Regarding moderation and censorship

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
_LDSToronto
_Emeritus
Posts: 2515
Joined: Sat Jan 01, 2011 2:11 am

Re: Regarding moderation and censorship

Post by _LDSToronto »

harmony wrote:*sigh*

It's simple, LDST: PG means no pictures of genitals.



So I can post:

1. Male nipples?
2. Female nipples
3. Female breasts?
4. Bare buttocks?
5. A woman wearing a micro bikini?
6. A woman in a chilly room?
7. The anus (male or female)?
"Others cannot endure their own littleness unless they can translate it into meaningfulness on the largest possible level."
~ Ernest Becker
"Whether you think of it as heavenly or as earthly, if you love life immortality is no consolation for death."
~ Simone de Beauvoir
_Chap
_Emeritus
Posts: 14190
Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 10:23 am

Re: Regarding moderation and censorship

Post by _Chap »

LDST has managed something I did not think was possible: he has become boring.

Really, really boring. This is the kind of thing I might have expected from an obsessed teenager.
Zadok:
I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis.
Maksutov:
That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
_ludwigm
_Emeritus
Posts: 10158
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 8:07 am

Re: Regarding moderation and censorship

Post by _ludwigm »

RockSlider wrote:I'm confused, Ludwigm has been punished by shades (the one) for what ... six months, a year? During this time zee has been a poster I click on every time to see the wonderful art he has posted. As well as others that have decided to post images with their thoughts.

Before you and others keep pushing shades to free ludwigm, how were the masses being censored or punished because of the private actions of shades/ludwigm.

Your free ludwigm campaign is what is punishing the masses for the actions of one.

You (all, plural) seem to forget something:
Were my actions worth to punish?
Were my pictures - the critical ones - NSFW? (without mentioning this criterium)
Am I the one who showed breasts and/or genitals? (THESE were the criteria at that time...)
- Whenever a poet or preacher, chief or wizard spouts gibberish, the human race spends centuries deciphering the message. - Umberto Eco
- To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous as to claim that Jesus was not born of a virgin. - Cardinal Bellarmine at the trial of Galilei
_RockSlider
_Emeritus
Posts: 6752
Joined: Wed Dec 10, 2008 4:02 am

Re: Regarding moderation and censorship

Post by _RockSlider »

LDSToronto wrote:Challenge accepted. Let me know when you guys become untouchable douche-bags, will you?

Seems we have already achieved that status in your book.
_harmony
_Emeritus
Posts: 18195
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 1:35 am

Re: Regarding moderation and censorship

Post by _harmony »

LDSToronto wrote:
harmony wrote:*sigh*

It's simple, LDST: PG means no pictures of genitals.



So I can post:

1. Male nipples? yes
2. Female nipples no
3. Female breasts? no
4. Bare buttocks? no
5. A woman wearing a micro bikini? no
6. A woman in a chilly room? if she's clothed
7. The anus (male or female)? no


Bare male chests are considered appropriate by society for general viewing. Bare female chests are not. Bare buttocks and anuses are likewise not. Thus a micro bikini is not. Nor is a thong.

You are a smart man. You know this. Abiding by the few rules we have is neither difficult nor onerous. I'm still not seeing the reason for this angst, when the rules are clear: G, PG, R... this is not hard.
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.
_LDSToronto
_Emeritus
Posts: 2515
Joined: Sat Jan 01, 2011 2:11 am

Re: Regarding moderation and censorship

Post by _LDSToronto »

Chap wrote:LDST has managed something I did not think was possible: he has become boring.

Really, really boring. This is the kind of thing I might have expected from an obsessed teenager.


And yet here you are....reading. Kind of like a bad accident, you can't avert your gaze, no matter how hard you try.

H.
"Others cannot endure their own littleness unless they can translate it into meaningfulness on the largest possible level."
~ Ernest Becker
"Whether you think of it as heavenly or as earthly, if you love life immortality is no consolation for death."
~ Simone de Beauvoir
_LDSToronto
_Emeritus
Posts: 2515
Joined: Sat Jan 01, 2011 2:11 am

Re: Regarding moderation and censorship

Post by _LDSToronto »

RockSlider wrote:
LDSToronto wrote:Challenge accepted. Let me know when you guys become untouchable douche-bags, will you?

Seems we have already achieved that status in your book.


Douche-bags, yes. Untouchable. Not yet.
"Others cannot endure their own littleness unless they can translate it into meaningfulness on the largest possible level."
~ Ernest Becker
"Whether you think of it as heavenly or as earthly, if you love life immortality is no consolation for death."
~ Simone de Beauvoir
_LDSToronto
_Emeritus
Posts: 2515
Joined: Sat Jan 01, 2011 2:11 am

Re: Regarding moderation and censorship

Post by _LDSToronto »

harmony wrote:
LDSToronto wrote:
So I can post:

1. Male nipples? yes
2. Female nipples no
3. Female breasts? no
4. Bare buttocks? no
5. A woman wearing a micro bikini? no
6. A woman in a chilly room? if she's clothed
7. The anus (male or female)? no


Bare male chests are considered appropriate by society for general viewing. Bare female chests are not.


Where I live - Ontario, Canada, it is perfectly appropriate and legal for a woman to be bare-chested in public. Society has approved.

What standard are you using?
"Others cannot endure their own littleness unless they can translate it into meaningfulness on the largest possible level."
~ Ernest Becker
"Whether you think of it as heavenly or as earthly, if you love life immortality is no consolation for death."
~ Simone de Beauvoir
_Chap
_Emeritus
Posts: 14190
Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 10:23 am

Re: Regarding moderation and censorship

Post by _Chap »

LDSToronto wrote:
Chap wrote:LDST has managed something I did not think was possible: he has become boring.

Really, really boring. This is the kind of thing I might have expected from an obsessed teenager.


And yet here you are....reading. Kind of like a bad accident, you can't avert your gaze, no matter how hard you try.

H.


OK. I've said my say. So I'll just try to ignore this thread for a while. But I am really sorry to see you so hung up, and sounding just a bit silly as a result.
Zadok:
I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis.
Maksutov:
That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
_Chap
_Emeritus
Posts: 14190
Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 10:23 am

Re: Regarding moderation and censorship

Post by _Chap »

LDSToronto wrote:
What standard are you using?


My final word: maybe the standards of a board that does not want to repel all potential Mormon posters the minute they catch sight of some of the images recently posted here.

Bye now.
Zadok:
I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis.
Maksutov:
That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
Post Reply