Grendel wrote on Jul 6
th, 2014 at 6:02pm:
Kat wrote on Jul 6
th, 2014 at 5:15pm:
AFAIC, it all comes down to context.
The torture/mutilation pics were relevant to the topic, if somewhat confronting.
Yes, Buzz could have linked to them, but how many of you would have bothered
to go and look? Not those he intended to see them, that's a virtual certainty.
But the porn was neither on-topic nor in context.
IMO, neither warrant a ban, but one definitely warrants a quiet word by PM.
You really think people these days don't know what death and destruction etc look like these days?
The photos were gross.
They were quite possibly totally unrelated to the issue of the topic.
There was no context linking them to the claims.
I'm pretty sure I saw that truck one way back in the years when the civil war was going on and as for that poor kid... it was disgusting. So disgusting it probably does fit the term "pornography" as in the pornography of violence.
Sicko bastard. Well, no. I'm not.
But I maintain that the original pics were relevant, if confronting, as I said before.
I do not consider them to be in any way pornographic in this context, although
they certainly could be viewed as such in some other contexts.
You are welcome to disagree, but calling me a sicko probably isn't the best or most
accurate way to go about it.
a Sicko Bastard Kat...