Torerex wrote:In my opinion the biggest opposition to it should be...opposition into tricking people into seeing it or not giving others an opportunity not to see it. For example using misleading thread titles, or posting it in a thread that people are replying to and it only being slightly on the topic. If we had spoiler tags, we could ask for people posting it in an existing thread to use them and then someone would have to CLICK to see it.
Basically I am trying to say is that if you require warnings, or specifically saying what the person is about to see, there should be nobody not wanting to see it seeing it. This is the best "middle ground" option I can see. You slightly inconvenience those wanting to share the images, and the ones that don't want to see that stuff simple don't have to see it. Sure it isn't perfect. But this counter suggestion is a compromise of sorts.

Terror wrote:

Sriman Prajapati Das wrote:

Noctifera wrote:

Sriman Prajapati Das wrote:As for the quid...it was being dismembered while living and looking at the person who was enjoy this lunch.

Where? Can't find it, or any other inappropriate displays. Link?

So I guess if a squid is dead it's okay then, right? Some people eat squid. I have.
We also tend to boil lobsters alive..

I'm genuinely curious, is all. Whether I will have to stifle my unique sense of humor, beauty, interest in human nature and preference for horror flicks, once the ban comes about. Given that your relative sense of the above is exaggeratedly opposed to mine.

Any elaborating the whole issue into a cloudy confusion, misses the point....The definitions are quite clear. I am sure that everyone on the Forum does understand what they say and mean. It reminds me of debating at Harvard, and waiting for someone talking to me wth the asking of a million questions about something that is up for conversation..the questions being crafted to bring to the fore a dizzying number of ambiguities that we face everyday, almost without thing...but in this case slow down the mental perceptors with a quite denad to walk through all the ambiguation as a proof that the obvious is correct. In turn, .that enclouds the issue while the enclouding sytetments are quite clear. Clever. But feel free to say anything on my post. The definitions do stand, are clear.

No, the definitions AREN'T clear. I, for one, am a fan of black humor and have been known to make a number of sexist jokes at any given point about men... does that offend the sensibilities of the typical male? Maybe a small number do take issue with my rants that men belong in the kitchen, cooking and cleaning... but clearly anyone who knows me knows I"m doing this to mock the ridiculousness of gender stereotypes and the fact that women were stuck with this defined role for the last 50 years or so. If I were to put up a photo of a man in boxer briefs scrubbing pots and getting ready to make my dinner, would this be offensive? I mean, it's a slippery slope...

This "ban" is clearly "ugly" and goes against even your own socialist tendencies and love of free speech. Any restrictions on free speech requires an extremely high standard under the U.S. Supreme Court and has to be balanced against safety of the public. And before anyone (Cai) starts up a debate about public safety and how inflammatory images can jeopardize public safety, don't make me point to the parent advisory committees that were so dang popular with the right wingers throughout history, first aimed at inflammatory books (that were banned by the government) and later at video games and music with explicit lyrics about violence and sex... do you endorse these efforts at censorship? If so, carry on with your campaign about banning certain images on CH.. if not, take stock of the following images:

THESE links have lead to the much protest by our beatnik and the current thread requesting a ban on pictoral "ugliness":

http://www.creepyhollows.com/phpBB3/vie ... hilit=cake

Cake... octopus shaped of icing reaching from the cake... Caiyros alleges this to be a real squid/octopus buried underneath (as he has already articulated in this thread).

http://www.creepyhollows.com/phpBB3/vie ... an#p452445

Kool Aid man... Caiyros says this lampoons the Jonestown Massacre where kids were given spiked Kool Aid. Those of my generation and younger (I'm 32 now, kids, so I"m not even considered "young") didn't even know this happened at Jonestown.

http://www.creepyhollows.com/phpBB3/vie ... r&start=30

Animals killing animals... Cai objects to this... the linked Youtube video is that of the infamous "Honey badger don't give a <<Removed by Mod>> " with a honey badger engaged in normal honey badger activities of tearing snakes to shreds for dinner... narrated by a flaming gay man.

As you can see, none of these images relate to actual posted imagery of mass murder, death and suffering except for perhaps the psyche's own connection to these themes.

I rest my case... and hopefully this foolishness ends too.

Sriman Prajapati Das wrote:

jellybean wrote:

Nocturna wrote:I am so confused by this thread. your assumption of me find it amusing, has nothing to do with my agreeing with an earlier reply. however, how can you propose something and ask that it not be an option for others, just because you, one person, don't like it? this is a general question, in regards to your proposal or to anyone that would make such a proposal on any subject due to their personal feelings on said subject. it's asinine, honestly!!

I also don't understand why C would think you found it amusing, whether you were being serious or not. But I found his response really offensive.
Afraid to talk to me directly, how rude!

Me? Afraid to talk to you directly? Not at all. YOU didn't bother to answer my request for a link to the alleged Extreme Pictoral Ugliness on this site, or you decided not to bother because there is NO such picture to link to; AND you ignored my post addressing you directly, (btw both of those posts are on the 4th page of this thread), but you accuse me of being afraid to talk to you directly so you have the audacity to accuse ME of being rude. Wanna run that by me again? I asked you 2 questions, DIRECTLY, in 2 separate posts and in a civil manner and you IGNORED them, then YOU attack me when I make a comment to someone else who appeared to be responding to my second post. You're the one being rude there, and if you don't realise that, well all I can say is you have some serious issues you need to deal with. YOU OWE ME AN APOLOGY!!!
He pretends to be sticking up for the underdog or whatever, then he goes and makes a comment that indicates he has absolutely no empathy at all.
I have more empathy then you think. I have helped solve crimes, done the dirty work to set up safe houses for battered women, and a p&& load more,,,,,,,What have you done? Ever taken a one eyed woman to a dance, and seen her cry with happiness because someone respected her, enjoyed her company, and got her help so she could afford a glass eye and a patch that didn't create massive burning issues around the empty eye socket...Who are you to tell me that I have no empathy? Sorry, you've lost me this is my last communication to you ever. You may enjoy that, an so will I. Caiyros
Does taking a one legged man dancing count? Apart from the solving of crimes, I've done the equivalent of that and more. But how is that relevant? And who am I to tell you that you have no empathy? I'm ME and I have every right to tell you that because it is how you present yourself and therefore the apparent truth.
(Phobias of clowns are serious stuff. One 6 yo boy who went to the same after school centre as my son 10 years ago became so distressed when a clown came to entertain his class that he had to be hospitalised & sedated. No one had any idea up til then, poor kid.)
I hope you can understand this, The topic is Extreme Pictoral Ugliness. Phobias are a different topic...And the best way to derail a topic is to add things to the edges...and expand the topic until it falls apart. So your remark is off-topic. period
Actually, my comment is not off topic at all. And don't take that arrogant tone with me. YOU obviously don't understand that if 3 people post suggestions that the bans you propose also extend to pictures of monkeys, spiders, clowns, porcelain dolls and elevators, they may have a phobia. So you already had 3 opportunities to raise that but you didn't. Instead you: 1. Ignored Merch's suggestion that pictures of spiders & monkeys be banned (you said you didn't but I'll address that in a minute); 2. You made a sarcastic comment to Lemon in response to her suggestion; and 3. You were rude to Nocturna by accusing her of thinking it's amusing, instead of thinking that just maybe all 3 were serious with their responses. In fact with all your self-proclaimed experience in psychology you don't seem to have recognised that those suggestions, while maybe were facetious, could also be indicative of real phobias and you chose to ignore that. But, no, my comment about phobias does NOT derail the thread in any way.
Your reply to Merch mentioned Famous art and the Holocaust, then the squid that was being eaten alive (that I have no idea about, was that on one of the youtube links? Because I can't access youtube on my ipad so I do miss a lot of things that way). But nevertheless, there was no mention of the spider or monkey pictures, (and I re-read the entire thread twice in case I missed it). And I don't think they would be described as 'Famous art'. So no, you might have agreed with something, but it was not that. Most people do not read between the lines, if you want to say something, say it clearly and don't beat around the bush if you want to be understood.


Not only that, but Merch made an earlier comment about also banning monkey & spider pictures & he's ignored that. Actually, I made a comment that he had a point, which in the King's English is a form of agreement.
see my comment above

It seems that C likes to make belittling comments to people who disagree with him in some way and try to turn it back on them as if they are the ones at fault.

No not really. I don't waste my time talking to people who I don't value. That's rude of you and obviously it's why you ignored my 2 direct questions? Funny, I thought from the one interaction we had in the past, that there were no problems between us. Obviously I was wrong, but it's no loss, you're the loser here, not me. But I do waste my time (knowingly) to discuss and make clear, that things like "Visual Violence has no part in a forum like this one, if Visual Violence becomes a key underground part of CH Forum, then it will have a negative label - unlikely to ever be removed. Also, I am a scholar and an administrator of creative projects and business, if you and your attitude prevail, CH will be very isolated from many sources, this has happened before when one person left with the legitimate attitude of being trashed, she had connections like ya read about and was ready to hand them over to Magnolia.....never happened, never will. I won't do that. At the same time if Ch becomes a jungle of people laughing and gloating in the realms of violence, with a frightened small group of people that just read and rarely post and are always apologetic because of undefined fear left loose on the CH pavement so to speak. At present I cannot recomend CH to anyone I know and I know some interesting people. Why? Because of your attitude towards me (directly) My attitude? I don't have any attitude towards you at all other than puzzlement that you have decided to be rude to me because I asked you a couple of questions because I CAN THINK FOR MYSELF? And I wanted some clarification before I could make a decision FOR MYSELF. Sorry if that offends you, it's just the way I am. and others (indirectly)...

creepyhollows wrote:I read through this entire thing, and the debate of what quantifies "pictorial ugliness" is substantial, however, before Ash & I even consider this...

Where on the board is the example of pictorial ugliness that started this thread?

Also, this thread has served its purpose. If there is a rampant issue of inappropriate photos being posted & there is a need to address the issue, we will. I haven't seen a rampant issue from one member, or multiple members, and if there is one, then someone needs to cite examples.

This is taken under advisement, and we will be prepared to take action at which time this issue becomes an issue. Otherwise, we try to limit censoring because it stifles the process of learning. While we certainly will not tolerate or allow blatant or crude sexual, racist, evil, etc content, we do not want to start the ball rolling for hen-pecking details.

As for member-on-member retorts, neither Ash or I are blind to the obvious, it is the same members engaged in back & forth, and it is the same members targeted & responding in conflict, this is a formal warning for it to end.

Sriman Prajapati Das wrote:

Nocturna wrote:

starfire wrote:Okay I was a little bit nervous about posting on such a hot topic, but what I think is not using such extreme pictures as part of a joke or making fun of what it shows!!! That I do find offensive and in bad taste, for having been the victim of such violence,(rape and beatings, stabbing, getting shot at and barely being missed), I don't find it funny!!!!

There have been many pictures of violence, in pictures, movies, videos, books, cartoons, we see it everyday!!!! Sometimes I think we become immune to it all!!!!

I remember reading the book Exodus, about what happened in the Nazis camps that they had, and what they did to those people was just horrible, as some of you saw in some of the pictures that Magnolia and Ash had posted!!! In the book is was very graphic and not something that I would ever post here, just not a good idea!!!

I think we have enough violence in the world today, don't you? Just my thoughts!!!

starfire :dragons::

I agree, that, yes there is enough violence everywhere. However, in what I said, and not just pertaining to this particular subject only, why should others not be able to post something because of one persons view on the subject or because they don't like it or don't want to see it. I do believe that others feelings should be taken into consideration and not blantently disregarded; however for one person to request a ban on a forum as large as CH, of any type, is truly asinine. I mean I would understand if it was inappropriate things or illegal things, but I mean really. I dunno, just my two cents for whatever it's worth. lol

tHERE ARE ANSWERS TO THAT:
1. You say only one person objects to showing photos and pictures of direct horror. You simply don't know that. There may be mnany people up on the forum that idsagree, but will never say anything, because they have seen (in the recent past) the incredible attacks on me by approximately 15-20 people, and can't handle being treated that way. I can. The can't. And why should they have to stand up to endless questions, and even nasty statements The people who have so strongly turned against this idea (yes there are a few exceptions of polite idsagreement, but for the most part at the gentlest there is the idea that people will just have to put up with pictures of squid being eaten alive, dead creatures covered with shellack or spray used as photo sculptures, asian women impalled on 4 inch wide pipe from rectum through mouth being roasted on a fire; black women forced at gunpoint to eat their own feces, and people tied to crucifixes without nails but also without a foot rest, so their body shrinks down to the floor and the chock to death....

It is not the protection of personal freedom, it is the invasion of the personal freedoms of others.

creepyhollows wrote:I read through this entire thing, and the debate of what quantifies "pictorial ugliness" is substantial, however, before Ash & I even consider this...

Where on the board is the example of pictorial ugliness that started this thread?

Also, this thread has served its purpose. If there is a rampant issue of inappropriate photos being posted & there is a need to address the issue, we will. I haven't seen a rampant issue from one member, or multiple members, and if there is one, then someone needs to cite examples.

This is taken under advisement, and we will be prepared to take action at which time this issue becomes an issue. Otherwise, we try to limit censoring because it stifles the process of learning. While we certainly will not tolerate or allow blatant or crude sexual, racist, evil, etc content, we do not want to start the ball rolling for hen-pecking details.

As for member-on-member retorts, neither Ash or I are blind to the obvious, it is the same members engaged in back & forth, and it is the same members targeted & responding in conflict, this is a formal warning for it to end.

Terror wrote:This discussion would hold traction were not for the absence of pictorial ugliness on CH. I rest my case.