if i draw a picture and put a million dollar price tag on it would it make it ok? i just dont see a difference between posting 2 different nonsexual pictures. in my mind both should result in a ban

It's different. Stupid social constructs, always resisting simplicity...

When we think of those old nude paintings we should interpret them with a bit of cultural empathy. People of that age really believed the paintings they made were non sexual. So for the sake of understanding the times they lived and their art, we must find nude paintings acceptable. But a photograph with a girl showing her boobs isn't ok, because it was made in our time, when society frowns against pictures of boobs.

It's complicated, but you catch my drift...

i think i know what you mean. the concept of "hur dur it was ok then but dont do it now" is completely ignorant to me. Boobs are boobs, just because the tits are 500 years old instead of 20 shouldnt make the socially acceptable.

Boobs are boobs, but you can't censor art that lasted for millenia because some people might be offended today. Internet is a public space just like a museum is, so either we lock up all the greek statues or we learn how to correctly interpret culture.

You will notice that when it comes to informative channels like schools, museums, documentaries or news, the authorities who regulate censorship are very cool about it. I watched a documentary about a tribe in Africa where all the women had their tits hanging out. It was aired at 4PM and nobody flipped shit.

And most of all,

there is no most of all, that's some residual text from rephrasing.

wait, so the age of art and the price value is what makes its ok to show? both of the are women showing boobs. neither of them are doing anything sexual.

I would argue that priceless works of art should be immune, and that it is a drawing not a photo...but this is the internet. I should know better.

if i draw a picture and put a million dollar price tag on it would it make it ok? i just dont see a difference between posting 2 different nonsexual pictures. in my mind both should result in a ban

It's different. Stupid social constructs, always resisting simplicity...

When we think of those old nude paintings we should interpret them with a bit of cultural empathy. People of that age really believed the paintings they made were non sexual. So for the sake of understanding the times they lived and their art, we must find nude paintings acceptable. But a photograph with a girl showing her boobs isn't ok, because it was made in our time, when society frowns against pictures of boobs.

It's complicated, but you catch my drift...

i think i know what you mean. the concept of "hur dur it was ok then but dont do it now" is completely ignorant to me. Boobs are boobs, just because the tits are 500 years old instead of 20 shouldnt make the socially acceptable.

Boobs are boobs, but you can't censor art that lasted for millenia because some people might be offended today. Internet is a public space just like a museum is, so either we lock up all the greek statues or we learn how to correctly interpret culture.

You will notice that when it comes to informative channels like schools, museums, documentaries or news, the authorities who regulate censorship are very cool about it. I watched a documentary about a tribe in Africa where all the women had their tits hanging out. It was aired at 4PM and nobody flipped shit.

And most of all,

there is no most of all, that's some residual text from rephrasing.

i did a little dance in my chair to this comment, have a thumb yourself sir!

the whole war was pointless to begin with, and i dont understand why people defend it..

explain it to me, please

it wasn't about going after the terrorists, thats one small group...

it was about revenge, that's it.. and revenge is pointless, it's blind and worthless

We asked The taliban to turn over Osama Bin Laden, the Taliban -refused- on several occasions, and tried to bargain. President Bush refused negotiations, we knew they did it, they admitted they did it, and Al Qaeda helped keep the Taliban regime in power, in Afghanistan the Taliban Al Qaeda was one in the same.

Thank you, but I got this.

he responded by waging war on the whole of iraq and iran... instead of going for JUST the one responsible, he went after the whole

that's not a good thing, if you don't understand

He went to war with Afghanistan, whose brutal Taliban regime was hiding Osama Bin Laden and let him establish numerous training camps across the country, and then went to war with Iraq, whose dictatorship put down revolts against his rule in the past with things like, chemical weapons. That's not a good thing, if you don't understand.

the whole war was pointless to begin with, and i dont understand why people defend it..

explain it to me, please

it wasn't about going after the terrorists, thats one small group...

it was about revenge, that's it.. and revenge is pointless, it's blind and worthless

We asked The taliban to turn over Osama Bin Laden, the Taliban -refused- on several occasions, and tried to bargain. President Bush refused negotiations, we knew they did it, they admitted they did it, and Al Qaeda helped keep the Taliban regime in power, in Afghanistan the Taliban Al Qaeda was one in the same.

Thank you, but I got this.