Matter of doing the right thing (3 Viewers)

It is not ridiculous if it is Peter's shop web page and forum. He is entitled to show or not show whatever he likes. What would be ridiculous would be somebody telling him/TF what he can and can not show on his own site.
 
The Military Workshop said:
It is not ridiculous if it is Peter's shop web page and forum. He is entitled to show or not show whatever he likes. What would be ridiculous would be somebody telling him/TF what he can and can not show on his own site.
Click to expand...

The line must be drawn somewhere. If we accept the logical assumption that the owners of a private forum operating within the law are entirely within their rights to object to certain images, it then just becomes a discussion of where we feel the line should be drawn. My good friend Waynepoo and I have often disagreed on this very issue. My argument - which he rejects entirely - is the creep effect. Though we are talking Egptian dancing girls on the thread at the moment, our argument was about the posting of the photographs of the lingerie football league. My belief was that if that photograph was condoned, there would be a followup slightly less acceptable, and then so on. Eventually the line has to be drawn somewhere, and having been involved in censorship at a very small level at times in my career, it is easy to have the charge of hypocrisy levelled at you. We all know how it goes - 'If my photograph of the streaker at the football is unacceptable, why do they allow the pictures of the dancing girls' or 'I can see a picture of a toy soldier laying dead, but not...'
 
Jack said:
The line must be drawn somewhere. If we accept the logical assumption that the owners of a private forum operating within the law are entirely within their rights to object to certain images, it then just becomes a discussion of where we feel the line should be drawn. My good friend Waynepoo and I have often disagreed on this very issue. My argument - which he rejects entirely - is the creep effect. Though we are talking Egptian dancing girls on the thread at the moment, our argument was about the posting of the photographs of the lingerie football league. My belief was that if that photograph was condoned, there would be a followup slightly less acceptable, and then so on. Eventually the line has to be drawn somewhere, and having been involved in censorship at a very small level at times in my career, it is easy to have the charge of hypocrisy levelled at you. We all know how it goes - 'If my photograph of the streaker at the football is unacceptable, why do they allow the pictures of the dancing girls' or 'I can see a picture of a toy soldier laying dead, but not...'
Click to expand...
The hypocrisy was this, the pictures of the lingerie football girls was deleted but the pictures of a Gold Coast beach with bikini girls (which had more girls with less attire) was allowed. I mean after all we discuss and make dios about soldiers from wars of history which intails death and killing, we even dicuss and collect the legions of Hitler, it is often stated the kids may see some some 'nude' figures, is it OK for the war angle but not the skin?....I understand that it is a private forum, the rules are set and arguing with city hall is pointless. Anyway that's my two bobs worth.
PS. Jack reminded me about a lesson from my miss spent youth...don't argue with bloody teachers, you just know they're smarter....:wink2:
Wayne.
 
waynepoo said:
The hypocrisy was this, the pictures of the lingerie football girls was deleted but the pictures of a Gold Coast beach with bikini girls (which had more girls with less attire) was allowed. I mean after all we discuss and make dios about soldiers from wars of history which intails death and killing, we even dicuss and collect the legions of Hitler, it is often stated the kids may see some some 'nude' figures, is it OK for the war angle but not the skin?....I understand that it is a private forum, the rules are set and arguing with city hall is pointless. Anyway that's my two bobs worth.
PS. Jack reminded me about a lesson from my miss spent youth...don't argue with bloody teachers, you just know they're smarter....:wink2:
Wayne.
Click to expand...

As a society, we always seemed to be more concerned with nudity, sex, what have you than violence, even though the latter is worse or purportedly worse than the former. I grew up overseas in different Spanish speaking countries and even as a kid I always found it amusing that the authorities were more concerned with censoring movies dealing with nudity than violence.

Brad
 
I have no particular axe to grind on this subject - and if nudity - in part - or total is not allowed here - then that's fine by me.

But I'd just like to gently remind everyone - we were all born that way. We all got clothes later. jb:D
 
waynepoo said:
The hypocrisy was this, the pictures of the lingerie football girls was deleted but the pictures of a Gold Coast beach with bikini girls (which had more girls with less attire) was allowed. I mean after all we discuss and make dios about soldiers from wars of history which intails death and killing, we even dicuss and collect the legions of Hitler, it is often stated the kids may see some some 'nude' figures, is it OK for the war angle but not the skin?....I understand that it is a private forum, the rules are set and arguing with city hall is pointless. Anyway that's my two bobs worth.
PS. Jack reminded me about a lesson from my miss spent youth...don't argue with bloody teachers, you just know they're smarter....:wink2:
Wayne.
Click to expand...

Could the moderators change the quote describing Wayne as a 'good friend' to 'casual acquaintance'?{sm4}{sm4}
 
johnnybach said:
I have no particular axe to grind on this subject - and if nudity - in part - or total is not allowed here - then that's fine by me.

But I'd just like to gently remind everyone - we were all born that way. We all got clothes later. jb:D
Click to expand...

I disagree. I came out wearing a suit, a birthday suit...oh, never mind! {eek3} ^&grin
 
waynepoo said:
I like that! I did say you were smarter.....{sm4} ^&grin
Wayne.
Click to expand...

I will say what I said to a student yesterday.

My Australian history class at Uni have to write a reflection as part of their final assignment. One asked whether he (!) could add that his lecturer was intelligent, witty and handsome.

I will give you the same reply I gave him.

There are no marks for stating the obvious.
 
Mind you - the way the weather is at the moment in Northern Europe - I'm rather glad I did get some extra clothing!^&cool jb
 
Last edited:
Jack said:
I will say what I said to a student yesterday.

My Australian history class at Uni have to write a reflection as part of their final assignment. One asked whether he (!) could add that his lecturer was intelligent, witty and handsome.

I will give you the same reply I gave him.

There are no marks for stating the obvious.
Click to expand...
HE....asked? now that is a bit of a worry. :rolleyes2:{sm5}
Wayne.
 
Jack said:
The line must be drawn somewhere. If we accept the logical assumption that the owners of a private forum operating within the law are entirely within their rights to object to certain images, it then just becomes a discussion of where we feel the line should be drawn. My good friend Waynepoo and I have often disagreed on this very issue. My argument - which he rejects entirely - is the creep effect. Though we are talking Egptian dancing girls on the thread at the moment, our argument was about the posting of the photographs of the lingerie football league. My belief was that if that photograph was condoned, there would be a followup slightly less acceptable, and then so on. Eventually the line has to be drawn somewhere, and having been involved in censorship at a very small level at times in my career, it is easy to have the charge of hypocrisy levelled at you. We all know how it goes - 'If my photograph of the streaker at the football is unacceptable, why do they allow the pictures of the dancing girls' or 'I can see a picture of a toy soldier laying dead, but not...'
Click to expand...

waynepoo said:
The hypocrisy was this, the pictures of the lingerie football girls was deleted but the pictures of a Gold Coast beach with bikini girls (which had more girls with less attire) was allowed. I mean after all we discuss and make dios about soldiers from wars of history which intails death and killing, we even dicuss and collect the legions of Hitler, it is often stated the kids may see some some 'nude' figures, is it OK for the war angle but not the skin?....I understand that it is a private forum, the rules are set and arguing with city hall is pointless. Anyway that's my two bobs worth.
PS. Jack reminded me about a lesson from my miss spent youth...don't argue with bloody teachers, you just know they're smarter....:wink2:

Wayne.
Click to expand...

I can see both sides of the argument here so im stuck on the proverbial barbed wire fence, ouch!

Tom
 
TomNT said:
I can see both sides of the argument here so im stuck on the proverbial barbed wire fence, ouch!

Tom
Click to expand...

The two quotes that you have highlighted do indeed show both sides of the argument - the right one (me) and the wrong one (Wayne). Well spotted Tom!
 
Jack said:
The two quotes that you have highlighted do indeed show both sides of the argument - the right one (me) and the wrong one (Wayne). Well spotted Tom!
Click to expand...

Hmm, the moderators might have to step in here shortly as the fur could be flying!{sm4}

Tom
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 4 (members: 0, guests: 4)
Community platform by XenForo® © 2010-2024 XenForo Ltd.
Back
Top