic was discussed at great length.

[TDW586]

Good post, Jeriah. Necro, the original post, if you'll notice, simply said "NO POLITICS" and provided a link to the information. It did not say "It's good that LEO's can own these guns and others cannot", or "It's bad that LEO's can own these guns and others cannot".

Your post, on the other hand, explicitly asked "Do you think it's good or bad that LEOs can own these guns and others cannot" with the clear implication that you believe it to be bad (I agree by the way).

[Doctorr Fabulous]

North Carolina is full of inbred rednecks who fuck pigs, and their siblings, and felch their siblings' semen out of the pigs they were fucking, and everyone from North Carolina has breath that smells like a mixture of pig shit and their brothers' semen.

I was born and raised in GA. I have no part in this.

I stand by my statement, that this is a disaster prep and charity board. Not myspace, facebook, Fox News, CNN, or a forum (in the literal sense, as in a place for your ideas to be heard) for political debate or change. The first amendment does not apply, as this is privately owned. Much like any other private property, "fighting the power" or "standing up for the truth" usually ends poorly.

As for posting political topics and tagging them with "no politics" i think that's about on par with posting "what rifle should I get for TEOTWAWKI and tagging it with "not an AR vs AK debate."

[raptor]

Im trying to understand why we have a ban on political threads and yet political threads are allowed to be posted as long as they are not conservative in view.

For instance...
http://www.zombiehunters.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=30&t=88182
this thread was all about California LEOs being exempt from the Ca AW ban and yet they are buying and selling assault weapons (I hate that term) in record numbers.
I simply posted that all civilians should be able to purchase, that LEOs should not be above the law.
Because I had the balls to tell the truth the thread is locked and buried. I received an unofficial warning about talking politics. It wasnt politics BEFORE it was only politics when I told the truth.
Yes I was insulting towards California, but hey its California!
There are a lot of comments around about other things that are insulting too, it doesnt cause threads to be L&B.

So I posted a thread from the other view, asking for no politics. Locked in less than 15 minutes.
http://www.zombiehunters.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=107&t=88203

The first thread started out just as political. It was when I started talking pro Second AMendment that it became political.
So is the rule no politics or no conservative politics?

I am the Mod that locked the first thread in question. I will tell you exactly why I locked it. Necrodamus I would normally not post this publicly but typically have this discussion by PM. However since you selected this medium I am posting my response here. I mean this post to be simply an explanation. of my logic for my actions. I should have communicated with you about the reason I closed the first topic. I apologize for the lack of communication. No slight was intended.

The original thread was about LEOs being investigated for unusual activity regarding regulated weapons. It had nothing to do with the second amendment. Several posters including me posted a request for "No Politics". You posted a huge font hijacking the thread and then in a smaller font insulted California.

The next post by a third party took exception to the Kalifornia comment. Then the next post was a cartoon followed by two more posts making fun of the thread and the last straw was another post about Kalifornia.

In other words your post hijacked the thread for your own persona reasons of discussing a different topic and bashing California. I did not reprimand you since that is not my prerogative. In my opinion your hijack and comments were intentionally rude and at a cross purpose to the thread. If it were my prerogative I would have reprimanded you for hijacking someone else's thread and being purposefully insulting (much as your comment about California in the OP). Why be rude and obnoxious to the citizens of a state simply for the sake of annoyance? Not being rude has nothing to do with a desire to be politically correct (at least IMO).

You can say I closed that thread due to a liberal bias if you want (which like Phil makes me roll on the floor laughing) but the truth is, the thread hijack caused the thread to turn into a joke. A bad joke where people were offended. You were not the OP and you got the OP's thread locked by your actions. Not exactly a nice thing to do.

We are all guests here. Think of this forum as a friend's living room. You would not start a fist fight in a friend's living room or defecate on his floor...right? Same logic. This forum is intended to promote preparedness and have a little fun while doing it....not to bash people who may have different opinions

All are welcome here as long as they stay within the rules. We have a wide variety of people. This diversity brings many perspectives. You may or may agree with the perspectives presented. I sure do not agree with all of the perspectives presented.

There are times when we must discuss difficult subjects. It is during these discussions that the different perspectives and cornerstone rules of no politics, no religion, no flaming (including insulting states and people) are IMO most useful. It is difficult to have productive discussions if these rules are not observed.


That said, I stand by my decision to close the first thread. I also value the cornerstone rules. I am sure some political threads that should be closed are not and perhaps some that should not be are. Mods (as are you) are humans and make mistakes both ways. We want to leave threads open and not shut them down. Locking a thread is tedious and tiresome. It is not a power trip or a conspiracy. It is work and a PITA.

I hope this explains the reason for the fist thread lock. PM me if you have a further question about it.

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year.

[dogbane]

We want to leave threads open and not shut them down. Locking a thread is tedious and tiresome. It is not a power trip or a conspiracy. It is work and a PITA.

I want to emphasize this. Mod involvement is never fun. It's stressful, often puts us at odds with folks we like, and finds us shutting down opinions we might happen to agree with. In an attempt to be fair, mods will often recuse themselves from topics they are too emotionally caught up in. We strive to be even-handed and thoughtful, and that takes work sometimes. If being fair and thoughtful were easy, there would be no use for lawyers.

Edited for syntax.

[cmxterra]

Personally I think that if someone uses a name like "kalifornia" or saying "Kentucky is full on inbreeds" hurts someone's feeling then said person needs to grow a thicker skin. That is in no way a personal attack on an individual. It is a stereotype of a particular area. And we are all adults here and I don't think we need to be sheltered from the big bad world. As preppers we should be stronger than the rest of the sheep I would think.

as for the political side of things. Everything is political. Opinions are political. Ideas are political. Laws are political. Life as preppers is political. Our own government now classifies anyone who stores food as a potential terrorist. And with programs like fast and furious it could be argued that the and does in fact push a leftist agenda. (getting off topic a bit.. Sorry)

Yes it can get out of hand if you start personal attacks though.

I guess in the end it comes down to their house their rules. So everyone shut the hell up and play nice or you will be punished like bad children.

[Regular Guy]

As preppers we should be stronger than the rest of the sheep I would think.

Humans are not sheep. ZS does not allow referring to humans as sheep. It's called dehumanization. Google it.

[raptor]

I guess in the end it comes down to their house their rules. So everyone shut the hell up and play nice or you will be punished like bad children.

When you go to friend's house don't you respect that person's house and not trash it?

We are all adults here.

That is all we ask here. You do not have to agree with everyone. You do not have to even like the others. Just try to get along. If you do not like someone use the Foe function to hide their posts from your view or simply ignore them.

Be a good guest. Participate, bring constructive thoughts to the forum. It really is that simple.