StarGateWars Forums

wheres the photo?

Nigatsu_Aka wrote:

Legendary Apophis wrote:As I said in my reply to thread before it was moved, it appeared to me as an obvious poor editing from a porn image, where the woman seem to be abused (look at her face..).

It was a girl who is crying and some persons are trying to indulge her. The edit is made in such a way that only pervs could think of that as a porno image. =)

Post the original then (non edited version), if it's not porn at all and is as you say, you shouldn't have issues with posting it eh?

Legendary Apophis wrote:

Nigatsu_Aka wrote:

Legendary Apophis wrote:As I said in my reply to thread before it was moved, it appeared to me as an obvious poor editing from a porn image, where the woman seem to be abused (look at her face..).

It was a girl who is crying and some persons are trying to indulge her. The edit is made in such a way that only pervs could think of that as a porno image. =)

Post the original then, if it's not porn at all and is as you say, you shouldn't have issues with posting it eh?

he did however it got removed

duhh

~Wolverine~ wrote:

Legendary Apophis wrote:

Nigatsu_Aka wrote:

Legendary Apophis wrote:As I said in my reply to thread before it was moved, it appeared to me as an obvious poor editing from a porn image, where the woman seem to be abused (look at her face..).

It was a girl who is crying and some persons are trying to indulge her. The edit is made in such a way that only pervs could think of that as a porno image. =)

Post the original then, if it's not porn at all and is as you say, you shouldn't have issues with posting it eh?

he did however it got removed

duhh

I meant the original NON edited version...
I didn't see it being posted. I only saw the edited version with "snakes". If the non edited original is not porn at all, I would like to see it, to admit I was wrong...if I am..

Tetrismonkey wrote:Why try and post anything explicit? Are you that hungry for an organism you must do so by posting such material for the rest of us to see. Go to a porn site and have some fun there, not here.

dude what you on about. It was about snakes

Tetrismonkey wrote:Why try and post anything explicit? Are you that hungry for an organism you must do so by posting such material for the rest of us to see. Go to a porn site and have some fun there, not here.

Explicit?!

Actually that pic was supposed to be funny, not explicit.

There's a topic on this forum (in the debate central?!) somehow related to the pic I posted:

viewtopic.php?f=167&t=184430&hilit=nude

There was possibly nudity included in that picture. I don't see you or anyone having a problem with talking about nudity and/or porn related stuff on this forum.

If anybody who looked at that image, and didn't get what the 'snakes' were, please raise your hand now.

Nigatsu_Aka wrote:There's a topic on this forum (in the debate central?!) somehow related to the pic I posted:

viewtopic.php?f=167&t=184430&hilit=nude

There was possibly nudity included in that picture. I don't see you or anyone having a problem with talking about nudity and/or porn related stuff on this forum.

Oh nice, a thread of mine.
You also noticed the below underlined/bolded/colored part I guess?

It might be a stereotype, I am sorry if that's the case, but still, I want to see what's everyone opinion on the matter.
Why, in the US (well, I don't really know how it is in Canada, so maybe it's same, maybe not), nudity/erotism content (*not* talking about 'pornography') is considered more as a "negative" thing generally, such as being more importantly restricted/censored, than violence and anything surrounding it?

Mordack wrote:If anybody who looked at that image, and didn't get what the 'snakes' were, please raise your hand now.

*raises hand* oh wait

I did see that remark.
Well, imo the pic I posted does not fall in the "pornography" content type. It can be included in the "fun/education" cathegory.

Legendary Apophis wrote:

Nigatsu_Aka wrote:There's a topic on this forum (in the debate central?!) somehow related to the pic I posted:

viewtopic.php?f=167&t=184430&hilit=nude

There was possibly nudity included in that picture. I don't see you or anyone having a problem with talking about nudity and/or porn related stuff on this forum.

Oh nice, a thread of mine.
You also noticed the below underlined/bolded/colored part I guess?

It might be a stereotype, I am sorry if that's the case, but still, I want to see what's everyone opinion on the matter.
Why, in the US (well, I don't really know how it is in Canada, so maybe it's same, maybe not), nudity/erotism content (*not* talking about 'pornography') is considered more as a "negative" thing generally, such as being more importantly restricted/censored, than violence and anything surrounding it?

Thumbs up to the eunuchs amongst us.

And obviously you know what that image 'looks like' or else you wouldn't have posted it. What point you're trying to prove is beyond me. I can only assume that you have a collection of erotically shaped root vegetables that you're simply dying to début. I dunno, let's see what the ombudsmmanmen think. Lords knows they need something to do.

Nigatsu_Aka wrote:Also, is this offensive? It's just a tree. If you the pervs see something else, it's not my fault that you watch too much "explicit content".

[spoiler][/spoiler]

The basis (at least for me) is not same. Possible abuse of a woman edited into something else versus a funny tree with people looking at it...not the same.

I am curious to see the non-edited version of the "snakes" picture, if it's really nothing porn at all, you should post it here...

I don't have to post the original pic to demonstrate that the pic I posted is not "pornographic".

But I will post a pic with a girl showing the same type of grim. I think they're pretty much the same, one is edited (invented), the other is real.

[spoiler][/spoiler]

Legendary Apophis wrote:

Nigatsu_Aka wrote:Also, is this offensive? It's just a tree. If you the pervs see something else, it's not my fault that you watch too much "explicit content".

[spoiler][/spoiler]

The basis (at least for me) is not same. Possible abuse of a woman edited into something else versus a funny tree with people looking at it...not the same.

I am curious to see the non-edited version of the "snakes" picture, if it's really nothing porn at all, you should post it here...

anyone that can understand what the snakes are, is undoubtedly old enough to understand that that picture is not in any way pornographic, where it originates is of no real concern to anyone, if you were to take the mona lisa and paint over her face, it would stop being the mona lisa. If this picture was pornographic, it certainly isn't now.

Arguing this course will never be resolved as people will have different opinions and neither argument will ever bear fruit.

There is nothing in the picture that is pornographic, there are some badly drawn snakes and a woman cowering, none of these things are in any way pornographic, what the artist has done is take something crude, and transformed it into a piece of humor that most i assume, will find tickles them somewhat.

I realize that my 3rd paragraph conflicts with my second, however i too have an opinion.