Re: Titties on Facebook
Jon Louis Mann wrote: Because breastfeeding is not obscene - as those sociopaths and perverts that own Facebook think, and try hard to push this evil and babykilling meme into children and their mothers. Alberto, are you saying it's okay to use obscenities on this list, rather than censor speech, no matter who may be offended by it? I didn't say that. What I said is that only sociopaths, perverts and babykillers can think that breastfeeding is obscene. I disagree with you that the owners of FB are evil perverts and baby killers because they choose to respect the morals of some of their users who are offended by breast feeding pictures. I'm sure they personally don't have a moral position on breast feeding, but are going along with it for business reasons. I just don't understand why it is such an issue. What is going on with Wikileaks is a far more important issue of government censorship. The people who own FB can do whatever they want. They probably figure they will gain more users than if they allowed rampant porn on FB. Except that breastfeeding is not porn. Alberto Monteiro ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Titties on Facebook
At 01:46 AM Friday 12/10/2010, Jon Louis Mann wrote: Yes, I am a hater of censorship. But it's not fun to get _here_ and distill hate against Iran's or China's censorship. Alberto Monteiro How is different than, say, guidelines that discourage obscenities on a mailing list? Doug Because breastfeeding is not obscene - as those sociopaths and perverts that own Facebook think, and try hard to push this evil and babykilling meme into children and their mothers. Alberto Monteiro Alberto, are you saying it's okay to use obscenities on this list, rather than censor speech, no matter who may be offended by it? I disagree with you that the owners of FB are evil perverts and baby killers because they choose to respect the morals of some of their users who are offended by breast feeding pictures. I'm sure they personally don't have a moral position on breast feeding, but are going along with it for business reasons. I just don't understand why it is such an issue. What is going on with Wikileaks is a far more important issue of government censorship. The people who own FB can do whatever they want. They probably figure they will gain more users than if they allowed rampant porn on FB. My guess is that they are doing it because the laws in many locations across the U.S. at least used to (and probably still in some locations: there are any number of lists, many predating the Internet, of outdated laws that sound ridiculous to people today but are still on the books) say that having any part of the [female] nipple or areola (or in at least one case I heard of, any differently-pigmented portion of the female breast, which perhaps applies to women with birthmarks or perhaps even tan lines) is legally considered obscene or public indecency or something like that. Not so much to discourage women from breastfeeding their infants, but to prevent them from walking around town or performing in various gentlemen's clubs topless. And various types of net nanny software block and report any search for any string containing the word breast, even though that may prevent a woman from learning about how to examine herself for cancer or about her options if she is diagnosed, primarily to keep junior-high-school-age males from using the computers in the school or public library to search for titillating images (p.i.), because whether one agrees or not, or whether one objects to health information being unintentionally censored, it is still the law in most locations that such images must be kept out of the possible view of minors under the age of 18. (Hence why Playboy and other such men's magazines are generally kept behind the counter, or in a separate section of the book/magazine store, and only available for sale to adults who ask for them, at least in some states/cities.) I found some even more perverted pictures on FB, but out of respect for Debbie, I won't put those up. So you don't think any of the other women (or maybe even some men) on the list would be offended? Debbie (and only Debbie) has to be protected? . . . ronn! :) ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Titties on Facebook
Jon Louis Mann wrote: HOWEVER, just for you, Alberto, I did find this picture on FB, of a hottie suckling a piglet at her breast: http://www.shoutmouth.com/index.php/news/Greatest_Cleavage_in_Music_History?page=7 A very beautiful image, full of meanings. She's an animal rights activist, isn't she? I can't think of a better way to express the idea of the imorality of killing pigs than showing that they are like us. and another picture of the Google model: http://www.iamboredr.com/media/1645/Boobs/ The girl is fully clothed, what's the point? Alberto Monteiro ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Titties on Facebook
On 11/12/2010, at 1:35 AM, Ronn! Blankenship wrote: And various types of net nanny software block and report any search for any string containing the word breast, even though that may prevent a woman from learning about how to examine herself for cancer or about her options if she is diagnosed, primarily to keep junior-high-school-age males from using the computers in the school or public library to search for titillating images (p.i.), because whether one agrees or not, ...or, indeed, from recipes for chicken curry... Charlie. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Titties on Facebook
Yes, I am a hater of censorship. But it's not fun to get _here_ and distill hate against Iran's or China's censorship. Alberto Monteiro How is different than, say, guidelines that discourage obscenities on a mailing list? Doug Because breastfeeding is not obscene - as those sociopaths and perverts that own Facebook think, and try hard to push this evil and babykilling meme into children and their mothers. Alberto Monteiro Alberto, are you saying it's okay to use obscenities on this list, rather than censor speech, no matter who may be offended by it? I disagree with you that the owners of FB are evil perverts and baby killers because they choose to respect the morals of some of their users who are offended by breast feeding pictures. I'm sure they personally don't have a moral position on breast feeding, but are going along with it for business reasons. I just don't understand why it is such an issue. What is going on with Wikileaks is a far more important issue of government censorship. The people who own FB can do whatever they want. They probably figure they will gain more users than if they allowed rampant porn on FB. HOWEVER, just for you, Alberto, I did find this picture on FB, of a hottie suckling a piglet at her breast: http://www.shoutmouth.com/index.php/news/Greatest_Cleavage_in_Music_History?page=7 and another picture of the Google model: http://www.iamboredr.com/media/1645/Boobs/ I found some even more perverted pictures on FB, but out of respect for Debbie, I won't put those up. I hope this doesn't get me kicked off brinlist!~} Jon ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
