PDA

View Full Version : It's time to clean up this board!


Reuchlin
Mar 12th, 2006, 06:04 PM
Inspired by another thread-- I want to get this board clean!
Please get rid of this---
*sexualized threads (whether bi/straight/gay)
*nudity in avatars
*Bad language in signatures

Think of the children!

tennisbum79
Mar 12th, 2006, 06:06 PM
Few posters have acknowledged to be 14-16 years olds.

I think some people have pushed some of these sexually explicit threads too far.
Some have included nude pictures, sexually explicit language, etc..

Is there an age limit on membership eligibility for this forum?

ampers&
Mar 12th, 2006, 06:07 PM
:rolleyes:

Reuchlin
Mar 12th, 2006, 06:08 PM
Few posters have acknowledged to be 14-16 years olds.

being over 16 means you cannot read a post without being exposed to a man grabbing his crotch? (you know who you are :tape: :tape: ).

Wiggly
Mar 12th, 2006, 06:15 PM
50% of avatar are men in Speedo :rolleyes:

^bibi^
Mar 12th, 2006, 06:18 PM
We can't even control trolls, how can you even wanna control this ? :lol:

Plus young children should just not spend all their time on the internet, the problem comes from parents who let's their children on here all the time... Internet is full of sex, we're not gonna change this :shrug:

kabuki
Mar 12th, 2006, 06:41 PM
Inspired by another thread-- I want to get this board clean!
Please get rid of this---
*sexualized threads (whether bi/straight/gay)
*nudity in avatars
*Bad language in signatures

Think of the children!

Sanctimonious prigs unite!!! :p

TomTennis
Mar 12th, 2006, 06:55 PM
oh god relax ppl. If you dont wanna read a thread then dont enter (because you can kinda guess what it is going to be about!)

^bibi^
Mar 12th, 2006, 06:56 PM
oh god relax ppl. If you dont wanna read a thread then dont enter (because you can kinda guess what it is going to be about!)


true...

Reuchlin
Mar 12th, 2006, 07:01 PM
oh god relax ppl. If you dont wanna read a thread then dont enter (because you can kinda guess what it is going to be about!)

This is a weak argument. It becomes even weaker when you consider all the XXX avatars.

drake3781
Mar 12th, 2006, 07:09 PM
This is a weak argument. It becomes even weaker when you consider all the XXX avatars.


STOP TRYING to CONTROL people!!!

It will never work, and it is bad for your health, and everyone will hate you.

~{X}~
Mar 12th, 2006, 07:12 PM
Inspired by another thread-- I want to get this board clean!
Please get rid of this---
*sexualized threads (whether bi/straight/gay)
*nudity in avatars
*Bad language in signatures

Think of the children!

:spit: :haha:

blerr
Mar 12th, 2006, 07:15 PM
K. The main threads that you're talking about are made by the same guy who is clearly a troll.. I don't see the need in being concerned.
I am concerned about that fact that this is the second thread that's trying to stop other people from making threads:rolleyes:

Take your own advice, stop making these retarded threads.

~{X}~
Mar 12th, 2006, 07:17 PM
K. The main threads that you're talking about are made by the same guy who is clearly a troll.. I don't see the need in being concerned.
I am concerned about that fact that this is the second thread that's trying to stop other people from making threads:rolleyes:

Take your own advice, stop making these retarded threads.

:kiss:

blerr
Mar 12th, 2006, 07:26 PM
:kiss:
hey x-y baby
wanna have gay sex

skanky~skanketta
Mar 12th, 2006, 07:27 PM
:rolleyes:i know right!:rolleyes:

~{X}~
Mar 12th, 2006, 07:37 PM
hey x-y baby
wanna have gay sex


:eek: :hearts: Of course! :drool: :drool:

SilK
Mar 12th, 2006, 07:42 PM
Yes. I agree...

nudity in avatars should be banned! :fiery:

SilK
Mar 12th, 2006, 07:43 PM
being over 16 means you cannot read a post without being exposed to a man grabbing his crotch? (you know who you are :tape: :tape: ).

:o :o :o whatchu talking about? :angel:

~{X}~
Mar 12th, 2006, 07:46 PM
Yes. I agree...

nudity in avatars should be banned! :fiery:

Your avatar is gorgeous. :hearts: :wavey:

SilK
Mar 12th, 2006, 07:52 PM
Your avatar is gorgeous. :hearts: :wavey:

Don't you agree it's the perfect avatar for the kids? :devil:

PamShriverRockz
Mar 12th, 2006, 08:02 PM
This message board is tame by internet standards ;)

SilK
Mar 12th, 2006, 08:06 PM
This message board is tame by internet standards ;)

we don't all spend the rest of our online time at the HardcorePornAholics messageboard like you! :o :p ;)

Scotso
Mar 12th, 2006, 08:24 PM
If you think this board is too risque, then you should climb back into the womb now and be done with it.

PamShriverRockz
Mar 12th, 2006, 08:29 PM
we don't all spend the rest of our online time at the HardcorePornAholics messageboard like you! :o :p ;)

Dammit my secret is out! :angel: ;)

James
Mar 12th, 2006, 08:52 PM
50% of avatar are men in Speedo :rolleyes:

Don't forget the women with short skirts. :p I find those very offensive. :lol:

Pureracket
Mar 12th, 2006, 08:53 PM
I think we have a government in power in the USA right now that informs us how hypocritical people with "family values" morals can be.

No Name Face
Mar 12th, 2006, 08:54 PM
yes, we have gotten quite decadent

:lick:

BigB08822
Mar 12th, 2006, 08:54 PM
I think its time we get rid of you!

Wigglytuff
Mar 12th, 2006, 08:56 PM
Inspired by another thread-- I want to get this board clean!
Please get rid of this---
*sexualized threads (whether bi/straight/gay)
*nudity in avatars
*Bad language in signatures

Think of the children!
fuck the children, not THAT way, just like... they dont matter.... i could write a post about why they dont matter, but i found some...err..."compassionate" people on the net who have written about it with such eloquence....
http://www.sickopath.com/childrenessay.html
here's an old saying that goes, "Children should be seen and not heard". I don't even want to see them. Unfortunately, it's close to impossible to leave one's house these days without being assaulted both visually and aurally by these young creatures. They emit loud, high pitched noises for no apparent reason as they run up and down the block, in and out of the street, and across people's front and back yards. Thinking themselves invulnerable, they'll set up nets and play roller hockey, basketball, or similar games right in the middle of the street. They often roam in packs, and have sometimes been known to swarm entire neighborhoods, transforming a once peaceful landscape into a cacophony of voluminous blathering and unnecessary energy expenditure. Sometimes the urge to grab my shotgun and start my own little freelance neighborhood beautification project is so strong that I actually have to soak the ammunition in water to prevent myself from fucking up the rest of my life.

Children's disruptive qualities are not just limited to the suburbs, however. Be it a restaurant, movie theater, shopping mall, bus ride, or plane flight, if children are injected into the mix, things become infinitely more annoying. They come equipped with an almost constant barrage of questions, and when their own parents get sick of answering, they'll turn to the nearest person they see (usually me), and continue with the interrogation. People tell me that this is cute. They say I shouldn't get upset by this and that the child is just curious and that's how it learns. Fine. I'll be more than happy to teach it what it feels like to have it's face sliced open with a box cutter. I think it's high time junior learned that not everyone is a nice person. Curiosity killed more than just the cat.

That's a lesson that not only the kid will benefit from, but something the parents need to learn as well. I hate children. Specifically, I hate YOUR children. Keep them away from me, or something bad will happen. My only goal when I encounter children is to leave them feeling worse than before they met me. Since you'll never know when I'm coming, it would be in your best interest to lock them up at all times. Keep them chained in a dark basement room until they reach the age of 21, and in that time you had better have taught them some fucking manners.

I enjoy seeing a lost child in a large department store, crying because they can't find their parents. I always go right up to them and tell them that their parents left them there because they found another little boy that they liked better. Sometimes the tears start flowing faster than if you had smacked them in the face. Don't get me wrong, smacking them in the face is fun too, but with the proliferation of security camera nowadays, it's a pretty big risk.

......

I think what's even worse than the physical presence of children are some of the things adults try and do using children as an excuse. Whenever someone wants to take a freedom away from you, they do it under the guise of protecting the children. "We must get rid of guns to protect the children. We must outlaw drugs to protect the children. We must ban violent video games and movies to protect the children. We must keep the internet clear of anything offensive to protect the children. We must eliminate everything enjoyable to protect the children". What a bunch of crap. I'm not gonna change my lifestyle because you don't want your brat exposed to certain things. You knew damn well what kind of a world this was before you brought your little dick-cheese into it, so don't start bitching about it now. All you need to do is teach your kid to stick it's head as far up it's ass as your own head is up yours, and then it won't be exposed to anything you don't like.

And speaking of sticking things up your ass, you can start with that "it takes a village to raise a child" phrase. Bullshit. I didn't get to fuck your wife, so I'm certainly not going to help take care of what fell out of her stinky ****. Guess what, it takes a village to mow my lawn and it takes a village to change the oil in my car. As soon as the fucking village helps me out on those fronts, then we'll see if I have any free time left for community baby sitting (which I don't).

What really trips me out is just how many people seem to want to have kids. I can not think of a bigger waste of time and money than the process of raising a human being from infancy to adulthood. I'd rather have a golf ball sized abscess on my rectum that leaked pus and blood 24 hours a day than have kids. As long as I'm physically able to kick a woman in the stomach and throw her down a flight of stairs, I can honestly declare that NOTHING will ever be able to call me daddy. No amount of prison time could ever be worse than the life sentence that is parenthood. I simply do not understand why anybody would want to devote their lives to the upkeep of some attention seeking, time consuming, mess making, mouth breathing, wallet draining, germ factory! I've asked several people who have children just what it is that motivates them to want to indenture themselves into a life of parental servitude. I've never heard anyone mention a reason that compelled me to run right out and start squirting my spunk in every spare uterus that I encounter:

"I just love little babies". That is not a good reason to have kids. That "cute" little baby you love so much only lasts about a year or so, then it just turns into yet another monthly expense. Of course, people that like babies are often too stupid to think up cool ways to spend their money, so it's not like they'll miss it. Plus, it's been scientifically proven that newborn babies emit a chemical substance that kills parental brain cells quicker than huffing Glade potpourri. This is why the stupidest people in the room often have the most children. If you really just like the baby aspect of having kids, I have no problem if you promise to kill it after it's second birthday. That way, you can have a baby all the time, and I don't have to put up with anymore traffic.

"The Bible tells us to have kids". No it doesn't. The Bible tells you to be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it. Look around you dip shit, the earth is pretty goddamn full. You gotta realize that the Bible was written A LONG FUCKING TIME AGO, when there were a hell of a lot more parking spaces available. Tribes needed babies because they grew up into warriors that helped defend the tribe and allowed it to expand. Guess what folks, the shit has expanded. Mission accomplished. People that breed for the Bible are just as confused as the Japanese soldiers in the pacific who were on small, remote islands and continued to fight W.W.II years after it was over. But aside from that point, I'd like to know why you let a book tell you how to live your life in the first place? I'll bet that if the Bible said, "Thou shall not be an annoying asshole", there'd be A LOT less christians.

"I just have so much love to give, I want to share it with a child". What this person really means is that there are no living people on the planet who want anything to do with them, so they need to create a new life in order to have someone to talk to. People who have kids are ALWAYS less cool to hang around than people who don't have kids. And while it's true that the kid contributes to their lameness, most of these people were pretty fucking dull even before they made the decision to reproduce. And not to get off the subject, but I don't think it should be called reproduction until they do it more than once. The first time it's just production.

"It'll bring me and my husband closer together". Yeah sure. There's nothing like sleep deprivation, lack of privacy, and increased financial burdons to help repair a shaky marriage. I also hear that a brisk run in sub-zero temperatures helps cure pneumonia and Krispy Kreme donuts are good for ones cholesterol.

"I want someone to carry on my name". This is by far the stupidest reason for wanting kids that I've ever heard. It's always men that say gay shit like that. How the hell does that benefit you in any way? Ooooowwww, your name will be carried on! Big fucking deal. After you die, you ain't gonna give a shit about anything, least of all what word your children use to endorse their paychecks. It doesn't mean shit. If you're really concerned with your name living on after you die, your time would be much better spent doing something more significant than having some dumb kid. People don't remember Thomas Edison because of his breeding habits. Hell, Jesus Christ's name has a higher Q rating than Microsoft, and the only thing he ever fucked was people's minds. And it ain't even your name anyway, it's your great great great great great great grandfather's name. You're nothing but a cog in some long dead asshole's master plan to have his name live on.

......

But you know what? I don't really care what your motivations are for wanting kids. Your kid is annoying no matter what it was that led to it's existence. I hate it. And I hate you for having it.

*JR*
Mar 12th, 2006, 09:17 PM
Few posters have acknowledged to be 14-16 years olds.

I think some people have pushed some of these sexually explicit threads too far.
Some have included nude pictures, sexually explicit language, etc..

Is there an age limit on membership eligibility for this forum?13 y.o. Frankly, the gambling ads (real, not vcash) might be worse, even though net bookies supposedly "age verify" by taking a credit card. (Of course many kids have these on their parents' accounts, or as bank debit cards). I personally think it'll take an incident where an adult pretends 2B a kid here to sexually prey on a real kid, and it becomes a police matter somewhere, for this board to rein in the excessive sexual content.

PamShriverRockz
Mar 12th, 2006, 09:37 PM
I hate cleaning. Boring chore.

smiler
Mar 12th, 2006, 09:58 PM
It's up to parents to control what their children are doing on the internet, it's not up to posters on this board! I am a shy person so I very rarely if ever say anything explicit, but I don't see why I should have to think about what children are being "exposed" to when I make a post, if your children are too innocent to view things like silks avatar, I don't think the internet is the right place for them!

*JR*
Mar 12th, 2006, 10:31 PM
It's up to parents to control what their children are doing on the internet, it's not up to posters on this board! I am a shy person so I very rarely if ever say anything explicit, but I don't see why I should have to think about what children are being "exposed" to when I make a post, if your children are too innocent to view things like silks avatar, I don't think the internet is the right place for them!
ICRA (the Internet Content Rating Association) of course isn't perfect, as kids often know more than their parents about how such filters work. But its there, and (like the vchip in a TV) works to whatever extent. However, membership in ICRA is voluntary, and this site hasn't chosen 2B rated.

Its not the job of the Admins, Mods, and owners 2B surrogate parents. But an occasional reminder of some of the dangers in life (including those who pretend 2B kids, and STD's including HIV) in a sex-oriented thread wouldn't hurt. Unless the owners are afraid it would look "uncool", and cut traffic?
:confused:

new-york
Mar 12th, 2006, 10:31 PM
We need to have a censorship team.

ampers&
Mar 12th, 2006, 10:41 PM
We need to have a censorship team.
we do...they're call Administrators and Moderators.
and they do a decent job, if you ask me.

PamShriverRockz
Mar 12th, 2006, 10:47 PM
we do...they're call Administrators and Moderators.
and they do a decent job, if you ask me.

:yeah:

decemberlove
Mar 12th, 2006, 10:49 PM
I haven't noticed any nudity in avatars. Nothing that can't be seen at the beach. :shrug:

Grachka
Mar 12th, 2006, 10:53 PM
These are all relevant points and I absolutely agree.

http://www.indiadaily.com/images/editorial/2949_320.jpg

Whoops.

new-york
Mar 12th, 2006, 11:03 PM
we do...they're call Administrators and Moderators.
and they do a decent job, if you ask me.

you uncovered my point.

Pheobo
Mar 12th, 2006, 11:10 PM
It's possible to disable avatars you know...

PamShriverRockz
Mar 12th, 2006, 11:11 PM
These are all relevant points and I absolutely agree.

http://www.indiadaily.com/images/editorial/2949_320.jpg

Whoops.

Will somebody think of the children!!

;)

~{X}~
Mar 12th, 2006, 11:14 PM
Will somebody think of the children!!

;)


The who? :confused: :lol:

adam_ads_n
Mar 12th, 2006, 11:15 PM
All I can say is that most of the countries have a theoretical law which doesn't allow people under 18 y.o to view or read things, which are considered as erotic/porn. Watching such content you, once again in theory, commit a crime. Of course, these are only theories, but this is a tennis forum, which is to promote sport. That's why it was not Xrated. Non-tennis was surely dedicated to things like movie, other sports, music, hobbies, ourselves etc. not for sex threads.

What I have to say about avatars. We can't make people change avatars. Lots of forums have controversial avatars. But I think (not a homphobic thing) that if I put a girl with big boobs to my avatar it will be a big controversy and i would be banned for that. So we can put something to our avatar, as soon as it's in the "good taste".

Theads considered as sexual content should be either forbidden (and deleted) or to enter the forum you will have to "declare you're 18" cause there is some sexual content possible, but the second option would be really crazy in my opinion.

I'm sure you will criticise me for that (especially when I reacted about this gay-sex threads, and almost everyone said I'm a homophobe), but I think there is too much strange threads on this board lately.

new-york
Mar 12th, 2006, 11:19 PM
Will somebody think of the children!!

;)

i thought the pic was about learning them how they been made.

~{X}~
Mar 12th, 2006, 11:21 PM
Well I was asked to change my avatar...how unfortunate, I have had it for several months now and no one complained, yet now I have to change it..:rolleyes:

ampers&
Mar 12th, 2006, 11:24 PM
Well I was asked to change my avatar...how unfortunate, I have had it for several months now and no one complained, yet now I have to change it..:rolleyes:
are you serious???
who asked you to change it? :rolleyes:

Chris 84
Mar 12th, 2006, 11:26 PM
This thread is totally :retard:ed :rolleyes:

The forum is fine as it is.

~{X}~
Mar 12th, 2006, 11:27 PM
are you serious???
who asked you to change it? :rolleyes:


One of the lovely mods. :lol: :rolleyes:

The lightning in my new avatar evokes my wrath! :fiery: :shout: :timebomb: :armed: :boxing:

TF Chipmunk
Mar 12th, 2006, 11:31 PM
These are all relevant points and I absolutely agree.

http://www.indiadaily.com/images/editorial/2949_320.jpg

Whoops.
That wouldn't be offensive :shrug:

Wigglytuff
Mar 12th, 2006, 11:37 PM
That wouldn't be offensive :shrug:
i would not want any children i may have seeing that... :mad:

Grachka
Mar 12th, 2006, 11:42 PM
That wouldn't be offensive :shrug:
Oh OK.

Next time I'll post cocks and coochies.

~{X}~
Mar 12th, 2006, 11:43 PM
Oh OK.

Next time I'll post cocks and coochies.


:lol: Why did I get the image of a cockroach when I read cocks and coochies lmao. :tape:

ampers&
Mar 12th, 2006, 11:47 PM
i would not want any children i may have seeing that... :mad:
yea...you'd rather them see this:
http://images.interscope.com/99296/tatu%20on%20wetten%20das.jpg


jk:tape:

Grachka
Mar 12th, 2006, 11:47 PM
:lol: Why did I get the image of a cockroach when I read cocks and coochies lmao. :tape:
I think only you can answer that one :tape: :p

Grachka
Mar 12th, 2006, 11:50 PM
http://grandsham.com/funny/pics/notmine/vulgarities.png

Wigglytuff
Mar 12th, 2006, 11:55 PM
yea...you'd rather them see this:
http://images.interscope.com/99296/tatu%20on%20wetten%20das.jpg


jk:tape:
thats better!!!! no just kidding needed that IS better. :lick: :lick:

RJWCapriati
Mar 12th, 2006, 11:55 PM
50% of avatar are men in Speedo :rolleyes:


That is a good thing :yeah:

Reuchlin
Mar 13th, 2006, 12:10 AM
I think we have a government in power in the USA right now that informs us how hypocritical people with "family values" morals can be.
you're essentializing people with "family values."

Dawn Marie
Mar 13th, 2006, 12:39 AM
Inspired by another thread-- I want to get this board clean!
Please get rid of this---
*sexualized threads (whether bi/straight/gay)
*nudity in avatars
*Bad language in signatures

Think of the children!

I disagree. I understand where you're coming from but I don't think the list that you post means that the board is super dirty.
The mods should control the list above using their own discretion.

Just because you wish to make it clean to your standards or way of life doesn't mean we ALL have to have the board this way. Not everyone agrees with you so it wouldn't be right to have it changed to suit you.

I respect your opinion but if I choose to use a curse word such as this one: Hell. Then I want to.

I come in here to escape not to be all rigid and uptight. I am sure some things needs to be toned down for sure, but BANNING? No this is to extreme. Nudity can be a beautiful thing and if you embrace it you won't be afraid of the naked body. Mods will use their own discretion as needed. Reprt something that really offends you.

I get more ticked off at certain remarks about the WTA players bodies when some posters use words in a graphic tone then I do actual nude pics. or even curse words.

CanIGetAWhat
Mar 13th, 2006, 12:45 AM
These are all relevant points and I absolutely agree.

http://www.indiadaily.com/images/editorial/2949_320.jpg

Whoops.That is HIGHLY offensive. I'm tired of seeing nudity in pictures and having heterosexuals flaunt their sexuality.

Kirt12255
Mar 13th, 2006, 03:25 AM
:rolleyes: There is more nudity in a Target catalogue than on this board....as for 50% of the avatars being guys in budgie-smugglers, we only ever look at the nice 6-pack above them ;)

The main point like someone else posted above...it's about the parents moderating what their children access on the net.

stefano18
Mar 13th, 2006, 03:30 AM
Americans may never have seen tits and asses in their lives ;)
So why the Swiss porn industry is then far smaller than the American, hmmmm....??? Could you explain, dear thread starter???

THIS BOARD CONTRIBUTES MORE TO THE WORLD BEING A BETTER PLACE THAN YOUR STUPID, FUCKED UP PRESIDENT!!! :tape:
When I want bushes, I'll participate in a African Safari Trip, they need our cash more then your crappy McDo, Walt Disney, Hollywood and everything. USA is not the centre of our planet, we're, everyone, very important to anyone - you for example to the oil of the Saudis, Kuwaitis...

I'm not against Americans in general, but every country deserves the government that has been elected by... by you, folks!!! Wake up :fiery:

stenen
Mar 13th, 2006, 03:41 AM
Inspired by another thread-- I want to get this board clean!
Please get rid of this---
*sexualized threads (whether bi/straight/gay)
*nudity in avatars
*Bad language in signatures

Think of the children!

You worried about bad language in signatures...hmmmm :scratch: Ever considered that your signature****Abortion is murder**** can be viewed as rather offensive by other posters?

selking
Mar 13th, 2006, 03:53 AM
haha just too many sluts on this board

Solitaire
Mar 13th, 2006, 03:55 AM
Think of the children! U know kids are smarter then u think. Sex is natural people and yes kids do talk about it, shocking I know. As for the avatars thereís nothing wrong with them. We all have the same parts and the human body is a beautiful thing. But that's how things work in my country. Show the kids some horrid violence and it's fine but if they see a nipple thatís going too far.

~ The Leopard ~
Mar 13th, 2006, 04:00 AM
I wonder what harm, exactly, it will do to these hypothetical children. :scratch:

I mean, if someone was actually trying to drown some ankle biters my sympathies would be engaged, and I'd attempt to assist (to assist the kids, that is, if it needs clarification, not the murderer).

But I just can't feel sorry for all those poor little children exposed, for example, to a certain avatar. The one I have in mind shows a pic of a pretty young woman who is staring worriedly at a flying black smudge that obscures her breasts from view. Is seeing that really going to give some poor littly a trauma? Is it sooo terrible to see? I really don't think so, much as flying black smudges are a bit scary and some people do have nightmares about them.

No Name Face
Mar 13th, 2006, 04:00 AM
please. you can't censor a message board. it's just not feasible. if parents are letting their 13 year old kids join message boards then it's not a question of the content. rather, it's a question of how much parents care to censor their children.

Reuchlin
Mar 13th, 2006, 04:02 AM
You worried about bad language in signatures...hmmmm :scratch: Ever considered that your signature****Abortion is murder**** can be viewed as rather offensive by other posters?

Well the terms "let's just all get along" can be viewed as offensive to nazi groups-- but you wouldn't consider that as being objectively "offensive" (and don't give me any of that relativist garbage :tape: :tape: :tape: ).

hablo
Mar 13th, 2006, 04:06 AM
Well I was asked to change my avatar...how unfortunate, I have had it for several months now and no one complained, yet now I have to change it..:rolleyes:
:eek:

stenen
Mar 13th, 2006, 04:07 AM
Well the terms "let's just all get along" can be viewed as offensive to nazi groups-- but you wouldn't consider that as being objectively "offensive" (and don't give me any of that relativist garbage :tape: :tape: :tape: ).

That you even compare the two is :retard: :tape:

hablo
Mar 13th, 2006, 04:11 AM
That you even compare the two is :retard: :tape:
he's started other :retard:ed threads too :lol:

Reuchlin
Mar 13th, 2006, 04:14 AM
That you even compare the two is :retard: :tape:

Why?
Both of their ideologies support the brutal murder of innocent lives within a state that fully supports and facilitates the means for said activity.

stenen
Mar 13th, 2006, 04:21 AM
Why?
Both of their ideologies support the brutal murder of innocent lives within a state that fully supports and facilitates the means for said activity.

I wouldn't consider abortion as a brutal murder. The ironic thing is that many of those States were people are anti-abortion are the most pro-death penalty. Yep life is an adventure - from birth to lethal injection.

hablo
Mar 13th, 2006, 04:31 AM
I wouldn't consider abortion as a brutal murder. The ironic thing is that many of those States were people are anti-abortion are the most pro-death penalty. Yep life is an adventure - from birth to lethal injection.
oh! the irony of it all :haha:

Reuchlin
Mar 13th, 2006, 04:33 AM
I wouldn't consider abortion as a brutal murder. The ironic thing is that many of those States were people are anti-abortion are the most pro-death penalty. Yep life is an adventure - from birth to lethal injection.

I am against the death penalty too. I repect all human life-- no matter what sage of development.

No Name Face
Mar 13th, 2006, 04:43 AM
just a reminder:

this went from a discussion about possible board censorship to a discussion on abortion and the death penalty.

that is all.

SelesFan70
Mar 13th, 2006, 04:47 AM
http://www.godhatesfags.com/images/gwf.jpg :scared:

:haha:

~ The Leopard ~
Mar 13th, 2006, 04:53 AM
Personally, I'd much rather kids were exposed to flirting, nudity, and sexuality than to irrational ideas, such as the idea that killing something which has human DNA, but none of the properties of personhood or even a fully developed nervous system, is murder. Think of the childen! :scared:

The funny thing is that you can warp your kid's total goddamn world view when he or she is too young to know better by telling him/her religious fantasies, and no one thinks it's wrong. I actually think it's a morally reprehensible practice to expose little children to religion.

But if you expose the kid to knowledge of something natural and good, like allowing the kid glimpses of adult sexuality, you'll get these prudes freaking out. What a topsy-turvy world we live in.

~ The Leopard ~
Mar 13th, 2006, 04:56 AM
So yes, I do think the message "Abortion is murder" is far more harmful to kids if they see it, and far more offensive, than a pic of a pretty young man or woman wearing little or no clothing. I know some others disagree, but I think their values are totally upside-down.

Reuchlin
Mar 13th, 2006, 04:58 AM
Personally, I'd much rather kids were exposed to flirting, nudity, and sexuality than to irrational ideas, such as the idea that killing something which has human DNA, but none of the properties of personhood or even a fully developed nervous system, is murder. Think of the childen! :scared:

The funny thing is that you can warp your kid's total goddamn world view when he or she is too young to know better by telling him/her religious fantasies, and no one thinks it's wrong. I actually think it's a morally reprehensible practice to expose little children to religion.

But if you expose the kid to knowledge of something natural and good, like allowing the kid glimpses of adult sexuality, you'll get these prudes freaking out. What a topsy-turvy world we live in.

Why did you bring religion into this? I don't remember ever using religion to support my argument. If you think that the only thing being destroyed during an abortion is "human dna"---then you are way off the mark...

Reuchlin
Mar 13th, 2006, 05:02 AM
just dna ah?...

http://www.priestsforlife.org/resources/photosassorted/index.htm


No characteristics of personhood?

tennisbum79
Mar 13th, 2006, 05:02 AM
13 y.o. Frankly, the gambling ads (real, not vcash) might be worse, even though net bookies supposedly "age verify" by taking a credit card. (Of course many kids have these on their parents' accounts, or as bank debit cards). I personally think it'll take an incident where an adult pretends 2B a kid here to sexually prey on a real kid, and it becomes a police matter somewhere, for this board to rein in the excessive sexual content.

This is the first comment that seems to have seriously thought about this topic.
Lately, here in the US, there have many incidences of adults males trying to pick up young teen for sex via the internet chat room and forums. NBC Dateline did 2 or 3 shows on this particualr topic.

DutchieGirl
Mar 13th, 2006, 05:40 AM
Don't forget the women with short skirts. :p I find those very offensive. :lol:

Those would be the tennis players, deary! :p :angel:

Almalyk
Mar 13th, 2006, 05:56 AM
So yes, I do think the message "Abortion is murder" is far more harmful to kids if they see it, and far more offensive, than a pic of a pretty young man or woman wearing little or no clothing. I know some others disagree, but I think their values are totally upside-down.

Agree. I cannot see how abortion can possibly be classified as murder. I was not considered alive before I left my mother's womb. If I was, I would be 9 months older than I am now.

James
Mar 13th, 2006, 07:02 AM
Those would be the tennis players, deary! :p :angel:

It's not just them. :lol:

DutchieGirl
Mar 13th, 2006, 08:22 AM
It's not just them. :lol:

I know! ;)

-Ph51-
Mar 13th, 2006, 08:42 AM
Agree. I cannot see how abortion can possibly be classified as murder. I was not considered alive before I left my mother's womb. If I was, I would be 9 months older than I am now.
That's an existing ageement. Purely mathematical. We could start counting earlier. But i agree...like in my country abortion should be legalised everywhere...to some extend.

pav
Mar 13th, 2006, 09:00 AM
I know this has nothing to do with the on going bloody discussion but don't women taste bloody good :drool:

Veritas
Mar 13th, 2006, 09:51 AM
Inspired by another thread-- I want to get this board clean!
Please get rid of this---
*sexualized threads (whether bi/straight/gay)
*nudity in avatars
*Bad language in signatures

Think of the children!

I took this thread kinda seriously until I got to that line :rolls:

martinailuv
Mar 13th, 2006, 12:23 PM
Inspired by another thread-- I want to get this board clean!
Please get rid of this---
*sexualized threads (whether bi/straight/gay)
*nudity in avatars
*Bad language in signatures

Think of the children!

Then no one will come to the boards. :p

dementieva's fan
Mar 13th, 2006, 02:11 PM
http://expected.free.fr/lKissPictures/fastlane_1.jpg

SelesFan70
Mar 13th, 2006, 04:30 PM
I know this has nothing to do with the on going bloody discussion but don't women taste bloody good :drool:

Deep fried with a tomatoe sauce... :o

stefano18
Mar 13th, 2006, 10:48 PM
Deep fried with a tomatoe sauce... :o


Hahahahaha, thank for making me laugh with your sarcasm :lol: :lol: :lol:
PRICELESS!!!!! :p

*JR*
Mar 14th, 2006, 12:17 AM
Personally, I'd much rather kids were exposed to flirting, nudity, and sexuality than to irrational ideas, such as the idea that killing something which has human DNA, but none of the properties of personhood or even a fully developed nervous system, is murder. Think of the childen! :scared:

The funny thing is that you can warp your kid's total goddamn world view when he or she is too young to know better by telling him/her religious fantasies, and no one thinks it's wrong. I actually think it's a morally reprehensible practice to expose little children to religion.

But if you expose the kid to knowledge of something natural and good, like allowing the kid glimpses of adult sexuality, you'll get these prudes freaking out. What a topsy-turvy world we live in.
Re. your first paragraph: I admit that late term abortions for other than valid medical reasons are uncommon. But was unable to get the PC crowd here to accept that in those relatively low # of cases, the father and/or a government agency (probably a court) should have standing. And those unborn children have a lot of the "properties of personhood", beyond just appearance. So don't spin this, OK?

Re. your 2nd, I'm not religious @ all, in fact their bane: a secular humanist. (I consider the religious opponents of abortion who feel that the aborted fetus goes to "Heaven" somewhat irrational when they cite the presence of an "immortal soul" as their reason to defend a mortal body). Everything in my opposition to abortion being purely the would-be mother's choice is based on the medical fact that the fetus is a "person" well B4 9 months of gestation.

Re. your 3rd, that argument (the beneficial effects of exposure to "glimpses" of adult sexuality) was the cause celebre of early/mid 20th century fringe scientist Wilhelm Reich. But just as office romances where there's a disparity in power are banned by many companies, society (tries to) protect kids from adults who want to "share adult sexuality with them" for similar reasons. You think this board is immune from sexual predators masquerading as kids?

I hope that a pedophile never victimizes a kid thru this board. But if one does, I hope its in Oz, just so that you can "walk the walk", and defend the board against the inevitable lawsuit by the victim's family. (For the record, I'm not saying that you're for pedophilia. Only that you fail to consider the sometimes cruel real world that we live in).

hablo
Mar 14th, 2006, 02:37 AM
Re. your first paragraph: I admit that late term abortions for other than valid medical reasons are uncommon. But was unable to get the PC crowd here to accept that in those relatively low # of cases, the father and/or a government agency (probably a court) should have standing. And those unborn children have a lot of the "properties of personhood", beyond just appearance. So don't spin this, OK?

Re. your 2nd, I'm not religious @ all, in fact their bane: a secular humanist. (I consider the religious opponents of abortion who feel that the aborted fetus goes to "Heaven" somewhat irrational when they cite the presence of an "immortal soul" as their reason to defend a mortal body). Everything in my opposition to abortion being purely the would-be mother's choice is based on the medical fact that the fetus is a "person" well B4 9 months of gestation.

Re. your 3rd, that argument (the beneficial effects of exposure to "glimpses" of adult sexuality) was the cause celebre of early/mid 20th century fringe scientist Wilhelm Reich. But just as office romances where there's a disparity in power are banned by many companies, society (tries to) protect kids from adults who want to "share adult sexuality with them" for similar reasons. You think this board is immune from sexual predators masquerading as kids?

I hope that a pedophile never victimizes a kid thru this board. But if one does, I hope its in Oz, just so that you can "walk the walk", and defend the board against the inevitable lawsuit by the victim's family. (For the record, I'm not saying that you're for pedophilia. Only that you fail to consider the sometimes cruel real world that we live in).
And you will never get me to agree to this :p

Women should have the right to control their bodies and what happens to it. END. :D

RJWCapriati
Mar 14th, 2006, 02:57 AM
And you will never get me to agree to this :p

Women should have the right to control their bodies and what happens to it. END. :D


:yeah:

pav
Mar 14th, 2006, 07:27 AM
Deep fried with a tomatoe sauce... :o
Be good as long as it is Watties original recipe, but raw and just warm is better:)

CooCooCachoo
Mar 14th, 2006, 07:33 AM
i would not want any children i may have seeing that... :mad:

Oh, come on.

With the minimum age being 13 here, some of these 'kids' have already had sex and all the others have thought about it, masturbated and probably looked at porn. If they find that picture offensive, then they must be really grossed out by their own sexual behaviour and thoughts.

Wigglytuff
Mar 14th, 2006, 07:55 AM
Oh, come on.

With the minimum age being 13 here, some of these 'kids' have already had sex and all the others have thought about it, masturbated and probably looked at porn. If they find that picture offensive, then they must be really grossed out by their own sexual behaviour and thoughts.
its vulgar and offensive and i think it would like my 14-18year old into having a nonchalant view of hetero sex :)

sorry but that looks nothing like my sexual behaviors or thoughts...its just vulgar...

Wigglytuff
Mar 14th, 2006, 07:57 AM
http://expected.free.fr/lKissPictures/fastlane_1.jpg
the brown hair one has her eyes open...guess the blonde isnt THAT interesting to her... :lol: :tape:

Hayato
Mar 14th, 2006, 08:18 AM
Yeah I think non-tennis needs a bit of a clean up too...

*JR*
Mar 14th, 2006, 01:49 PM
And you will never get me to agree to this :p

Women should have the right to control their bodies and what happens to it. END. :D
I'm not impressed (nor surprised, unfortunately) that you and your merry PC'ers indeed do maintain (as "a matter of principle", I guess) that until the day of delivery, the woman should have the theoretical right to have an abortion for any reason she may choose.

Again, I realize that few exercise that "right" (which even Roe v. Wade allows 2B restricted in the 3rd trimester). But its the fact that you kneejerk types would like her to have 100% control re. what @ lets say 8 months plus is little different than a newborn that I find disturbing.

So perhaps everyone who passes a character and stability test should have the right to kill a child or adult during a given time period, because after all, few would exercise the right, and those who did would usually have a "good reason" (ala a mercy killing of someone with a terminal disease).

Christopher Columbus (forget here whether you approve of his voyages or not) faced a similar dogma, that the world was flat. But thru observation (the hulls of ships fading from view first, the masts last) realized that they disappeared ova the horizon, and therefore the flat earth theory had to go.

As science learns more about gestation, it becomes more evident that the unborn child is essentially a person sometime B4 birth, based on mental activity, etc. That the religious prolifers stick to their theory of "from the moment of conception" has zero to do with my probably futile hope for compromise.

So go on blackmailing the Kerry's of the world to say that they'd impose a litmus test re. Supreme Court nominations (while a GW Bush states the "high road" of having none). See Bush win. See Bush appoint Justices who are hostile to abortion rights. And see Bush get more Americans who were mostly delivered in the 80's killed in Iraq. :rolleyes:

SilK
Mar 14th, 2006, 02:10 PM
this thread hasn't been closed yet? :scratch:

ooh well...

"Sluggy"
Mar 14th, 2006, 02:24 PM
I hope that a pedophile never victimizes a kid thru this board. But if one does, I hope its in Oz, just so that you can "walk the walk", and defend the board against the inevitable lawsuit by the victim's family. (For the record, I'm not saying that you're for pedophilia. Only that you fail to consider the sometimes cruel real world that we live in).

While I agree with you of course (but not the part about Australia - couldnt care in which country it occurs) pedophilia is not the only thing that could attract a predator to an open message board. There are many other things, other bad things and crimes that can be directly linked to a message board. Drug deals, rapes of adults, murders, kidnappings, etc. all of things can happen too. I dont think the answer is though, to prohibit all sexy photos. Obviously a reasonableness standard is one that should be employed. Posters need to be warned of the dangers of others, as well as their own risky behaviours. Young people have to know that there are predators out there - and they should also know that there are "some" people that actually enjoy being harmed (and these could also be minors). But you like to focus sexual predation of children.... Why? Clearly the least desirable act is killing a naive poster, not just touching them, n'est-ce pas? And do the rest of us have to suffer because some people are at risk? I can hardly see the harm of seeing a woman's breasts (if it is not sexually demeaning) or a mans' chest or legs and stomach. Personally, it's the penis-grabbing avatars (one i noticed quite recently) that make me want to puke. That's just low class.

BTW - wonderful penis-grabbing avatar you got there bro (See above)

*JR*
Mar 14th, 2006, 03:30 PM
While I agree with you of course (but not the part about Australia - couldnt care in which country it occurs) pedophilia is not the only thing that could attract a predator to an open message board. There are many other things, other bad things and crimes that can be directly linked to a message board. Drug deals, rapes of adults, murders, kidnappings, etc. all of things can happen too. I dont think the answer is though, to prohibit all sexy photos. Obviously a reasonableness standard is one that should be employed. Posters need to be warned of the dangers of others, as well as their own risky behaviours. Young people have to know that there are predators out there - and they should also know that there are "some" people that actually enjoy being harmed (and these could also be minors). But you like to focus sexual predation of children.... Why? Clearly the least desirable act is killing a naive poster, not just touching them, n'est-ce pas? And do the rest of us have to suffer because some people are at risk? I can hardly see the harm of seeing a woman's breasts (if it is not sexually demeaning) or a mans' chest or legs and stomach....
You're correct about other crimes. But society in most countries gives ppl vastly greater power to assume such risks @ around age 18. So Paul, I feel that the owners of this board (who have a published minimum age of 13, and no way to really verify even that) would seem to have more of a moral responsibility with those who are under 18. (Hell, even the "show me the money" WTA has had the AER since Jen's early cracking under pressure).

Sex is a big part of life. But the way it permeates NT is like its almost all of life to some ppl. (A thread about almost anything can generate "I want to fuck poster X" and veer off into being a "sex thread" because someone is horny and decides to derail it. And others happily jump on the "derailed train" for the ride). Guess which posters would be the first targets of trolls looking to get kids (or young adults) in vulnerable situations.

The rules used to say that sexually explicit content was prohibited. Now thats been reduced to "explicit nudity" (not that the old standard was much enforced). This board only changes the level of what can be posted when something bad happens. With an adult victim, the owners could say "s/he took the risk" and not be in hot water. If the victim is a kid, that would be different. (I'm not talking about acceptable teen sex between partners around the same age, but adult predators).

And I only mentioned Oz so that Joui could (presumably free of charge, to prove that he's a true libertine) "walk the walk" by defending the board against a lawsuit brought by a kid's family.

Sally Struthers
Mar 14th, 2006, 04:29 PM
I have to admit. Sometimes when you're near the company of others around the computer some of the avatars are pretty embarrassing and hard to explain :o :haha:

"Sluggy"
Mar 14th, 2006, 04:44 PM
You're correct about other crimes. But society in most countries gives ppl vastly greater power to assume such risks @ around age 18. So Paul, I feel that the owners of this board (who have a published minimum age of 13, and no way to really verify even that) would seem to have more of a moral responsibility with those who are under 18. (Hell, even the "show me the money" WTA has had the AER since Jen's early cracking under pressure).

Well really doesn't this boil down to assumption of risk? You don't believe that a 13 year old should assume the risk of being contacted by a poster and lured somewhere? That's your fear? If so, let's be reasonable here. Our public and private school systems clearly address this issue with respect to the internet. Parents know about it from the newspaper, kids know about it just as well or better than parents. I think you are making a big leap if you are attempting to argue that nudity or suggestively sexual photos will provoke in a 13 year old the desire to explore his/her fantasies with an unknown poster who contacts them. I believe young people know it's out there and they know what the rules are. DONT MEET PEOPLE THROUGH THE INTERNET. Our communities have to REINFORCE the understanding that young teens should not be having sexual relations with adults or minors with great disparity in ages. It's just too dangerous. Your genitals will still function when you are 18 so dont be in a hurry.

Sex is a big part of life. But the way it permeates NT is like its almost all of life to some ppl. (A thread about almost anything can generate "I want to fuck poster X" and veer off into being a "sex thread" because someone is horny and decides to derail it. And others happily jump on the "derailed train" for the ride). Guess which posters would be the first targets of trolls looking to get kids (or young adults) in vulnerable situations.

Yes, I have noticed this too. I think what you are referring is what I'd put into the rubric (90% of the time) of Homosexual verbal forplay. Since it's construed as overly aggressive, I nor you, for instance (since we are Heterosexual GENTLEMEN), cannot say "I'd love to bang that new young 18 year-old-tennis player". But gays men can talk this way. It's considered Normal and we are all used to it. I think it's the over-the-top homosesexual rhetoric that people find offensive, you know, like pornographic talk. Mild flirting and banter is so commonplace, that we are all desensitized, and only the most homophobic people find it offensive.

The rules used to say that sexually explicit content was prohibited. Now thats been reduced to "explicit nudity" (not that the old standard was much enforced). This board only changes the level of what can be posted when something bad happens. With an adult victim, the owners could say "s/he took the risk" and not be in hot water. If the victim is a kid, that would be different. (I'm not talking about acceptable teen sex between partners around the same age, but adult predators).

True, I entirely agree with you. But who's going to pay for it? Have you considered "RAISING TAXES"? How much due diligence can the site owners be expected to do without incurring tremendous costs? In addition, while I have tried to suggest paying for the site, it doesnt appear that anybody wants the money. Clearly if the powers that be accepted contributions, or imposed a small membership fee, they would have time to request penis-grabbing avatars and other pornographic material be removed from the website. It's saddening to me. If two people like each other and want to share affections (be they same sex, opposite sex, anywhere in between, or mulitples) that's wonderful. The more love in the world the better... but you have to draw a line somewhere.

PERSONALLY I've adopted a no-holds-barred attitude towards message boards, but try to remember that the poster on the other side is a human being. Regardless of whether a person 'deserves' to have hurt feelings is irrelevant. Best method is to get your point across without causing undo harm to the other person. I know im straying but I I think that's the key to internet harmony. Parents and Kids know the rules. It seems unreasonable to expect mods police the board too much. But of course, you may be right. There must be SEX-ORIENTED message boards, no? Why not those people who feel very horny, just go to those message boards and at least spare the rest of us from vomiting or WORSE? :lol:

hablo
Mar 14th, 2006, 05:54 PM
I'm not impressed (nor surprised, unfortunately) that you and your merry PC'ers indeed do maintain (as "a matter of principle", I guess) that until the day of delivery, the woman should have the theoretical right to have an abortion for any reason she may choose.

Again, I realize that few exercise that "right" (which even Roe v. Wade allows 2B restricted in the 3rd trimester). But its the fact that you kneejerk types would like her to have 100% control re. what @ lets say 8 months plus is little different than a newborn that I find disturbing.

So perhaps everyone who passes a character and stability test should have the right to kill a child or adult during a given time period, because after all, few would exercise the right, and those who did would usually have a "good reason" (ala a mercy killing of someone with a terminal disease).

Christopher Columbus (forget here whether you approve of his voyages or not) faced a similar dogma, that the world was flat. But thru observation (the hulls of ships fading from view first, the masts last) realized that they disappeared ova the horizon, and therefore the flat earth theory had to go.

As science learns more about gestation, it becomes more evident that the unborn child is essentially a person sometime B4 birth, based on mental activity, etc. That the religious prolifers stick to their theory of "from the moment of conception" has zero to do with my probably futile hope for compromise.

So go on blackmailing the Kerry's of the world to say that they'd impose a litmus test re. Supreme Court nominations (while a GW Bush states the "high road" of having none). See Bush win. See Bush appoint Justices who are hostile to abortion rights. And see Bush get more Americans who were mostly delivered in the 80's killed in Iraq. :rolleyes:
see post #97 for my reply :D

*JR*
Mar 15th, 2006, 12:13 AM
see post #97 for my reply :D
You act like a lobbyist for the National Rifle Associaion (the main anti gun control group in the US). I once saw one of their lobbyists on TV testifying B4 a Congressional Committee. When asked whether he supports the Federal ban on machine guns, he snapped: "We're not going to help you control any kind of guns".

In other words, your style of absolutism. The NRA did replace him with a smoother guy who simply answers that question that machine guns have been illegal since 1934, and not tipping their hand on this group's extremist sympathies. In other words, they won't err, "give the other side extra ammunition" like you will.

So go ahead and use the :D smilie, along with :lol: :p and any others you want. The liberal movement in the US acting utterly contemptuous of its working class base (when they dare express prudish views on social issues) gets a Reagan or a dubya enough of their votes to win* (asterisk re. Bush in 2000, but he was "validated" in 2004).

I trust that Stephen Harper has studied that playbook well, and (even with a minority government) will achieve a similar "divide and conquer" dynamic in Canada. So the Bloc (unless Kuh-beck actually secedes) may prevent an outright Conservative majority, but they'll probably have more seats than the Liberals and NDP combined for the forseeable future.

hablo
Mar 15th, 2006, 04:50 AM
You act like a lobbyist for the National Rifle Associaion (the main anti gun control group in the US). I once saw one of their lobbyists on TV testifying B4 a Congressional Committee. When asked whether he supports the Federal ban on machine guns, he snapped: "We're not going to help you control any kind of guns".

In other words, your style of absolutism. The NRA did replace him with a smoother guy who simply answers that question that machine guns have been illegal since 1934, and not tipping their hand on this group's extremist sympathies. In other words, they won't err, "give the other side extra ammunition" like you will.

So go ahead and use the :D smilie, along with :lol: :p and any others you want. The liberal movement in the US acting utterly contemptuous of its working class base (when they dare express prudish views on social issues) gets a Reagan or a dubya enough of their votes to win* (asterisk re. Bush in 2000, but he was "validated" in 2004).

I trust that Stephen Harper has studied that playbook well, and (even with a minority government) will achieve a similar "divide and conquer" dynamic in Canada. So the Bloc (unless Kuh-beck actually secedes) may prevent an outright Conservative majority, but they'll probably have more seats than the Liberals and NDP combined for the forseeable future.:haha::spit:
Anyhow, once again see post #97 for my reply :D

Jakeev
Mar 15th, 2006, 12:11 PM
The last time I checked this was an international messageboard with people of all walks of life that frequent it.

If things were all that bad the moderators would delete or close the threads. If you have a problem with material of a sexual manner than simply bypass the thread and go to another.

Communication is the key to the spice of life not censorship........