Discussions on Rule 2 of the Seven Deadly Sins

[Houseman]

As a compromise, just put "...whatever Arnox considers sexually suggestive.." in the rules so that we can all be clear about what's going on here.
If you think that sounds stupid, then great, that's the point.

 

[Arnox]

Using weasel words like "stare" and "half-nude" is better than "bandwagoning"?

I mean, as long as we're parodying each other's arguments and taking them out context, I thought I'd get in on the action. Two people can play that game, but we don't have to play it if you don't want to.

And the image you refer to has her clothed (covering all the "naughty bits").

Yes, that's why I said half-nude. Only half exposed.

The fact that it's legal, and you want to censor it, should make you think twice.

This is the only thing that I think is not strict enough with most sites. 99% of the time though, I'm scoffing at the site rules for just how much they restrict.

Basically all Teen movies, and regular movies featuring beaches or pools

This is actually tough because, as I pointed out, teenagers gonna teenager, and they're (usually) getting close to adulthood anyway. BUT, they're still not an adult yet. Even if I allowed such pics of teenagers though, pedos might still try to weasel out of things by posting more ambiguous photos and say, "Oh, they're a teenager!"

As a compromise, just put "...whatever Arnox considers sexually suggestive.." in the rules so that we can all be clear about what's going on here.
If you think that sounds stupid, then great, that's the point.

Funnily enough, I actually totally agree with you. "Sexually suggestive" IS really vague and could be applied any number of ways. I don't like it either.

 

[Vendor-Lazarus]

I mean, as long as we're parodying each other's arguments and taking them out context, I thought I'd get in on the action. Two people can play that game, but we don't have to play it if you don't want to.

We are not parodying you. We're mocking your completely asinine reasoning because you refuse to listen to reason, logic, and common sense.

Yes, that's why I said half-nude. Only half exposed.

She's not exposed anything. At all. It's just skin, and you're the one thinking it's risque. You're the prude.

This is the only thing that I think is not strict enough with most sites. 99% of the time though, I'm scoffing at the site rules for just how much they restrict.

This is actually tough because, as I pointed out, teenagers gonna teenager, and they're (usually) getting close to adulthood anyway. BUT, they're still not an adult yet. Even if I allowed such pics of teenagers though, pedos might still try to weasel out of things by posting more ambiguous photos and say, "Oh, they're a teenager!"

You're sacrificing liberty for safety. People might get robbed. Better not leave home. Better get police on very street. Lets monitor their browsing to ensure they don't look up "how to rob". You're pre-judging people and doing collective punishment for their future imaginary "crime" of looking.

 

[Arnox]

We are not parodying you. We're mocking your completely asinine reasoning because you refuse to listen to reason, logic, and common sense.

Yes. By parody. lol

Look, man. You weren't here with Sanctuary v1.0. You weren't here when they were always trying to see just how much crap they could get away with, and not just with Rule #2. That's why it's so important to have clear-cut rules.

You're sacrificing liberty for safety.

And I could say that we've sacrificed some liberty with ALL the rules we have here, technically, because the very definition of a rule is a restriction. An agreement to do things a certain way because that way has been found by the participants to be the most beneficial. And hey, maybe I'm wrong here, but I thought we all agreed that free speech does not have to equal ABSOLUTE freedom and anarchy.

We have argued against allowing certain things because no matter what the context, they both do not contribute any worthwhile ideas to the discussion and are, at very least, annoying for many to see. We have banned posting child porn because it does not contribute any worthwhile idea to the discussion and is horrifying both in its production and to look at.

But now we are in a gray area. I am personally uncomfortable with seeing women under 18 just wearing bikinis. I don't think it contributes any worthwhile sharing of ideas and feel like it's showing off the body of someone who can't consent. But everyone here is saying no, I'm being a prude.

Alright. I'm gonna ask one of my relatives their opinion on all this. Don't worry, they're not religious at all, they actually have half a fucking brain, and in all probability, they will side with you guys, so it should be fair. It's also a fresh perspective from someone who (to my knowledge) doesn't post here at all.

 

[Arnox]

Ok, just talked to my relative here. Unfortunately it wasn't super helpful. lol Their take was that, if you give people an inch, they will take a mile, but they also say that such rule decisions should probably be made on a case by case basis.

 

[Houseman]

Funnily enough, I actually totally agree with you. "Sexually suggestive" IS really vague and could be applied any number of ways. I don't like it either.

Okay, then do something about it. I've already given my suggestions.

 

[Aoi]

Images that have minors presented in themes/situations/clothing that if it was an adult, could be suggestive enough for a reasonable person to achieve a rub out is no brainer not good stuff.

Have you even considered how much stuff you'd have to censor to keep in line with your prudish "obscenity" rule?

Basically all Teen movies, and regular movies featuring beaches or pools or rebellious/angsty teens (Like Léon).

Many music album covers. Christian sites. Human anatomy sites. Medical sites. Clothing sites. Game and Anime sites (if you're still iffy about Real vs Fiction..). Facebook, instagram, imgur. Social media and image sites and video sites in general in fact. Art work sites. Various Documentaries. The list goes on.

In the end what's the fucking point of having content that is suggestive and includes children here, legal or not?

Should we just post medical pictures of circumcisions just because it's not inherently illegal?

What am I looking at here because it sounds almost ashamed pedophile to argue over children in bikinis? Just no.

 

[Houseman]

In the end what's the fucking point of having content that is suggestive and includes children here, legal or not?

We all agree that "suggestive" content that includes children should not be allowed.
We (meaning everyone vs Arnox) disagree on what suggestive means. Arnox thinks it means showing any "unnecessary" skin.

What am I looking at here because it sounds almost ashamed pedophile to argue over children in bikinis? Just no.

This isn't even a sentence. Speak English

 

[Vendor-Lazarus]

Images that have minors presented in themes/situations/clothing that if it was an adult, could be suggestive enough for a reasonable person to achieve a rub out is no brainer not good stuff.

In the end what's the fucking point of having content that is suggestive and includes children here, legal or not?

Should we just post medical pictures of circumcisions just because it's not inherently illegal?

What am I looking at here because it sounds almost ashamed pedophile to argue over children in bikinis? Just no.

I don't "rub one out" just because an adult female show some skin.. I have standards. Again, this says more about you and Arnox's state of mind than mine. Other people that don't allow women to show skin also allows marriage at age 6, and consummation of said marriage at 9..

We should be allowed to post pictures of genital mutilation, and protest said practice (another thing that's mostly only supported by the above kind of people).

It sounds to me like you can't control yourself, and don't think anyone else should be allowed to view otherwise harmless pictures.

 

[Vendor-Lazarus]

Yes. By parody. lol

Look, man. You weren't here with Sanctuary v1.0. You weren't here when they were always trying to see just how much crap they could get away with, and not just with Rule #2. That's why it's so important to have clear-cut rules.

Fair, although mockery doesn't have to be parody, and we could quibble semantics, like you do with "sexually suggestive"..

Just because other people take things too far shouldn't be a reason to limit someone else. That's sort of like that bandwagon thing you mentioned, right? Only in reverse.

And I could say that we've sacrificed some liberty with ALL the rules we have here, technically, because the very definition of a rule is a restriction. An agreement to do things a certain way because that way has been found by the participants to be the most beneficial. And hey, maybe I'm wrong here, but I thought we all agreed that free speech does not have to equal ABSOLUTE freedom and anarchy.

We have argued against allowing certain things because no matter what the context, they both do not contribute any worthwhile ideas to the discussion and are, at very least, annoying for many to see. We have banned posting child porn because it does not contribute any worthwhile idea to the discussion and is horrifying both in its production and to look at.

But now we are in a gray area. I am personally uncomfortable with seeing women under 18 just wearing bikinis. I don't think it contributes any worthwhile sharing of ideas and feel like it's showing off the body of someone who can't consent. But everyone here is saying no, I'm being a prude.

Alright. I'm gonna ask one of my relatives their opinion on all this. Don't worry, they're not religious at all, they actually have half a fucking brain, and in all probability, they will side with you guys, so it should be fair. It's also a fresh perspective from someone who (to my knowledge) doesn't post here at all.

I am indeed not for Anarchy, as I am mostly Libertarian in my viewpoints.

But we are not arguing child pornography.. We are arguing for Art, as seen in movies, on music albums, in museums, etc.

As for you being "uncomfortable", that's the same as the "offended by everything" use, and the people I'm talking about in my previous post.

 

[Vendor-Lazarus]

-snip

Gauche just posted a young nude girl (she looks 17)!? Is that allowed?

 

[Arnox]

Gauche just posted a young nude girl (she looks 17)!? Is that allowed?

Hm? Where? Or is this a hypothetical situation?

 

[Vendor-Lazarus]

Hm? Where? Or is this a hypothetical situation?

Album art for Blackroom

 

[Arnox]

Album art for Blackroom

Ahhh. I see now. Thought it was something else at first. In such a case, it's too hard to tell with no way to verify her age (to my knowledge), so Gauche will be left alone.

 

[Gauche]

Album art for Blackroom

Liminal XV by Yang Cao
Bands that don't source their album art are assholes

 

[Aoi]

We should be allowed to post pictures of genital mutilation, and protest said practice (another thing that's mostly only supported by the above kind of people).

We don't need to share those images to bring the point across. If you want to maybe say, link to a medical page that might contain the images, go ahead.

But that shit doesn't need to be displayed right here or anywhere.

It sounds to me like you can't control yourself, and don't think anyone else should be allowed to view otherwise harmless pictures.

No, I simply believe both this place shouldn't be the hub for hosting your bikini kid pics, nor your genitalia mutilation obsession.

Discussing the mutilation? Sure. But I don't media relating to it should be hosted here especially if it shows children. Couldn't medical diagrams and just well described sentences portray the same thing you are talking about?