Can We Cut It Out With The Racy Avatars?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally posted by swede79
Gollnick, you're right on. It's not about censorship, it's called maturity. I find it interesting that some of the most vocal objectors and "racy" avatar owners also have some "firefighter 9/11" stuff in their sig lines, like they have the high moral road. :rolleyes:

Keep dreaming guys.
Click to expand...

I am offended by that statement.:grumpy:

Originally posted by NeedleRemorse
So a Gulf vet and firefighter, wife and father isn't high morally? I hope a liner fails on you.

Such ignorance. Sorry to anyone feeling offended, but this thread has to die, it's getting bad.

I sound like a jerk, and at this point I don't care. The only moral thing here to do is to lock this thread because the subtle insults are showing a lack of maturity.
Click to expand...

Well put.
 
I wonder if the tight-assed nature of this thread has anything to do with religion.
Click to expand...

Probably.



And let the record show that I'm not the one who insulted Ken.
 
Grommit
I was just alerted to this thread over at W&C and I just gotta add my two cents
WHAT YOU TALKIN ABOUT WILLIS!!!?
dont give me that crap that " you refuse ANY LONGER ..JUST CANNOT TOLERATE... to sit around the ol computer on BF with your children" BREASTS ARE EVIL..NAKED WOMEN ARE OFFENSIVE..I wish Blade Forums was just like the piano on xmas eve singing hymms with Grandma and Grandpa. What a load of self righteous crap! I have three kids at home..all interested in knives and computer..all could care less about this board and avatars...never once have I had my three kids gathered around the puter..for this board or ANYTHING..
The Holy Roller Code..Use children when trying to pass of my myopia and taboos on other people..

my children will be vicitimized by the further use of breasts..in avatars..ohh dear me..we must all stop this..

there are probably 4 guys on this whole board..of HUNDREDS of members who have risque avatars..put them on you ignore list, turn off avatars,,



you also see more skin at the checkout line at a Kroger or renting a movie at blockbuster...



in other words..take your PC manure somewhere else..
 
And let the record show that I'm not the one who insulted Ken.
Click to expand...

I know. I'm sorry if it seemed like I was attacking you. It's just that Swede79 slightly pissed me off. Especially about the "I'd never like those knives because of the nudism"

Nice site, btw. I'll have to look into those more.
 
I finally just read (partially) this thread and I am amazed at the immaturity. If you are truly "offended" by someones avitar, you need to buck up son. Disable the damn little pictures that "offend" you :barf: and it's a dead issue. If you can't deal with little pictures of scantily clad women on a public knife forum, well....you're a self rightous pussy. I'm a God fearing man and a die hard Republican, but I'm not some pansy that gets "offended" over a something like this.
 
Would you turn down a Michaelangelo just because of its nudity?
Click to expand...

No. But I would be a bit sensitive about how and where I displayed it.

In fact, there was just recently a case in the news of a man who got in a bit of trouble with his city for displaying a copy of Michaelangelo's David in his front lawn. He ended up moving it to the back yard where it isn't visible from the street.

Recently, another owner of a bit of sculpture got into trouble because of the subject matter of his piece and where it was displayed. A federal court ruled that even if you are the chief justice of a state supreme court, it's not appropriate for you to display your sculpture of the Ten Commandments in the lobby of the state supreme court building. It might be offensive to some people and it might give some people the wrong impression about the nature of our courts and justice system. It's not a matter that the sculpture was or was not attractive or skillfully or artistically designed and/or executed. It was a matter of where and how it was displayed. It was in the wrong place.

I happen to agree with the court's decision in that case. The owner of this work of art -- supreme court justice or not -- was being selfish and immature by not considering the opinions of others in choosing where to display his sculpture and by not considering the impact that it might have on the institution of the courts in that building. There's nothing wrong with the sculpture; it was just in the wrong place.

Likewise, there's nothing wrong with these avatars; they are just in the wrong place. And those who insist on keeping them there even after being shown how they may be offensive to some people and how they may have a negative impact on the knife community in general, are being selfish and immature.
 
Especially about the "I'd never like those knives because of the nudism"
Click to expand...

He probably wouldn't like my scrimshawed piece either.



If you are truly "offended" by someones avitar, you need to buck up son.
Click to expand...

If it was just offensive to me, personally, that is precisely what I would do and what I often do.

But, I believe that this sort of thing affects the whole community, the public image of knives and knife knuts.
 
Likewise, there's nothing wrong with these avatars; they are just in the wrong place. And those who insist on keeping them there even after being shown how they may be offensive to some people and how they may have a negative impact on the knife community in general, are being selfish and immature
Click to expand...

Gollnick,
Please! I've never seen a pornographic or obviously inappropriate avatar here. You can't dictate the actions of the majority by the whim of the minority. (unless you are an elected democrat)!
 
Originally posted by Gollnick
Likewise, there's nothing wrong with these avatars; they are just in the wrong place. And those who insist on keeping them there even after being shown how they may be offensive to some people and how they may have a negative impact on the knife community in general, are being selfish and immature.
Click to expand...
Whereas you keep coming back to this issue.

Chuck: those two instances you cited had rules and regulations behind them. The David statute is probably in violation of some obscure obsenity display rule. The 10 Commandments is in direct violation of the seperation of Church and State. Which made the removal of those offending items a matter of enforcement. It doesn't matter if you agree with the decision or not. The racy avatars are not in violation of any written forum rules, other than offending you on your own personal view points. In a community as diverse as BF, if what offends you is not in violation of the rules, it's you that needs to make the concession. And there are mechanisms in place for you to do it.
 
I think Gollnick is showing some moxie here. He's a decent guy who's taking a position that he believes in, despite most members disagreeing with him. He truly believes this will give this Forum a better impression to newcomers if the pictures are not so "racy". Maybe he's right.

It's alright to argue but, just because someone here may disagree with someone else that is no excuse to start seriously insulting a fellow member.

Now back to the arguement...

By the way Gollnick, about this topic, your wrong!! :D
 
It's alright to argue but, just because someone here may disagree with someone else that is no excuse to start seriously insulting a fellow member
Click to expand...

You are right, I'm sorry. I didn't mean to imply that Gollnick was a democrat. That was very rude of me and I apoligise.:D
 
as qouted by Swede79
I find it interesting that some of the most vocal objectors and "racy" avatar owners also have some "firefighter 9/11" stuff in their sig lines, like they have the high moral road.
Click to expand...

RANT MODE ON AND RUNNING FULL BORE

:mad:

You SOB! How dare you! "some firefighter 9/11 stuff"?!!! You got balls dude. I was at Ground Zero. I dug for bodies. I lost friends. Don't even try to make me out like I am something better than you. I am like everyone else. I work hard, I play hard, I am devoted to my family and my job, I am devoted to my brother firefighters, living and dead. I will bend over backwards for anyone, anytime should they need help, regardless, of race, color, creed, religion, AVATAR!!! You don't know me, and I am damn sure I don't wanna know you. You ****ing POS. I put that avatar up because it reminds me of that there are still beautiful people in the world inspite of the **** I see on a daily basis in my line of work and it brings me a little bit of joy on a daily basis.

"some firefighter 9/11 stuff"....................**** you!
 
Swede79,
Although I agree with you mostly (in the past), I think that you are WAY off base with this one. The men and women who responded to and dealt with the GROTESQUE scene on 9/11 have A LOT of breathing room here. Let some phucking maniacs kill 3000 people from your town in one day and lets see if your perspective changes.
 
Originally posted by swede79
Gollnick, you're right on. It's not about censorship, it's called maturity. I find it interesting that some of the most vocal objectors and "racy" avatar owners also have some "firefighter 9/11" stuff in their sig lines, like they have the high moral road. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...


Not cool swede. I've met Ken at Blade and got to know him in chat. He is a good guy and a well respected member of the forums.
I don't think this issue has anything to do with morals and Ken certainly didn't deserve what you said about him.
 
I'd like to say that folks such as K.V. Collucci are the folks who are out there sacrificing their lives for us on a daily basis. They should be treated with honor.

Gollnick, ever been to the Getty Museum in California? You would approve. They have scores of Classical Greek statuary. Mrs. Getty was offended by the display of genitals. So, she chiseled them off and hid them in a shoebox. Nice work, eh? History defaced due to a prude. As far as Michaelangelo, hey, some of his stuff is on display in Roman Catholic cathedrals! The Vatican has scads of Classical Greek statuary also, I might add. And they weren't offended ernough to be chiseling off cranks and sacks.

On the display of the Ten Commandments. There is no "separation of church and state". That is not what the Constitutional Amendment says. It says, ...shall make no laws RESPECTING an establishment of religion..." In the semantics of the day, "respecting" means "pertaining to" or "in regards to", NOT "paying homage to" as the modern usage of "respecting" usually means. In other words, laws may not be passed in regard to religion, either establishing a state religion, pronouncing an anathema on a religion, or requiring membership in a religion. I, for one, do not think the display of the Ten Commandments violates the spirit of the Constitution. But, in a nation where some people go from breathing to hyperventilation in .001 seconds, it gives cause to "offend" some poor whiner, so it was removed.

And this brings us back to the topic. Where are you going to draw the line at what is "offensive"? Define "offensive". Can I get "offended", too, or is this a private club? Gollnick, you seem to see the need for fig leaves, or the need to defend the fig leaves at least. The question I pose is this: Do the people who are "offended" by the display of semi-nude females REALLY object to them based on some alleged moral grounds? Or are they, in reality, fearful of the response of their own minds (perhaps even bodies) at the sight of such? Does one need to put blindfolds on to avoid temptation, as it were? If so, this brings us immediately back to an earlier point I made. Without CHOICE, you have no reason to be anything but good if that is the path you are compelled to follow. But you are an automaton.
 
I'm supprised that this post has gone this far.

If you worked for me and I found out you had a habit of surfing the web on my time, you'd be fired! Regardless of the content.

This forum is recreation and I like to see the different avatars. That is my liberty.

You decide what you want to look at.

Collecter
 
Originally posted by samhell
Not cool swede. I've met Ken at Blade and got to know him in chat. He is a good guy and a well respected member of the forums.
I don't think this issue has anything to do with morals and Ken certainly didn't deserve what you said about him.
Click to expand...

Well put.
 
The other day my friend's 3 year old got one of those imaginary injuries and started bawling over nothing while I was watching him. I said: "Hey, it's not hurting you, so stop crying".
And he did.
Too bad some of you can't operate on that level...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top