Australian Politics Forum - Explicit Pictures

Dsmithy70

Gold Member

Offline

ire futuis vobismetipsis

Posts: 13147
Newy
Gender: male

Re: Explicit Pictures
Reply #30 - Feb 24^th, 2012 at 10:16pm

Emma wrote on Feb 24^th, 2012 at 9:23pm:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Feb 24^th, 2012 at 8:09pm:

freediver wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2012 at 8:10pm:

We discuss all sorts of 'mature' concepts here. I don't want to limit that. I think young people can handle that. Discussing war while glossing over the violence aspect is not really discussing it at all.

Would you be equally opposed to a graphic description of what goes on in war?

No one comes to this site from a search for anything a young kid would type.Censorship on the "Off Chance" is already rampant in the R/W.

Any pictures that are relvent to the discussion should be allowed.
War is Hell.

I think you missed AA's point.

Bu then again,, if you'd explain the context to me, and brief description of the 'acceptable' images I'd be better able to give YOUR point proper consideration.

No I saw Annie's post and yes fair warning would be nice but as suggested impractical.

Those sort of images, women and children mutilated would be understandable in a discussion regarding the middle east be it on Israel/Terrorism.....well just about anything over there related to politics or religion.
Let's be honest, those very sort of images are used as propaganda by just about all sides except the yanks.

perceptions_now wrote on Feb 24^th, 2012 at 9:21pm:

Photos showing people having their head cut off by a large sword, with blood spurting in all directions, which is one I recently deleted, or something similar obnoxious in sexual overtones, will be deleted, if I see them!

Glad I missed it, cant see any thread that would require that in Politics or general/chat.
Saudi Arabian justice maybe or Japanese war crimes but haven't seen them.
Sexual/Rape images never have a seat at the table, the guilty should get an immediate holiday.

perceptions_now wrote on Feb 24^th, 2012 at 9:21pm:

if I remain an Administrator!

I don't know why that would even be up for discussion.
Your doing a great job

Back to top

REBELLION is not what most people think it is.
REBELLION is when you turn off the TV & start educating & thinking for yourself.
Gavin Nascimento

IP Logged

Emma

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 9853
OZ
Gender: female

Re: Explicit Pictures
Reply #31 - Feb 24^th, 2012 at 10:40pm

Dsmithy70 wrote on Feb 24^th, 2012 at 10:16pm:

Emma wrote on Feb 24^th, 2012 at 9:23pm:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Feb 24^th, 2012 at 8:09pm:

freediver wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2012 at 8:10pm:

We discuss all sorts of 'mature' concepts here. I don't want to limit that. I think young people can handle that. Discussing war while glossing over the violence aspect is not really discussing it at all.

Would you be equally opposed to a graphic description of what goes on in war?

No one comes to this site from a search for anything a young kid would type.Censorship on the "Off Chance" is already rampant in the R/W.

Any pictures that are relvent to the discussion should be allowed.
War is Hell.

I think you missed AA's point.

Bu then again,, if you'd explain the context to me, and brief description of the 'acceptable' images I'd be better able to give YOUR point proper consideration.

No I saw Annie's post and yes fair warning would be nice but as suggested impractical.

Those sort of images, women and children mutilated would be understandable in a discussion regarding the middle east be it on Israel/Terrorism.....well just about anything over there related to politics or religion.
Let's be honest, those very sort of images are used as propaganda by just about all sides except the yanks.

perceptions_now wrote on Feb 24^th, 2012 at 9:21pm:

Photos showing people having their head cut off by a large sword, with blood spurting in all directions, which is one I recently deleted, or something similar obnoxious in sexual overtones, will be deleted, if I see them!

Glad I missed it, cant see any thread that would require that in Politics or general/chat.
Saudi Arabian justice maybe or Japanese war crimes but haven't seen them.
Sexual/Rape images never have a seat at the table, the guilty should get an immediate holiday.

perceptions_now wrote on Feb 24^th, 2012 at 9:21pm:

if I remain an Administrator!

I don't know why that would even be up for discussion.
Your doing a great job

Yep got my thumbs up,PN.

Those sort of images, women and children mutilated would be understandable in a discussion regarding the middle east be it on Israel/Terrorism.....well just about anything over there related to politics or religion.
Let's be honest, those very sort of images are used as propaganda by just about all sides except the yanks.

I think you could draw a wider bow than the Middle East/terrorism.!!

You could add much of eastern and nth wst Africa, for a start ..parts of India,.. Asia and
Sth Americ.

You could add - in smaller doses, Australia, NZ, pretty much everywhere, women and children are being abused mutilated and killed.
It's hard.... Sad

but it's undeniable. Cry

Back to top

live every day

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Online

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 52839
At my desk.

Re: Explicit Pictures
Reply #32 - Feb 24^th, 2012 at 11:11pm

So what about the image Time magazine put on the front cover of a little naked asian girl with napalm burns? Should that earn people a ban?

Quote:

I don't think such pictures need to be tooo graphic otherwise this Forum could get in trouble for promoting such stuff as 'Snuff Vidios/Images' etc.

This forum does not host videos.

Quote:

If the pictures are of butchered and mangled women and children... ...I can only assume one of the male supremacist types posted them.

So no-one who posts these could be opposed to the practice?

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

Emma

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 9853
OZ
Gender: female

Re: Explicit Pictures
Reply #33 - Feb 25^th, 2012 at 12:01am

YES - most definitely.!! For what possible valid reason could someone do that on this forum?.

I can see that picture now.
That picture made a real impact. And in a genuine effort to halt such practises.

But frankly FD, if you think this forum has the same relevance, importance or reach as that did on the front cover of Time, you're kidding yourself.

AND, I wouldn't expect any poster to use that photo, on this forum. Would you??
To 'say' what we all know? NOT NECESSARY. Sad

Perhaps you want to help highlight the distinctions with your question?) else what is your point?

But as I said, I didn't see the offensive post (s) , nor Know who posted them(it).

Back to top

live every day

IP Logged

Emma

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 9853
OZ
Gender: female

Re: Explicit Pictures
Reply #34 - Feb 25^th, 2012 at 12:21am

oh and your second part FD -Quote:

If the pictures are of butchered and mangled women and children... ...I can only assume one of the male supremacist types posted them.

So no-one who posts these could be opposed to the practice?

On THIS forum?? no I don't believe they could be.!!

I might get angry enough at some posters to slag them off a bit... I'd never consider posting such shots... why??

That's the game they want to play ... this forum isn't going to change the world... it allows people to vent, in some circumstances, but not to be sadists.!. Angry

Back to top

live every day

IP Logged

Emma

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 9853
OZ
Gender: female

Re: Explicit Pictures
Reply #35 - Feb 25^th, 2012 at 12:44am

No I saw Annie's post and yes fair warning would be nice but as suggested impractical.
Quote - DS-70

How so? People have avatars, supply links, ..there's nothing hard about simply saying for example. I'll be posting images in my next post to support my post. Be aware AO.
SVD . SADISM VIOLENCE DEATH, not THAT hard surely. Too lazy to afford respect to your fellow posters??

OK some deserve no respect.!! But chastisement shouldn't take the form of disturbing images.
I don't need some amateur FHead trying these crap games.
IF the images are relevant I'd suggest adding a link... NOT a display.! Angry

Back to top

live every day

IP Logged

Grey Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 5341 Gender:	Re: Explicit Pictures Reply #36 - Feb 25^th, 2012 at 12:59am Where are the explicit pictures of Jalane?
Back to top	"It is in the shelter of each other that the people live" - Irish Proverb IP Logged

Grey

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 5341
Gender: male

Re: Explicit Pictures
Reply #37 - Feb 25^th, 2012 at 1:10am

Seriously now, sometimes words aren't enough to convey what is being done in our name, or in the name of religion, or in the fight against.....

I think we all have a pretty good idea about what would exceed community standards. By which I mean what would profoundly offend an unacceptably high number of people. I don't think this is something you can or should have a rigid rule about./

Anybody that's offended can easily draw a mods attention to it and it's not hard to erase. I certaily don't think bans should be handed out for first offences. (Unless of course the images are foul enough to offend me Wink

)

Back to top

"It is in the shelter of each other that the people live" - Irish Proverb

IP Logged

Emma

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 9853
OZ
Gender: female

Re: Explicit Pictures
Reply #38 - Feb 25^th, 2012 at 1:46am

Ha !!.

YOU WISH GREY!!!

try visualisation.!!

Did you see?? these offending pics?

And so yeah pics paint a thou words ! Roll Eyes

BUT - this is a discussion format isn't it? If your words fail you, you don't have what it takes to express yourself in language, you fail if you resort to pics.as the explanation. Pics mean different things to different people. Without sufficient background provided, verbally, pictures define nothing but what is perceived by the viewer. Which will obviously cover a wide range of basic attitudes and perceptions.
NOT a optimal expression of a person's own views in my thinking.... - IF THEY truly STRIVE to be understood.!! Huh

BUT like I said, nothing to stop adding a link and appropriate advice.
Seriously now.......

Back to top

live every day

IP Logged

Emma Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 9853 OZ Gender:	Re: Explicit Pictures Reply #39 - Feb 25^th, 2012 at 1:51am And Grey - just for you as an aid to your visualisation .... take my current avatar, increase the height of the forehead , change the hair to a fine straight silver/gold, and add gray green eyes, and....... you are almost there.
Back to top	live every day IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Online

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 52839
At my desk.

Re: Explicit Pictures
Reply #40 - Feb 25^th, 2012 at 9:42am

Quote:

But frankly FD, if you think this forum has the same relevance, importance or reach as that did on the front cover of Time, you're kidding yourself.

So what is your point? That less important media outlets should have different rules?

Quote:

AND, I wouldn't expect any poster to use that photo, on this forum. Would you??

It makes a compelling case against napalming villages.

Quote:

To 'say' what we all know? NOT NECESSARY.

But you would not know without the images. It would be far more abstract.

Quote:

On THIS forum?? no I don't believe they could be.!!

Why is everyone here different from our previous example?

Quote:

How so? People have avatars, supply links, ..there's nothing hard about simply saying for example. I'll be posting images in my next post to support my post. Be aware AO.

People often scroll up and down before reading the text. Or jump to the last post and scroll up.

Quote:

IF the images are relevant I'd suggest adding a link... NOT a display.!

I would not follow the links. If you habitually do that you end up with viruses and malware.

Quote:

I think we all have a pretty good idea about what would exceed community standards.

I don't think so. I think people have vastly different standards, and our local media is on the conservative end.

Quote:

BUT - this is a discussion format isn't it? If your words fail you, you don't have what it takes to express yourself in language, you fail if you resort to pics.as the explanation.

I don't think so at all. Even newspapers use pictures. This is not a text only forum. The discussion here includes pictures and videos. Could you convey what the Time magazine covered did just as quickly with words? Do you think it is some kind of improvement to this forum if communication takes 100 times as long due to arbitrary limitations?

Quote:

BUT - this is a discussion format isn't it? If your words fail you, you don't have what it takes to express yourself in language, you fail if you resort to pics.as the explanation.

So what's your point? Are you suggesting pictures are bad because they might be misinterpretted? Are they too powerful for our delicate sensibilities?

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

Life_goes_on

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 4772
400kms south of Yobsville, Qld
Gender: male

Re: Explicit Pictures
Reply #41 - Feb 25^th, 2012 at 10:17am

Wartime atrocity and corpse pics are known as "war porn" for good reason (and despite what a quick google might indicate, it's been called war porn for at least 25 years that I know of).

I've looked through hundreds of wartime photo albums and it's not unusual to find a few blank pages or places where photos are missing - that's where the war porn was and the passage of years has resulted in guilt setting in and the photos being removed.

But the trade in wartime albums is rather healthy at the moment (mainly WW2 - with a few Korea and Vietnam thrown in). The albums with intact war porn getting a far higher price.

Back to top

"You're just one lucky motherf-cker" - Someone, 5th February 2013

Num num num num.

IP Logged

Annie Anthrax Gold Member Offline Posts: 7062 Gender:	Re: Explicit Pictures Reply #42 - Feb 25^th, 2012 at 12:08pm Quote: So what about the image Time magazine put on the front cover of a little naked asian girl with napalm burns? Should that earn people a ban? You sure do play the drama queen well - for a robot, anyway. Who is advocating banning?
Back to top	IP Logged

blackadder Gold Member Offline Posts: 1977	Re: Explicit Pictures Reply #43 - Feb 25^th, 2012 at 12:36pm Just a warning. I wouldn't mess with Jalane.
Back to top	Jalane.jpg (112 KB \| 64 ) The trouble with quotes on the internet is that it's difficult to determine whether or not they are genuine - Abraham Lincoln IP Logged

Emma Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 9853 OZ Gender:	Re: Explicit Pictures Reply #44 - Feb 25^th, 2012 at 3:31pm Good laugh!!!!! BA Now that sort of pic SHOULD be banned.!!!!!!
Back to top	live every day IP Logged