[QUOTE=Mellivora capensis]
Rabid atheist or not, at least you’re both spelling the goddamned word correctly.
[/QUOTE]
One of my most sacred principles is making sure I don’t fuck that particular word up.
[QUOTE=CarnalK]
Way to miss Liberal’s joke people.
[/QUOTE]
What part of his “joke” do you think I missed?
I think it’s quite an interesting insight into an alien mindset.
Sure, lots of other people protest lots of other things on the grounds that they are offensive, insulting or indecent, but the nature of the objection, and the way it is framed here is subtly different from the usual kind of placard-waving protest. Can’t quite define that difference at the moment, but that’s what I’m finding interesting about it.
[QUOTE=MrDibble]
What part of his “joke” do you think I missed?
[/QUOTE]
Actually, from your response, it looks like you knew exactly what he meant.
I guess I said “people” because after reading the 2.5" O’fun post and I saw bbs2k pick up on it. Sorry to generalize. But technically, I didn’t really accuse anyone specifically other than kambuckta for lack of bile. 
[QUOTE=CarnalK]
I saw bbs2k pick up on it.
[/QUOTE]
Wait, are you admitting that I picked up on something? That’s a motherfucking endearing compliment considering some of the other swells things you’ve said about me. Are you warming up to me now ol’ buddy?
[QUOTE=Two and a Half Inches of Fun]
Jesus is a cocksucker.
Feel better?
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=bbs2k]
This is offensive to my religion, and no one should be allowed to say or see this. Mods, get rid of this post!
[/QUOTE]
Cocksucking is a religion now?
[QUOTE=Czarcasm]
Cocksucking is a religion now?
[/QUOTE]
If you do it right.
[QUOTE=CarnalK]
Personally I originally found it kind of funny but seeing how moronic everyone else was in there response to it, it got funnier.
[/QUOTE]
Grammar nitpick: “their” response.
Sailboat
[QUOTE=Sailboat]
Grammar nitpick: “their” response.
Sailboat
[/QUOTE]
I’m voting for spelling nitpick.
[QUOTE=Two and a Half Inches of Fun]
Jesus is a cocksucker.
Feel better?
[/QUOTE]
Absolutely. One assumes that were He to suck a cock, the blessed recipient would never need a blow job again, what with his orgasm being everlasting. I must say that I am pleasantly surprised that no one has stooped to posting a classical portrait of Him from the Renaissance, in the manner of Wikipedia. Perhaps the board is becoming more tolerant after all.
All joking aside, how do you think this should be resolved on Wikipedia, Lib?
[QUOTE=Mangetout]
All joking aside, how do you think this should be resolved on Wikipedia, Lib?
[/QUOTE]
I think if I owned Wikipedia, I’d put together all the information I legally could on everything I could possibly find, including the information that some Muslims are offended by the classical portrait of Muhammad. I would also publish an article on Andres Serrano, including an image of the Piss Christ, noting that some Christians are offended by it. It’s just information.
[QUOTE=Liberal]
I think if I owned Wikipedia, I’d put together all the information I legally could on everything I could possibly find, including the information that some Muslims are offended by the classical portrait of Muhammad. I would also publish an article on Andres Serrano, including an image of the Piss Christ, noting that some Christians are offended by it. It’s just information.
[/QUOTE]
That pretty much my take on it too.
But my reservation comes into play with things like the goatse image, or corpse porn, etc, which is only information too - maybe there is a need for some kind of spoiler system where an additional click is required to reveal information that is known to significantly offend - trouble is then, who gets to draw the boundary line?
Please remove this thread or crush by Allah
[QUOTE=Grossbottom]
Please remove this thread or crush by Allah
[/QUOTE]
Bring it on, I say.
Same thing with the protests raised by Christian groups. Does God need a bunch of whining busybodies to protect his interests by seeking legal restraint on things they don’t like? Why?
If these things are as serious as they claim, and God is who they say he is, he’ll deal with it himself, won’t he?
Maybe he’s travelling, or on the toilet.
[QUOTE=Mangetout]
But my reservation comes into play with things like the goatse image, or corpse porn, etc, which is only information too - maybe there is a need for some kind of spoiler system where an additional click is required to reveal information that is known to significantly offend - trouble is then, who gets to draw the boundary line?
[/QUOTE]
What if they were to do a similar two-click system for the picture of Muhammad? Is the Muslim prohibition against Muslims looking at pictures of the prophet (which they could easily avoid by not clicking), or against anyone looking at them?
[QUOTE=Mangetout]
Maybe he’s travelling, or on the toilet.
[/QUOTE]
Hehe. Good one, Elijah.
[QUOTE=Liberal]
Absolutely. One assumes that were He to suck a cock, the blessed recipient would never need a blow job again, what with his orgasm being everlasting.
[/QUOTE]
I think I might have to become a Christian now… and gay.
[QUOTE=Mangetout]
But my reservation comes into play with things like the goatse image, or corpse porn, etc, which is only information too - maybe there is a need for some kind of spoiler system where an additional click is required to reveal information that is known to significantly offend - trouble is then, who gets to draw the boundary line?
[/QUOTE]
Hmm, interesting. First of all let me apologize for making a joking comment which shortly derailed the thread. But to topic though, I hadn’t thought of your examples. When you asked Lib to seriously consider the question, I visited Wikipedia and typed in the word “nigger”, just as an example of something very controversial. I was greeted by a lot of interesting factual information about the history and context of the word, as well as a lot of contemporary examples of how it’s offensive.
Are there any “SFW” or “NSFW” warnings/rules with Wikipedia?
[QUOTE=Mangetout]
That pretty much my take on it too.
But my reservation comes into play with things like the goatse image, or corpse porn, etc, which is only information too - maybe there is a need for some kind of spoiler system where an additional click is required to reveal information that is known to significantly offend - trouble is then, who gets to draw the boundary line?
[/QUOTE]
I’m just not sure that it’s Wikipedia’s job to protect people from offense. If goat porn (assuming it’s legal) offends you, then don’t open that page. And if you accidentally run across some reference or something, then just be offended. Big fucking deal. Life isn’t over, and you should just press on. Click something else. I think it’s gotten to the point that adults are living in a Dr. Spock world of reality shields. I honestly don’t think I could predict what sort of information would remain if everything that offended anyone was removed.