In this question I woriginally wrote:
Philosophical zombies are beings that look like human beings, act like them, drink, eat, talk, and get f****d like human beings.
this was changed to:
Philosophical zombies are beings that look like human beings, act like them, drink, eat, talk, and in every other way behaviorally identical to normal human beings.
The prose style in the original was deliberately chosen to emphasise the humanness of humans, so colloquial usage, and the use of f*****d, as a signifier of this; I'm using it in the British sense, which in this usage isn't offensive (though of course it is used in an offensive manner) and it covers the notions of: getting things wrong, getting messed up in mind, or life, as well as getting drunk; which one is meant is served by context.
As it used also offensively, I asterisked it; this seems to me a reasonable compromise.
Yet it seems, at least one person was offended enough to change it to the humourless, and characterless 'behaviourally identical to normal human beings'.
Its interesting that the qualifier, normal, was inserted; its not in my original text; and that's because I was considering the whole spectrum of human life in its exterior form - behaviour - including the mad, the eccentric, and the gone bad; as well as their inner life.
Is there a site policy on usage of normatively offensive words?