|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
 Posted - 11/15/2007 : 13:21:09
|
UNDERSTANDING THE DYNAMICS OF AN ACCIDENT
Study the first picture for a minute, then ask yourself. .
How did this happen????
After you have come to your conclusion, then scroll down for the answer.
MORE GALS DRIVING ON THE HIGHWAY THESE DAYS THAN GUYS!
|
Edited by - bngbuck on 11/17/2007 19:21:30
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 11/15/2007 : 20:28:30 [Permalink]
|
Indeed!
Nudity violates the terms of service.
And can potentially get viewers fired for watching this stuff from work.
You didn't even give a warning that the picture might not be work-safe.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
 |
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 11/16/2007 : 04:28:34 [Permalink]
|
| Not very funny even. Overused and tasteless concept. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 11/16/2007 : 08:20:24 [Permalink]
|
Dr. Mabuse states:
Indeed!
Nudity violates the terms of service. |
Damn! I just hate it when I get serviced by a fully clothed woman!
And can potentially get viewers fired for watching this stuff from work.
You didn't even give a warning that the picture might not be work-safe. |
My attorney advises me that my only defense is ignorance of the law.You see, I haven't been in a workplace for over 29 years!
However, the entire tasteless, vulgar, godless thing came from my wife's workplace where she presides over 52 ladies and six men, who had been chortling over the image for days! Right here in red Republican Idaho, sanctuary for real Christians refugees from that hellhole of sodomy, San Francisco!
What I don't understand is the difference in prurience between this image....
.....and this one (clothing provided so as not to offend Marf and any other Puritan skeptics)
.... |
| Edited by - bngbuck on 11/17/2007 12:27:50 |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 11/16/2007 : 08:33:09 [Permalink]
|
I think it's probably that it's those who have a puritan streak that think that kind of thing is funny. However, everyone has a different sense of humor, so that assessment is probably entirely wrong.
I like the picture, and I appreciate that your sense of humor is different, not better or worse, than mine, I just don't need this at work. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
 Posted - 11/16/2007 : 08:50:43 [Permalink]
|
Well Bill, we didn't like the first image you posted ether. We discussed it and decided it was borderline and just hoped that it would be ignored and you would get the hint. It was and you didn't.
And frankly, I don't care where it came from or who thought it was funny. It just doesn't belong on this site.
And lucky for you that Dave got here first. I would have deleted the whole post... |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 11/16/2007 : 09:47:47 [Permalink]
|
| (clothing provided so as not to offend Marf and any other Puritan skeptics) |
I don't have a Puritan streak. I have enjoyed porn on occasion. But there is an appropriate context for certain things. For instance, right now I'm on my lunch break at school; a PreK-8th grade school. Also, the rules of this forum are clearly explained when you join and available for review any time. My other criticism was that this joke is overused, which it is. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 11/16/2007 09:49:14 |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 11/16/2007 : 11:10:22 [Permalink]
|
Well, Dave G, I am glad you have made your position clear. My lawyer also informed me that when you travel in a foreign country, you are bound by their laws! I would hope that your proscriptions concerning images of the human body don't extend to the discussion of your reasons for so doing. I would really like to know what the rationale for such outrage is!
I do understand from Dr. Mabuse, Gorgo, and I'm sure many others; the concern about PC monitors and censors in "the workplace". As I said, I haven't been there for years. I think it's a dammed shame that this country hasn't evolved any further in matters of this kind of sexual prudery since the Victorian era, but there is so much agitation and hand-wringing over "suggestive" imagery and even, our Good Lord forbid, pornography, that I'm sure someone (probably male) can be fired for looking at a copy of Playboy while eating lunch at his desk. And, that's damn unfortunate, but no fault of the Playboy reader! Ce la USA!
And then there is the matter of degradation of women. If this is the case, may I post a picture of a nearly nude man (fig leaf, of course!) causing consternation at a Red Hat party? (Put your guns away, ImageShack doesn't even have one.)
I feel that men, women, dogs, cats, and chimpanzees, should be perfectly comfortable with pictures of their own genitalia, or those of other animals without regard to sex or species!
Children under 18 are of course a major problem! Again, to the extent that the laws of this puritanical, christian country prohibit images of unclothed male or female bodies to debase their little psyches, while allowing endless mindless scenes of violence and cruelty to be widely available to their innocent eyes; you certainly have to abide by those senseless laws.
Surely neither you, nor Dave W, nor Dr. Mabuse, nor Marfknox is objecting to the lady's boobies on religious grounds! Perhaps Bill Scott or other "fundies" as many folks here call them, may have strong emotions about seeing a pair of hooters in the ivory tower of SFN; but certainly not those that have expressed a sentiment that I totally agree with - Christianity is a Crock of Crap! (No reprimands for that statement, I trust?)
So it comes down, legal and strongarm PC enforcers aside, to a matter, as Marf has so eloquently put it of taste. Strictly as an intellectual enquiry, I am curious as to what dictates the boundaries of taste in matters of perceived sexual imagery? I am aware of similar parameters with regards to use of street language in an insulting way, and I am fully in agreement with those precepts, with emphasis on insult! I would like to be sold on the idea that, societal prohibitions aside, images of nude human bodies are in some way insulting or offensive!
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 11/16/2007 : 12:32:09 [Permalink]
|
Actually, what it really comes down to, is that nudity requires websites to post warnings and in some cases verify the age of those who desire to use the website.
I doubt you'll find many here offended by nudity, but this site isn't geared for it.
Also there is the idea that this site is intended to reach as wide an audience as possible, including students who are not yet old enough to legally view nudity (by US laws you have to be 18).
While I disagree with marf that the premise of your joke was unfunny (it is funny, thats why the joke persists), I have to go with Dave_W and Kil on this one. Just post a link with a NSFW warning, that should satisfy propriety, legalities, and still let you get your point across.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 11/16/2007 : 15:20:18 [Permalink]
|
Marfknox.....
I appreciate your dry comment...| Not very funny even. Overused and tasteless concept. |
and.....| I don't have a Puritan streak. I have enjoyed porn on occasion. But there is an appropriate context for certain things. For instance, right now I'm on my lunch break at school; a PreK-8th grade school. Also, the rules of this forum are clearly explained when you join and available for review any time. My other criticism was that this joke is overused, which it is. |
Humor lies in the funnybone of the observer. Some have better-developed funnybones than others. As Dude pointed out, the concept may have lasted longer than you have lived because it is funny to many! I will submit that it loses all humor when deconstructed as this example was!
I am glad to hear that you are not streaked with Puritanism. That would be a sad thing to contemplate for one as full of youth and promise as yourself! However, I am confused by the balance of your comment. Do you share the Forum, images and all, with your adolescent students?
Thank you for referring me to the Rules Of The Forum. Others have suggested the same authority. I'll look into it! My return suggestion to you is, don't take any of the porn you occasionally enjoy to school. The other docents would probably be offended!
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 11/16/2007 : 15:29:07 [Permalink]
|
bngbuck wrote: | I think it's a dammed shame that this country hasn't evolved any further in matters of this kind of sexual prudery since the Victorian era, but there is so much agitation and hand-wringing over "suggestive" imagery and even, our Good Lord forbid, pornography, that I'm sure someone (probably male) can be fired for looking at a copy of Playboy while eating lunch at his desk. And, that's damn unfortunate, but no fault of the Playboy reader! Ce la USA! |
Most people think it is completely acceptable for adults to drink alcohol, but in most workplaces it is not acceptable to drink on the job, even during a 15 minute break. The reason pornography is not allowed at work or in public is a good one; the point of porn is to sexually arouse, usually for the purpose of masturbation. If you go on a lunch break to a restaurant and have a beer, that is fine because you are in the proper venue for it. And if you decide to take your lunch break at a peep show and get your rocks off, that is also fine so long as you get back on time to do your job. I for one don't want to have to start worrying about seeing people on the bus ogling issues of Hustler. Not that there's anything wrong with enjoying that magazine, but in public spaces we need to have a higher level of decorum for the sake of all who might be in that space. How is this a Puritan concept? Every culture has different ideas between what is regarded as public decency and private decency.
I might have found this joke funny if I'd put back a few beers and was hanging out with friends at a party. But on this forum it struck me as inappropriately lascivious. These differences between the private and public arena isn't just to protect the innocent. In many ways it expands our freedom of expression by giving us a context where it can be intensified. If every woman walked around wearing sexually alluring lingerie everywhere, it would cease to be especially tantalizing when a woman wears it for her significant other on a special occasion. If we walk around swearing in everyday conversation (as many people do) then when we go to curse in true anger or frustration, it has lost much of its punch.
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 11/16/2007 : 15:30:58 [Permalink]
|
bngbuck wrote: | Do you share the Forum, images and all, with your adolescent students? |
No, but like most people I don't have my own private office. My computer at work is in the public space and children are walking by all the time. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 11/16/2007 : 16:02:20 [Permalink]
|
Dude.....
I have been conscripted into the choir, as you can see, so save the sermon. I think it is an excellent policy to include kids between 13 and 18 inside what is primarily a pretty adult tent! I am sure there are prigs that are concerned by babes encountering an occasional scatological, profane, or obscene word which do pop up like mushrooms in this fertile environment, but I don't give a f...er, ig for their concern!
Dude, is there really a Federal law currently in effect that prohibits nudity on the Internet? I actually don't know, having come to these controversial areas of the Internet somewhat recently. I know for a fact that there is an enormous Porn industry thriving on the net, and I run into nudity all the time. Look at Angelina Jolie on the front page of the Huffington Post today here! for example! Now she is covered in molten gold, but my god, what a bare bod! Beowuff, wuff!
How do you get a Nudity License from the Thought Police? |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 11/16/2007 : 16:23:35 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck
Surely neither you, nor Dave W, nor Dr. Mabuse, nor Marfknox is objecting to the lady's boobies on religious grounds! |
I might have had fewer objections - to either image - had the women in them been - you know - hot.
No, not really. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 11/16/2007 : 16:47:42 [Permalink]
|
bngbuck said:
| Dude, is there really a Federal law currently in effect that prohibits nudity on the Internet? |
In the US the laws on internet nudity/porn are pretty far from settled. Several, as far as I know, have been struck down by various courts (including one by SCOTUS). As a bit of self protection most sites that display porn or nudity have a minimal age verification page, that prevents people from "accidentally" seeing what is on their main website.
Civil law is another matter entirely, and people are free to sue anyone for any reason. Even if it gets tossed out of court you can end up with a legal bill.
When I mentioned US law I was referring to laws that determine how old you have to be if you want to buy a playboy from the local gas station. You'll find that internet sale of nudity/porn follows the same rules (I think).
So no, there isn't any law that prohibits you from posting nudes on the net. There may be one that requires some age verification (click here if you are 18 and want to view adult content), but I'm not entirely sure. That may just be something people do to protect themselves from civil liability.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 11/16/2007 : 18:03:24 [Permalink]
|
Well, Marf, not having heard from the Higher Powers here yet (I am sure I will) as to the multi-faceted need for circumspection on the SFN forums, I can only guess that it something along the lines that Dr. Mabuse was suggesting. The Internet license, or something like that, is in jeopardy if appropriate NUDITY warning signs are not displayed at point of entry.
As to public masturbation, I certainly hope that hormones are not running so high amongst the sexy Skeptics, that a touch of titillation (pun available if you wish) would cause an orgy of Onanism is these hallowed intellectual halls. But if you feel such a danger exists, I certainly won't post any more girlie pictures (aside from the fact that D&K would boot my ass out in a New York minute if I did!) And with regards to Hustler on the bus, that does raise all kinds of ugly issues, both those of hygeine and of traffic safety (if the driver were to pick up a discarded (used?) copy!)| I might have found this joke funny if I'd put back a few beers and was hanging out with friends at a party. But on this forum it struck me as inappropriately lascivious. These differences between the private and public arena isn't just to protect the innocent. In many ways it expands our freedom of expression by giving us a context where it can be intensified. If every woman walked around wearing sexually alluring lingerie everywhere, it would cease to be especially tantalizing when a woman wears it for her significant other on a special occasion. If we walk around swearing in everyday conversation (as many people do) then when we go to curse in true anger or frustration, it has lost much of its punch. |
Yes, I can see that lasciviousness and critical thinking surely are odd bed partners! Kind of like drilling steel with creampuffs! Probably wouldn't work! But as regards ladies dressed by Victoria's Secret strolling around the Mall, I would surely consider that a special occasion! I might even get Filthy to join me in knocking back a few shots of Cabo Wabo, swearing at each other, and enjoying the show!
As Dude (who seems to be a decent sort) has pointed out, I just havent been around these sacrosanct stomping grounds long enough to recognize the awesome seriousness that prevails here. I feel like I have gone into the Supreme Court and pissed on the floor. No respect at all for the awesome presence and atmosphere of ineffable wisdom that surrounds me.
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Unbelievable Accident !
