Under the "What Can I Post" section the rules state that should post: "Nothing offensive. No swearing." and under the "Rules" section it states: "Anything offensive will be removed without warning. What is offensive will be judged solely by the moderators of amirite."
The filtered words merely give the moderators an easier way to find and deal with posts that may have inappropriate content, and can be judged as offensive or inoffensive depending on the circumstances of its use. If we started treating this proccess as something that is not "flexible" then unfortunately it would lean in favour of deleting all posts containing the filtered words, offensive or not, because we wouldn't want the offensive content either way.
It's not a perfect system, and I understand that. But inappropriate content was getting deleted long before the new owner took over and no one was getting butt hurt about it then.
Unfortunately it's not so black and white. For one thing there are a number of different mods with a number of different views on how to handle things. This will of course cause inconsistencies in how posts and users are dealt with.
For another saying all posts with the word dick in them should be deleted isn't fair to the posts that use the word in a suitable way. Someone who for instance uses the word dick to describe the book "Moby Dick" (such as in one of the posts you reported) does not deserve the same measures as a post that uses the word dick to help graphically describe the finer details of intercourse on this website of ours.
I'll agree that the mod who deleted your post probably shouldn't have said it was only deleted for using the word "dick" in it, however I can see why it was deleted when it was about sticking dicks into toasters.
I really doubt that video games cause people to do violent things, just like how if you play a "good" character in video games it isn't praised as the reason you do good things.
I think the point people try to make when they say that we should stop global warming is that we should do our best to minimize our effects on nature and the planet as a whole. We may not be able to undo the damage already done but we can do our best to stop damage in the future.
Reminds me of that one post a while back saying that if you're looking for the love of your life, stop. They'll find you when you start doing the things you love.
I didn't say it was a perfect metaphor.
Think of it this way: someone lends you a rug, it's the best rug you've ever had, you love this rug. It makes you happier than any other rug has made you in your whole life.
Now imagine that later the person comes back, pulls the rug out from under your feet and takes it away. You're not going to be happy about it, you might even hate the person who took away your rug because you were happy with that rug. You were used to that rug, it was your rug and yet now it's not yours and you will never have that rug again.
Not that I disagree with you but why is it a problem that I'm male instead of female?
And then used those comparisons to make your point that there should be more guns. Just as I can use my comparison of Canada having gun related murders, implementing stricter gun laws, and having much less gun related murders to make my point of enacting stricter gun laws.
I don't think you followed what I was saying.
We can't compare country to country? Forgive me if I'm wrong but I believe you referenced both Israel and Thailand in your original post.
I was speaking more to your comment on Canada not being the US. Canada implemented stricter gun laws and saw a significant decline in murders involving firearms. Please explain to me how exactly that can't be compared.
Putting restrictions on guns is different from banning something completely you do understand that right?
So any example of a country that opposed your view is waved away as "not being the United States", and yet every example of a country that supports it is held proudly above as a great example?
Education about use of contraception is the obvious answer.