Abuse of guest - ban reason

Abuse of Honored Guest:
Harassing our honored guests, altering quotes or usernames in an abusive way, impersonations, giving out personal information of others, posting Call-Out threads of members, or otherwise making them feel unwelcome is forbidden. The personal mailbox system is not to be used to harass or threaten other guests and all TOS rules apply.

Recently I was banned for following reason:
"abuse of guest

*People like you are enemies from within, traitors. Im really sick of it!*

Calling another guest a traitor."

I cant comprehend how I abused another member/s by expressing my opinion they would be traitors. My claim has to be understood in context, which was a debate about open borders and mass illegal immigration and contained more posts.
Could any of the moderators/admins elucidate that, pls? Thank you in advance

Heated political discussion is expected and it is recognized that feelings may be hurt. You agree that as a member of this board you do not have the right to not be offended

Moreover, just after the part about “abuse of guest” the Forum rules underline that political debates might be harsh and that no one is entitled to have the claim they would be offended…

Address the post and not the poster.

Calling another guest a traiter IS a violation of abuse of an honered guest.

1 Like

Even if someone were totally for true open borders, I’m not sure how that would make them traitors. That’s a strong word.

I like your avatar! I wish I had a pig to ride on. :frowning:

OK, I’ll try not to label them personally, though they go often on pesonal level …

No, it isnt!
Its exactly the same as centuries ago someone inside a fortress had opened the gates, so the assaulters could get in. Imo all that judges who block the funding of the wall should be arrested and charged with treason. I know that you have defined in the Constitution what is to understand under ‘treason’, but the term includes more than that, generally

Your analogy is flawed.

In the eyes of the law … no it really doesn’t.

actually not! Its really the same. We are literally assaulted by millions of people who want to get in and benefit from the welfare we have.

Yes…your analogy is flawed because you’re begging the question.


  • n.
  • The betrayal of allegiance toward one’s own country, especially by committing hostile acts against it or aiding its enemies in committing such acts.*

Advocating open borders and blocking the funding of border security, as it was proven that there is an assault on the southern border, its a hostile act against USA, no matter whats written in the Constitution or what the US law consider to be ‘treason’

Am I allowed to call someone a potato?

i want to be able to say “you’re almost as stupid as AOC”

but, that’s pretty stupid, so nevermind

Mr Potato head.

1 Like

you may elaborate your point a little ?

Notice that we talked about facts, drawing a conclusion regarding the behavior of certain people.


You likened migrants coming into the US as invading forces trying to swarm and capture a castle for themselves.

Thus you are begging the question when you assume someone saying they would be for open borders is being treasonous to the country because you assume the truth that migrants wanting to come here constitutes a hostile invasion whose goal is harm to the United States when that is simply not the case.

You posted before that…

I pointed out to you that in the eyes of the law it is very specific what treason is, and what you have posted as a definition isn’t adjudicated in a court of law as treason.

So to that I would say shall we just start locking people up based on what we think a law or the constitution ought to be?

Bottom line it isn’t treason, and if one can’t accept what is the legally defined definition of what treason is or understand that them bad old judges can’t be arrested and locked up because of what you believe something is … well then thats too bad.

The reasons why assaulters tried to capture a fortress are very different. Often it was because inside a fortress had been treasures, provisions, so they did it in order to benefit. Most of migrants are coming to the west for about the same reasons. But talking about the law, here is another aspect which must be taken in consideration. Passing the border is ILLEGAL, UNLAWFUL. Those Americans who advocate it, commit treason because they support actually the breaking of the law. Having open borders over a longer period of time, can lead to a failed state. As well an aspect why advocating open borders can be considered treason

I would suggest that this is not the place to make your argument.

1 Like

hmmm…are you sure you havent committed now exactlly the logical fallacy you mentioned initially?