zlacker

The implication is that you are attacking the defenseless. There is none more defenseless than the dead.

>>Cuuugi+(OP)
No one cares less about defending themselves being attacked than the dead.

>>Cuuugi+(OP)
Not true.

1. Plenty of living people defend the reputations of dead people.

2. There's no proof that anything we say or do has any impact on dead people.

>>mcdonj+u9
Well, if you think of person as a bunch of ideas, maybe with a mind attached, then by attacking a dead person you're attacking a bunch of vulnerable ideas that no longer have a mind to defend them. You can still call it a person, if you like.

>>fogus+c9
No one is less tolerant of attacks than the dead.

>>Cuuugi+(OP)
Godwin's law approaching

>>card_z+Ee
>You can still call it a person, if you like.

No thanks, because a person is not a group of ideas + a mind.

>>twixfe+aG
You didn't say what you mean, so I'll guess you mean souls, and you didn't say it because you're embarrassed.