Juan_Bottom wrote:Now, JBRETTLIP obviously didn't care what my opinion was, but at least he was able to formulate an argument against my opinion. And more than that, he was able to look at it from another point of view. And you're never going to get anywhere with anyone if you don't at least try and have a discussion. And saying "it's offensive" isn't a discussion. It's a straight opinion with no substance.
Tell you what, Juan. Try pissing on statue in public and when the police come, explain why it's not offensive. Pissing on a symbol is considered offensive in virtually every culture.
Night Strike wrote:Owen, none of those pictures you posted show any of the body parts that are not allowed. If the picture include genitalia, anus, or areola (I think is what it's called), then it WILL be edited. None of those avatars show any of that.
Most of them are naked or scantily clad. The first one has a clear bondage theme, but OK. Enjoy your double standards.
Juan_Bottom wrote:Now, JBRETTLIP obviously didn't care what my opinion was, but at least he was able to formulate an argument against my opinion. And more than that, he was able to look at it from another point of view. And you're never going to get anywhere with anyone if you don't at least try and have a discussion. And saying "it's offensive" isn't a discussion. It's a straight opinion with no substance.
Tell you what, Juan. Try pissing on statue in public and when the police come, explain why it's not offensive. Pissing on a symbol is considered offensive in virtually every culture.
You just repeated yourself. All you're saying is "it's offensive." Also, your example was not on par with my argument. It didn't make sense.
I just don't see the offensiveness in this. Submergad a picture of Dawkins, or the American Flag in urine. I don't care, why should I? Call me a lazy Indian, or no-good-satan-worshipping-Atheist, and I'll probably stab you.
Last edited by Juan_Bottom on Sun Aug 10, 2008 2:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Juan_Bottom wrote:Firstly, swimsuits are not offensive, or beaches would be closed everywhere.... Secondly, all the avys that I recognize there are held by women. Was the Black-Face avy held by a black guy? Thirdly, there are no visable 'lady parts' in any of those pics. Finally, is anyone offended by those?
Exactly. However it's not so much a question of offending someone as it is a question of what constitutes indecent attire. However, I think the average CC player wouldn't find them indecent, therefore it is allowed. Anyone who doesn't like them can get Adblock like me
mpjh wrote:When I was trying to make my last post, I got an alert that another post had taken place. It was the groin of David that flashed up on my screen. That post is gone now. I can only assume that you removed the post as offensive. Now, this is a really strange site that will not allow Michelangelo's David but will allow racist blackface and religion bashing for the sake of simply bashing the religion.
I think there are minors playing games on this site and none of this should be taking place. Please, monitors, get this under control or you may find action from agencies outside the site taking an interest.
i'm not religion bashing. i am simply using an award winning, government funded piece of art work as my avatar. the supreme court has stated it is not offensive. sooo, what do i care of your threats of "outside agencies"? that is ridiculous. we are having a very civil conversation here, wondering where the lines are drawn. if you can not state your stance in a more complete and lucid way, perhaps you should remain out of the thread. all you have done is continually declare that i am religion bashing, when i have clearly stated my point on my avatar and it's use. if this is not the place for the discussion about avatars and the rules that govern them on this site, then where is it? somewhere you can't be offended by it? here you go, here is a view of my avatar from a respected art critic AND nun...
Sister Wendy Beckett, an art critic and Catholic nun, stated in a television interview with Bill Moyers that she regarded the work as not blasphemous but a statement on "what we have done to Christ" - that is, the way contemporary society has come to regard Christ and the values he represents.
again, either state why my avatar is so offensive to you or let others that are more expressive do so. this thread is meant to be a constructive discussion about rules that govern avatars here on CC.-0
Thorthoth,"Cloaking one's C&A fetish with moral authority and righteous indignation makes it ever so much more erotically thrilling"
Juan_Bottom wrote:Now, JBRETTLIP obviously didn't care what my opinion was, but at least he was able to formulate an argument against my opinion. And more than that, he was able to look at it from another point of view. And you're never going to get anywhere with anyone if you don't at least try and have a discussion. And saying "it's offensive" isn't a discussion. It's a straight opinion with no substance.
Tell you what, Juan. Try pissing on statue in public and when the police come, explain why it's not offensive. Pissing on a symbol is considered offensive in virtually every culture.
You just repeated yourself. All you're saying is "it's offensive." Also, your example was not on par with my argument. It didn't make sense.
All you're saying is 'it didn't make sense'. Why didn't it make sense? Why wasn't his example up to par? Could you please provide arguments without repeating yourself?
It's weird isn't it... girls have artistic representations of femininity as they wish to perceive and be perceived. Men have religious icons in buckets of piss!
I am not sure what the message is .. but i am sure there is one.
Last edited by jiminski on Sun Aug 10, 2008 2:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Juan_Bottom wrote:Now, JBRETTLIP obviously didn't care what my opinion was, but at least he was able to formulate an argument against my opinion. And more than that, he was able to look at it from another point of view. And you're never going to get anywhere with anyone if you don't at least try and have a discussion. And saying "it's offensive" isn't a discussion. It's a straight opinion with no substance.
Tell you what, Juan. Try pissing on statue in public and when the police come, explain why it's not offensive. Pissing on a symbol is considered offensive in virtually every culture.
You just repeated yourself. All you're saying is "it's offensive." Also, your example was not on par with my argument. It didn't make sense.
All you're saying is 'it didn't make sense'. Why didn't it make sense? Why wasn't his example up to par? Could you please provide arguments without repeating yourself?
Because it wasn't on par with my argument. I said "explain to me what is offensive about it?" His response was "pee on a statue in public." "It's offensive everywhere," but again.... Why???
jiminski wrote:It's weird isn't it... girls have artistic representations of femininity as they wish to perceive and be perceived. Men have religious icons in buckets of piss!
I am not sure what the message is .. but i am sure there is one.
mpjh wrote: Displaying Muslims as stereotypical terrorists is both racist and religion bashing when it is used solely to create an insult. You need to address this.
wow, you really don't "get" brett's avatar do you? it is not about terrorism, at all... see? funny how your mis-interpretation of an image has you so offended, and you don't even know or understand what it is you are looking at!!! wow...-0
Thorthoth,"Cloaking one's C&A fetish with moral authority and righteous indignation makes it ever so much more erotically thrilling"
It's weird isn't it... girls have artistic representations of femininity as they wish to perceive and be perceived. Men have religious icons in buckets of piss!
I am not sure what the message is .. but i am sure there is one.
Wait, so which gender is the shallow one?
Napoleon Ier wrote:You people need to grow up to be honest.
Juan_Bottom wrote:Now, JBRETTLIP obviously didn't care what my opinion was, but at least he was able to formulate an argument against my opinion. And more than that, he was able to look at it from another point of view. And you're never going to get anywhere with anyone if you don't at least try and have a discussion. And saying "it's offensive" isn't a discussion. It's a straight opinion with no substance.
Tell you what, Juan. Try pissing on statue in public and when the police come, explain why it's not offensive. Pissing on a symbol is considered offensive in virtually every culture.
You just repeated yourself. All you're saying is "it's offensive." Also, your example was not on par with my argument. It didn't make sense.
All you're saying is 'it didn't make sense'. Why didn't it make sense? Why wasn't his example up to par? Could you please provide arguments without repeating yourself?
Because it wasn't on par with my argument. I said "explain to me what is offensive about it?" His response was "pee on a statue in public." "It's offensive everywhere," but again.... Why???
I'm sorry, but I fail to spot a question anywhere in your first quote. I can only see you stating opinion as fact. It's hardly worth arguing with you seeing that you're always right in your own perception of reality. Then again, as not to break the chain: 'Why?'
jimnski wrote:It's weird isn't it... girls have artistic representations of femininity as they wish to perceive and be perceived. Men have religious icons in buckets of piss!
I am not sure what the message is .. but i am sure there is one.
When jiminski sounds like a voice of reason you know it's time to stop. And start considering Respect ...
jimnski wrote:It's weird isn't it... girls have artistic representations of femininity as they wish to perceive and be perceived. Men have religious icons in buckets of piss!
I am not sure what the message is .. but i am sure there is one.
When jiminski sounds like a voice of reason you know it's time to stop. And start considering Respect ...
It's weird isn't it... girls have artistic representations of femininity as they wish to perceive and be perceived. Men have religious icons in buckets of piss!
I am not sure what the message is .. but i am sure there is one.
Wait, so which gender is the shallow one?
ahhhh .. now that's the right question
Last edited by jiminski on Sun Aug 10, 2008 3:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.
AndyDufresne wrote:A lot of this comes down to common sense, for now.
soooo, what part of black face being racist isn't common sense to the moderators? again, if the "it's art work" defense is what you are going to roll with, i'm fine with it... and i understand the "common sense" approach... i was just trying to find the guidelines, rules, etc... and i'm still wondering who on the CC team decides what is and isn't offensive or art work... anyone have an answer to that?-0
Thorthoth,"Cloaking one's C&A fetish with moral authority and righteous indignation makes it ever so much more erotically thrilling"
I made myself a lewd and suggestive avatar, you like?
saxitoxin wrote:Your position is more complex than the federal tax code. As soon as I think I understand it, I find another index of cross-references, exceptions and amendments I have to apply.
Timminz wrote:Yo mama is so classless, she could be a Marxist utopia.
MeDeFe wrote:I made myself a lewd and suggestive avatar, you like?
Now that is a work of art.
Why, thank you!
saxitoxin wrote:Your position is more complex than the federal tax code. As soon as I think I understand it, I find another index of cross-references, exceptions and amendments I have to apply.
Timminz wrote:Yo mama is so classless, she could be a Marxist utopia.
And if anime/hentai is considered art, could my avatar be of some tentacles, as long as the body parts of the girl victim aren't shown?What about a cartoon girl with white stuff on her face? Porno or ART? I am really hoping CC realizes there error. They have worked with users with offensive usernames to change them. But not avatars. That is my point.
nothing wrong with a little bit of man on dog love.
In addition to common sense...the intent of use is also currently taken into account. If someone is going to deliberately be a troll, well that's just no good from the get go.
And lastly, looking through this topic, it seems only a small number (read less than a dozen) seem to have any problems with the current common sense.
AndyDufresne wrote:In addition to common sense...the intent of use is also currently taken into account. If someone is going to deliberately be a troll, well that's just no good from the get go.
--Andy
but still, how does allowing black face play into common sense? is it because you have a majority of mods that are not black, and thus not sensitive to exactly WHAT black face is? i am just wondering. the ruling i got was a bit ridiculous. i have no problem with the ruling since i respect the decisions of the mods, even when i think they are wrong. i just want to understand how it falls under these "guidelines" you have posted." thank you.-0
p.s.-yes, it is possible to find a decision 100% wrong, and still be able to respect and adhere to it.
Thorthoth,"Cloaking one's C&A fetish with moral authority and righteous indignation makes it ever so much more erotically thrilling"
