gamerabaenre wrote: |
... But it's completely fine to post up machines of war, whose sole purpose is to destroy people and things. It is perfectly fine to post up a model of Adolf Hitler, because he was such a wonderfully family friendly icon. Violence is good, sex is bad right? |
|
That's not an accurate assessment. Most war machines exist to secure a nation's sovreignty and its occupants' liberty. A bust of Hitler has historical context, whereas the nudie babe doesn't. The world (including the youth) should know about Hitler and his atrocities, so we can be vigilant to prevent history from repeating itself. But what does the nudie babe teach us, and our youth, except that women are merely mens' pleasure playtoys? A bust of an evil man is not the same as a degrading portrayal of a woman. Unless you check your logic at the door, you really cannot say that there is no difference between the two.
"Violence is good, sex is bad?" It's not that succinct. You have taken two concepts way out of their context. You have attempted to assert that if someone objects to viewing an icon of a woman degrading herself, then the objector thinks sex as a whole is bad. That's like saying food is bad because some people eat too much of it and become obese. There is nothing wrong with sex. If I really thought sex was bad, I would not have made two kids with my wife. You mistakenly assume this is about sex. The figurine you (skillfully) constructed has nothing to do with sex. It has everything to do with degradation. Again, I would ask you to replace the girl's head with a likeness of your 18-year-old daughter, and then tell me you would have no problem posting the pics in a public forum, or showing it off to your buddies.
gamerabaenre wrote: |
... But where is the outrage against the Clint Eastwood and the noose? Against depiction of the horrors of war. No, again, violence is perfectly fine here. The "portrayal" of the destruction of human lives is perfectly "family friendly". |
|
If there was a body swingin' from the noose, then it WOULD be in bad taste. But it's a man, standing next to an empty noose. And Clint's not flashing his junk, either. Why would this be offensive? C'mon, man.
gamerabaenre wrote: |
Do you know for a fact that many kids do hang out here? You have got to be kidding me. Most folks reading these boards are adults that build models, with the occasional exception of a youth. Oh no, we must protect the youths from smut, but violence towards your fellow man is perfectly fine. Am I translating this correctly? |
|
No, you are not translating correctly. You seem to go out of your way to twist good for evil, and vice-versa, for the sake of justifying your pro-porno position. Can I ask how old you are? Do you have kids? If so, are they allowed to see your nudie collection, or surf websites containing fantasy porn images? See, I do know for a fact that kids read these forums, because, it was my 15-year-old son who brought your post to my attention in the first place!
If you interpret the free posting of photos of military hardware on this site as proof-positive that the moderators condone violence, then you indeed are refusing to apply logic and reason to this conversation. How did we defeat Hitler? With guns and tanks, as I recall. Military hardware brought peace! Posting photos of military hardware does not "teach" youths to go kill people. But it does teach them the terrible price we must pay to preserve our freedom. And this is a valuable lesson, unlike the lesson of Miss Nudiepants, who teaches kids what whores look like, and reduces them to meat. Are you aware that there have been studies which link pornography to violent or abusive behavior?
gamerabaenre wrote: |
|
I think you may feel you have been singled out, but I would wager that there's just not enough time in the day for the moderators to catch every single post.
gamerabaenre wrote: |
Just admit that there is a blatant double standard with it comes to what is considered morally right, and what is considered family friendly. A figure responsible for mass genocide is family friendly; dioramas depicting destruction and dead soliders is family friendly; yet the slightest nudity is not. The mere notion that this is a family friendly site is utter hyprocricy. |
|
OK, let me ask you two questions, then. Is it morally right to portray women as cheap bimbo whores? Is it then also morally right to post its photos to a forum where kids often go?
See again, you toss out logic. No one suggested Hitler is "family friendly". But I think it cannot be debated that evil exists in the world, and it is wise to educate ourselves of this fact, so that we might recognize it and avoid it. And for this reason, knowing the history of Nazi Germany has significant value.
I would have to say the double standard comes from people who say everything should be accepted, then they reject the moderators' point of view! You are demanding a dictatorship, with yourself on the throne!
gamerabaenre wrote: |
I love all the violence, the horrors of war, big giant machines crushing helpless humans, and I enjoy the nudity. But to make a claim that one is worse than the other, is ludricous. |
|
So you enjoy seeing effigies of women in degrading or compromising positions? Are you married? What does your wife think of it? I'd really like to know. How about taking the figurine to your local shopping mall. Ask a random 10 or 20 women there what they think of it, and how they think it portrays women in general. I'm glad you have the freedom to enjoy what you enjoy. But please don't foist it upon others who don't enjoy it. Or where kids can get to it.
(Glad we're keeping the healthy discussion friendly.)