I've yet to populate the tag, but there are some implications first:
Updated by jxh2154
Posted under General
I've yet to populate the tag, but there are some implications first:
Updated by jxh2154
Anelaid said:
censored food -> bad food
-1. Not all censored food is bad food (post #547602).
Hillside_Moose said:
It's still implied to be bad food without actually showing it.
Now that I think of it, the implication between censored food and bad food doesn't make sense, even though there is a lot of overlap.
But it if implies that there is bad food it implies that food is there, doesn't it? You can't have one without the other in my opinion, but I may be wrong.
Updated
there are posts like post #532224 where the food itself is just fine, its just that the censoring is for a sexual reason.
I think if we widen the tag to include all types of food and include foods that are censored for a sexual reason, not cause they are horrific, then the tag itself will have a lot more use.
Zekana said:
there are posts like post #532224 where the food itself is just fine, its just that the censoring is for a sexual reason.I think if we widen the tag to include all types of food and include foods that are censored for a sexual reason, not cause they are horrific, then the tag itself will have a lot more use.
Right, lets keep it open.
Anelaid said:
But it if implies that there is bad food it implies that food is there, doesn't it? You can't have one without the other in my opinion, but I may be wrong.
That assumes the food tag can be used even if the food isn't shown. I already gave you a counterexample, and here's another one: post #337369.
Having seen some of the examples listed, I now only suggest this implication:
Anelaid said:
censored food -> censored