Originally posted by epic0002How about when it comes from this man?
I dont mind strip club rules... because they apply to EVERYONE. DONT TOUCH.. but in our GF here you have post/threads removed, people banned etc... but Im still having to stare at Phlabs post on page 3 (and it doenst matter who said it first) thats states... Black guys are bad fathers, dress poorly,only like crappy music,and are lazy... how offensive.
&feature=related
Originally posted by CrowleyIf an Eddie Murphy SNL skit is unacceptable, then you're aiming for the average 13 year old Amish kid.
Listen gramps, get this through your thick skull once and for all:
Russ wants this site to stay rated 'A FAMILY SITE' as in, kids as young as 13 and 'WORK SAFE' as in, having no content that may be blocked by work proxy servers.
It's not easy, but the mods try to keep it inside these criteria.
Do you understand?
If this doesn't work for you, please, there are many other sites where you can post whatever you want...
Considering the content of some of your posts, your scolding tone here is rank hypocrisy. That also goes for a few other Mods in this thread.
I seriously think most of you are arguing, once again, upon matters which are insignificant. Let me put it to you:
1. Language...ANY... is not bad for a 13 year old. They're not reading anything here that they don't already hear or do behind the bike shed.
2. Subject matter...ANY... it's better to hear about it in an environment where adults are, so that they can explain matters that can be misunderstood, so that a child can learn different sides of every argument.
So, if anyone says something racist, it's better for the upbringing of that child to see people discussing the matter, than to ban the subject and the child gets to hear one side of an argument and be indoctrinated.
What we have here is modern moderation, along the lines of America and the good old BBC. It's okay to see violence, but it's not okay to see a nipple. It doesn't take a triple digit IQ to figure out where this stupid standard comes from, it is, however, interesting to see so many sites/media go along with this fake and false morality, just so as not to piss certain groups off.
Moderation always was and is subject to change. From the early days of broadcasting when it was illegal to say hell or insult the queen, to the days when you couldn't criticise government decisions of war, to Mary Whitehouse and the Christian right.
One more thing I'll add to this discussion... societies with the least amount of "moderation" on subject matter and language are the countries with least crime, least teenage pregnancy, least drug use and the least use of swearing in public (swearing, if not in frustration, serves only to shock).
I wish we could lighten up and enjoy subjects here, instead of fearing them. We all know where fear leads us.
The post that was quoted here has been removedDo you really think you should not allow a 13 year old to see such clips?
Or to put it another way, would you prefer the 13 year old to view them with or without adults in the vicinity debating the merits?
Obviously you can stick your head in the sand and pretend the 13 year old is not going to see such clips. But they are. And they are going to sit with friends and gross over scat movies. And they are going to experiment with each other.
It's a proven fact that it's healthier to get these subjects out in the open.
The post that was quoted here has been removedNever have I hid and accepted "law" just 'cause it's there. And I sure as hell ain't gonna do that here either.
My point is wider than racism and porn (which are just other, every day, subjects that need to be broached, discussed and laughed about...ESPECIALLY where there's a teenage audience mingled with adults), it's about where moderation comes from and the negative effects it has on growing up.
Yes. I've been told a million times now that it's just the way things are here on the site? So? If you don't educate, eyes won't open and nothing will change.
Take racism. If you don't drag it into the open and discuss and laugh about it, it's gonna stay in dark little rooms amongst friends and fester. With nobody contradicting it until the damage is done.
The same for all subjects, from erections to cocaine.
The post that was quoted here has been removedLaws are not always right or constructive.
When porn or racism is posted it gets debated. That's healthy. Yes, some strange individuals think viewing porn is unhealthy for 13 year olds, but I'm sure we can dig up some fossils who still think masturbation makes you blind too.
Ask ANY social worker or youth counsellor if it's unhealthy for a 13 year old to see sex or racism on a forum where it's debated with many alternative opinions and they will all agree with me (and rightly so, I am one).
So, to answer your avoidance of subject,by hiding behind the holy TOS: No. I don't give a flying F what I signed up for. This is my opinion and I will vent it where and when I like. And I will debate it until matters change.
The post that was quoted here has been removedI posted it because there was a discussion about one of the actresses in Animal House and there was a photo of her on the Playboy site. It showed here semi-nude with one breast visible.
I didn't consider this "obscene" and still don't. Do you consider the Venus De Milo "obscene"? Or any painting by the renaissance masters showing the female body as "obscene"? Do you think 13 year olds shouldn't be allowed to view such things?
Calling the Playboy site "pornography" is ridiculous considering what content is easily available on the internet. I don't think Playboy has been considered porn since the Eisenhower administration.