Concerned Bystander

Banned for actually legit banning someone.

Banned for thinking hypocrisy is an issue when you are posting while banned.

Banned because all they need is a little energon, and a lot of luck.

Banned for thinking even an Applejack kick could achieve escape velocity.

Ex-banned-ed for not succumbing to temptation.

Banned for assuming they are mistakes and not a carefully crafted guise by probably the most diabolical supervillain in Equestrian history.

Banned for thinking you can negotiate with zombies.

That platonic relationships last longer might not be entirely true. We are generally a lot more aware of romantic relationships ending around us because when a couple breaks up it might be loud, messy and involve a lot of crying, bitterness and so on, it may involve one party having to move to another home (assuming they were living together) so it's not something that can be easily concealed or that can pass by unnoticed. Platonic relationships on the other hand don't fall apart quite so spectacularly, friends are more likely to just drift apart, see each other less and less then eventually not at all. You might not even realise that a friendship has run its course until long after the fact. That being said, romantic relationships require much more investment (emotionally speaking) and are much higher maintenance. If that relationship breaks down for whatever reason it can be very hard to dial that relation back to being 'just good friends', especially if the break up was not the mutual will of both partners. For example, a platonic friendship can survive things like prolonged separation because you aren't used to that person being close by all the time anyway, whereas with a partner it can be more painful to be separated for too long than it would be to simply call it quits. Think of a romantic relationship as a complex machine, with a lot of moving parts and a lot that can go wrong, and any one of those faults can potentially be enough to stop the whole thing from working. A friendship on the other hand is much simpler and can keep chugging along for years with minimal maintenance.

Banned for cannibalism.

Banned for lack of Attack on Twitan.

I've been reading through a trilogy of Aliens books, I've finished Out of the Shadows and Sea of Sorrows and I'm half-way through River of Pain. Minor spoilers ahead. On the whole, if you're a fan of the Alien universe these books are definitely worth a read, especially as they were written in conjunction with Fox and are officially part of the universe's canon.

There is no need to weaponise a disease in order to conduct research on that disease. I know a little about the cleanup of chemical weapons due to my work, I'm no stranger to the inside of a GTS and knowing what I know about the effects of chemical weapons and the environmental aftermath of their use has done nothing to soften my attitudes towards them, if anything I am far more adverse to their use now that I was before I learned about them. Saying that the use of chemical weapons teaches us better how to clean up after their use is a circular argument that in no way diminishes the abhorrence of their use in the first instance. I am very well aware that there are many religions beyond the few that are widely known, and I would think it would go without saying that the most modern religions are rather more suited to the modern age by the virtue of having being born in it. However, most modern religions are relatively small niche affairs that have yet to prove themselves against the test of time. If they manage to not only survive the death of their founder but continue to grow thereafter then they certainly warrant recognition, but until that point they are little more than fads at best, or cults at worst.

This raises an interesting question. Can something be inherently bad or that solely governed by its use or misuse? I appreciate that this is basically reductio ad absurdum but if you take something like chemical and/or biological weapons as an example, their use or misuse is not identifiably different, the end results are exactly the same to those affected by them. I would hope that most people would agree that they are inherently bad, and if we can agree that inherently bad things do exist then inevitably there will be people that disagree about what is and isn't so. Is religion inherently bad? Depending on who you ask you will get every every possible answer to this question, because some people do think that religion is inherently bad. I'm not sure I'd go that far myself but I certainly do believe that it is a concept that had its time and has now outlived its usefulness, unless of course it is willing to become more flexible in order to keep pace with changes in society. The world now is very different to that of two thousand years ago, and societal progress cannot be shackled by the myths and superstitions of a long bygone age.

Banned for reminding me about The Chaos Engine. Banned for witchcraft.

Banned for thinking that pirates aren't also sailors.

That is entirely untrue, there is no major religion that has not at some point perpetrated violence upon others, even Buddhism doesn't have hands entirely free of blood. We hear mostly about Christian and Islamic violence because it is a large part of the history (and present) of the western world. If you spend a bit of time browsing on the internet you will be able to find many examples from further east of violence involving pretty much any religion you search for, to a greater or lesser extent. This is probably true, but Wicca is a very small niche religion that has only existed since the 1940s. Having never been in a shrinking majority, or even particularly significant minority, anywhere they have never felt the pressure of being pushed out by other faiths, and so there has never been any real 'need' (or capacity) for violence on their part.

Religion has never been more than a rather quaint curiosity to me, a collection of fairy tales that pose a lot of questions but never any answers. I get that religion is important to those that choose to believe, and as long as you don't expect me to take your beliefs as seriously as you do then we'll probably get on just fine.

Banned for Snake Strips™ when you could have a Pie-thon™ instead.

Banned for making a blanket statement.

Banned for being 96 short.