Page 2 of 2
Posted: Sun Jun 12, 2005 3:17 pm
@ Z!re: Yeah,. I didn't really see ne thing wrong with Z!re's pic,. and coming from the ppl that where cunfused y my lil bro was offended about being cussed at...
@ Pete: With that, I can agree on, Pete,.. hating some 1 because they hate something only makes a bigger hole,. but thats a oppinion only few share,.. & I wasn't on hate either.. Some ppl might find discumfort seeing such names, and turn away all toggether..
Finial word, ppl have a right to there oppinions, likes, dislikes,. but they ought to be respectful to others sometimes too,...
PS: SS_LuckyStrike? Gah! Thats a mechanical object, it had no say in what it did, it was steered by others... that be dumb... same as saying: Kill that horse for carrying the bad guys... horses where lead, they could really care less for the war (Talking bout Civil War, when the general ordered his men to kill all the southerner's horses (along w/ distroying everything))
Posted: Sun Jun 12, 2005 3:19 pm
I never said I hated anyone..
Infact I have Zach (aka: Hitle or Mr Match) on my msn..
And you again missed my point..
I posted a picture in a bithday thread, lillos to be exact. With a picture of bruce lee, this one:
Sumo Jo edited my post, without telling me anything, because it had the hiddeous F word in it.
Yet, Hitler had been on the site for about a month..
QBN rules state that you're not allowed to post any racist or nazi material..
Quite simple equation, dont you agree?
So, when my post got edited for that word, but someone with a name that symbolize the murder of millions is allowed.. well.. it just seemed weird to me..
And stop trying to make this into some: Don't hate, then you're no better than them!
I can hate nazis all I want, it's not the person I hate, it's the things the word and groups stand for: Killing of millions.
Just like I disslike americans for the same reasons.. It's not the individual, it's the group..
Posted: Sun Jun 12, 2005 3:35 pm
I have to ask.. did you do that pic yourself? Its almost hard to tell its computer edited..
Except for the box textures, but close enough..
And why do we keep bringing up hate ne way? I thought this was on difference of oppinions?
Posted: Sun Jun 12, 2005 3:37 pm
Nope, i didnt make it
Posted: Sun Jun 12, 2005 3:52 pm
Heh.. back on topic: Whens the next comic?
Posted: Sun Jun 12, 2005 4:29 pm
When I figure out something to make it about
Posted: Mon Jun 13, 2005 1:57 am
New episode available.
Posted: Wed Dec 27, 2006 7:19 pm
I summon thee!
Rise oh topic! Rise from thyne grave!
Posted: Thu Dec 28, 2006 2:46 pm
Posted: Mon Jan 01, 2007 12:40 am
bump, see first post.
Posted: Tue Jan 02, 2007 1:51 pm
I have never seen these before.... They're great!
Pete wrote:It's better to let the world know that these types of people and opinions do exist, rather than to censor and ban these people just because you don't agree with them. I would rather talk to them and find out why they feel that way rather than persecuting them based just on their screenname. Besides, instantly hating someone named "Hitler" or even "JewHater" is just as bad as them hating Jewish people. Either way, it's a bigoted viewpoint...you just don't think your opinion is bigoted because you're in the majority and you (obviously) believe that you're right. But you still dislike someone that you don't even know for no reason other than appearance (on the web, your screenname is all you can go by). Isn't that the same thing?
I absolutely despise censorship. If people find something offensive, it's their choice wheter to read it or not. Censorship hides what is the harsh reality of the world. Most literature has a point to serve about the topic it's discussing, so censoring them defeats the purpose... (that's just my *counts...* 2 1/2 cents)
Posted: Wed Jan 03, 2007 6:44 pm
It should only be censored if it is either not stating a fact or opinion (i.e. If it is bashing somewone with no reason) or if it is really unsuitable for the audience (e.x. Lego.com shouldn't have uncensored swearing).
It is safe to assume that people under 10 don't program programs, and people under 13 probably won't use this site, so this website has no need to be censored... however, lego.com has users under 5, so it shouldn't have really dirty or offensive material.
Censoring should only be used in cases where the material is extemely biased, is offensive, and does not really have any point apart from being insulting. If I said everyone here deserve to die, then I should be banned unless I have a decent reason. If I said a user was disgusting, then I don't need to be banned, unless I said that user was really disgusting or I said something really insulting without a reason.
Posted: Thu Jan 04, 2007 6:04 pm
I accept censoring only when site has illegal material in it. If 5 years old visits at lego.com and there is bad words, how likely he can even read it? And to be honest, that young kids should not use internet alone. Adult watch is allways necessary. Yes there is slight chance that some kid accidently can see some bad word or picture while surfing at internet but so he/she can hear or see something bad when hes backseat of hes daddy car or walks in street with mother.
Censoring websites by whatever reasons (except that illegal material) is just way for parents to give kid something else to do instead of having time with them.