|
|
|
Pregnancy, NSFW image |
|
|
Shalom |
|
Ãœber Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 880
Joined:
Member No.: 5,566
|
I was looking up the meaning of "Gravida 2, Para 1" on the internet yesterday. Wikipedia's article on Pregnancy came up, and I found the answer there almost immediately. But to get there, I had to scroll down the first screen and view a NSFW photo of a naked pregnant woman. I was at "W". Fortunately nobody saw it, but I felt uncomfortable. It's not as if I were searching for information about a sexually explicit subject (the classic example is "autofellatio"). We're talking about a very common, ordinary phenomenon. For crying out loud, Wikipedian nerds, can you have the decency to show a pregnant woman with her clothes on?
|
|
|
|
dogbiscuit |
|
Could you run through Verifiability not Truth once more?
Group: Members
Posts: 2,972
Joined:
From: The Midlands
Member No.: 4,015
|
QUOTE(Shalom @ Tue 24th August 2010, 6:57pm) I was looking up the meaning of "Gravida 2, Para 1" on the internet yesterday. Wikipedia's article on Pregnancy came up, and I found the answer there almost immediately. But to get there, I had to scroll down the first screen and view a NSFW photo of a naked pregnant woman. I was at "W". Fortunately nobody saw it, but I felt uncomfortable. It's not as if I were searching for information about a sexually explicit subject (the classic example is "autofellatio"). We're talking about a very common, ordinary phenomenon. For crying out loud, Wikipedian nerds, can you have the decency to show a pregnant woman with her clothes on? ...as demonstrated by the couple of pictures lower down with a lady in a bikini. I would say that the photograph in that context was in good taste and the sort of photograph that you might expect to get in some publications on pregnancy. Essentially, for me this is a good example of the need for versioning. There are plenty of people who on that photograph going through the work filter would be called into the manager's office to explain why they had broken house IT rules. With all the usability studies and discussions on school versions of Wikipedia and so on, you would have hoped that someone at WMF would have twigged that such a feature would be a good thing which could make the Wikipedia product more attractive as well as solving readers' problems. Note to self: must remember that the Wikipedia readership are of no interest to the WMF except at donation time. Silly me.
|
|
|
|
Shalom |
|
Ãœber Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 880
Joined:
Member No.: 5,566
|
QUOTE(dogbiscuit @ Tue 24th August 2010, 2:05pm) QUOTE(Shalom @ Tue 24th August 2010, 6:57pm) I was looking up the meaning of "Gravida 2, Para 1" on the internet yesterday. Wikipedia's article on Pregnancy came up, and I found the answer there almost immediately. But to get there, I had to scroll down the first screen and view a NSFW photo of a naked pregnant woman. I was at "W". Fortunately nobody saw it, but I felt uncomfortable. It's not as if I were searching for information about a sexually explicit subject (the classic example is "autofellatio"). We're talking about a very common, ordinary phenomenon. For crying out loud, Wikipedian nerds, can you have the decency to show a pregnant woman with her clothes on? ...as demonstrated by the couple of pictures lower down with a lady in a bikini. I would say that the photograph in that context was in good taste and the sort of photograph that you might expect to get in some publications on pregnancy. Essentially, for me this is a good example of the need for versioning. There are plenty of people who on that photograph going through the work filter would be called into the manager's office to explain why they had broken house IT rules. With all the usability studies and discussions on school versions of Wikipedia and so on, you would have hoped that someone at WMF would have twigged that such a feature would be a good thing which could make the Wikipedia product more attractive as well as solving readers' problems. Note to self: must remember that the Wikipedia readership are of no interest to the WMF except at donation time. Silly me. Look, I'm not saying that a picture of a naked pregnant woman (or even a naked non-pregnant woman) has no educational value. Just use discretion. It really should not appear on the first screen of an article that many people will expect to read without seeing any skin at all. My ideas for images on "pregnancy" would be (1) women with clothes on, and (2) cartoon drawings.
|
|
|
|
Milton Roe |
|
Known alias of J. Random Troll
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,209
Joined:
Member No.: 5,156
|
QUOTE(Shalom @ Tue 24th August 2010, 11:47am) QUOTE(dogbiscuit @ Tue 24th August 2010, 2:05pm) QUOTE(Shalom @ Tue 24th August 2010, 6:57pm) I was looking up the meaning of "Gravida 2, Para 1" on the internet yesterday. Wikipedia's article on Pregnancy came up, and I found the answer there almost immediately. But to get there, I had to scroll down the first screen and view a NSFW photo of a naked pregnant woman. I was at "W". Fortunately nobody saw it, but I felt uncomfortable. It's not as if I were searching for information about a sexually explicit subject (the classic example is "autofellatio"). We're talking about a very common, ordinary phenomenon. For crying out loud, Wikipedian nerds, can you have the decency to show a pregnant woman with her clothes on? ...as demonstrated by the couple of pictures lower down with a lady in a bikini. I would say that the photograph in that context was in good taste and the sort of photograph that you might expect to get in some publications on pregnancy. Essentially, for me this is a good example of the need for versioning. There are plenty of people who on that photograph going through the work filter would be called into the manager's office to explain why they had broken house IT rules. With all the usability studies and discussions on school versions of Wikipedia and so on, you would have hoped that someone at WMF would have twigged that such a feature would be a good thing which could make the Wikipedia product more attractive as well as solving readers' problems. Note to self: must remember that the Wikipedia readership are of no interest to the WMF except at donation time. Silly me. Look, I'm not saying that a picture of a naked pregnant woman (or even a naked non-pregnant woman) has no educational value. Just use discretion. It really should not appear on the first screen of an article that many people will expect to read without seeing any skin at all. My ideas for images on "pregnancy" would be (1) women with clothes on, and (2) cartoon drawings. Can I chime in to say that a grossly pregnant woman in a bikini may be just as shocking as a tastefully-posed naked one, in a shower? It's certainly more unnatural! I was trying to figure out why I preferred the pic this article starts with, to the ones further down, and that's what I came up with, anyway.
|
|
|
|
CharlotteWebb |
|
Postmaster General
Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,740
Joined:
Member No.: 1,727
|
QUOTE(Shalom @ Tue 24th August 2010, 5:57pm) But to get there, I had to scroll down the first screen and view a NSFW photo of a naked pregnant woman. I was at "W". Fortunately nobody saw it, but I felt uncomfortable.
You should schedule a psychiatric evaluation. I think Ottava could use a car-pool buddy. QUOTE We're talking about a very common, ordinary phenomenon.
Yep. Granted, computer policy in the places I've worked has fallen into one of three categories: A) Use your own discretion but get your work done in a timely fashion. B) Use the internet only for purposes related to company business. C) Bring some books because we don't fucking have internet. QUOTE(Shalom @ Tue 24th August 2010, 6:47pm) (2) cartoon drawings.
Then we'd be arguing about your perceived age of the expectant mother. (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/frustrated.gif)
|
|
|
|
A Horse With No Name |
|
I have as much free time as a Wikipedia admin!
Group: Regulars
Posts: 4,471
Joined:
Member No.: 9,985
|
QUOTE(Shalom @ Tue 24th August 2010, 2:47pm) Look, I'm not saying that a picture of a naked pregnant woman (or even a naked non-pregnant woman) has no educational value.
Look, where do you want today's youth to learn about this kind of stuff? Sooner or later, naked women pop up in people's lives -- let's use Wikipedia to indoctrinate kids, thus having them ready when this happens. (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif) QUOTE(Shalom @ Tue 24th August 2010, 2:47pm) My ideas for images on "pregnancy" would be (1) women with clothes on, and (2) cartoon drawings.
I once saw a poster that parodied the "Peanuts" cartoons - it had a very pregnant Lucy yelling, "Damn you, Charlie Brown!" That would be hilarious for the pregnancy article, eh? (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)
|
|
|
|
Milton Roe |
|
Known alias of J. Random Troll
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,209
Joined:
Member No.: 5,156
|
QUOTE(Theanima @ Tue 24th August 2010, 11:59am) And besides, I'm tired of all these people who insist breasts are sexual organs. They're for babies for goodness sake. Their sexual connotation is as much the same as, say, feet (which many are turned on by, just like breasts).
Well, here we disagree. Breasts in a non-pregnant woman ARE sexual organs. Some women have no more breasts when they aren't nursing than a dog or cat has. But these women are able to provide just as much milk when needed (this has actually been studied). That means that a breast for a woman who is not nursing, or preparing to, is NOT for babies. It's not needed. So whence all that extra fatty tissue, which clearly isn't functional, occuring in some women with large breasts, who aren't pregnant or nursing? Well, they're secondary sexual characteristics, as, ermm, "advertised." As is that glorious hair of a woman, which is of better quality usually than a man's. A fact recognized by some Muslim cultures, who require that it be covered up. These things are mild stimulants, and are soon ignorable if you see them enough, like woman's bare ankles. But I'm pretty sure that nature hardwires some things to be more intrinsically stimulating visually than others. That female figure, for example. All the secondary characteristics that appear at puberty.
|
|
|
|
A Horse With No Name |
|
I have as much free time as a Wikipedia admin!
Group: Regulars
Posts: 4,471
Joined:
Member No.: 9,985
|
QUOTE(carbuncle @ Tue 24th August 2010, 4:02pm) That's odd, I would have thought that this image would be the natural choice of Wikipedians to illustrate pregnancy... Horsey likes where this conversation is going! (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/boing.gif)(IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/boing.gif)(IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/boing.gif) QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Tue 24th August 2010, 4:23pm) There was a song that went "She wore an itsy bitsy teenie weenie yellow polka dot bikini..." But I can't recall any that went "she stepped out of shower nude."
Didn't the Beatles have a song that went, "She came in through the bathroom window, and stepped out of the shower nude"? (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)
|
|
|
|
Milton Roe |
|
Known alias of J. Random Troll
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,209
Joined:
Member No.: 5,156
|
QUOTE(A Horse With No Name @ Tue 24th August 2010, 1:25pm) QUOTE(carbuncle @ Tue 24th August 2010, 4:02pm) That's odd, I would have thought that this image would be the natural choice of Wikipedians to illustrate pregnancy... Horsey likes where this conversation is going! (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/boing.gif)(IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/boing.gif)(IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/boing.gif) You would. But a pregnant outline sends very mixed signals to men, since the breasts are larger, but the girlish figure is definitely gone. So you'll see a "sexual" response, but not anything like pure lust (which is why you don't see gravid women at strip joints). Instead it tends to sexual-maternal-protective. The emotion we call "galantry" isn't generally thought to be a primary one, but pray tell me, of which other "primary emotions" would it be composed? An extravigantly pregnant woman provokes this feeling in men. QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Tue 24th August 2010, 4:23pm) There was a song that went "She wore an itsy bitsy teenie weenie yellow polka dot bikini..." But I can't recall any that went "she stepped out of shower nude."
QUOTE(horsey) Didn't the Beatles have a song that went, "She came in through the bathroom window, and stepped out of the shower nude"? (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif) No, I think the Beatles song is a prophetic homage to G.W. Bush, ala Ann Richards. They did have one about a guy who crawled off to sleep in the bath, and then later committed arson. That's what you get for teasing John Lennon.
|
|
|
|
Shalom |
|
Ãœber Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 880
Joined:
Member No.: 5,566
|
This discussion is going off track. At home, when I'm alone, the image of the nude pregnant woman side-on, from the waist up, is not offensive. (My Jewish tradition states that viewing such images for pleasure is forbidden, but this is one of the few areas where I do not practice strict adherence to the written laws.) There's a flip-side to "Wikipedia is not censored". That is: Wikipedia reaches a very wide audience. The page view statistics for the Pregnancy article show 7,000 pageviews every day, or about 5 pageviews per minute. More than two million people will see that image it stays on the site. Among that mass of humanity, there will be some people who feel not mildly uncomfortable, but really upset - and most of them won't say anything about it on the talk page. This is the kind of decision that the readership won't make. The writers on Wikipedia, and I no longer number among them, must consider what will least offend in the most-viewed pages. On less-viewed pages (another classic example: goatse.cx) a more liberal approach may be reasonable, on the grounds of "what did you expect to see?" Even there, Kelly Martin once advised that pressing the "Random article" button might be hazardous because you might land on a NSFW page. This post has been edited by Shalom:
|
|
|
|
dogbiscuit |
|
Could you run through Verifiability not Truth once more?
Group: Members
Posts: 2,972
Joined:
From: The Midlands
Member No.: 4,015
|
QUOTE(Shalom @ Wed 25th August 2010, 1:40am) This discussion is going off track. At home, when I'm alone, the image of the nude pregnant woman side-on, from the waist up, is not offensive. (My Jewish tradition states that viewing such images for pleasure is forbidden, but this is one of the few areas where I do not practice strict adherence to the written laws.) There's a flip-side to "Wikipedia is not censored". That is: Wikipedia reaches a very wide audience. The page view statistics for the Pregnancy article show 7,000 pageviews every day, or about 5 pageviews per minute. More than two million people will see that image it stays on the site. Among that mass of humanity, there will be some people who feel not mildly uncomfortable, but really upset - and most of them won't say anything about it on the talk page. This is the kind of decision that the readership won't make. The writers on Wikipedia, and I no longer number among them, must consider what will least offend in the most-viewed pages. On less-viewed pages (another classic example: goatse.cx) a more liberal approach may be reasonable, on the grounds of "what did you expect to see?" Even there, Kelly Martin once advised that pressing the "Random article" button might be hazardous because you might land on a NSFW page. Ah, Grasshopper, you are not of the faith. Wikipedia defines that anyone who chooses to be offended by information of the world must be the one with an erroneous mindset. The reality is that there are a myriad of ways in which an article can break a local law or a code of someone's beliefs. Wikipedia is a place of black and white - because it is not easy to define a rule that allows the reader to define a set of criteria of which to display, it is deemed that it cannot be done. In reality it would be quite practical to define a set of criteria to mark pictures or text as fitting certain criteria. However, to provide this for the reader would be an unfair imposition on our Glorious Writers (who have enough to do in citing their contributions) and would lead to the possibility of intermediaries using such criteria for censorship, so such a suggestion simply could not be countenanced as the poor dusty child in Africa might be denied his educational porn site.
|
|
|
|
anthony |
|
Postmaster
Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,034
Joined:
Member No.: 2,132
|
QUOTE(Shalom @ Wed 25th August 2010, 12:40am) The writers on Wikipedia, and I no longer number among them, must consider what will least offend in the most-viewed pages.
Why? I'm not sure I agree with their choice in this case, but "must consider what will least offend" is quite over the top. QUOTE(Shalom @ Wed 25th August 2010, 12:40am) (My Jewish tradition states that viewing such images for pleasure is forbidden, but this is one of the few areas where I do not practice strict adherence to the written laws.)
I must say I cracked up when I read that. "I make very few exceptions to living a completely pious life, but porn is one of them!" This post has been edited by anthony:
|
|
|
|
CharlotteWebb |
|
Postmaster General
Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,740
Joined:
Member No.: 1,727
|
QUOTE(Shalom @ Wed 25th August 2010, 12:40am) (My Jewish tradition states that viewing such images for pleasure is forbidden, but this is one of the few areas where I do not practice strict adherence to the written laws.)
Frankly , I don't see how this information is relevant (or why you'd even think to mention your religious beliefs) unless you were in fact viewing this image and article for pleasure. P. S. I should know better than to ask how you feel about graven images. This post has been edited by CharlotteWebb:
|
|
|
|
The Joy |
|
I am a millipede! I am amazing!
Group: Members
Posts: 3,839
Joined:
From: The Moon
Member No.: 982
|
QUOTE(anthony @ Tue 24th August 2010, 9:04pm) QUOTE(Shalom @ Wed 25th August 2010, 12:40am) The writers on Wikipedia, and I no longer number among them, must consider what will least offend in the most-viewed pages.
Why? I'm not sure I agree with their choice in this case, but "must consider what will least offend" is quite over the top. QUOTE(Shalom @ Wed 25th August 2010, 12:40am) (My Jewish tradition states that viewing such images for pleasure is forbidden, but this is one of the few areas where I do not practice strict adherence to the written laws.)
I must say I cracked up when I read that. "I make very few exceptions to living a completely pious life, but porn is one of them!" Because if people are offended by such images, they will not read Wikipedia. If few people read Wikipedia, then the donations will decrease. Eventually, Wikipedia will die when all it had to do was find some less-controversial images to replace the (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/wtf.gif) -kind of images. Wikipedians purposely find the most controversial images to put in articles solely so they can yell "WP:NOTCENSORED" every time someone suggests politely (or orders violently) for a less-provocative image that is freely available. I am sure there are plenty of heavily pregnant Wikipedians willing to put a picture of themselves more moderately dressed on Wikipedia. Just because there is a mountain there does not mean one has to climb it. Did the naked woman on the article give written and legal permission for her image to be on Wikipedia and released into the GFDL/CC or whatever to the Wikimedia Foundation?
|
|
|
|
anthony |
|
Postmaster
Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,034
Joined:
Member No.: 2,132
|
QUOTE(The Joy @ Wed 25th August 2010, 2:39am) Because if people are offended by such images, they will not read Wikipedia.
So the problem solves itself! QUOTE(The Joy @ Wed 25th August 2010, 2:39am) If few people read Wikipedia, then the donations will decrease.
Whoa now. How did you get from *some* of the 2 million people will be offended to few of the 2 million people won't be offended? QUOTE(The Joy @ Wed 25th August 2010, 2:39am) Eventually, Wikipedia will die when all it had to do was find some less-controversial images to replace the (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/wtf.gif) -kind of images. Wikipedians purposely find the most controversial images to put in articles solely so they can yell "WP:NOTCENSORED" every time someone suggests politely (or orders violently) for a less-provocative image that is freely available. I'm not defending that. As I said "I'm not sure I agree with their choice in this case, but 'must consider what will least offend' is quite over the top." When I looked at the image, it took me a few seconds before I even noticed what the fuss was about. Oh, nipples, okay...
|
|
|
|
mydog |
|
Neophyte
Group: Contributors
Posts: 13
Joined:
Member No.: 58,134
|
Not to resurrect a dead topic or anything, but this issue has reached somewhat of a boiling point, with a shouting match at Talk:Pregnancy, a couple loud RFCs, and other such fun. My opinion is that having the picture as the lead is indeed uncalled for (I don't think it's inappropriate later in the article), but I haven't had the, um, pleasure of voicing my opinion on the great Wikipedia.
|
|
|
|
Tarc |
|
Fat Cat
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,124
Joined:
Member No.: 5,309
|
QUOTE(mydog @ Sun 23rd October 2011, 9:30pm) Not to resurrect a dead topic or anything, but this issue has reached somewhat of a boiling point, with a shouting match at Talk:Pregnancy, a couple loud RFCs, and other such fun. My opinion is that having the picture as the lead is indeed uncalled for (I don't think it's inappropriate later in the article), but I haven't had the, um, pleasure of voicing my opinion on the great Wikipedia. We also have User:Ludwigs2 (T-H-L-K-D), attempting to link the issue of the preggers image with the issue of certain groups not liking to see images of Muhammad.
|
|
|
|
GlassBeadGame |
|
Dharma Bum
Group: Contributors
Posts: 7,919
Joined:
From: My name it means nothing. My age it means less. The country I come from is called the Mid-West.
Member No.: 981
|
QUOTE(Tarc @ Wed 26th October 2011, 10:26am) QUOTE(mydog @ Sun 23rd October 2011, 9:30pm) Not to resurrect a dead topic or anything, but this issue has reached somewhat of a boiling point, with a shouting match at Talk:Pregnancy, a couple loud RFCs, and other such fun. My opinion is that having the picture as the lead is indeed uncalled for (I don't think it's inappropriate later in the article), but I haven't had the, um, pleasure of voicing my opinion on the great Wikipedia. We also have User:Ludwigs2 (T-H-L-K-D), attempting to link the issue of the preggers image with the issue of certain groups not liking to see images of Muhammad. Engaging this discussion on Wikipedian terms with Wikipedians is not going to be productive or even interesting. Once it was established that Wikipedian are incapable of addressing the interests of people outside the project it is just a lot of your usual middle school "I'm so fucking free" nonsense. Some Wikipedians using the matter for some other narrowly Wikipedian issue without even having the Muslim participants present completely misses the point. 500,000 people from across the globe requested in a dignified manner that Wikipedia address a concern they shared. They were not even given a place at the table. A bunch of Wikipedian bigots, trolls and pimply faced adolescents "decided" the matter in a shabby user discussion. Please go be free someplace else.
|
|
|
|
Tarc |
|
Fat Cat
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,124
Joined:
Member No.: 5,309
|
QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Wed 26th October 2011, 1:20pm) QUOTE(Tarc @ Wed 26th October 2011, 10:26am) QUOTE(mydog @ Sun 23rd October 2011, 9:30pm) Not to resurrect a dead topic or anything, but this issue has reached somewhat of a boiling point, with a shouting match at Talk:Pregnancy, a couple loud RFCs, and other such fun. My opinion is that having the picture as the lead is indeed uncalled for (I don't think it's inappropriate later in the article), but I haven't had the, um, pleasure of voicing my opinion on the great Wikipedia. We also have User:Ludwigs2 (T-H-L-K-D), attempting to link the issue of the preggers image with the issue of certain groups not liking to see images of Muhammad. Engaging this discussion on Wikipedian terms with Wikipedians is not going to be productive or even interesting. Once it was established that Wikipedian are incapable of addressing the interests of people outside the project it is just a lot of your usual middle school "I'm so fucking free" nonsense. Some Wikipedians using the matter for some other narrowly Wikipedian issue without even having the Muslim participants present completely misses the point. 500,000 people from across the globe requested in a dignified manner that Wikipedia address a concern they shared. They were not even given a place at the table. A bunch of Wikipedian bigots, trolls and pimply faced adolescents "decided" the matter in a shabby user discussion. Please go be free someplace else. Lulz, gimme some more of that bleeding-heart liberalism, AssBeadGame. Your tears sustain me. It is the height of intellectual dishonesty to claim that you're presenting information to the world on one hand, but then censoring some information because of religious extremism on the other.
|
|
|
|
HRIP7 |
|
Senior Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 483
Joined:
Member No.: 17,020
|
QUOTE(Tarc @ Wed 26th October 2011, 4:26pm) QUOTE(mydog @ Sun 23rd October 2011, 9:30pm) My opinion is that having the picture as the lead is indeed uncalled for (I don't think it's inappropriate later in the article), but I haven't had the, um, pleasure of voicing my opinion on the great Wikipedia.
I think that is the view most sensible editors have endorsed. QUOTE(Tarc @ Wed 26th October 2011, 4:26pm) We also have User:Ludwigs2 (T-H-L-K-D), attempting to link the issue of the preggers image with the issue of certain groups not liking to see images of Muhammad. There is now a nice melee about Muhammad on Jimbo's talk page as well – not Ludwigs2's fault, but mine, because I think he is basically right.
|
|
|
|
EricBarbour |
|
blah
Group: Regulars
Posts: 5,919
Joined:
Member No.: 5,066
|
QUOTE(Michaeldsuarez @ Wed 26th October 2011, 12:19pm) The per-project image filter polls statistics support everything GlassBeadGame just said. Wikipedians (at least the Western-most ones) don't care about any beliefs, ideas, or values other than their own, and Wikipedians believe that their beliefs and such are the "neutral", "objective" ones. (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/applause.gif) Give that man a cigar! He finally gets it! As I just got done telling Dogbiscuit on another thread, Wikipedia is not "all human" anything. It is an autistic "encyclopedia" device-or-community. It is arrogant beyond all reason or meaning and has great contempt for the rest of humanity and their human needs. Every time someone uses it for "serious educational purposes", the world becomes a little more Balkanized and degraded.
|
|
|
|
Tarc |
|
Fat Cat
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,124
Joined:
Member No.: 5,309
|
QUOTE(HRIP7 @ Fri 4th November 2011, 2:01pm) There is now a nice melee about Muhammad on Jimbo's talk page as well – not Ludwigs2's fault, but mine, because I think he is basically right. Well, I think you're basically an idiot. You, Luddy, and a handful of gadflies all up in arms over the plight of the poor Muslims and their butthurt religulous shtick. Fucking pathetic. No one sgould have to cater to the whims and demands of fundie whackjobs, whether they are Muslim or Christian or Jew or whatever. Bleeding hearts might thing we all have a natural-born right to waltz through life un-offended, but we don't.
|
|
|
|
HRIP7 |
|
Senior Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 483
Joined:
Member No.: 17,020
|
QUOTE(Tarc @ Sat 5th November 2011, 1:14am) QUOTE(HRIP7 @ Fri 4th November 2011, 2:01pm) There is now a nice melee about Muhammad on Jimbo's talk page as well – not Ludwigs2's fault, but mine, because I think he is basically right. Well, I think you're basically an idiot. You, Luddy, and a handful of gadflies all up in arms over the plight of the poor Muslims and their butthurt religulous shtick. Fucking pathetic. No one sgould have to cater to the whims and demands of fundie whackjobs, whether they are Muslim or Christian or Jew or whatever. Bleeding hearts might thing we all have a natural-born right to waltz through life un-offended, but we don't. The article on Jesus is consistent with how Jesus is portrayed in Christian art, while the article on Muhammad is inconsistent with the way Muhammad is portrayed in Islamic art. How is that a good thing?
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:
| |