Topic: Removal of my sig pic

[FPF-DieHard]

My point is more...

"There is no such thing as a condom for your emotions"...

Tequila?

Trust me, the protection it affords is temporary.

Then drink more

[kbf-jd]

You are almost all the way there LeRoy. Now would you allow them to not only hold those views and demonstrate in support of them, but actually live by them? Thus is it not only OK to want to look at cartoon boobies and protest the right to cartoon boobies, but actually look at cartoon boobies.

Hey JD since we know you are counting instead of making the intrinsic moral arguments (just as was predicted) that makes 3 more.

Kroma,

No one is impinging your right to ogle at cartoon boobies.  The discussion is is it right to post them in a public forum.

The reason I asked Tracey if she was trying to make a point with the sig is if she was, then you can make the point that her sig could be considered protected speech.  Therefor worthy of strong protection.

So now you want me to make "intrinsic moral arguments"?  If I attempt to make a moral case, you are simply going to position me as someone attempting to push my own morality on the rest of the group.  The funny thing is it's you who are attempting to force your moral code on the rest of the group.

Like it or not, society has developed an acceptable moral code.  In a mixed community like this, you often have to step down to the lowest common denominator.  In this case, It was likely the dominate moral code in the USA.

Suggestion, if you really want to ogle cartoon boobies, Ask Frey if you can create a separate forum for that.  Like the Flame forum at sfc2.net.  Restrict access to those who want it...

jd

[Kroma BaSyl]

My point is more...

"There is no such thing as a condom for your emotions"...

Tequila?

Trust me, the protection it affords is temporary.

Then drink more

Figures you would recommend the "hair of the dog".

[Kroma BaSyl]

No one is impinging your right to ogle at cartoon boobies.  The discussion is is it right to post them in a public forum.

Wrong the discussion was about whether it is right to lobby for the censorship of others, whose views differ from your own. Especailly in light of the excersising of those views caused no harm to anyone, and there was a simple method for those that didn't like viewing cartoon boobies to avaoid it. As I have said before, I am not against anyone saying they don't care for it or are offended by it, as many things I have seen here offend me, but I am against people trying to restrict my actions and the actions of others when those actions cause no harm to anyone, but just offend their personnel tastes.

The reason I asked Tracey if she was trying to make a point with the sig is if she was, then you can make the point that her sig could be considered protected speech.  Therefor worthy of strong protection.

All speech should be protected, with the sole exclusion of child pronography.

So now you want me to make "intrinsic moral arguments"?  If I attempt to make a moral case, you are simply going to position me as someone attempting to push my own morality on the rest of the group.  The funny thing is it's you who are attempting to force your moral code on the rest of the group.

Replace moral with logical. The result is the same. I have never attempted to force my own moral code on anyone. I have sent no PMs to admins requesting anything be removed from the forum. So how exactly have I attempted to force my moral code on the group? What means of force or coercion have I employed? Your logical conclusions escape me, let's see if I can work it out from your perspective

Kroma likes viewing cartoon boobies.
JD thinks cartoon boobies are bad.
Kroma is forcing JD to view nasty cartoon boobie.

Like it or not, society has developed an acceptable moral code.  In a mixed community like this, you often have to step down to the lowest common denominator.  In this case, It was likely the dominate moral code in the USA.

Wrong, I have seen much worse on national television and on the billboards attached to Buess on public streets. Christ, I had to see Sipowits (sp?) butt for crying out load.

Suggestion, if you really want to ogle cartoon boobies, Ask Frey if you can create a separate forum for that.  Like the Flame forum at sfc2.net.  Restrict access to those who want it...

So if someone else complains about another aspect of someones sig that they find personnelly offensive, even though it doesn't meet the criteria for being pornographic they need to have a separate forum? What if I just don't like their type? Where exactly do we draw the line? What if I find all tight fitting clothing objectionable? What if I find their speech and ideas objectionable, should they be censored?

[Kroma BaSyl]

Like the Flame forum at sfc2.net.

This was a good example though, I personnally found the content of that forum to have crossed the line of what I want to view. I excersised my right to choose not to view it any longer, but I didn't attempt to inflict my chocie on anyone else. That is me making choices and allowing others to make their own.

[KDS-KYTARH]

Well anybody who wants to look at Tracy G's sig pic can come over to the KBF Great Hall.

I had it framed, enlarged, and hung it on the wall over the fire place.

 

[SSCF-LeRoy]

The mere act of demonstration on the part of an opposing crowd in no way endangers my way of life, thus I wouldn't care if they demonstrated 'till they were blue in the face. However, the big rub comes in if said opposing group seeks to legislate against my way of life. It's at that point when I come out swingin'... with my voter registration card.

Then by your own argument, legislation in regard to marriage laws of any kind, be they monogamous, same sex or polygamous is contrary to your viewpoint. Furthermore, legislation in regard to nudity also falls by the wayside. Well done, you have taken the position of a true libertarian, I salute your astuteness for throwing off the shackles of your society's brainwashing 

Well, as far as legislation concerning marriage and sexuality on a national level goes, I'm against it. The central government's function is to protect the states from foreign invasion and domestic disturbances. Marriage and morality have traditionally lied within the realm of local government (state, county, municipal) and should remain that way.

When pigs fly I'll let ya know

All kidding aside, though, my personality and beliefs tend toward monogamy regardless of any sort of wonder drugs and preventative measures. I would prefer to remain faithful to the same mate for the full duration of my natural life. To me it's a more appealing, fulfilling, and life-affirming lifestyle and it's what I look forward to in my future. Of course, that's just me and I don't expect anyone to act and believe just like me. As far as anyone else is concerned, to each his own as long as the way of life that I adhere to is not endangered and my right to disagree is not infringed upon. In brief: no, my views would not change because there are many results of sex that exist outside of the physical and lie within the emotional, and there's no possible wonder drug that can fix hurt feelings and emotional scarring.

Now enough is of this mushy philosophical nonsense. Let's git back to our regularly scheduled flamin' and killin' eachother on the Dyna

Good point you make here, although would you permit others who hold disimilar views to freely voice and demonstrate such views in public?

The mere act of demonstration on the part of an opposing crowd in no way endangers my way of life, thus I wouldn't care if they demonstrated 'till they were blue in the face. However, the big rub comes in if said opposing group seeks to legislate against my way of life. It's at that point when I come out swingin'... with my voter registration card.

You are almost all the way there LeRoy. Now would you allow them to not only hold those views and demonstrate in support of them, but actually live by them? Thus is it not only OK to want to look at cartoon boobies and protest the right to cartoon boobies, but actually look at cartoon boobies.

Seeing as how I'm in no position of ultimate authority, it's not within my capacity to make a conclusive ruling one way or the other. However, hypothetically, if I was in Frey's position I would require that Tracey's KCW sig pic be amended, revised, or removed in order to keep the forum family friendly. Most parents would not approve of their children coming across imagery of scantily clad individuals while talking about their favorite computer game with other people on an on line forum. There's any number of awkward situations that can arise from someone unwittingly scrolling past an image like Tracey's KCW sig pic while someone else that happens to intolerant of such imagery happens to be watching. In a leadership position it would be my responsibility to prevent such incidents and make my product appealing to the widest cross section of society as possible.

[Hexx]

What if I had the little black bar?

Nevermind, it would cover 99% of the screen

Wow

I didn't know anyone browsed these forums on their cell phone...

[KBF-Frankk]

Well anybody who wants to look at Tracy G's sig pic can come over to the KBF Great Hall.

I had it framed, enlarged, and hung it on the wall over the fire place.

 

 



It's Porn?

[Kroma BaSyl]

The mere act of demonstration on the part of an opposing crowd in no way endangers my way of life, thus I wouldn't care if they demonstrated 'till they were blue in the face. However, the big rub comes in if said opposing group seeks to legislate against my way of life. It's at that point when I come out swingin'... with my voter registration card.

Then by your own argument, legislation in regard to marriage laws of any kind, be they monogamous, same sex or polygamous is contrary to your viewpoint. Furthermore, legislation in regard to nudity also falls by the wayside. Well done, you have taken the position of a true libertarian, I salute your astuteness for throwing off the shackles of your society's brainwashing 

Well, as far as legislation concerning marriage and sexuality on a national level goes, I'm against it. The central government's function is to protect the states from foreign invasion and domestic disturbances. Marriage and morality have traditionally lied within the realm of local government (state, county, municipal) and should remain that way.

Wow! A little libraterian in the making.

When pigs fly I'll let ya know

All kidding aside, though, my personality and beliefs tend toward monogamy regardless of any sort of wonder drugs and preventative measures. I would prefer to remain faithful to the same mate for the full duration of my natural life. To me it's a more appealing, fulfilling, and life-affirming lifestyle and it's what I look forward to in my future. Of course, that's just me and I don't expect anyone to act and believe just like me. As far as anyone else is concerned, to each his own as long as the way of life that I adhere to is not endangered and my right to disagree is not infringed upon. In brief: no, my views would not change because there are many results of sex that exist outside of the physical and lie within the emotional, and there's no possible wonder drug that can fix hurt feelings and emotional scarring.

Now enough is of this mushy philosophical nonsense. Let's git back to our regularly scheduled flamin' and killin' eachother on the Dyna

Good point you make here, although would you permit others who hold disimilar views to freely voice and demonstrate such views in public?

The mere act of demonstration on the part of an opposing crowd in no way endangers my way of life, thus I wouldn't care if they demonstrated 'till they were blue in the face. However, the big rub comes in if said opposing group seeks to legislate against my way of life. It's at that point when I come out swingin'... with my voter registration card.

You are almost all the way there LeRoy. Now would you allow them to not only hold those views and demonstrate in support of them, but actually live by them? Thus is it not only OK to want to look at cartoon boobies and protest the right to cartoon boobies, but actually look at cartoon boobies.

Seeing as how I'm in no position of ultimate authority, it's not within my capacity to make a conclusive ruling one way or the other. However, hypothetically, if I was in Frey's position I would require that Tracey's KCW sig pic be amended, revised, or removed in order to keep the forum family friendly. Most parents would not approve of their children coming across imagery of scantily clad individuals while talking about their favorite computer game with other people on an on line forum. There's any number of awkward situations that can arise from someone unwittingly scrolling past an image like Tracey's KCW sig pic while someone else that happens to intolerant of such imagery happens to be watching. In a leadership position it would be my responsibility to prevent such incidents and make my product appealing to the widest cross section of society as possible.

And then the other shoe dropped. So the only thing that keeps you from deciding for society what is and isn't in it's best interest, is the fact that you don't have the power and authority to do so, and not because you think others should be able to make their own choices on how to live and what to view. "Awkward" situations are not "harmful" situations, and the definition of what is "awkward" for one person may be completely different for another, but since no one to my knowledge has ever been harmed from feeling "awkward" there is no reason to censor. It is your responsibility to not place your self in "awkward" positions if they cause you that much personnel angst, not societies. That is about you making  decision for yourself, like turning off your sigs so that you don't unwittingly scroll past something that might make you feel awkward.

[OlBuzzard]

IMHO this will never be settled.  There are as many differing opinions as there are people.  The primary reason is that everyone prefers to do as they choose to do things as they see fit.  Any attempt to suggest a "standard" wheather based upon "moral reasoning" or even cultural differences is frequently met with opposition.

AGAIN ...  just MHO ...  but I think what some have suggested is to use restraint or modesty ( does not mean have the afore said Tracy G in a flannel night gown or a full length dress to the ground like my great grand mother use to wear) ... but it is perhaps out of respect to others.. and their opinions as well as the opinions of those who prefer the nude version..  that we simply try to get along with each other.

Some where in here Tracy mentioned that there was obviously a cultural difference.  Yes, Tracy there is.  There are also sharp differences here in the States as you can very well see.  If ya choose to remodel the pict should there be some restraint used ...  yes!  How much ??  again here come the opinions ...  and here folk is where we have to simply say ...  please use a little "discretionary judgement" and try not to use this as another whipping stone.  ( Okie  Ol Buzzard digs in and expects to see the negative carma thingy going some where off the scale) ..

just my 2 cents worth

[Cleaven]

You could put a chador on that pic and there would still be people here who would complain about how their rights are being infringed by immoral people.

[FPF-DieHard]

I can clearly see the testicles on that buzzard!!  Censor him!!!!!!

[_SSCF_Hooch]

I can clearly see the testicles on that buzzard!!  Censor him!!!!!!

Naaaa, thats just a K'tinga, it has no balls 

[Black]

     ... ooh, the tension ...

[Commander Maxillius]

I can clearly see the testicles on that buzzard!!  Censor him!!!!!!

Naaaa, thats just a K'tinga, it has no balls 

As opposed to the "flying hotel" Galaxy? 


It takes real knobbies to fly an Eagle 

[SkyFlyer]

Listen here kid.    You better not have any nude pics, and you better not be showing people if you do !!!!

LoL...

BTW The bar would cover most of the picture...

[kbf-jd]

No one is impinging your right to ogle at cartoon boobies.  The discussion is is it right to post them in a public forum.

Wrong the discussion was about whether it is right to lobby for the censorship of others, whose views differ from your own. Especailly in light of the excersising of those views caused no harm to anyone, and there was a simple method for those that didn't like viewing cartoon boobies to avaoid it. As I have said before, I am not against anyone saying they don't care for it or are offended by it, as many things I have seen here offend me, but I am against people trying to restrict my actions and the actions of others when those actions cause no harm to anyone, but just offend their personnel tastes.

So your answer is to censor the people you view as censoring others?

They have every right to their ideas.

You claimed I was offended by cartoon boobies, I was not.  If you read my posts to Tracy, you might see that.  I just defend the right of people on both sides.

I just find your "cartoon boobie" feddish amazing.

jd

[Kroma BaSyl]

No one is impinging your right to ogle at cartoon boobies.  The discussion is is it right to post them in a public forum.

Wrong the discussion was about whether it is right to lobby for the censorship of others, whose views differ from your own. Especailly in light of the excersising of those views caused no harm to anyone, and there was a simple method for those that didn't like viewing cartoon boobies to avaoid it. As I have said before,I am not against anyone saying they don't care for it or are offended by it, as many things I have seen here offend me, but I am against people trying to restrict my actions and the actions of others when those actions cause no harm to anyone, but just offend their personnel tastes.

So your answer is to censor the people you view as censoring others?

They have every right to their ideas.

Honestly a course in reading comprehension might be in order. I have repeatable said that they have a right to their opinion and to voice them. I was speaking theoretically about my feeling that it is wrong for others to attempt to "lobby" or "restrict" my or anyone?s else actions where they cause no real harm to others. You are correct though that they have a right to their ideas, just not a right to force me to live by their ideology. Is it really that difficult for you to understand the difference? Are you being deliberately obtuse?

You claimed I was offended by cartoon boobies, I was not.  If you read my posts to Tracy, you might see that.  I just defend the right of people on both sides.

I don't recall ever saying that you specifically were offended by boobies. If I did please point it out. You appear to just make stuff up. Probably because you have such a weak argument you feel the need to embellish. Much like accussing me labeling you or anyone a "religious biggot". I did no such thing. If you have some sort of personnel issues or self doubts, please stop projecting them into my words. They are not my words they are your words and feelings.

I just find your "cartoon boobie" feddish amazing.

Now you claim I have a feddish? Is this based on facts that you have, or are you just making crap up again? I wasn't the one counting the number of times the phrase was repeated. Sounds like maybe you have the feddish. More likely it was just easier than actually addressing the ?substance" of the post.

Now most of this argument over censorship has gone beyond what occurred here, and has veered into a larger discussion on it. As Oldbuzzard stated, it would be nice if we  had respect for each other. If those that were so offended by Tracey pic had just asked her to change it a bit, I am guessing she would have done so out of respect for them. In fact she did remove it out of respect. It is just unfortunate and annoying that she wasn't afford a measure of respect by them in that they felt they needed to go behind her bask to register a complaint.

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

My point is more...

"There is no such thing as a condom for your emotions"...

Willpower.