Different Views Split

**yellowlight** · 08-06-2009 11:59 AM

Hehe

. I know the text sucks, but hey! Looks good for a 5 minutes work!

**Kromoh** · 08-07-2009 01:00 AM

ROFL, nice one

**Maeni** · 08-07-2009 01:11 AM

I demand a loli/girl version.
Please, atleast have 1 of each in it ;_;

There really are many pedo's on DV. lol.

**Maeni** · 08-07-2009 01:45 AM

Fucking epic.

\o/ Party hard!

**Bearsy** · 08-07-2009 05:40 PM

Those aren't cool guys...

**yellowlight** · 08-07-2009 05:43 PM

You hurt my feelings. I worked really hard on those.

**Umbrasquall** · 08-07-2009 05:51 PM

yellow those are inappropriate. You should know better than that.

**yellowlight** · 08-07-2009 05:55 PM

Originally Posted by Umbrasquall

yellow those are inappropriate. You should know better than that.

Inappropriate? Those were just pictures of kids. I downloaded them off Google.

**Kromoh** · 08-07-2009 05:59 PM

I agree with yellowlight. It's not like there was anything explicit.

**Abra** · 08-07-2009 06:02 PM

Originally Posted by Umbrasquall

yellow those are inappropriate. You should know better than that.

Thank you for removing those, Umbra.

/out before shitstorm

**Kromoh** · 08-07-2009 06:04 PM

I didn't know pictures of children were illegal, really. I can understand the more suggestive loli being inappropriate, though. But the pics are as innocent as you make them.

I was about to make Christian views, but now I see it'd probably be deleted, too. -.-

**yellowlight** · 08-07-2009 06:19 PM

Originally Posted by Abra

/r/ing Furry Views

You know, I'd make it for you, but I don't want to post anything "inappropriate."

**Maeni** · 08-07-2009 06:33 PM

pedo harrasment, hrhrnfggngfrudufff

lul.

EDIT:
It's inappropriate because some of us like it.
That's the way it is with lolicon in Denmark aswell; It's illegal because pedophiles like it.

**Bearsy** · 08-07-2009 07:16 PM

No... it's inappropriate because it's inappropriate. It didn't matter who posted it or likes it.

**Maeni** · 08-07-2009 07:18 PM

What? I saw the picture...
How was it inappropriate?

**Jeff777** · 08-07-2009 07:34 PM

Kromoh and Maeni, although there was no nudity in the pics, they were innappropriate because of what they implied and suggested. More specifically...seemingly condoned.

This thread is a great idea, but when in doubt...just error on the side of caution when posting pictures.

**Maeni** · 08-07-2009 08:39 PM

They implied that DV has a ton of pedophiles.

It's true.

**Lëzen** · 08-07-2009 08:53 PM

Wow. If simple pictures of children (their implications notwithstanding) are inappropriate in a place like DV - where blasting people for their views is not tolerated (and yet, is hypocritically condoned at the same time) - then I'm not sure what to think.

**Jeff777** · 08-07-2009 09:06 PM

Originally Posted by Lëzen

Wow. If simple pictures of children (their implications notwithstanding) are inappropriate in a place like DV

The problem Lëzen, is that the pictures were not "simple" or innocent as you're down playing them to be. They have serious implications. Pictures of that nature are not tolerated on DV.

Originally Posted by Lëzen

where blasting people for their views is not tolerated (and yet, is hypocritically condoned at the same time) - then I'm not sure what to think.

Debate on DV is encouraged, not harsh name calling...that's where we step in. Perhaps you are confusing the two? At any rate, how you can compare fiery debates on DV to pedophile related pics not being allowed on DV is beyond me. So think what you may.

**yellowlight** · 08-07-2009 09:23 PM

Originally Posted by Jeff777

The problem Lëzen, is that the pictures were not "simple" as you're down playing them to be. They have serious implications and are not innocent as you are making them out to be. Pictures of that nature are not tolerated on DV.

Okay, maybe the loli ones weren't innocent (not at all), but I don't get what was wrong with the boy one.

There were five boys in the picture. None of the boys was in a "sexual" pose, and none of them was nude either. One of them was holding a ball, another one was looking at the sky(?), another one was sitting, another one was in some crazy yoga-like position and you could only see the face of the last one.

Now, can you tell me what the serious implications are? Or is it about the text "Pedo Views"?

**Maeni** · 08-07-2009 09:33 PM

Originally Posted by yellowlight

Okay, maybe the loli ones weren't innocent (not at all), but I don't get what was wrong with the boy one.

There were five boys in the picture. None of the boys was in a "sexual" pose, and none of them was nude either. One of them was holding a ball, another one was looking at the sky(?), another one was sitting, another one was in some crazy yoga-like position and you could only see the face of the last one.

Now, can you tell me what the serious implications are? Or is it about the text "Pedo Views"?

Not sure if I remember wrong, but I didn't see anything non-innocent about the Loli Views either.

From my PoV, the ones you posted have just as much implications or whatever as the Lesbian Views and Gay Views and, what else is there?
I know it's different because there were children in the pictures, but they weren't doing anything at all that you could possibly call "inappropriate".
It still seems to me that it's because of what some people might think of it that makes it inappropriate to you.

**yellowlight** · 08-07-2009 09:44 PM

Originally Posted by Maeni

Not sure if I remember wrong, but I didn't see anything non-innocent about the Loli Views either.

Well, one of the loli's had her tits covered up with stars (which I put there, BTW). I assume that's not too innocent.

Originally Posted by Maeni

It still seems to me that it's because of what some people might think of it that makes it inappropriate to you.

That's what I was thinking. Imagine what would be if I wouldn't be a pedo, and the text on the pictures was saying something like "Kid Views." Would they still have found it inappropriate?

**Xox** · 08-07-2009 11:50 PM

That's it, I splitted the thread. Sheesh.

**Lëzen** · 08-07-2009 11:53 PM

Originally Posted by Jeff777

The problem Lëzen, is that the pictures were not "simple" or innocent as you're down playing them to be. They have serious implications. Pictures of that nature are not tolerated on DV.

Debate on DV is encouraged, not harsh name calling...that's where we step in. Perhaps you are confusing the two? At any rate, how you can compare fiery debates on DV to pedophile related pics not being allowed on DV is beyond me. So think what you may.

All I'm really saying is that everything - morals, concepts of right and wrong, appropriate or inappropriate - are highly, highly relative, and hardly anyone here seems to realize that. You would think it'd be common sense: "What may be right for me may not be right to you; therefore, agreeing to disagree is the best course of action." But no. Never happens. There's no actual name-calling in the "great" (feh!) debates around here, but there are always implications, ones that usually amount to the same thing. So sorry that some of you are too blind to see it.

Proof of the fact that this stuff is all relative? You didn't bother to delete the "gay views" or "lesbian views" ones. I personally don't have a problem with them, but I'm sure there are people who find those inappropriate. But alas, even though we're all equals here, it would seem that some of us are...shall we say...more equal than others?

One more thing. Is there anything wrong with spoiler tags? Are they not working, or...? Because, you know, I thought they did a pretty good job of hiding potentially objectionable content. Of course, why even give people the choice of viewing something at their own discretion when you can just silence the subject altogether by deleting it? Way to go, freedoms of choice, speech, and expression.