pictures of dead animals forbidden on SD?

I don’t understand why inthis thread , a link to site which apparently included pictures of dead/tortured animals has been removed?

I mean, the poster had warned the readers that the pictures were unsavory and that some people wouldn’t want to see them. If someone nevertheless look at them, it his/her responsability. One can’t even argue that it could be a problem if one was to visit this site from one’s office computer (as opposed to a pornographic site, for instance). So, I really don’t understand why the link was removed. Would it be the same for a site with some other kind of unsavory pictures? Say, war pictures? surgery? mummies?

Yes, with the definition of “unsavory” being determined by a moderator viewing the thread.

If you plant a land mine, then you warn someone that it is there, and they step on it, you are still responsible. If you post a picture that would get someone in trouble, such as in work, even if you put warnings up, you are still responsible. Part is human stupidity. The other is you.

I don’t think that the nature of the SDMB is to look at tortured and dead animals in a quest for banishment of ignorance. If you have to submit to that grotesqueness, there are plenty of other sites you can look at. I commend the mods for that action, on account of general decency for your fellow person.

Ok…But that doesn’t help me to understand why. For a pornographic link, I can understand, since there’s a risk that children would check the link (that most people would consider as a bad idea) or that a viewer would get into trouble at work after having checked the link. But a dead animal? I don’t get it. What is the actual issue from the admin/moderators point of view?
Also, I just remember something. At some point in the past, i was about to begin a basic training as an artificer (for fireworks…don’t know what’s the correct name in english) and I checked many sites to get some relevant informations. One of them, along with warnings about safety issues, had pictures which were extremely unsavory and certainly helped to get their point. Though it made me think twice, I don’t remember if this site in particular included very useful infos, but let’s assume it did.

Would a link to the site (but not directly to the pictures) be removed if it was relevant to the question asked (for instance, let’s assume that at this time I had requested infos about safety issues and fireworks on the SDMB)?

Does this mean that pictures of my taxidermed animals and flying rats and turtles are forbidden?

From the “Guidelines for Posting at the SDMB” FAQ.

Pictures of animals being tortured are IMO both obscene and vulgar.

Looks to me like that pretty well covers it.

clairobscur - the issue is that the moderator thought the picture was too graphic to post publicly at the SDMB. If you want to know what kind of picture would provoke that reaction, then contact the poster and ask them to send the picture privately to you via e-mail.
If you’re not sure that a picture is acceptable for the SDMB, then e-mail a moderator first.

Turpentine - I’m not sure if you are kidding or not. Did you look at the thread to which clairobscur posted a link, and notice that LynnBodoni left a link to another picture of a dead animal? If you still are unsure of what pictures are unacceptable at the SDMB, then e-mail a moderator before posting the link.

What about showing dead animals after they’ve been digested, like the link in this thread?

Bearflag70 - while that’s not the kind of link I enjoy seeing people post to the SDMB, I personally don’t find it offensive enough to remove. Are you saying you think we should remove the link?

I guess that’s what I don’t get. Why a picture could be “too graphic to be posted publically” I can understand that someone could be disturbed by seeing a tortured animal or whatever. But once he’s warned that the picture is very graphic, what’s the issue? He’s not required to look at it. He does so only if he wants too.
I could understand too that a link would be deleted if it’s irrelevant, since some people could want to post links to shocking pictures just for the sake of it. But it’s not the case.
I could understand also if the link was to a site advocating something which could strongly hurt some people’s feelings like “how to butcher properly your dog” or “how to desacrate holy stuff” with pictures. But it wasn’t the case, either.
These pictures aren’t illegal, or anything. You can’t be prosecuted for posting them. Looking at them can’t get someone into troubles. The viewer is warned, and click on the link knowingly. Honestly, I can’t figure out what’s the problem. I’m alone on this, or something escapes me, or what?
Also, what about my other question concerning links to a site which contains graphic pictures but not to the pictures themselves?

I must say I understand even less after having checked Bearflag’s link. Though I didn’t read the thread, it seems to me it’s pointless scatology. Both the link and the site itself seem pointless. If this pass the test and not relevant pictures related to a real issue, I’m even more confused…

You’re still missing the point. They’re too graphic to be posted publicly at the SDMB. It’s irrelevant that it’s a legal picture, or that there was a warning attached to the link. Yes, you choose to click the link. But the SDMB has its own set of rules in addition to the law. And the relevant SDMB rule is that some pictures are too graphic to post publicly. If links are posted to photos or sites that the mods/admins think are too graphic, then they have the right to delete them. Simple as that.

And I just had to ask:

So you’re saying that while a child seeing pictures of people having sex may be objectionable, it’s okay if they see dead, mutilated animals?

No. I’m not missing the point. I know the staff have the right to delete whatever they want. They could delete all links to pictures of butterflies, for instance. But my question is why would they want to delete them. I didn’t said “how on earth can they dare to delete links to this stuff. That’s a blatant infrigment on my constitutional rights” or such crap…

I didn’t say that. I wrote that “**most people **would consider it as a bad idea”. I didn’t give my opinion on this matter. But I assume it’s common knowledge that a lot of people are very, very, strongly opposed to their kids seeing pornography. I know these offended people could make a big deal about this and it could be a pain in the ass for the site owners. So, I wouldn’t be surprised if the moderators carefully supressed such links.

As for children seeing dead animals being the reason for deleting the link, I must admit it didn’t even occur to me. Probably because I seldom or never heard anybody complaining about childrens being exposed to too much dead animals (as opposed to pornography). To answer the question, I probably wouldn’t want an impressive 5 y.o. seeing pictures of a tortured animal . But I somewhat doubt that the link was deleted to protect small children’s sleep.
In both cases, it seems to me you didn’t actually read what I wrote but assumed I meant something you expected me to think (namely : “they’ve no right to delete stuff” and “pornography is worst than violence”). But I’m the wrong target for these accusations, sorry…

We’re trying to keep the SDMB from being the nastiest site on the web, for one thing. Despite the Pit, and despite Unka Cecil answering questions about “Why is shit brown?”, we still have SOME standards.

Trust me, that link would have disturbed an adult’s sleep. It still disturbs mine.

That link was more than just “dead animals”. It was mutilated, tortured, pained, near-death-yet-somehow-not-dead-with-faces-ripped-off pictures of animals.

I don’t see why you’re making such a big deal out of this, Clair. While some of us - myself included - would prefer that we live in a world where everyone could handle such outrageously horrific images, that simply is not the case. Out of, say, a hundred people that might’ve viewed that thread, there might be one single person who, in an instance where curiosity overpowers caution, clicks on the link, and suffers a panic attack or some other extremely negative reaction.

Since it simply ain’t necessary for the other 99 people to see the image (trust me, the link that was left was more than enough), I think it makes sense to make doubly sure that the curious won’t check out those sites.

If I made any assumptions, it was because I didn’t think it actually needed to be explained why something potentially disturbing and upsetting would be better off being removed by the mods and admins.

I know what you’re getting at, clairobscur. The warning’s there; why put the effort to protect people from themselves? Thing is, you can’t ensure that a person who clicks the link is fully expecting something graphic. And you can’t always predict how you or someone else will react to or be affected by something.

To prevent people from being upset or disturbed, it’s easier to just take those links down. Those who really want to see such things can e-mail whoever posted the link, or look for the pics themselves.

Why was the link deleted? Because it’s fucking nasty, that’s why. How this is such a difficult concept for people to understand, I’ll never get. The board mods don’t like it, it gets cut, simple as that. Anyone here can to go animal mutilation sites all on their own without having a direct link to it through the SDMB (as well as porn, etc). They’re trying to keep this a decent place, and it’s a fine line requiring judgement calls.

In this and many other respects, the mods are very helpful. If you are unsure if a nasty/violent/nude pic is appropriate, e-mail one and ask. It’s not that difficult really.
Or the poster could have said “Man, I came across this website with the nastiest tortured animals on it- e-mail me if you want a link”.


Now you have me confused. You can understand getting rid of pornography, but you can’t understand getting rid of torture. So you assume that people would complain about pornography, but not torture? Meaning that torture is more acceptable in society than pornography?
Most of the people I know would prefer to see pornography rather than torture.
Did you ever see the picture to which LynnBodoni removed a link?

No. I was just curious about the limits of “decency” at SDMB. Not having seen the link that was removed, I have no basis upon which to compare to the removed link.

I fully understand and appreciate the rights of SDMB to remove anything at a whim, and its need to preserve some kind of decency standard, however arbitrary. SDMB is privately owned, so, it has no duty to apply its rules consistently.

Although I don’t like the idea of protecting someone from him or herself after that person has been forewarned, it’s gonna happen here, and get over it. :smiley:

I actually ran into this sort of situation once. When I was in college, I was working in a physiological psychology lab at the university. One day I had to go through a set of slides that we had, working from a list, pull out certain slides and send them off to have 8x10" photos developed. It was for a study that required strong emotions, both positive and negative, to be spurred. Some photos were nice - kids eating ice cream or playing, a gorgeous Indian woman in a sari, couples walking in the park. Some were brutal - autopsy photos, crime scene pictures, mutilated animals. And there were a few nude photos - airbrushed, near-artistic, no full-frontal nudity but close. Obviously adults, and professionally-taken photos. No sexual acts depicted.

A couple weeks later, I get the photos back, and have to sort them. A small envelope with a few slides in it is separate from the others. There’s a handwritten note on the front that these “couldn’t” be developed. You guessed it, the nudes.

I explain the situation to the researcher, who says to call the lab. A very apologetic-sounding woman explains to me that it’s “company policy”. I couldn’t resist asking - I noted the university’s address on the order, described the research project, and briefly described some of the other photos in the set that they did develop. She apologized, saying she couldn’t go against policy - unless I sent a letter on our letterhead explaining the reason we needed them developed.

If I had to choose between which photos I’d rather have a child accidentally see, you bet I’d rather it be the airbrushed-and-buff nudes we had, rather than, say, the woman beaten so badly her eyes were swollen shut and you couldn’t tell what race she was from the face shot because of the bruising, or the man (I think) who’d blown half his head off committing suicide.

Not that this has anything to do with the enforcement of the SDMB board rules, which I respect.