Please Change your Avatar

[Alejandra]

i think that these "anime" are seeking to be "erotic" and thus why they shouldn't be here.

Someone said "Yeah yeah eat my shorts", I could say, yeah yeah eat my pantyhose.

If those anime come from a porn site I yield, but mine for example came from a kids collection cards.

Anything could be erotic, a toothbrush for example, you only need the power of the mind.

[ruderacer]

I've been out for awhile and since returning, I have seen the controversy over the avatars. So, I just wanted to join the cause. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and the human body is not perverted or offensive.

[MonteLDS]

Monte, just because we don't hold YOUR standards doesn't mean we don't have standards..

you are very good at misunderstanding everything i say.
the fact that he sticks by what is written down in the forums rules shows that he sticks to those standers, and is not wishie washie. Their are too many mods threw out the internet that let their standers slip and slide to nothingness.

Also how about this, the things that are found offensive should be determind by them that have authority.

[JamieW]

What do you mean I misunderstood? You just restated your case exactly as I said it. "Let their standers slip and slide to nothingness." And it is "standards," not "standers." Ultimately it is the mods who make the decision, but it should not be based solely on what they feel is appropriate. What they feel is appropriate should be tempered by what the community feels. And I don't think this means catering to the lowest denominator or strictest standards.

[CDRecorder]

What they feel is appropriate should be tempered by what the community feels.

No offense, but I really don't believe this is true. "Standards" like that really aren't standards at all because they change so frequently. I believe the only true standards are standards that don't change.

[JamieW]

Why should standards exist independently of what the community believes? No offense, but a standard that isn't reflective of the community and authorities that rule without consultation of the community is Stalinism. While this isn't government here, and the owners of this site have every right to run it as they see fit, it doesn't mean I have to agree with it.

[jase]

BTW, as long as we are imposing opinions, I find your sad, phallic flower to be insulting and thus it is offensive. Please remove it. I find aviation's avatar offensive because it promotes ideologies that I think are wrong based on that persons politics. I think spaz's avatar is offensive because I don't like canadians. Would you three please remove your avatars?

I must agree with JamieW (shudders).

There isn't much out there that won't offend someone. For example, the Middlesbrough FC symbol to the left of this message may be offensive to some Newcastle or Sunderland supporters. So perhaps it should go too

[Ian]

Maybe we should be a little more specific in the forum rules. I'm not opposed to seeing pretty women, but things of sexual or suggestive should not be allowed.

Some of you guys also need to understand that what might be okay in some parts of the world, just won't fly else where... like here in the US. While you might see breasts on TV in Europe, you're not going to see that here in the US and definitely not in parts of the middle east.

[CDRecorder]

JamieW: Standards must exist independently because if they don't, the community can't know if what it believes is correct.

Jase: You're correct; almost anything can offend someone. I think I made a mistake using the word offensive; that probably wasn't the best choice of words. What I really meant was that it was inappropriate.

[CDRecorder]

Maybe we should be a little more specific in the forum rules. I'm not opposed to seeing pretty women, but things of sexual or suggestive should not be allowed.

I think that's a good idea.

[jase]

Some of you guys also need to understand that what might be okay in some parts of the world, just won't fly else where... like here in the US. While you might see breasts on TV in Europe, you're not going to see that here in the US and definitely not in parts of the middle east.

lol

We're comparatively prudish in the UK compared to European friends (damn Mary Whitehouse to hell!!!), and even we have soft-porn on occasion on one of our main terrestrial networks (oh, and even the odd "hard-core" moment on Channel Four if it's contained in a French "arthouse" film, ahem).

In countries like Denmark and Spain they have a far more healthy attitude to stuff like that. Hardcore (and even hardcore transsexual/gay) porn at 3 in the afternoon on their pay-channels..... More power to them is what I say lol

[JamieW]

"JamieW: Standards must exist independently because if they don't, the community can't know if what it believes is correct."

What? This doesn't make sense. I can't tell what you are saying exactly, but are you saying that what the people believe may not be the right thing to believe? Well, there goes moral relativism to be replaced with the all encompassing righteousness and absolute morality of the ruling classes. We can throw out democratic ideals and the will of the people for we are nothing but sheep fearing the wolf and only the elite few intellects who can grasp such deep concepts as right and wrong can save us from ourselves.

Or are you saying something completely different? Because I believe that what the community feels is right IS right for that community no matter what it is. But I have also allowed in my argument that since this is a site privately owned and operated with a directed course, that it is ultimately up to the moderators. But if you feel that should be done outside of what your readers and posters feel, that's up to you. I would give them a little more credit and respect, personally.

[Ian]

JamieW, just drop it. Don't make me call your mom and tell her you're picking fights again.

[JamieW]

aldsfkjasdlfkj

I'll call your mom and tell her you are running a porn site.

[jase]

What? This doesn't make sense. I can't tell what you are saying exactly, but are you saying that what the people believe may not be the right thing to believe?

If the people believe that the country should send all immigrants "back to where they came from" , does that make it right for them to believe it?

Sometimes, "the masses" do need to be saved from their own beliefs and views by the "ruling classes". Not in this case on the forum, obviously, but it's one of the reasons we have a representative democracy and not direct rule by referenda (although I believe Switzerland has a form of just that democratic model).

[JamieW]

I don't think that's a situation of the people being saved from themselves, but the minority being protected from the tyranny of the majority. This is where I think standards actually enter. To protect and preserve, not to dictate and limit based on arbitrary beliefs.

Edited to add: Screw the Swiss.

Further edited to add: I really couldn't tell what CDRecorder was saying there. It wasn't a very clear statement to me. However, I did respond to what I thought he was saying.

[jase]

I don't think that's a situation of the people being saved from themselves, but the minority being protected from the tyranny of the majority.

It is in a sense though, if you think about it.

If the whole world adopted the same policy then 200 million Americans would have to be found new homes in Europe for a start.......

Then the small-minded majority would really have something to complain about......

But yes, I guess you're right.

[Ian]

I'll call your mom and tell her you are running a porn site.

Having pictures of you drunk and running down the street naked does not equal a porn site.

[jase]

Edited to add: Screw the Swiss.

Why, just 'cos their democracy owns ours?

Hmmm, a say on every policy, or a system where someone can become president based on fewer votes than the other chap, or where because of the first-past-the-post system one party needs almost 10 times as many votes on average as another to get a seat in parliament?

I wonder.

[JamieW]

I disagree with you regarding whether it is protecting people from themselves or protecting minority from the tyranny of the majority. I agree with you though at the point I think you are getting at. Sometimes majority rule isn't fair. Yes, this is true. And I think this is where we agree, there does need to be a minimum set of protections (for example, no naked pictures of Boy George - IAN ONLY). But it seems right now that they are arbitrary and even the "offenses" are minor if offenses at all.

We can't all be expected to cater to Monte's sensitive, virgin eyes. He's hyper mormon over there and if weren't to offend him, we could only talk about root beer and not pepsi. Then again, I can't expect everyone to agree with my views of what is offensive, because if that were allowed, we would all have naked pictures of Kate Beckinsale and Adriana Lima (preferrably together) as avatars.

It seems to me that the status quo has been pretty good so far. The community has been self-policing with the actual infractions being removed of their own volition as I understand it. But someone went and stirred up the bee's nest and now its time to get the honey back in the comb. So ClayBuster had bouncing, animated breasts. Really, so what? They were covered, breasts bounce. Trust me, I've seen it. In fact, I'll step outside at lunch and see it. The only one I thought was a bit far was the two women bumping and grinding. Even I can recognize that wasn't exactly PG-13. Do a few violations merit a whole new set of standards? I don't think they do. There will be a variety of opinions no matter what the standards are.

[JamieW]

I don't like the swiss because of their hypocrisies in WW2. Claiming neutrality but manufacturing munitions for the Germans. Permitting German trains with Jews going to camps through their country but shooting down allied aircraft that ventured into the air space. Post-war asking Jews for impossible to produce credentials which were not required of anyone else. Screw the swiss.

[Ian]

He's hyper mormon over there and if weren't to offend him, we could only talk about root beer and not pepsi.

Err.. yeah.. but they can drink Coke.. go figure..

[jase]

I don't like the swiss because of their hypocrisies in WW2. Claiming neutrality but manufacturing munitions for the Germans. Permitting German trains with Jews going to camps through their country but shooting down allied aircraft that ventured into the air space. Post-war asking Jews for impossible to produce credentials which were not required of anyone else. Screw the swiss.

Yes they did some terrible things during WW2. But then both the Brits and the Americans were guilty of turning a blind eye to atrocities in the early stages, and of course the Germans were the perpetrators of said unspeakable atrocities. They were horrendous times, and people did horrendous things.

I think enough time has passed between then and now to forgive (but not forget), surely?

And I think this is where we agree, there does need to be a minimum set of protections (for example, no naked pictures of Boy George - IAN ONLY). But it seems right now that they are arbitrary and even the "offenses" are minor if offenses at all.

Agreed. Having said that, when it comes to sexual matters, the less "protections" the better as far as I am concerned! It's only closed-mindedness that is preventing us from expressing the most natural of instincts -- what on earth is the matter with admiring a fine example of the opposite (or same if that's your bag) gender?

Then again, I can't expect everyone to agree with my views of what is offensive, because if that were allowed, we would all have naked pictures of Kate Beckinsale and Adriana Lima (preferrably together) as avatars.

Now there's a thought. Just excuse me a minute while I visit the bathroom......

[Alejandra]

Some of you guys also need to understand that what might be okay in some parts of the world, just won't fly else where... like here in the US. While you might see breasts on TV in Europe, you're not going to see that here in the US and definitely not in parts of the middle east.

Sure they don't allow:


but they allow:

[JamieW]

What's the correlation? The only way those pre-schoolers would be safer would be to be next to a police station.