Just a quickey, was talking some chaps about what can post or not post on renderosity.
Now question's raised were if someone did historical art of SS troop's would it be banned, as if banned wont people say.
Ban any military pic of modern jewish solder's as arab's would not like, or especialy any american solders pictures as to what is happen in iraq.
Now 1 thing if someone posted an avatar of hitler would that be banned as 1 chap has an avatar of joseph stalin, the greatest mass murderer of the 20th century.
Even russians are saying he may have wiped out 40 million people instead 20 million.
Now my question is simple after all the butchers of the 20th century and some in power today where is the line drawn on what can be posted.
What is peoples thought's on the matter, if someone can post an avatar of stalin or the other great butcher, mao of china who wiped out 70 million people, if so then can an avatar of hitler be posted.
I hate to see someone post an avatar of bonzo george bush, and his hollynes jesus tony blair holding hand's.
Now that would be real horrific sight.

yes, I too abhor having to be politically correct, having to moderate my own speech. however, the membership here has shown in the past they don't have the latter capacity. so I reluctantly agree that it's necessary to be politically correct here, to avoid cliques and lynch mobs, in order to make this place welcome to the maximum number of people, regardless of race, nationality, or religion. privately we might harbour prejudices or misconceptions about the world as we perceive it, but nobody profits from expressing those negative feelings. there are some other poser-related sites where such behaviour is allowed or encouraged, so those places are always an option for the like-minded. they make a good argument for those who have no other way to work out their feelings than from the safety of the computer keyboard.

Would you both actually prefer to see me banned because of an avatar? Haven't there been enough already, although I will say that I'd be in good stead if I were.
Dzhugashvili's Gerbille

STOP PALESTINIAN CHILD ABUSE!!!! ISLAMIC HATRED OF JEWS

David, I don't think anyone wants YOU banned in particular. But jugoth has a point though: If you can't use a pic of Hitler as an avatar (which BTW I don't know IF you can) then you shouldn't be able to use a pic of Stalin either. Or other heads-of-state btw.

I personally would feel odd if someone had a pic of Mary and Jesus as an avatar, too. Not because I'm a christian but because I'm not.

As for what you can use in the gallery here, it's more tricky. AFAIK you can't show swastika's here, but what if you made a clearly anti-nazi picture (which was the reason why I made the Exploding Swastika prop btw - and that WAS accepted in Free Stuff here)

Political correctness is always awkward because other people decide what is right and wrong. And because it all springs off a "be careful not to insult ANYONE", you end up insulting EVERYONE on their intelligence instead.

From my observation of having been on the net 7 years, there are 2 topics that you avoid like the plague ...

Religion;
Politics.

People's views and opinions on religion and politics are stong and run deep and any discussions are likely to end up in name calling, fights and hard feelings because people haven't learned to respect other peoples' views. Instead of listening and accepting that someone has a different view than our own, many...ok, most...tell people their views are wrong and seek to try and convince them to change.

Those 2 topics are volatile and have a long, long history of war and blood shed and I don't see that changing in the near or distant future.

As for pictures for avatars and sigs etc. From what I understand whatever you use has to comply with the site rules where copyright and nudity is concerned.

I don't really care who people worship as their heros. We are all adults and we all have choices and if someone chooses to admire someone that I don't, it's certainly not my place to tell them they are wrong for doing so.

"It is good to see ourselves as others see us. Try as we may, we are never
able to know ourselves fully as we are, especially the evil side of us.
This we can do only if we are not angry with our critics but will take in good
heart whatever they might have to say." - Ghandi

BTW, Trekki, I used a couple of your props in my most recent upload. You can see them here: http://www.renderosity.com/mod/gallery/index.php?image_id=1343236
;=]
DPH
PS: Check out Wiktorija, the final legacy of 'The Steel Rat.'

STOP PALESTINIAN CHILD ABUSE!!!! ISLAMIC HATRED OF JEWS

Would it be a useful distraction if I started talking about anal sex or something?

My Freebies

The TOS states that images/writing must not attack or insult people (this would also include groups of people... so an avatar saying "All homos must die" would be out), nor should they be posted in an attempt to cause disruption.

Aside from that, things are decided on an ad hoc basis. We do allow the representation of historical figures/imagery as long as it's depicting a historical event (or commenting on current events) and not an attempt to glamourize or lionize the indefensible. Thus, an image showing SS troops fighting would be acceptable, whilst a dirigible-boobed woman wearing an SS cap, swastika armband and little else would not.

Hope this helps. Remember if you are unsure you can always contact a member of staff and we'll discuss and give guidance before you post.

"you are terrifying
and strange and beautiful
something not everyone knows how to love." - Warsan Shire

I see my distraction worked perfectly! Muahaha!

My Freebies

it don't matter to me what folks use in their avatars. I learnt, in the first week nic enabled 'em, that many were ugly or offensive, so I disabled 'em. same goes for tawdry giant-boobs, no-shadow nostril-glow renders, senseless violence, et al. - nobody's forcing me to look at 'em. :lol: however, it takes considerably less testicular fortitude to use 'rosity (or some other poser- related site) as a platform for one's hostility, than it does to set up one's own site somewhere else, and be prepared for the attacks by hackers and extemists. clearly, if one wants to use such a popular site as this for one's political platform, the only purpose is to offend the maximum number of people with the minimum effort.

Quote - ]an image showing [...] a dirigible-boobed woman wearing an SS cap, swastika armband and little else would not [be acceptable].

Not that this is an image I would make, but why not? I don't see what rule such an image would have broken. Maybe somebody just thinks Nazi chicks are hawt....

¤~Giolon~¤

¤~ RadiantCG ~¤~ My Renderosity Gallery ~¤

Acadia wrote:

*From my observation of having been on the net 7 years, there are 2 topics that you avoid like the plague ...

Religion;
Politics.

*I think you have to walk a very thin line to avoid these items,even wishing "a merry christmas" can be offending to other religions.

There was an item on the dutch news that in some cities in the USA, the traditional christmas trees were removed, because some other religions (No, I don't call which one!) were complaining about them. Now, how far can you go?

-How can you improve things when you don't make mistakes?

Personally, I have no real problem with 'rosity's TOS. They are, after all, an international site and don't want to offend anyone.

Except, of course, that certain (major) religious sects consider the depiction of the human figure as being an insult to their deity. (Not naming them, 'cos I don't want to get into trouble).

Which means that members of those sects would automatically define 'rosity as a place of sin, and therefore a potential target for attack by the more fundamental members. Yet 'rosity continues to allow this...

Well, they have to don't they? Otherwise they'd go out of business....

Some of the other concerns of the TOS are about nudity. In my home town of Reading, UK, there are at least two statues of what look like pre-pubescent naked girls on public display. Yet if I were to photograph them and post those photos here, they'd be against the TOS. As would a lot of main-stream masterpiece art showing the infant Jesus (with genitals) or cupids ditto. Or the "fairys/pixies" from the Victorian era.

Oh, well, it takes all sorts.

All of which might explain why I don't post many pictures here (and have no gallery), just stuff that might be useful as tutorials for effects in the mat room/cloth room etc.

'Rosity is, IMHO, a trifle over concerned with political correctness.

But that's the way it goes. Doesn't mean I'll leave. Just means I won't post anything that might possibly be against the TOS...

Cheers,
Diolma

I think a picture of the famous belgian little peeing man would be out of the question!

-How can you improve things when you don't make mistakes?

Most good art and most good speech is offensive in nature. You can't please everyone, and the whole notion that you can do anything at all without offending anyone in the whole world is a pipe-dream.

On my daily drive to work, the overtly sexual ad billboards are highly offensive, I hate the rewriting of Christmas carols and "Twas the Night Before Christmas" for radio commercials...

Twas the night before Christmas and we all need a car...

you get the point. It all offends somebody. But life is not about not offending anyone, living is a series of things, some we enjoy and others we detest. There is only one way to cleanse offense from the planet - and that's to get rid of the humans!

Merry Christmas (haha)...

Quote - There is only one way to cleanse offense from the planet - and that's to get rid of the humans!

Merry Christmas (haha)...

Or to learn tolerance! To appreciate the fact that we are all different and to graciously accept that.

Someone mentioned the removal of Christmas trees in some areas. That's happening in Canada too. And to me that's just going too far.

I'm all for blending of cultures but don't stomp on the rights of people to celebrate their religion. First there was the elimination of the Lord's Prayer in school, and now Christmas trees. However, on the other side of the coin some cultures have fought and won the right to wear certain clothing items and carry certain types of "weapons" in schools / work / jobs etc all in the name of their religious beliefs. So how exactly is that different from putting up a Christmas tree at Christmas or saying the Lord's Prayer in a public school?

All of this political correctness is taking on a double standard, and that's what is truly offensive.

We all need to learn tolerance, and unfortunately I don't see that happening any time soon :(

Quote - *
*I think you have to walk a very thin line to avoid these items,even wishing "a merry christmas" can be offending to other religions.

This is a myth. Find me one person who is sincerely offended by "Merry Christmas" on religious grounds. Are you offended by Eid or Diwali?

Quote - Aside from that, things are decided on an ad hoc basis. We do allow the representation of historical figures/imagery as long as it's depicting a historical event (or commenting on current events) and not an attempt to glamourize or lionize the indefensible. Thus, an image showing SS troops fighting would be acceptable, whilst a dirigible-boobed woman wearing an SS cap, swastika armband and little else would not.

I'm really not seeing that such an image exactly glamorizes Nazism. I would suggest it rather parodies it.

There's a genre of comic art in which relic Nazis are the bad guys. If you are saying that Renderosity no longer allows depiction of any bad guys except in historical works, then things are getting a bit crazy.

Quote - > Quote - *

*I think you have to walk a very thin line to avoid these items,even wishing "a merry christmas" can be offending to other religions.

This is a myth. Find me one person who is sincerely offended by "Merry Christmas" on religious grounds. Are you offended by Eid or Diwali?

Oh gawd...

In the community I lived in before Hurricane Rita there were a few that gave me much venom for saying it.

One was a pagan that got riled up because I, also pagan, actually wished Merry Christmas to a Christian..... I told them where to stuff thier rightious indignation, another was of a Judeo-Christian sect that does not observe Christmas, and they totally went off on me. And these were in the deep south of Texas, somewhere I would have never guesses it to be un-safe to say.

This was two Christmas's ago and I still don't get it. :rolleyes: Good thoughts for another are good thoughts for another, IMO, and if there is no thinly veiled insult (rare, but it happens) I will always give a sincere thanks.

Orchid - glad to be in a new place that she hasn't run into this in. :)

Want a shirt?

So weird, indeed. I often wonder about people sometimes and consider how great this place would be (the world at large) if there was no religeon to be had at all.

I am not christian, jew, ........ basically no religeon persea, however I have never EVER been offended by anyone telling me "Merry Christmas" "God bless you", or saying "Mozeltov" (sp?) when we're having a drink. I walk by lit crosses and think how pretty they are, Manorahs and respect them and count the lit candles as I walk by it. I actually revel in the icons of mankind, because we seem so attracted to them, age after age by some primal recognition.

I Often wonder if a person needs to believe in "nothing" to not by offended by "anything".

I have found things in bad taste, in my OPINION, but not offensive. If i see something that I do not like, I move on to something else i DO like. I can understand why some images might offend some, if they have a background with the material in the image.

But as artists, isn't that the point? To incite an emotion when one looks at it? If their taste level runs them to disturb, then perhaps they are just doing thier job.

Tolerance is based off of being secure in your own beliefs. What ever those beliefs are. In general, if you are easily offended, you should look at WHY more than WHAT.....

I try to be accepting of other peoples foibles as much as my own fallibility. No one is perfect. God does not play favorites.

GET OVER IT.

Whatever bothers you. Whatever drags you back or brings you down...GET OVER IT.

Life is too short to hold real venom about people playing about with poser when REAL people are dying in Darfur and other places world-wide.

GET OVER IT.

That's what I do. I had a stroke in November. I've been blind before for a year. I've had far more than my fair share of problems in life. They could have been one hell of a lot worse.

Do you know what I did to recover from all of the above?

I GOT OVER IT.

I cannot save the world. Only my little piece of it. If we all act together, we can save the world.--Nelson Mandela
An inconsistent hobgoblin is the fool of little minds
Taking "Just do it" to a whole new level!

joel, I didn't know about that. sorry to hear it, and I hope the docs can help yer recovery to the best of their ability.

Quote - > Quote - There is only one way to cleanse offense from the planet - and that's to get rid of the humans!

Merry Christmas (haha)...

Or to learn tolerance! To appreciate the fact that we are all different and to graciously accept that.

Someone mentioned the removal of Christmas trees in some areas. That's happening in Canada too. And to me that's just going too far.

I'm all for blending of cultures but don't stomp on the rights of people to celebrate their religion. First there was the elimination of the Lord's Prayer in school, and now Christmas trees. However, on the other side of the coin some cultures have fought and won the right to wear certain clothing items and carry certain types of "weapons" in schools / work / jobs etc all in the name of their religious beliefs. So how exactly is that different from putting up a Christmas tree at Christmas or saying the Lord's Prayer in a public school?

All of this political correctness is taking on a double standard, and that's what is truly offensive.

We all need to learn tolerance, and unfortunately I don't see that happening any time soon :(

I'm glad they eliminated the Lord's Prayer in school. Back when I was in grade school, I belonged to a religion which did not acknowledge the divinity of Jesus. I could either say the prayer, which would be against my religion, mumble, which would make me a hypocrite, or not say the prayer, which would single me out. This is the same school in which I was accused of being a Christ killer several times, once being jabbed with a pencil for it. (This occured after I was made to stand up in front of the class and explain why I didn't celebrate Christmas.)

Quote - joel, I didn't know about that. sorry to hear it, and I hope the docs can help yer recovery to the best of their ability.

I didn't bring it up for sympathy. I brought it up to show a point. A lot of tolerance is attitude. If you work on having an upbeat attitude, you also tend to be more happy. Happy and secure, I'm also more tolerant.

You get there by working on it. Like recovering lost belongings after a tornado, or recovering yourself after a stroke. Being tolerant doesn't happen overnight. You work on it. Being happy doesn't happen overnight. You work on it.

There is a dark, easy, lazy part of human nature to hate and fear that which is different from us.

GET OVER IT!

Let that part go and work on being better than you are, and the rest follows! ^__^ V,,

politically correct is a contradiction of terms, If it's Political it cannot be correct.

One mans terroist is another mans freedom fighter

Theres no such thing as rape just suprise sex

Anyone sneeking into little childrens bedrooms is a peadophile. Santa take note.

War a simple method to cull the stupid.

I'm not racist I own a colour TV

I really don't care what people think, If they don't like my attitude just walkaway. Thats what I do when I do not like what isbeing said.

Lifes to short to get upset about problems mine or anybody elses.

I agree that Joseph Solomon Davidovich was the worst criminal in human history that murdered 40 million people, but people don't care about him, they only care about a lesser demon Hitler. Hypocrits!!!
Even so, I don't agree on the banning of the use of Stalin neither Hitler, beside that were criminals freedom of expression is something important and must prevail.

Stupidity also evolves!

Quote - Thus, an image showing SS troops fighting would be acceptable, whilst a dirigible-boobed woman wearing an SS cap, swastika armband and little else would not.

Oh no again, violence good, sex bad.
SS soldiers killing people, good
Big boobed women, what kind of harm they do?
Anyway, both big boobed SS and women troops must be allowed!

Stupidity also evolves!

One can also question whether anyone has the right to be offended by something. If I claimed to be offended by the colour orange, should you henceforth remove orange from all your pictures to avoid offending me?

My grandmother always said, if you want to keep (or make) friends, never discuss religion or politics!!!! Although I can't help myself whe it comes to George W.

PS. I like cute animals as avatars - bunnies, cats, hamsters....of course we have all these critters at my house.

Quote - Tolerance is based off of being secure in your own beliefs. What ever those beliefs are. In general, if you are easily offended, you should look at WHY more than WHAT.....

Well said. That's why certain groups can't stand to see/hear from others who aren't of their number.

"Tolerance" isn't free if it's imposed from the top down. Top-down enforcement of "tolerance" (i.e. Political Correctness) is just a method of clamping a temporary lid onto a pressure cooker. Sure, it holds the steam in -- for awhile. Until such time as the pressure gets so intense that a violent eruption occurs. Sort of like the pressure building over decades or even over centuries along an earthquake fault line.

I can think of certain speakers being shouted down on college campuses -- shouted down by people who in other venues always loudly proclaim their support for the ideal of "tolerance".

"Tolerance" -- of course -- being defined as a total and complete agreement with and unquestioning adherence to their particular world view. Any (defined by their enemies as) 'intolerant' types who take a contrary point of view will not be tolerated. They shouldn't be allowed to speak........and we should kill their families, too.

It's quite possible -- in fact, it's practically guaranteed -- that the self-appointed enforcers of 'tolerance' will themselves become the oppresive enforcers of mental bondage. Political correctness is nothing more than a means of attempting to get your opponent to shut up.

If tolerance is to be encompassed by the total acceptance of anything -- then we come to a place where nothing can exist. Matter and anti-matter are -- by nature, and without exception -- utterly and completely inimical to one another.

So are certain world views and philosophies.

Why can't we all just "get along"? Simple: because as Mark Twain said -- “There is nothing so irritating as a good example.” Good examples can't be tolerated by those who are led by the irritating good example to subconciously understand -- or at least to be given a hint of -- their own lack.

Remove the good example (by whatever means necessary), and thereby eliminate -- or at least mitigate -- the intense personal discomfort of having a bright light shined in your eyes.

And thus: yet another source of mindless violence is in the world. Sometimes it's physical violence, and sometimes it's verbal violence -- but it's always there.

Stalin was a horrible human being. But he wasn't the only one. It's just that he actually had the power to do what others can only dream of doing. But they would: if given the chance -- like Stalin.

It's a mercy of God that few human beings achieve the type of power that Stalin did.

Something To Do At 3:00AM

Very well stated, Xenophonz! I have one thing to add, though (not directed at you or your comment). Tolerance does not equate to approval. People forget that. Simply expressing disapproval or disagreement is not intolerance. I tolerate many things I don't approve of or aggree with but until I start trying to impose my beliefs (as opposed to merely expressing them) on someone else, I am still being tolerant. Tolerance is about action. Self expression is about ideas. @Phantast Regarding offending, another way of looking at it is what happens if I'm offended that you're offended by my art? (Not you and me personally) What a sticky wicket to be in!

Before they made me they broke the mold!
http://home.roadrunner.com/~kflach/

Well said, Bob and Xeno! I think we CAN "get along" to some degree by just not indulging our anger or hatreds to the point of verbal, or physical abuse or violence. Disagreements are simply part and parcel of life. If we can be polite during them and try to remember that other people have their reasons to disagree, we can step back and try to be accepting that they HAVE a different viewpoint.

We might never agree, but we can listen without trying to silence them. Even if we don't approve! ^__^ V,,

I'll add this much: sometimes an over-emphasis on tolerance as a the ultimate virtue ignores the thought that it's just possible that (gasp) -- one party to a disagreement is right and the other party is wrong.

Something To Do At 3:00AM

GASP!!!! No! Not that!! Say it isn't so!!! (grin)

Before they made me they broke the mold!
http://home.roadrunner.com/~kflach/

"Quote - "Tolerance is based off of being secure in your own beliefs. What ever those beliefs are. In general, if you are easily offended, you should look at WHY more than WHAT....."" Actually I've been thinking about this statement and I'm going to muddy the water on it. It's true, in part, but there are also other factors. When I was a smoker, there were people who were justifiably secure in their belief that smoking was a harmful, destructive activity. However, in addition to being secure in their belief, they cared - about me, about themselves, and about others who might be affected by the smoke I spewed. Therefore some of them were not 'tolerant' of my smoking. Based on this example I'd have to say that sometimes intolerance is an act of caring. When things are clearly harmful it's easy to see that this kind of intolerance is probably a 'good' thing. However, some things aren't as clear as to whether or not they're harmful. Is intolerance a good thing when you care enough about some 13-year old to impose your views about sex upon them? You could be saving them from a very difficult life based on having to raise an unwanted kid or deal with an STD. On the other hand, maybe nothing will happen. Even adults make stupid choices - drunk driving, unprotected casual sex come to mind but there are other questionable choices we all face. Many times it's not just the one who made the choice but others also have to pay the consequences of those choices. Is it intolerance (in the negative sense) or is it caring when you prevent them from making those kinds of choices? Life is rarely black and white.

Before they made me they broke the mold!
http://home.roadrunner.com/~kflach/

Quote - When I was a smoker, there were people who were justifiably secure in their belief that smoking was a harmful, destructive activity. However, in addition to being secure in their belief, they cared - about me, about themselves, and about others who might be affected by the smoke I spewed. Therefore some of them were not 'tolerant' of my smoking. Based on this example I'd have to say that sometimes intolerance is an act of caring.

Sorry, I disagree with you:
Based on this example I'd have to say that sometimes intolerance is an act of paranoia.

Stupidity also evolves!

My comments about tolerance are not absolute. Like Benjamin Franklin put it, "You should practice moderation in all things. Sometimes including the practice of moderation, itself. " Ben knew what was going on! :lol:

Judgements about safety and health shouldn't be based on intolerance any more than should based on mystic signs or uninformed opinions, but on the facts you can find out, and as sound of a judgement as can be made.

In the disscusion of what the thread is supposed to be about, we're drifting afield.

I like penguins.

Ooops, further drift detected! :lol:

**I don't normally get involved with discussions about religion or politics as it generally ends up with arguments.
Firstly, how is it possible to be offended by another persons religion? I can only be offended when there is abuse involved, so it no ones getting hurt, what's the problem?
People have asked me what religion I am, I tell them I don't have one, it's amazing how many people can't accept this as an answer! I am a person & I don't need or want to be anything else.
Regarding Xmas trees having to be pulled down, GET A LIFE!!! I wish the only problems I had in life was to be offended by Xmas trees.
I'm sidetracking here but I just thought while I'm here I'd mention it. I'm a vegetarian & the thought of animals being bred for slaughter upsets me greatly. Don't have a go at me saying it's normal for man to eat meat, yes it is, for survival!! Now, you'll see lots of adverts for turkeys this Xmas & no one bats an eyelid. Amazing isn't it, millions of creatures bred for suffering & slaughter, OK to show on TV nicely on a plate, but oh no, you can't insult someone's religion. The world is insane!
Sorry, I'm having a bad morning.
**

Quote - "whilst a dirigible-boobed woman wearing an SS cap, swastika armband and little else would not." - Karen

So, would a dirigible boobed woman wearing a Che Guevara t-shirt be acceptable, or not?

"I am a good person now and it feels... well, pretty much the same as I felt before (except that the headaches have gone away now that I'm not wearing control top pantyhose on my head anymore)"

Monkeysmell

A very interesting discussion.

Well said, Xeno! Tolerance is about action, self-expression is about ideas.

And indifference is about non-action.

Some time ago my country, the Netherlands, prided itself on being very tolerant. A misplaced pride, since we weren't tolerant, we just didn't care. And I'm fairly sure that this indifference has created the spawning grounds for fundamentalism. After all, if nobody cares about one's viewpoints, if nobody takes the time to listen and argue, is it so surprising that some people take things a step further and make a biiger noise (as in violent actions)?
I'm pretty sure that if we had been less indifferent and more tolerant in the past, fundamentalism wouldn't be as big a problem as it is now.

To me, tolerance is about getting to know another's viewpoints on life, religion, politics, and respect the right to existence of those views. It has nothing to do with approval.

And tolerance has its boundaries. In my opinion, a religion or political viewpoint that does not recognize the right to existence of other viewpoints has lost its own right to exist. I do not tolerate those viewpoints.
Here we have the "just plain wrong" argument. Any viewpoint that does not tolerate the existence of other viewpoints MUST be wrong.

The pen is mightier than the sword. But if you literally want to have some impact, use a typewriter

My gallery My freestuff

Quote - " Firstly, how is it possible to be offended by another persons religion? I can only be offended when there is abuse involved, so it no ones getting hurt, what's the problem?"

**It depends on how a person consider and deal with his own religion, if we start with this principles:

1- My religion is the absolute truth.
2- The world is divided into good and evil people.
3- Good people are who follow my religion, so the other must be evil.
4- Our duty is to fight the Evil.
5- Evil people are our enemies, so they must be exterminated till the fifth generation.

Well you can see the result if someone follows these principles, and are not only principles, it are absolute dogmas!!**

Stupidity also evolves!

Quote - > Quote - "whilst a dirigible-boobed woman wearing an SS cap, swastika armband and little else would not." - Karen

So, would a dirigible boobed woman wearing a Che Guevara t-shirt be acceptable, or not?

Well I'm pissed off about all the gay art in which the guys have really huge tally wackers and tons of muscles. That's exploitation and objectifying and men need protection from this. Showing unrealistic huge penises merely turns men into sexual objects for the gratification of others. Also I think Men's Health should be removed from the news stands and put behind the counter with the rest of the smut. What right does a gay man have to pick up a magazine and stare at the poor male model on the cover like he's an object. :tt2:

I believe Karen was being a bit tongue-in-cheek with the "dirigible-boobed" comment.
Basically, posting an image that glorifies any atrocity committed by man is going to get removed. It doesn't matter if it was committed by the Nazi's, Romans, Egyptians, Crusaders, Or other soldiers of any other nation, creed, etc. If you want to create an image specifically created to glorify that sort of violence, that's your business. Posting it here will most likely result in its' removal and a warning on your member record.

There will always be things that are unsuitable for this site. If you have specific questions about any certain image that you are about to post, or have posted, feel free to contact a member of staff, and we'll do our best to answer you.
Also, as an aside, you may want to contact more than one member of staff at a time. Especially when contacting me. I've been in and out of the hospital so many times lately, I won't be surprised when they just keep me in the same room. I may not always get back to you in a timely manner, and I apologize in advance.

Jeni

Sitemail | Freestuff | Craftythings | Youtube|

Knowledge is knowing a tomato is a fruit. Wisdom is not putting it into a fruit salad.

Quote -
Showing unrealistic huge penises merely turns men into sexual objects for the gratification of others.

i'm not seeing the bad side to this??? :D

Quote - I believe Karen was being a bit tongue-in-cheek with the "dirigible-boobed" comment.
Basically, posting an image that glorifies any atrocity committed by man is going to get removed. It doesn't matter if it was committed by the Nazi's, Romans, Egyptians, Crusaders, Or other soldiers of any other nation, creed, etc. If you want to create an image specifically created to glorify that sort of violence, that's your business. Posting it here will most likely result in its' removal and a warning on your member record.

The question is, what counts as glorification. If you create a picture of Nazis standing in front of a swastika, with "KILL ALL JEWS!!" as a big legend, then that is clearly wrong, and probably also criminal. But take away the words, and the image alone is ambiguous. It could be construed as for or against. The same picture would make equal sense with the words "FACES OF EVIL" over it.

go figure. "The Producers", a comedy about a Nazi Broadway show, is or was raking in the bucks.

A dirigible-boobed Che shirt would make him look bug-eyed..;)

Lost in the last generation, is the ability to believe in something, yet still be able to laugh with (or at) it sometimes. To believe that something you hold faith with is so fragile that it will not brook questioning, is probably not a way of living. There used to be something called 'debate', where a thousand flowers blossomed, and a hundred schools of thought contended. People would listen to both sides of an issue, and *make up their own minds! * But that's too hard nowadays.

It's possible to find a niche media (TV, movies, blogs, papers, etc) that agrees with everything they think, so the need for thought tends to atrophy. Hence the present situation.

And it turns out Voltaire didn't say "I disagree with everything you said, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"..another useless fact from Pakled.

I wish I'd said that.. The Staircase Wit

anahl nathrak uth vas betude doth yel dyenvey..;)

Quote - The question is, what counts as glorification. If you create a picture of Nazis standing in front of a swastika, with 'KILL ALL JEWS!!' as a big legend, then that is clearly wrong, and probably also criminal.

Should that be criminal? I'm not so sure the question is "what counts as glorification?".

"I am a good person now and it feels... well, pretty much the same as I felt before (except that the headaches have gone away now that I'm not wearing control top pantyhose on my head anymore)"

Monkeysmell

Quote - I believe Karen was being a bit tongue-in-cheek with the "dirigible-boobed" comment.

I know she was being tongue-in-cheek, I didn't need the translation. I'm neither humour nor sarcasm impaired, Morrigan. I wanted to hear from her wether the fact that Che is popular chic as opposed to Nazi imagery being verbotten would have an effect: I can see large [and small] boobed young women wearing Che Guevara shirts in any major city or campus, none of whom would ever stick a swastika on their chest. Is one man's mass murderer another man's mass murderer - or does popular chic make a difference? Howzabout a Hammer and Sickle t-shirt? Or a Pol Pot flag? Or a Janet Reno banner?

"I am a good person now and it feels... well, pretty much the same as I felt before (except that the headaches have gone away now that I'm not wearing control top pantyhose on my head anymore)"

Monkeysmell

Quote - > Quote - I believe Karen was being a bit tongue-in-cheek with the "dirigible-boobed" comment.

Basically, posting an image that glorifies any atrocity committed by man is going to get removed. It doesn't matter if it was committed by the Nazi's, Romans, Egyptians, Crusaders, Or other soldiers of any other nation, creed, etc. If you want to create an image specifically created to glorify that sort of violence, that's your business. Posting it here will most likely result in its' removal and a warning on your member record.

The question is, what counts as glorification. If you create a picture of Nazis standing in front of a swastika, with "KILL ALL JEWS!!" as a big legend, then that is clearly wrong, and probably also criminal. But take away the words, and the image alone is ambiguous. It could be construed as for or against. The same picture would make equal sense with the words "FACES OF EVIL" over it.

Therein lies the crux, Phantast. We cannot judge a posters' intent simply on an image alone. Now, should someone post an image where there is Nazi regalia, perhaps a parade, or even soldiers with guns, etc....that, in itself, does not make the image "offensive"....however, if the image were coupled with a description below (or above, thanks to the programmers) that delves into an anti-semetic tirade, complete with "KILL ALL JEWS", it's obvious that it's meant simply to provoke those of Jewish heritage, and is, in fact, glorifying the actions of the Nazis.
There is a huge grey-area that we have to look at when it comes to images of this kind, and we definitely don't make our decisions lightly.

Sitemail | Freestuff | Craftythings | Youtube|

Knowledge is knowing a tomato is a fruit. Wisdom is not putting it into a fruit salad.

Quote - > Quote - I believe Karen was being a bit tongue-in-cheek with the "dirigible-boobed" comment.

I know she was being tongue-in-cheek, I didn't need the translation. I'm neither humour nor sarcasm impaired, Morrigan. I wanted to hear from her wether the fact that Che is popular chic as opposed to Nazi imagery being verbotten would have an effect: I can see large [and small] boobed young women wearing Che Guevara shirts in any major city or campus, none of whom would ever stick a swastika on their chest. Is one man's mass murderer another man's mass murderer - or does popular chic make a difference? Howzabout a Hammer and Sickle t-shirt? Or a Pol Pot flag? Or a Janet Reno banner?

It's gonna be a couple days before you hear from her, as Karen is doing the Christmas thing with her family. Once in a while, we loosen the chains on 'er ;) Above that, you can always contact the admin ( admin@renderosity.com )

As for Che.....well, I can almost guarantee that 4 out of 5 people wearing a print of the photo of che on their shirts have not a clue who he was or what he stood for. I could go off on a rant about how, less than 10 years ago, it was so very easy for me to find a group of kids in the 15-18 yr age range who could hold an intelligent conversation regarding politics and they'd actually know what they were talking about....and, now, I can barely find 3 adults (offline) with which to have a conversation that doesn't revolve around reality t.v. But, well, I don't think there's enough space on the servers grin. It's easy to try to use him as an example for a subject like this. On the one hand, he was an intelligent revolutionary. He was also a calculating soldier; killer if you will. Can you celebrate one aspect, while ignoring the other? Some can, and do. Some can't separate the two. However, that's not the point, I just went off on a tangent.

The context of the image, as well as the content of the description, is really what we look at, not whether or not the image has someone who was violent in it. For instance...in the Photography gallery, there are many human portraits. We can't possibly know how many of the subjects, or even artists, of the photos are rapists, child molesters, wife beaters, muggers, thieves, etc. But, we don't ask that in the upload process. If the image doesn't depict the act, and the description doesn't tell of it, we have no knowledge of it. I know we can't exactly do that with an image of Hitler, but we can look at the image, along with the description, and, using common sense, see whether or not the image is, indeed, glorifying any aspect of the holocaust, or whether it is simply an image of Hitler. Or an image containing the Swastika. Or (insert your imagery of choice).

Jeni

Sitemail | Freestuff | Craftythings | Youtube|

Knowledge is knowing a tomato is a fruit. Wisdom is not putting it into a fruit salad.

Quote - Showing unrealistic huge penises merely turns men into sexual objects
for the gratification of others.

What's the problem? If women can have huge boobs why men can' have huge penises.
Some enjoy big boobs, other enjoy big penises.

Quote - If you create a picture of Nazis standing in front of a swastika, with "KILL ALL JEWS!!"
as a big legend, then that is clearly wrong, and probably also criminal.

If you create a picture of ... standing in front of ...., with "KILL ALL MUSLIMS!!"
as a big legend, then that is a front page of some newspaper, and probably also patriotic.

Stupidity also evolves!

Quote - I wanted to hear from her wether the fact that Che is popular chic as opposed to Nazi imagery being verbotten would have an effect: I can see large [and small] boobed young women wearing Che Guevara shirts in any major city or campus, none of whom would ever stick a swastika on their chest. Is one man's mass murderer another man's mass murderer - or does popular chic make a difference? Howzabout a Hammer and Sickle t-shirt? Or a Pol Pot flag? Or a Janet Reno banner?

Well duh, OF COURSE popular opinion is a major consideration. In many parts of the Middle East, Osama bin Laden is considered a great hero. How far do you think you'd get with an avatar of his picture and corresponding forum name and the like? That's a rhetorical question, I don't really have a lot of interest in anybody actually trying this.

My Freebies

Quote - In many parts of the Middle East, Osama bin Laden is considered a great hero. How far do you think you'd get with an avatar of his picture and corresponding forum name and the like?

That's is an interesting question.
Renderosity is an international community, even most of the member are from the American continent and Europa, aslo exist members from the Middle-East and Asia.
Muslim contries have no big participation in the internet yet, can be by technical, political, religious and freedom questions, but internet is expanding in an astronomical way, countries that were forbiden or with restricted access are having much more participation today.
Poser is forbiden in some Islamic countries, but not all Islamic contries are so fundamentalist and even some fundamentalists are becoming less resctritive in some subjects and more in other subjects.
We can expect that in the comming years we'll have much more participation of many different countries and so comes the problem: Some personages as Bin Laden, can be the Demon in person in a group of countries and a great hero or avatar in other group of countries.
As no country has the right to impose his will on other country, the only solution is to accept it, if you don't like don't look and close your eyes.

Stupidity also evolves!

uh, Kawecki...can you prove that Poser has been forbidden by Islamic countries? I mean, specifically. not in general.

Sitemail | Freestuff | Craftythings | Youtube|

Knowledge is knowing a tomato is a fruit. Wisdom is not putting it into a fruit salad.

In Saudi Arabia.
Strictly and taken in a fundamentalist way, the Muslim religion forbides any representation of humans, can be in paintings, sculptures, etc.
As Poser deals specially with humans, is a 3d representation of humans, is something that cannot be allowed if you follow word by word the religion.
Of course that most of their people are not so fundamentalists, but some goverments yes it are!!!

Stupidity also evolves!

Quote - As no country has the right to impose his will on other country, the only solution is to accept it, if you don't like don't look and close your eyes.

You're greatly in error - this "problem" is a very old and dead issue. The general rule for private business is "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone." Freedom of Speech is a concept that does not apply to internet discussion fora, especially commercial ones like Renderosity. They can apply what rules they like, and if these rules don't meet your standards, then you are the one that needs a solution.

Note that I'm note especially happy or angry about this aspect of private discussion fora, I'm only pointing out reality. They're not 100% even handed, they don't have to be, and that's the way it is. When you get on the Renderosity board of directors you can start dictating what the "only solution" is.

My Freebies

I am not sure if in Yemen too.

Stupidity also evolves!

Quote - You're greatly in error - this "problem" is a very old and dead issue. The general rule for private business is "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone." Freedom of Speech is a concept that does not apply to internet discussion fora, especially commercial ones like Renderosity. They can apply what rules they like, and if these rules don't meet your standards, then you are the one that needs a solution.

Who is wrong is you!!, Renderosity is an international community and if you want to look at the commercial side, Renderosity is formed by 50% of Bondware and 50% of more than 2000 vendors.
The 50% is American of one company, but the other 50% is spreaded around the world!

Stupidity also evolves!

"American" was not something I said, that's your choice of word. Private Business is the operative concept. The point is, they apply their own standards as they see fit, and they have no particular mandate for being very objective, nor do they get any commercial benefit from that.

My Freebies

Quote - In Saudi Arabia.
Strictly and taken in a fundamentalist way, the Muslim religion forbides any representation of humans, can be in paintings, sculptures, etc.
As Poser deals specially with humans, is a 3d representation of humans, is something that cannot be allowed if you follow word by word the religion.
Of course that most of their people are not so fundamentalists, but some goverments yes it are!!!

bzzzzzt! Wrong. Maybe nude humans. Or depictions of Muhammad. But, humans, in general, depicted in art are not violations of the tenets of the Islamic faith. Or illegal in any country, as far as I'm aware.

Sitemail | Freestuff | Craftythings | Youtube|

Knowledge is knowing a tomato is a fruit. Wisdom is not putting it into a fruit salad.

Quote - > Quote - The question is, what counts as glorification. If you create a picture of Nazis standing in front of a swastika, with 'KILL ALL JEWS!!' as a big legend, then that is clearly wrong, and probably also criminal.

Should that be criminal? I'm not so sure the question is "what counts as glorification?".

Incitement to murder is a crime in many countries.

Incidentally, Ironbear will recall a related discussion on another site as to whether a picture can be considered as depicting forced sexual intercourse or consensual intercourse with an element of play-acting. Conclusion: it depends on what words appear below or above the image. You cannot judge from the image alone.

Quote - > Quote - In Saudi Arabia.

Strictly and taken in a fundamentalist way, the Muslim religion forbides any representation of humans, can be in paintings, sculptures, etc.
As Poser deals specially with humans, is a 3d representation of humans, is something that cannot be allowed if you follow word by word the religion.
Of course that most of their people are not so fundamentalists, but some goverments yes it are!!!

bzzzzzt! Wrong. Maybe nude humans. Or depictions of Muhammad. But, humans, in general, depicted in art are not violations of the tenets of the Islamic faith. Or illegal in any country, as far as I'm aware.

Actually, traditional Islam does forbid all images, not just of humans. Which is why decorative Islamic art is entirely made up of abstract patterns. But I don't think there is any modern Islamic country that forbids images in general as part of the legal code.

That was my point ;) It's just that....early morning postings do no one any good ;) Neither does erroneously stating that a country bans a computer program without any proof. ;)

Sitemail | Freestuff | Craftythings | Youtube|

Knowledge is knowing a tomato is a fruit. Wisdom is not putting it into a fruit salad.

Quote - bzzzzzt! Wrong. Maybe nude humans. Or depictions of Muhammad. But, humans, in general, depicted in art are not violations of the tenets of the Islamic faith.

Not nude humans, any human at all!
If you look at Islamic art, they have magnificent works, paintings, tapestry and walls covered of images, but if you look at them you will see that are only landscapes with animals and birds. Humans are very difficult to be found in their art, even exist in some few artistic works.
Today they are less restrictive depending on how fundamentalist or ortodex they are. In general Mohammed is not allowed to be represented, but even in the most fundamentalist I don't see any restriction about their political or religious leaders, you know, as usual, the rules applied to poor mortal souls cannot applied to politicians, they are above all!

Stupidity also evolves!

well, yes and no. I've seen medieval depictions of humans in Turkish art. Mainly historical paintings, or religious ones. The odd thing (well, to a Westerner), is that Mohammeds' body and clothing are portrayed, but his face is like a white sheet over it.

There are ads with people in some Islamic countries, it depends on how open they are. Saudi Arabia is very strict (Wahabi Sunnis, sort of the Muslim version of Southern Baptists..;). No women driving, Islam is the state religion, and conversion to other religions can be punished severely. Religious police roam the streets with canes, and punish anything they don't like with harsh words or worse. I don't know if Poser is specifically banned there, but I wouldn't be surprised that if they knew it was out there, they would ban it. I haven't been to Saudi Arabia (never closer than Istanbul), but my father has, and I've heard stories.

I wish I'd said that.. The Staircase Wit

anahl nathrak uth vas betude doth yel dyenvey..;)

Jen, Just ask the makers of Poser, You can't buy Poser in a lot of Arbic Countrys. Even the Gulf E. There postal service will not mail them, and you can't buy it to be downloaded either.
The people are naked, untill clothes are put on. I know this is a big NO!!!

IronBear-hugs long time no see.

David; I can't figure out why you wanted Stalins picture? He was planning to whip out the Jews when he died. ( thank G-d) Shalom David.

Love is Grandchildren.

Quote - David; I can't figure out why you wanted Stalins picture? He was planning to whip out the Jews when he died.

This is not correct, you must know that Joseph Solomon Davidovitch (Stalin) was a Jew the same as most of the members of his goverment.
What is ignored or very little known is that Communists were divided into two groups than were mortal enemies: Trotsky and Lenin and both were Jews.
Stalin was of the group of Lenin, also Kruschev was. What have done Stalin was exterminate Jews belonging to the Trotsky's group and of course, not Jews had the same destiny.

Stupidity also evolves!

Quote - > Quote - Showing unrealistic huge penises merely turns men into sexual objects

for the gratification of others.

What's the problem? If women can have huge boobs why men can' have huge penises.
Some enjoy big boobs, other enjoy big penises.

Quote - If you create a picture of Nazis standing in front of a swastika, with "KILL ALL JEWS!!"
as a big legend, then that is clearly wrong, and probably also criminal.

If you create a picture of ... standing in front of ...., with "KILL ALL MUSLIMS!!"
as a big legend, then that is a front page of some newspaper, and probably also patriotic.

I posted that as sarcasm but to also make a point that the puritans who object to big boobs seem to be silent when the reverse is done to men. I ask if men also deserve protection from sexual exploitation. If the answer is no then there is nothing special about women that allows them protection. If big boobs are wrong then so are massive penises. If one is allowed then all should be allowed.

Why is it when straight men like something its vilified and evil yet when gay men, lesbians and women like something its OK and acceptable? How many lesbians also look at those pics of women with big boobs? Why don't we vilify them for also exploiting women?

And big penisses are also a problem for men, you don't know what to do with it or where put it, making a knot sometimes helps a little.

Stupidity also evolves!

I hear you can also roll it up into a spool if necessary.

My Freebies

Well, it takes some training, but you can put it to use like a prehensile tail. Can be quite handy for opening the door when you have your hands full of groceries...

The pen is mightier than the sword. But if you literally want to have some impact, use a typewriter

My gallery My freestuff

*Quote - "*Quote - "In Saudi Arabia.
Strictly and taken in a fundamentalist way, the Muslim religion forbides any representation of humans, can be in paintings, sculptures, etc.
As Poser deals specially with humans, is a 3d representation of humans, is something that cannot be allowed if you follow word by word the religion.
Of course that most of their people are not so fundamentalists, but some goverments yes it are!!!"

*Sorry: you're all wrong. There's a very old mosque in Damascus that not only has images of the human form, but even depicts Mohammed. That mosque is one of the earliest in existence, much more recent than the great mosques of Cairo and Istanbul which (otherwise) would seem to bear out Phantast's comments. Precisely what is or isn't permitted in Islam is a minefield, partly because most Muslims speak no more Arabic than I do (i.e. none, apart from about three words) and partly because even native Arabic-speakers have a problem with texts composed fourteen centuries ago. Unfortunately, that permits the proliferation of inaccurate interpretations of the text. (If you want an analogy, there are artworks, including a famous sculpture by Michelangelo in Rome, which faithfully follow a mis-translation of the Old Testament, which gave the prophet Moses horns.) Note that I use the word "composed". Mohammed never wrote a word. In common with most of our ancestors who were his contemporaries (all of mine, I am quite sure), Mohammed could neither read nor write.

Quote - I know we can't exactly do that with an image of Hitler, but we can look at the image, along with the description, and, using common sense, see whether or not the image is, indeed, glorifying any aspect of the holocaust, or whether it is simply an image of Hitler. Or an image containing the Swastika. Or (insert your imagery of choice).

Jeni

Ok, there's the thing, and that's really the crux that this "Politically correct"/"Politically incorrect" debate thing hinges upon: Why is "glorification" a criteria for banning expression, whereas "condemning" is a criteria for "allowing" it? What makes glorification of a less valid expression than condemnation, in these instances? Applies no matter where it's flipped: there's those who would fight to the death to protect a right to glorify Stalin, FDR, or Pol Pot while thinking nothing of using deadly means if they were allowed to to ban Nazi imagery - and vice versa. [Or you can watch the double standards in the politically correct community between the outcry over the Danish cartoons and the blind eye towards Christian bashing.. with the cynics among us observing that the primary difference seems to be that Christians don't blow people up for mocking Christ. There's any number of examples to pick from.] Is it a nebulous "'Right' to not be offended"? Popular conception? Heh - profitabity? ;) [Not a sneer: a desire to not annoy potential customers is acceptable in a business venture] [I'm going to stipulate that what we're discussing is Renderosity's policy on this, and note further that "freedom of the press" always is dependant on owning the press, in practicality: the ability to truly censor or censure a self-publication medium like the web is doubtful at best - anyone can own a press these days, and the medium for publicizing their efforts] I'm predominately curious, not judgemental here, as you can probably tell by my tone. Censure in artistic media always has seemed to me to be a pecuiliarly mindless pursuit: people who engage in selective versions of it seldom seem to do so from well thought out or objective criteria, and it endlessly fascinates me watching the contortions presented as justifications. ;]

"I am a good person now and it feels... well, pretty much the same as I felt before (except that the headaches have gone away now that I'm not wearing control top pantyhose on my head anymore)"

Monkeysmell

ok..not sure about this, but in the interest of keeping the thread going..;)

Stalin's original name was Djugashvilli, and he was Georgian. He actually started on the road to Orthodox priesthood until he decided to give communism a shot. Trotsky was Jewish, but Lenin was Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov. If he's Jewish, it's news to me (but, I could be wrong). Russians claim they can tell Jewish names (in Russian), but I don't know.

Stalin was formulating another purge (the Doctor's Plot), and was going to round up a great number of Jews and execute them, when he died of (possibly) natural causes.

There may be a lot of of Muslims who aren't fluent in Arabic, but the Koran (you say Quran?) is written in a specific form of Arabic, with all sorts of marks indicating correct pronunciation. Muslims would likely need to have at least a working knowledge of Arabic, but it could bear the same analogy as 1950's Catholics and Latin. There's a phrase that's uttered to become a Muslim (I don't know it exactly, and I may be wrong, but I think it's 'there is no God but God, and Mohammed is his prophet')

There's not just one, Monolithic Islam. There's sects (Sunni, Shia, Wahabi, Druze, Dervish, Alawite, and on and on), and sects, and crosses with other religions (Sihks), and they all have different takes on portrayal of humans. I think it's a safe bet you'd have a hard time in Saudi Arabia getting a copy of Poser, but in Turkey or Malaysia, it might be a little easier. Just an educated guess on my part.

I wish I'd said that.. The Staircase Wit

anahl nathrak uth vas betude doth yel dyenvey..;)

Quote - Russians claim they can tell Jewish names (in Russian), but I don't know.

There's a simple rule:
Ortodox and Catholics never used names from the Old Testament., on the other side names from the New Testament are the most used.
But this no an absolute rule, if a person has a name Abraham, David, Sarah, Solomon, etc, it only means that he is not Ortodox or Catholic, but he can be Jew, Protestant or some foreigner.
If a person has a name John, Peter, Paul, Mary, etc, is very probable that he is an Ortodox, but he also can be a Jew.
There are also another rules, but I know very little of Russian language.
Stalin is not a name, is only an aka, it means as something made of steel, Djugashvilli, sounds as another aka, but I don't know what it means.
Lenin is another aka, it looks something as "lazy". Ulianov (Lenin) is from Jewish origen, the same as most of the people that made the Revolution.

Stupidity also evolves!

To avoid some confussion, the fact that Ortodox and Catholics from Russia, Poland or other countries never used names from the Old Testament has nothing to do with Jews or any sort of racism. It is based on the essence of Christianism itself.
Jesus came to reform the Jewish religion , bring good news and create a new from of life for Jews and for not Jews.
The Apostols that followed Jesus abandoned their previous life and engaged in a new style of life.
They had Jewsish names and Jesus changed their names by a new and different name, meaning that a new life has begin.
Names that belongs to the Old Testament are names of the past before Jesus, if you use a name from the Old Testament it means that you are living in the past without the reveleation of Jesus or you haven't accepted Jesus.
The most common names used by Russians are from the New Testament, but they also use ancient traditional names that has nothing to do with Christianism and the Church was unable to overcome their old tradition.

Stupidity also evolves!

Lenin (Ulyanov, as you correctly state) was not a Jew. I've never heard anyone doubt that Djugashvilli was an authentic name from Gori, in Georgia. Trotsky's real name was Bronstein. Not sure how we got on to that, but (Pakled) you're absolutely right about the so-called "Doctors' Plot", which was a blatantly anti-Semitic concoction, invented to justify Nazi-style atrocities against the Jews of the USSR.

On other points, though, marks to indicate correct pronunciation are no use to people who can't begin to read the script in the first place. How many 1950s Catholics in Liverpool, New York, Santiago, or - let's be honest - Rome could have made sense of a single line of Latin? Guides to correct pronunciation are a million miles away from guides to meaning. Marks indicating meaning are impossible, other than in the very, very general Chinese method, or in the extremely specific and impractical technique of pictograms.

Between the Wars, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk introduced the Latin alphabet to Turkey. In one sense, this was a reform in the best sense of the word. In another, it was an act of state control. Writing Turkish in the Arabic alphabet (as happened under the Ottomans) makes about as much sense as insisting that English be written only with fridge-magnets. Arabic is an alphabet designed for a single range of sounds. It works fine, for the intended language, just as the Greek alphabet is great for Greek and Cyrillic is perfect for Bulgarian, or Russian. The Latin alphabet, though, has proved infinitely more flexible, as English, Welsh, Hungarian, Polish, Swedish and Turkish itself (to name only a few), have abundantly proved.

There is, all the same, a "1984" element to changing the alphabet. Pre-Ataturk Turkish was full of Arabic and Persian words. His reforms involved, naturally, a complete re-writing of the Turkish dictionary, in which, it is said (I am in no position to confirm this), all words of Arabic and Persian origin were jettisoned, to the extent that a highly educated Turk today has extreme difficulty reading pre-Ataturk texts. Dictionary "reform" always carries a hint of "Newspeak" about it. Turkish is far from unique. Think of the USSR, where Azerbaijan had the Cyrillic alphabet imposed, at roughly the same time as Turkey was switching to the Latin script. The USSR insisted that Azerbaijan spoke a language called "Azeri". Azerbaijan today is hardly a haven of liberty, but it has, at least, acknowledged that "Azeri" is really Turkish, adopting the Latin alphabet, so that they can import dictionaries, rather than doing the "1984" job on them. (That is still a problem for all those who have grown up with learning to read Turkish in the Cyrillic alphabet, though.)

Final example: in Taiwan, where Traditional Chinese continues to reign supreme, literacy is as high as anywhere in the world (with the possible exception of Iceland). Mainland China introduced "Simplied Chinese" a long time ago, but retains far lower levels of literacy. Do you think "Simplified Chinese" was really introduced to make Chinese easier to read?

Quote - The Latin alphabet, though, has proved infinitely more flexible, as English, Welsh, Hungarian, Polish, Swedish and Turkish itself (to name only a few), have abundantly proved.

Is is incorrect in case of Poland. Poland has adopted the Latin alphabet, but it is a nightmare to read or write something.
Russian alphabet has 36 letters, but Latin only has 26 that is not enough for expressing the required sounds, so for expressing these sounds you need to combine several letters.
You have, ch, sz, rz, s with ', s with dot, z with ', z with dot, o with ', a and e with a hook, l cut by /, and more.
You write "przszy...", too much letters for only two sounds.
It's a nightmare!!!!, well Chinese is worst.

Stupidity also evolves!

I'm going to allow that someone with the username "kawecki" knows a great deal more than I do about Polish. My point was, really, that the Latin alphabet allows Polish to create those sounds with "sz" and rz" etc. and allows Czech and Slovak to use diacritical marks to create much the same sounds in a shorthand way. The result is that the sound "ch" (English and Spanish) = "cz" (Polish) = "cs" (Hungarian). For another example, "sh" (English and Albanian) = "sch" (German) = "ch" (French) = "s" (Hungarian) = "sz" (Polish). The Latin alphabet is the best of the European alphabets, precisely because it can accommodate all of these variations, even if they seem baffling. Greek and Cyrillic could, if they wanted to; presumably, Hebrew and Arabic could, too. The fact is that that they don't. Try transliterating Welsh into Cyrillic. Take it from me: you can't. A less extreme example? Try Catalan in Cyrillic. Tthat's impossible, too.

I suspect that the reason these other alphabets are inflexible is that they are very closely associated to religions. The Latin alphabet was, too, but I believe that the Latin genie escaped during the Early MIddle Ages, with important non-Latin texts being written, using the Latin alphabet, using Anglo-Saxon, Welsh, Irish and, later, continental languages. The Catholic hierarchy doesn't appear to have cottoned on to the significance of language until the cusp of the Reformation, when Tyndale published his English Bible. Tyndale was murdered, but the pass had already been sold, because Dante, Petrarch and Chaucer were long in print, using the Latin alphabet in ways that separately served their Italian and English needs.

Quote - Just a quickey, was talking some chaps about what can post or not post on renderosity.
Now question's raised were if someone did historical art of SS troop's would it be banned, as if banned wont people say.
Ban any military pic of modern jewish solder's as arab's would not like, or especialy any american solders pictures as to what is happen in iraq.
Now 1 thing if someone posted an avatar of hitler would that be banned as 1 chap has an avatar of joseph stalin, the greatest mass murderer of the 20th century.
Even russians are saying he may have wiped out 40 million people instead 20 million.
Now my question is simple after all the butchers of the 20th century and some in power today where is the line drawn on what can be posted.
What is peoples thought's on the matter, if someone can post an avatar of stalin or the other great butcher, mao of china who wiped out 70 million people, if so then can an avatar of hitler be posted.
I hate to see someone post an avatar of bonzo george bush, and his hollynes jesus tony blair holding hand's.
Now that would be real horrific sight.

I'm going to answer this with a quick reply, now this is my opinion only.

If you feel like doing an image of SS troops fighting then do so, if anyone looks at it and finds they don't like it because of what it depicts then they can use the "report" link which is under an image.
Now in my own opinion i can't see the difference between an image of SS troops fighting or American troops fighting. In fact i honest can't see why you wouldn't be allowed to post an image like that "unless" you use that image to send a message to a race...gee how many images have you seen with troops in it fighting...

These are my own opinions not those of any political parties or religious groups..

I have opinions of my own -- strong opinions -- but I don't always agree with them.

*for ironbear...lots of sense in the post

"Why* is "glorification" a criteria for banning expression, whereas "condemning" is a criteria for "allowing" it?"

this is the one where i'd go even further and ask "does a painting with nazis and kill all jews glorify the holocaust or denigrate the nazis. why can't it just be a piece of work that depicts what happened? does a painting of rice fields stacked with skulls depict the horror of the killing fields or does it say" hey wasn't this fun. sometimes a work that in some way does depict the glorification of some foul deed(lets say the rape of the sabine women) but the art isn't in the glorification. thats a by product. the art is in it's depiction. it shows the kind of people who the painting glorifies and in doing so reminds us of mans inhumanity to man. is that a bad thing. i think every now and then we should look at pics of nazis dancing on jewish graves and smiling less we forget what really happened, so our kids and our kids kids can ask. "did those sick bastards really kill all those jews. did that sick bastard really create a countryside of rice fields covered in human remains. did they really kill teachers" sometimes it's better to see the sick mind than feel it's force after we sweep it under the carpet jmo

billy

hmm..wow..;)
Cyrillic comes from St. Cyril, a Greek monk who came up with a 'Cyrillic' alphabet to be able to spread the Bible into Russian lands. This has been going on for centuries, and even today missionaries spend time coming up with ways to translate the Bible into various languages that don't have the written word. Cyril had to make up a few letters for sounds that require several letters in Latin (Cyrillic is based on Greek, Cy bein' Orthodox and all..;) So it depends on the country (Poland is one of the few countries in Eastern Europe that actually went Catholic as opposed to Orthodox, so that explains some of the 'bad blood' between them and Russians, and how they wound up with the 'Roman' alphabet..;)

Actually, the 'Latin' alphabet didn't start out with 26 letters, more like 22. Ol' Claudius tried to shoehorn some more in, but they faded with his death. As mentioned above, various peoples have had to add cedillias, diacritical marks, add letters, and take some away (the Yogue [sp?] and thorn- all those 'ye's you see in old signs, etc., are actually 'thee', because a long y symbol was a 'th' sound). Middle English (well, actually later than that, up to the 18th) century, those 'ffs were actually 's' sounds. Such is progress..;)

Joseph is a New Testament name (though I wouldn't be surprised if it didn't go farther back), so I guess that follows the rule (?). Leon and Vladimir, I suppose they're Russian (I'm pretty sure there were some Vladimirs out there). Russian names usually break out into first, then the middle, which usually comes from mother or father (Dmitrovich for a male, or Martanova, for a woman, for example. I.e., son of Dmitri, or daughter of Marta), then the last name.

Revolutionaries in Czarist Russian had 'revolutionary' names, in part to avoid being caught by the Czarist secret police (the Okhrana). Lenin comes from being exiled to the Russian east, it comes from the Lena river, which he went on the trip over. Stalin, is the Man of Steel (makes you wonder about those pinkos who came up with Superman..;), Trotsky, I got no idea..;)

As I understand it, Jesus was a Jew, and thought of himself as one. It was Paul (who hijacked most of the New Testament, which is a large part of 'collected letters of'), who went to the Gentiles (non-Jews, except for Mormons, who refer to non-Mormans as Gentiles, including Jews..I don't understand it, I'm just explaining it..;) There have been some complications since then, but things are more or less under control..;)

Until fairly recently (the 90's), anti-Semitism was alive and well (actually, there's neo-Nazis in Russia..still trying to wrap my head around that...;) The Protocols of the Elders of Zion (nothing to do with the Matrix..;) had a colorful career in Russia, and their pogroms didn't end with the October (actually November, the Russian calender was weeks behind ours..;) Revolution, they just threw more groups in there.

I wish I'd said that.. The Staircase Wit

anahl nathrak uth vas betude doth yel dyenvey..;)

Quote - I'm going to allow that someone with the username "kawecki" knows a great deal more than I do about Polish. My point was, really, that the Latin alphabet allows Polish to create those sounds with "sz" and rz" etc. and allows Czech and Slovak to use diacritical marks to create much the same sounds in a shorthand way. The result is that the sound "ch" (English and Spanish) = "cz" (Polish) = "cs" (Hungarian). For another example, "sh" (English and Albanian) = "sch" (German) = "ch" (French) = "s" (Hungarian) = "sz" (Polish). The Latin alphabet is the best of the European alphabets, precisely because it can accommodate all of these variations, even if they seem baffling. Greek and Cyrillic could, if they wanted to; presumably, Hebrew and Arabic could, too. The fact is that that they don't.

Polish "cz" is not the same as "ch", the equivalent to "ch" is c with '.
The same with "sz" that is not the same as "sh" or "sch", in this case the equivalent is s with '.
Latin is unable to provide all these sound, there are needed at least more 10 letters, something that Cyrilic has.
Some languages are similar to other. Portuguese is very similar to Spanish and Italian is similar. Both use the Latin alphabet that is enough for their sounds. A Spanish is able to understand a Portuguese text and with some effort Italian.
On the other side Polish and Czech are similar, both use the Latin alphabet, but as the Latin alphabet is unable to provide the needed sounds each country used a different combination of Latin letters, so each one is unable to understand what is written in the others text..
Poles and Czechs are Catholics so they adopted by religious reason he Latin alphabet, but the correct would have been the Cyrical alphabet that have the resources needed for the language.
I all of them should have used the Cyrilic alphabet, a Czech would be able to understand a Polish book and with some effort a Russian or even a Bulgarian book.
Latin is perfect for Spanish, but not for some other languages that could had a much better alternative.

Stupidity also evolves!

At least my name is very easy, Latin works fine for "kawecki" with the only difference that "c" is not "k", is something similar to "tz" or the same as German "z".
But for my name Ricardo that is Ryszard in Polish things get complicated, you have the "sz" that is similar but different to "sh" and the "y" is not "i". The "y" is a sixth vowel that has no equivalent sound in English, German or Spanish, I don't know how to describe how it sounds. In French exist a similar sound but I don't remember what letters they use for it.

Stupidity also evolves!

I've always wondered if you pronounced your name the Polish way or whether your family had "Latinized" it after emigrating (it happens). I guess you've answered that now.

As for Chinese writing (which is, of course, different from spoken Chinese languages) it was kept deliberately difficult in historical times to make it harder for people to pass the qualifying exams into the Civil Service. It must be the only example of a language that was intended as a barrier to communication ...

Contrast written Vietnamese, which uses the Latin alphabet, but with special signs to indicate the tones.

Oh, and about whether Islam bans depictions - just remember that the Judaeo-Christian Bible also bans such things: "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth ..."

What differs is how you interpret that and whether you choose to obey it or not.

Quote - *for ironbear...lots of sense in the post

"Why* is "glorification" a criteria for banning expression, whereas "condemning" is a criteria for "allowing" it?"

this is the one where i'd go even further and ask "does a painting with nazis and kill all jews glorify the holocaust or denigrate the nazis.

To me it says a great deal about the poster, one way or the other, just as a "liberal" proudly wearing a Che t-shirt displays a great deal about their iliberalism. One reason I'm not being too judgemental on the policy aspects is that every private site like this has some degree of censure built into their policies, either imposed by law, or determined by choice. Renderotica disallows beastiality from legalities. Rotica disallows child imagery from choice. Some forms of violent erotica are disallowed there by practicality: our CC proccessors have policies against it. Both Daz and Animotions disallow nudity. [Animotions allows it in the store to a limited extent, only on admin judgement call, but not in the galleries and forums] Both for similar reasons. All of the various sites censure child porn. RFI, which is widely considered a wide-open libertarian site, will censure some postings that might cause elgeneralissimo legal problems with his hosting. Practicality again. I'll censure something that crosses too far over the line into seditious or insurrectionist rhetoric just as I refrain from it: it has potentially lethal consequences. What constitutes "too far" is a judgement call. Private property. The property owner(s) makes the Rules, because they're paying for it. Deal with it or go elsewhere, or get your own property and make your own rules. I don't have any objections to debating wether the rules make sense; I don't deny the right of the site owner(s) to make them.

"I am a good person now and it feels... well, pretty much the same as I felt before (except that the headaches have gone away now that I'm not wearing control top pantyhose on my head anymore)"

Monkeysmell

"Why is "glorification" a criteria for banning expression, whereas "condemning" is a criteria for "allowing" it?"

It all depends on context. Decisions are made on a team basis after discussion and taking many different points into account such as text posted with the image, title, gallery chosen, historical accuracy, and much more.

"you are terrifying
and strange and beautiful
something not everyone knows how to love." - Warsan Shire

Quote - Actually, traditional Islam does forbid all images, not just of humans. Which is why decorative Islamic art is entirely made up of abstract patterns. But I don't think there is any modern Islamic country that forbids images in general as part of the legal code.

The Taliban defaced/destroyed/prohibited from exhibition works of art because they had images of animals on it. Informally, they would allow depictions of animals in a landscape, but if there were too many in the painting they would decide it was actually a depiction of the animals. I saw on TV how the curator of the Kabul Museum of Art had painted over (on the paintings glass) five of seven ducks in a stream in a 19th century landscape painting until it was deemed acceptable.

Quote - Oh, and about whether Islam bans depictions - just remember that the Judaeo-Christian Bible also bans such things: "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth ..."

What differs is how you interpret that and whether you choose to obey it or not.

There is no Judaeo-Christian Ten Commandments. There is a Jewish interpretation, and multiple Christian interpretations. (Heck, even how they are numbered varies.) The Jewish interpretation of the 2nd Commandment links the graven image clause with the prohibition against other gods. (For Jews, the first commandment is "I the LORD am your God who brought you out of the land of Egypt, the house of bondage".)

www.auok.org/numbering_10.htm for more on the variations.

on the other hand, the pictures in the Hagia Sophia were plastered over, and preserved that way, until a Century or so ago. The Taliban took the 'neighborhood watch' approach to 'one-upsmanship' to the final extreme. It happens when you don't have any accepted opposition.

I wish I'd said that.. The Staircase Wit

anahl nathrak uth vas betude doth yel dyenvey..;)

Quote -
There is no Judaeo-Christian Ten Commandments. There is a Jewish interpretation, and multiple Christian interpretations. (Heck, even how they are numbered varies.) The Jewish interpretation of the 2nd Commandment links the graven image clause with the prohibition against other gods. (For Jews, the first commandment is "I the LORD am your God who brought you out of the land of Egypt, the house of bondage".)

I'm well aware of these details, which are irrelevant to my point, which is that there were, historically, people who considered themselves to be Christian and who believed that all pictures were wicked (iconoclasts), just as there have been Muslims with the same idea. And of course, those who interpret the Scriptures differently.

Hence, and this is the main gist, you cannot argue in flat terms that Islam or Christianity bans all images. It depends on the interpretation, which has varied historically.

Iconoclasts are more known in Orthodox than Catholic (though they hold no monopoly..;).
Even some of the Puritan-like sects had their run-ins with idolatry and pictures.

I wish I'd said that.. The Staircase Wit

anahl nathrak uth vas betude doth yel dyenvey..;)

There were two very intensive spells of Protestant iconoclasm in England: during the Reformation under Henry VIII (which hardened into ultra-Protestant doctrine under Edward VI) and then during the Commonwealth, between the execution of Charles I and the restoration of Charles II. Oliver Cromwell, though, had the good sense to sell off the hugely valuable painting collection of Charles I, rather than creating a Savonarola-style bonfire out of it.

Most of the vandalism to ancient Egyptian sites is reputed to have been done by early Coptic Christians (I suppose that the evidence for that comes down to associated artefacts, such as the Diocletianic fort at Luxor, which is comfortably pre-Moslem, or to graffiti). Often the face has been carefully vandalised, sometimes the whole body. The vandals seem to have taken care to preserve the general shape of the destroyed sculpture. Perhaps, the idea was to remove the impurity of human depiction, while retaining the structural integrity of very substantial buildings.

Iconoclasm already had a pretty impressive pedigree in Egypt. For one thing, early New Kingdom sculptors could do a useful sideline in erasing evidence of the Hyksos invaders. Then along came Akhenaten, who decreed that all traces to the god Amun be erased. Following Akhenaten's death, the priesthood of Amun regained the upper hand and it was the turn of the shrines of the Aten to be hacked to bits.

Forum: Poser - OFFICIAL

Subject: Renderosity and Political Correct