Quote - The point, pure and simple, is that it becomes "trouble-making" because someone else -- not you, not me, not most folks on this site -- says it's "trouble-making".

Yes, the US Federal Government says it's "trouble-making".  I agree with you in sentiment, but unfortunately, US Federal law does not.

Taking photographs of naked children and selling them on the internet is harming someone, psycologically if not phisically.  My mother taking photo's of me runnin around in the cow pasture with out any clothes (I hated clothes and removed them first chance I got.) for her own memories of her cute little baby is not the same thing.  It's all really just common sense.

Censorship attracts trouble-makers, protesters and many more people.
More censorship, more attacks you have. The only safe way is to close all the galleries.
There's some delay between the posting of an image and when it is discovered, it's impossible to watch in real time all the images submited every second.
Even an image have to be approved a "demoniac" image can pass because the person encharged of censorship have not perceived that was "demoniac". When is perceived is too late, everybody view the image and is laughing of the censorship.
People that have lived in dictatures are very experient in bypassing censorship.

Quote - > Quote - That's a lot like saying, since the thieves know how to break in, why bother locking your house. A logical fallacy.

And what will happen to the lock fabricant? What will happen to the profit of alarm makers, security cameras, electrified fences, fortifications, security services, the goverment protecting you, blah, blah.
You see, all is resumed to $$$$, they sell you the illusion and you pay.

Those "illusions" break into an awful lot of houses every day.  Those same "illusions" are sometimes known to attack the people who live in the houses, too.

Ah, well.......someone should go tell the neighbors that they've been imagining things.  They need to grow up and stop complaining that their $1500 television set is missing and that their house has been ransacked.  That's a figment of their imaginations.

There's a family who live in a 'nice neighborhood' in the city where I work.  That family -- a husband, wife, and two young daughters -- were recently visited by a gang of illusions who locked them up in a closet while they rifled through their house.  That family needs to be told to live in the real world -- and to stop imaging things.

Terrorists?  Pshaw.......they're illusions, too.  Don't worry -- be happy.  Nobody hates you simply because your very existence is an offense to them.  And they won't try to kill you en masse for that reason.  After all, since when do illusions crash airplanes filled with people into buildings?  Since never -- that's "since when".  Illusions, by definition, don't do stuff like that.  So of course it goes without saying that things like that will never happen.

But delusions......?  That's a different matter.  Delusions lead people to think that reality is something that some right-winger made up for propaganda purposes.  It....upsets the preferred fantasy, you see.

Why cannot we all just say we disagree and let it drop? It is depressing to see friends fighting.  We all have very strong opinions, they are unlikely to change, but animosity and hurt feelings grow by the minute, it is not a worthwhile thing.

Yes it is illusion, if someone want to rob you he will do it, no matter what you do to keep you safe.
My father once said to never lock doors or cabinets inside your house. If some bandit enter your house it will break all the locks, doors and cabinets anyway and the damage done to your house will cost you much more of what was robbed....

My feelings aren't hurt at all. 

More, if a bandit wants to rob your CD player from your car and is unable to open your car, he will break the windows of your car and rob it. The cost of car windows is much more than a CD player!!

Quote - Yes it is illusion, if someone want to rob you he will do it, no matter what you do to keep you safe.
My father once said to never lock doors or cabinets inside your house. If some bandit enter your house it will break all the locks, doors and cabinets anyway and the damage done to your house will cost you much more of what was robbed....

In the US, guns are used to stop crimes about five times more often than they are used to commit crimes.  Stop a crime - no damage done at all -- either to property or to innocent people (read: victims whom the robber/killer views as mere sheep for the slaughter.).

You are welcome to leave everything unlocked if you like.  Personally, I'd rather do what I can to keep the illusions out.  Like the sobbing girl who made the mistake of opening her locked apartment door to a stranger who knocked on it.  Ah, well......she should have known better.  She should have left the door unlocked in the first place.  That way, the friendly fellow who visited her wouldn't have had to go to the trouble of knocking first.

Heh -- people and their illusions.  When will they ever learn?

I don't see any fighting going on ... some people disagreeing but pretty peaceably as far as I can see.

Quote - Yes it is illusion, if someone want to rob you he will do it, no matter what you do to keep you safe...

Well, I have a Glock 10 that says otherwise; amongst other friendly deterents. ;)

Quote - More, if a bandit wants to rob your CD player from your car and is unable to open your car, he will break the windows of your car and rob it. The cost of car windows is much more than a CD player!!

It just plain doesn't work that way. If you think it does, you'll end up very disappointed.

The criminals usually don't target you because they want YOU or YOUR items specifically.
They target those whol leave themselves open.

Scout the neigborhood looking for an open garage to snoop through, cruise the parking lot wiggling car door handles or giving windows a light push till something gives or opens. They target weaknesses. If they are to break into the car, they target the one out of public view, where a smashed window won't attract attention.

The office they robbed... it was the one with it's door unlocked. Another office they robbed - they didn't rob a lot better equipped office next door. They robbed one without the alarm system.
They didn't break into my garage to steal bikes and ski gear, they carried them out when we forgot to close the garage door. Where I lived, there were no break-ins that I ever heard of, but things getting stolen when left unattended - all the time.

People whom will target YOU specifically are usually people whom know you, and usually it's not for theft, but for revenge of one sort of another. In those cases, a locked door won't help. But, those are much rarer cases.

But if you leave your car open and unlocked, I'd be happy to lock mine and park right next to you, because when it comes between breaking into a locked car, vs. merely opening the door, I know they're not going to bother breaking in.

Would another cute kitty pic divert this thread  ?  it seems to have wandered from the original topic :)

Quote - Well, I have a Glock 10 that says otherwise; amongst other friendly deterents. ;)

And if the bandit has two Glocks and is faster with the trigger?
You see, only illusion. It doesn't mean that bandits always win, it only means that you can win or the bandit can win, all will depend on your luck and how much "ethereal" protection you have.

Quote - The criminals usually don't target you because they want YOU or YOUR items specifically.
They target those whol leave themselves open.

Wrong, they target what or who they thing that has something with value to be robbed, what they think and not necessarly that really exist, they are moved by illusion too!
They are not frightened by police neither by your guns because they have the illusion that won't be captured neither shot.

Two houses with the same things, one unlocked and the other locked and fortified.

• If the bandit thinks that both houses has the same things, he will rob the unlocked one, less work decision.
• If the bandits thinks that the unlocked house has nothing with value and the other fortificated think that has a lot things to be robbed, they will rob this one even it is more difficult (in practice not too much). All locks and protections contribute to the illusion that is something with very high value that is being protected.
  What has value is also relative depending on how ignorant and imbecile is the bandit, for a very low class bandit an old used shoe has value and a Rembrant's painting has no value at all, but beware, he can destroy your REmbrant by anger if he finds nothing with  his "value" to rob!
  Two twenty dolars notes over your desk will keep him happy and leave your Ming dynasty collection in peace, but the bandit that robs piece of art will leave your 40$ intack and take all your collection.

Go ahead -- leave your doors unlocked.  But I wouldn't suggest giving that advice to your daughter.  Assuming that you have a daughter.

BTW - when predators are stalking their prey, they always look for the weak to prey upon.  A lion might be hungry: but it isn't stupid enough to attack an elephant in its prime because of its hunger.  The lion will, however, readily go after the peace-loving gazelle that's only minding its own business.  Things that might bite back aren't as much fun to hunt.

I have no daughter, you see, no problem!
The only important thing is common sense and not illusion, well luck also helps and bad luck attracts the unwanted.

PS. Lions don't eat elephants, they are not tasty, too much bad colesterol.
But men do it no matter how small is the man compared to the elephant.

>> Yes, the US Federal Government says it's "trouble-making".  I agree with you in sentiment, but unfortunately, US Federal law does not.

Well, let's just say that Federal law was never exactly the sharpest knife in the drawer. :-)

Quote - I have no daughter, you see, no problem!
The only important thing is common sense and not illusion, well luck also helps and bad luck attracts the unwanted.

That's right -- bad advice isn't your daughter's problem: because you don't have a daugher to bother about.  The bad advice is only somebody else's daughter's problem, and not yours.

Quote - PS. Lions don't eat elephants, they are not tasty, too much bad colesterol.
But men do it no matter how small is the man compared to the elephant.

Yep.  Because the man has enough sense to know to use a gun when facing down an elephant.  Or a lion -- or other types of predators.

Quote - I have no daughter, you see, no problem!

And you think that after such a display of inability to see any other point of view then your own (including some potential robbers point of view), I'm going to give much value to what you say???

You'd probably give someone's daughter advice that walking around in skimpy clothing in the middle of the night in Central Park is a really brilliant and safe idea. Instead of suggesting that doing it would be exposing herself to possible danger and allowing herself to be very voulnerable.

Quote -
The point, pure and simple, is that it becomes "trouble-making" because someone else -- not you, not me, not most folks on this site -- says it's "trouble-making". Not because it has any inherent trouble-making qualities about itself, but because someone somewhere seems to think it might. Not does or has -- might.

Let's make it even more simple: The ones who bear the greatest legal risks of running a website (the owners) get to make the rules. 

If you do not agree with a policy of a given site, you have exactly three civilized choices:

1. debate the issue, but then proceed to #2 or #3.

2. reduce your participation on the website (to zero if you feel it necessary) until it returns to (or meets) your requirements and desires.

3. shut up and live with it.

Quote - See, that's the thing about applying common sense to all this. Rather than the blanket ban, which, when you cut through it, doesnt actually address the problem save in the most general of ways, it might make more sense to handle these on a case-by-case basis.

Two words: Armchair Lawyers. No matter how specific and tidy you make something, there are always hordes of folks who want to find as many loopholes as possible, then exploit them. While such clever initiative is fine for human progress in general, it's a royal PITA for someone who just wants to run a website. Blanket bans tend to make things easier to understand, and keeps the loophole hunts to a minimum.

Quote - And I noticed no one picked up on the hypocritical stance about bondage and SM gear that we tie our virtual Barbies into.

I do agree that it's pretty cheesy to have massive bans on debauchery in the galleries, while the ads and marketplace pages drip with it, but the site PTB have decided to take that risk (since the rewards from sales are higher than any aesthetic reputational award they would garner from their galleries - the difference being that the benefots of the former outweighs the risk in their eyes, while the latter brings little benefit). 

shrug

/P

Quote - PS. Lions don't eat elephants, they are not tasty, too much bad colesterol.

And how do you know that? I mean other then just making it up?

It's true, all the lions I know are on a strict low-cholesterol diet.
edit: medical proof!
http://cholesterolbasics.com/focus_article.asp?f=cardio&b=cholesterolbasics&c=cardio_winterattacks

lions dont eat elephants normally cause

1. they dont have a big enough bun
2. no fridges, so the leftovers spoil
3. who wants to cut up an elephant for 1 sandwich.

this constitutes EXTREME thread drift. :woot:

Lions, especially a pride of lions is fully capable of taking down an elephant. They've even been filmed doing so. Actually, it's mostly female lions that hunt, and if SHE lets him, a lion will eat elephant :tt2:

Now, don't make me eat anyone!

Quote - PS. Lions don't eat elephants...

Oddly enough... :laugh:
http://www.elephant-news.com/index.php?id=1534

Moral of this thread is:
Lions DO eat elephants, so keep your doors locked!    :lol:

Quote - Moral of this thread is:
Lions DO eat elephants, so keep your doors locked!    :lol:

That would make a good sig...:thumbupboth:

they must have big buns , and lots of lettuce and ketchup .. :)

>> Two words: Armchair Lawyers.

I'm sure there's a connection there someplace, but it has all the appearance of "let's cave some more because the Feds might do something because someone out there on the internet might be getting his jollies off on it!"

We truly can be a spineless bunch sometimes.....

I think the amount of people killed by guns is proportional to the amount of guns being sold.
In Holland guns are only allowed when you have a permit, in the whole country there were less than 200 murders last year which is less than the murderrate in New Orleans.
One argument for having guns is that guns don't kill but people do. I state it the other way: guns (and all other weapons)  make it easier for people to kill.

regards,

Bopper.

Quote - I'm sure there's a connection there someplace, but it has all the appearance of "let's cave some more because the Feds might do something ...We truly can be a spineless bunch

That's not fair at all, as pointed out earlier one guy (Thorne in this case) is bearing all that risk while you bear none of it.  I'd say he's been very tough indeed to have borne all the risk for his users for the past several years - someone else can take a turn (possibly you?)

There is (or should be) no argument about gun ownership in the U.S.

• SEE Amendment II of the U.S. Constitution -

Quote - >> Two words: Armchair Lawyers.

I'm sure there's a connection there someplace, but it has all the appearance of "let's cave some more because the Feds might do something because someone out there on the internet might be getting his jollies off on it!"

We truly can be a spineless bunch sometimes.....

What do you mean "we"? You don't own or run this site. You want to run a site the way you want it to be run, and take risks that you see fit, have your own site. This site is a privately owned entity, they can run it any which way they like, and assume as much or as little risk as they see fit. You agreed to abide by that when you signed up and agreed to the TOS.

Start your own site, run it the way you see fit.
.....Then I'll come over and biatch about all the things you're doing wrong....

Hi Thorne

I just wanted to say,  you're a great artist and I understand and respect your decision. 

Hi SamTherapy

It is surreal and that's for sure.  We're on page eight and there's been no personal attacks.  Very positive to say the least.

You know,  I've only had one intruder in my home.  The individual was mentally challenged and mistook my house for his. 

Quote - I think the amount of people killed by guns is proportional to the amount of guns being sold.
In Holland guns are only allowed when you have a permit, in the whole country there were less than 200 murders last year which is less than the murderrate in New Orleans.
One argument for having guns is that guns don't kill but people do. I state it the other way: guns (and all other weapons)  make it easier for people to kill.

AFAIK, where I am, a gun needs to be registered too. And, aw, shucks, the bad guys aren't listening.  It's not the registered law abiding gun owners that are shooting each other up around here.

I hate guns more than I hate pornography.

Quote - That's right -- bad advice isn't your daughter's problem: because you don't have a daugher to bother about.  The bad advice is only somebody else's daughter's problem, and not yours.

Does it mean that I have no daughter and you have one I must to have your problem and share your suffering?
Or translating it to the topic of this thread:
If you have a problem viewing nude pictures I cannot post nude pictures because you have a problem?
You see, thieves, lions and censorship meets together, it's only a question of words, you change a word and who was against censorship turns into the most pragmatic defender of censorship.
Just switch nude, underage, kids, torture, hollocaust, communism, capitalism, Bush, Bin Laden, Hitler, Nazis, Aliens, Ali Baba and see how quickly you position changes, meantime censorship continue to be censorship, it's only a question of what MUST be under censorship.....

Your hate would be more on target if it was directed towards crappy people and abusers, rather then objects they utilize to perpetrate their bad deeds.

Quote - If you have a problem viewing nude pictures I cannot post nude pictures because you have a problem?

Actually it is completely irrelevant if EITHER of you has a problem, if the site decides to disallow it.  Are you going to go inflict violence on the site owner if they "censor" you?  Get real.

Quote - Or translating it to the topic of this thread:
If you have a problem viewing nude pictures I cannot post nude pictures because you have a problem?

I feel like farting in your face, do you mean I can't, because you have a problem with it? :blink:

Get used to it, you'll encounter forms of censorship in all facets of life. Not all 'censorship' is a bad thing.

Nudity and sexuality aren't the kinds of things you want to push in people's faces wherever and however you please. Same goes for a number of other sensitive subjects. 
Learning thisis not the matter of 'censorship', it's the matter of growing up, maturing and learning how to get along with people around you.

Quote - >> Two words: Armchair Lawyers.

I'm sure there's a connection there someplace, but it has all the appearance of "let's cave some more because the Feds might do something because someone out there on the internet might be getting his jollies off on it!"

We truly can be a spineless bunch sometimes.....

Paul and Connie said it very well, but I'd like to cover one other angle:

Until/Unless you're willing and able to shoulder at least some of the risk yourself, you have all the credibility of some random obese gent at a bus stop talking about how some sports figure should do his or her job.

/P

Sorry,  I can't hate people it's not in my nature.

Quote - As for censorship...

You seem to have confused extremism with censoring.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/censoring

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/extremism

Excessive censoring is a tool many extremists have used to manipulate. Yet again you've directed your anger towards the tool, rather then the abusers and perpetrators.

Tools (guns, knives, censoring, nude pictures) can be good or bad, depending on how people use them. You need to get mad at crappy people whom don't have any internal moral compass or impulse control or respect for fellow human being or whatever else causes them to act badly, instead of the tools that they use.
This is because theese same tools have great many good uses too. Yes, including guns. Policemen and soldiers protecting your hide and house use them too, you know.

Until/Unless you're willing and able to shoulder at least some of the risk yourself, you have all the credibility of some random obese gent at a bus stop talking about how some sports figure should do his or her job.

I think though by one expressing their opinion it's a start in taking the risk.

The United States was founded by dissidents.  I don't think they were fond of censorship either.

Quote - Sorry,  I can't hate people it's not in my nature.

Some people, like those in the pics you posted here in the thread are worth hating.
Don't hate 'people' in general, hate bad people, or even better, hate the bad in people (but I don't wanna get too complex on you here just yet)

You seem to have trouble differentiating good from bad - or in more refined terms, utilizing the ability for value judgement.

Try this:
Hitler=person=bad=OK to hate
Mother Theresa=person=good=Don't hate
Corrolary - Can't indiscriminantly love or hate 'people'. Must learn to differentiate.

Give Hitler a gun = bad all around (unless he shot himself)
Give Mother Theresa a gun to shoot Hitler = might be good, but circumventing proper legal proces = bad
Corrolary: A tool can be applied to good or bad use, depending on whom handles it.

Quote - The United States was founded by dissidents.  I don't think they were fond of censorship either.

Actually, if you read through the declaration of independence (You can find text here: http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/freedom/doi/text.html ), you will see that it's the evil doers they weren't fond of. Their main beef being against usurpation and despotism - forms of abuse of people and resources.