What's new
By:
Filters

Guess which image Colton removed from the Dallas gamethread

LogGrad98 said:
Really it's probably more the top quote then anything else, but LDS in general find depiction of the garment in any way shape or form to be offensive. It is partly the fact that LDS hold then to be sacred and partly the fact that it is HEAVILY indoctrinated to keep anything related to the temple a secret. My wife got chewed out by the temple pres in Reno because my daughter confirmed in front of him that the experience was just as my wife had partially described it to her before she went through for the first time before her mission. He pulled my wife aside to remind her it is highly inappropriate to discuss any part of the ceremony outside the temple. My wife had only answered her questions because a friend of my daughter showed her the entire temple ceremony online with running commentary claiming it is actually masonic and satanic. So yeah Mormons get a little weird and highly ruffled when it comes to anything related to the temple.
Click to expand...

not tyring to be offensive or anything. but isn't this a slippery slope as far as i know the poster posting the image is not a mormon at the moment. but mods want him and other to abide by mormon rule. and not show a sacred thing.

look according to my nomination of judaism women are not to touch the torah. some Jewish nominations women touch torah, it is extremely offensive and disturbing for me to see. but i would not dare walk up to the people doing/condoning this and tell them what to do. what if someone posted such an image here? would i be offended yes, but a long time ago i grew a pair of BALLS and manned the f up. and move on. would i want to mods to infract that user or remove image. no!
 
jimmy eat jazz said:
Sensitivity and, if many are honest with themselves, embarrasment. Heaven knows, back in the day, I was embarrased as hell to be seen outside LDS communities wearing those damn silly things.
Click to expand...
I can honestly say I've never been embarrassed that I wear my temple garments.
But you've obviously got an agenda.
 
DutchJazzer said:
not tyring to be offensive or anything. but isn't this a slippery slope as far as i know the poster posting the image is not a mormon at the moment. but mods want him and other to abide by mormon rule. and not show a sacred thing.

look according to my nomination of judaism women are not to touch the torah. some Jewish nominations women touch torah, it is extremely offensive and disturbing for me to see. but i would not dare walk up to the people doing/condoning this and tell them what to do. what if someone posted such an image here? would i be offended yes, but a long time ago i grew a pair of BALLS and manned the f up. and move on. would i want to mods to infract that user or remove image. no!
Click to expand...

Then you simply wouldn't report the post.
It's also highly unlikely anybody else on this site would know you find that offensive. Quite the contrary with this case. It's about 100% absolutely true that alt knew it would be offensive. Besides, according to what colton said, he didn't get an infraction for posting it the first time. But when he chose to be an idiot and pay it the second time (after it was removed the first time), that is when he got the infraction. I would wager the same thing would happen in your scenario of someone posting the image you find offensive.
 
bigb said:
Then you simply wouldn't report the post.
It's also highly unlikely anybody else on this site would know you find that offensive. Quite the contrary with this case. It's about 100% absolutely true that alt knew it would be offensive. Besides, according to what colton said, he didn't get an infraction for posting it the first time. But when he chose to be an idiot and pay it the second time (after it was removed the first time), that is when he got the infraction. I would wager the same thing would happen in your scenario of someone posting the image you find offensive.
Click to expand...

well as long as there is some leeway into this, as in not getting an infraction immediately, i guess than i'm ok with it.
 
I didn't get fracted or anything... Came to this thread looking for specifics on the image tho(for future reference). I presume it's because the lower part of the bikini was too skimpy?

I was actually looking for a different image of the chica in question but just used that one because I was feeling lazy and it met the swimwear theme I'm doing with the Gamethread girls (Who are undefeated BTW!!)
 
PG_AB said:
I didn't get fracted or anything... Came to this thread looking for specifics on the image tho(for future reference). I presume it's because the lower part of the bikini was too skimpy?

I was actually looking for a different image of the chica in question but just used that one because I was feeling lazy and it met the swimwear theme I'm doing with the Gamethread girls (Who are undefeated BTW!!)
Click to expand...

Maybe read the thread bubba.
 
addictionary said:
Well the dilemma is you know, it wouldn't actually be an image of Muhammed because no one knows how he looked like exactly so I wouldn't mind.


Sent from my iPhone using JazzFanz
Click to expand...

plus the fact that vast populations of Muslim individuals have already seen visual representations of Muhammad based on what sect they belong to.

EDIT: Hekate already shared some.
 
♪alt13 said:
A
article-0-215E409800000578-664_634x793.jpg


Image removed
Click to expand...

Wait so when does showing this much *** an all the *** that [MENTION=249]NAOS[/MENTION] posted an all those graphic dicks in thong underwear not mean infraction? You mods are confusing [MENTION=14]colton[/MENTION]. I asked [MENTION=84]moevillini[/MENTION] this an he said show way less ***. So if I pic a girl with a flat booty or a man butt I will not get infractions? That seems like odd ruling choice. #donotdiscriminateroundbuttockswomen

large.gif
 
jimmy eat jazz said:
Why? What is the obgliation on everyone else to respect as sacred what certain religious sects view as sacred?

Religion, religious belief, religious icons, what religions consider sacred as just as subject to comment, critique, satire, ridicule, mockery,etc. as any thing else. There are, nor should there be, sacred cows; otherwise, freedom is diminshed and the powerful can insultate themselves from public scrutiny, which is never a good thing.

Avoiding giving offense to LDS board partiicpants by making light of what they consider sacred (in this case at least) is done as a matter of courtesy to fellow members of the Jazzfanz community, and is a concession to foster a harmonious community, NOT because we have any obligation, moral or otherwise, to accord the same level of sacredness to those things they do.
Click to expand...

Terrible troll attempt.
 
Three points.

Owners or management of privately-owned internet sites can make up their own rules. Colton is going the extra mile here to be nice.

LDS concerns about Temple-related pics, recording fs, whatever are purposeful to avert the sin of mocking, considered to be an evil that harms those who do it, whether intentionally with knowledge or just uninformed Harmless" behavior. Akin to blasphemy, vulgar speech or actions, and such. Mormons have every right take steps to curb the spread of things deemed evil without using guvmintc force on others. Same as anyone else can take steps intended to personally influence others if they wish.

This site, regardless of LDS persons involved, is pretty steep left tilted. It is because of the specific concerns of participts. It is just rude of a few conservatives who have poor manners on occasion, or who deliberately try to insult others. Fun, sometimes, but rude.
However, may I just say that most proponents of leftist views come off pretty rude,too, quite frequently. Whether they see it,or intend it,or not..

I will take it a dish it out. I don't complain much..
 
bigb said:
Then you simply wouldn't report the post.
It's also highly unlikely anybody else on this site would know you find that offensive. Quite the contrary with this case. It's about 100% absolutely true that alt knew it would be offensive. Besides, according to what colton said, he didn't get an infraction for posting it the first time. But when he chose to be an idiot and pay it the second time (after it was removed the first time), that is when he got the infraction. I would wager the same thing would happen in your scenario of someone posting the image you find offensive.
Click to expand...

No it's not. I didn't think it was offensive. Taboo but not offensive. There's a difference.

I don't think that the image I posted was more taboo than the one in the op. You do which is why you care.
 
♪alt13 said:
No it's not. I didn't think it was offensive. Taboo but not offensive. There's a difference.

I don't think that the image I posted was more taboo than the one in the op. You do which is why you care.
Click to expand...
You thought no one on this site would that offensive? Like no one at all?
 
bigb said:
You thought no one on this site would that offensive? Like no one at all?
Click to expand...

No, I did not think(nor do I) that anybody would think it was a serious insult. A light hearted joke at the expense of the majority yes but no more than that.
 
♪alt13 said:
No it's not. I didn't think it was offensive. Taboo but not offensive. There's a difference.

I don't think that the image I posted was more taboo than the one in the op. You do which is why you care.
Click to expand...
It's clear nobody cares what you think. So probably stop typing. TIA.
 
♪alt13 said:
No, I did not think(nor do I) that anybody would think it was a serious insult. A light hearted joke at the expense of the majority yes but no more than that.
Click to expand...

Unlikely but fine OK. Image was removed and no fract given. Problem solved.

You posted it a second time clearly knowing it offended. Personally I was not offended.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top