# So FurAffinity is a Sex Chat Site?



## AshleyAshes (Aug 10, 2009)

I can't link the submission in question as that'd be calling out an FA user.  Some furry started a journal and he and another user proceeded to use it for sex chat.  Journals and their comments are viewable by all users, including those under 18.

I filed a trouble ticket and got the following reply;



> There are no rules against it so at this point it can stay.


 
You know what I don't see a rule agianst in the AUP?  Zoophilia.  Yet I can think of MULITPLE incidents where people demonstrating 'undesireable behavour' have been banned.  In once case, the user didn't even do it or admit to it on FA but the photos were on his Encyclopedia Dramatica page.  An admin asked me for a link to the ED page and the user was soon banned from FA.

But yet the admins can't do anything about using FurAffinity for sex chat?

That wouldn't be tolerated in these forums.
That wouldn't be tolerated in #furaffinity
That wouldn't be tolerated if I posted a sex chat LOG as a text submission and didn't rate it 'Adult'.

So why is it okay to use a journal to make use of FurAffinity as a sex chat?


----------



## Aurali (Aug 10, 2009)

I've actually asked that this be taken up as an TOS amendment. Though I've never heard back about it.


----------



## Chainy (Aug 10, 2009)

Why not use private chats or something for that kind of stuff? :/


----------



## Kaamos (Aug 10, 2009)

I remember seeing a rant like this back when I first joined the forum. I don't think they did anything about it.


----------



## Stratelier (Aug 11, 2009)

User avatars already must never exceed PG-13 because they cannot be marked as Mature/Adult, restricted or otherwise hidden from guest user views.  FA admins have publically stated such, too.

Likewise, journals cannot be marked for Mature content, restricted or otherwise hidden from guest views.  *Therefore the adminsitrative response must be the same.*


----------



## Redregon (Aug 11, 2009)

methinks this is yet another case of an admin or mod doing what they can to not do their jorb.


----------



## Rigor Sardonicus (Aug 11, 2009)

Stratadrake said:


> User avatars already must never exceed PG-13 because they cannot be marked as Mature/Adult, restricted or otherwise hidden from guest user views.  FA admins have publically stated such, too.
> 
> Likewise, journals cannot be marked for Mature content, restricted or otherwise hidden from guest views.  *Therefore the adminsitrative response must be the same.*



I believe Omny87's thoughts on this sort of thing put it best.

http://www.furaffinity.net/journal/602423/


----------



## Dragoneer (Aug 12, 2009)

Rigor Sardonicus said:


> I believe Omny87's thoughts on this sort of thing put it best.
> 
> http://www.furaffinity.net/journal/602423/


I do think there's a limitation between freedom of expression and people who engage in sexual RP in the journals/comments, however.


----------



## Aurali (Aug 12, 2009)

Dragoneer said:


> I do think there's a limitation between freedom of expression and people who engage in sexual RP in the journals/comments, however.



Reason for my requested TOS change. So admins can do something about this :3


----------



## AshleyAshes (Aug 12, 2009)

Dragoneer said:


> I do think there's a limitation between freedom of expression and people who engage in sexual RP in the journals/comments, however.


 
Neer, you sorta addressed the thread without addressing the issue.  That's not cool.

You're the head admin.  Do you think that if someone starts fucking in a journal comment page, that the only response from an admin should be 'There's no rule agianst it'?

And honestly, what kind of admin does their job so half assed that that's the best response they can come up with?  Surely that a good, well meaning admin would bring it up with the other admins as it's an obvious and glaring but simple issue with the TOS.


----------



## Internet Police Chief (Aug 12, 2009)

If I uploaded a porno story made by myself, it would need to be marked adult. In fact, I couldn't upload a porno story - I'm underage.

But I can go to this journal and read their little text sex RP. Hell, I could even get involved.

Why is this okay?


----------



## AshleyAshes (Aug 12, 2009)

Baron Von Yiffington said:


> If I uploaded a porno story made by myself, it would need to be marked adult. In fact, I couldn't upload a porno story - I'm underage.
> 
> But I can go to this journal and read their little text sex RP. Hell, I could even get involved.
> 
> Why is this okay?


 
Wanna go yiff in my latest journal? :3


----------



## Internet Police Chief (Aug 12, 2009)

AshleyAshes said:


> Wanna go yiff in my latest journal? :3



Oh murr, let's get right to it.


----------



## Stratelier (Aug 12, 2009)

Dragoneer said:


> I do think there's a limitation between freedom of expression and people who engage in sexual RP in the journals/comments, however.



Omny87's journal in question is humorous/harmless.  But what happens when another user actually DOES post something NSFW in their journal?  OP claims the last time something like it happened the admins did _nothing_, on the (alleged) grounds that the journal _wasn't violating any rules_ that they knew of.  Not cool.  You already enforce a strict PG-13 limit on avatars, sigs, and general conduct, you *must* extend it to other forms of material that aren't protected by the Mature filter system.  No exceptions.

Say somebody submitted an adult rated writing to their gallery.  What happens if they post a journal asking for critiques/feedback about it?  If it's URL form of the submission itself, there's no harm done (the URL is not mature content in and of _itself_).  They should obviously supply a NSFW warning with their link, but even failing that it's an FA submission and the Mature filter will take care of the rest.

But what if they take it a step further and copy-paste a short excerpt of that story in their journal?  You know, from a certain scene in their story . . . posting that content in a journal is a direct analogue of submitting said material to their gallery without a Mature/Adult label, how the fuck (pardon my french) can that _not be a violation_?





EDIT:  Whoa, cool down there, Strata....  Dragoneer.  You (or was it Damaratus) personally stated that one of the reasons user avatars must not exceed PG-13 is because they can't be labelled as Mature or Adult level content and thus cannot be filtered from unwanted view.  Does not the same logic apply to journals as well?

I don't like to criticize a webmaster/admin here but you cannot allow technicalities of stated policy to contravene the principles for which it was designed.


----------



## Mogu (Aug 13, 2009)

I say we also ban horribly unsightly fetishes, like gore.  Noone wants to see that, either.  More people don't want to see that than typefucking anyway!

And can we do something about scat and fat art too?


----------



## LizardKing (Aug 13, 2009)

Mogu said:


> I say we also ban horribly unsightly fetishes, like gore.  Noone wants to see that, either.  More people don't want to see that than typefucking anyway!
> 
> And can we do something about scat and fat art too?



I suggest you get a train to clueville and try and find the point again.


----------



## Internet Police Chief (Aug 13, 2009)

Mogu said:


> I say we also ban horribly unsightly fetishes, like gore.  Noone wants to see that, either.  More people don't want to see that than typefucking anyway!
> 
> And can we do something about scat and fat art too?



This has nothing to do with the topic. Feel free to make a new thread and be made fun of for this, though.


----------



## AshleyAshes (Aug 13, 2009)

It's funny.  If I murdered some furry, in an event unrelated to FurAffinity, then it got into the news, my account would soon have '-banned' next to my name.  Yet there is nothing in the AUP that says murder is agianst the rules and the admins have been clear that anything off sight is not the realm of the FA admins.  No 'It's not agianst the AUP,there's nothing we can do' there.  It's 'He KILLED A GUY!'


----------



## Foxstar (Aug 13, 2009)

AshleyAshes said:


> It's funny.  If I murdered some furry, in an event unrelated to FurAffinity, then it got into the news, my account would soon have '-banned' next to my name.  Yet there is nothing in the AUP that says murder is agianst the rules and the admins have been clear that anything off sight is not the realm of the FA admins.  No 'It's not agianst the AUP,there's nothing we can do' there.  It's 'He KILLED A GUY!'



Or if you went to jail for touching a child/child porn/dogfucking. Don't forget that your account could be trolled to hell in the meanwhile.


----------



## Nightingalle (Aug 13, 2009)

o_- Is there a way to throw in 'stop people from making murry purry comments on pictures of people's pets' into this?  Because that's fuckin nasty too.  

I'm gonna sit here and wait for a response on the sex RP discussion though, because I've seen the shit Ashley is talking about and it's highly inappropriate for a site where mature stuff must be marked as such :|


----------



## Rigor Sardonicus (Aug 13, 2009)

KoiFishSushi said:


> o_- Is there a way to throw in 'stop people from making murry purry comments on pictures of people's pets' into this?


FA already has a "block" function, as well as the trouble tickets.



> I'm gonna sit here and wait for a response on the sex RP discussion though, because I've seen the shit Ashley is talking about and it's highly inappropriate for a site where mature stuff must be marked as such :|


I think that's already been agreed upon.



AshleyAshes said:


> If I murdered some furry, in an event unrelated to FurAffinity, then it got into the news, my account would soon have '-banned' next to my name.


You know, this hypothesis is _definitely_ worth testing. Shall I make an account, and then raid Anthrocon next year?


----------



## Devious Bane (Aug 13, 2009)

Oh wow.
So let me get this straight, this is about 2 people having buttsecks on a journal/submission, and to top it off, they say that's why they came(lol)?

Ever heard of _Instant Messengers_?


----------



## Rigor Sardonicus (Aug 13, 2009)

Devious Bane said:


> Oh wow.
> So let me get this straight, this is about 2 people having buttsecks on a journal/submission, and to top it off, they say that's why they came(lol)?
> 
> Ever heard of _Instant Messengers_?



Obviously, those simply aren't public enough for these furfags :V


----------



## Devious Bane (Aug 13, 2009)

Rigor Sardonicus said:


> Obviously, those simply aren't public enough for these furfags :V


Only excuse if it is one for that matter.


----------



## Nightingalle (Aug 13, 2009)

Rigor Sardonicus said:


> FA already has a "block" function, as well as the trouble tickets.



Well, no shit.   But it's random people who see a picture of your pet dog on the front page or through search and are all ' ohh yeahhh nice sheath' or sick shit like that.. so in theory you wouldn't know the name until AFTER the person comments.  I was just suggesting that someone crack down on comments like THAT as well


----------



## Takun (Aug 13, 2009)

Brb porn avatar.


----------



## Aden (Aug 13, 2009)

It'd be nice to see public (non-mature restricted) areas on FA be designated PG-13 zones, like the forums.


----------



## LizardKing (Aug 13, 2009)

Aden said:


> It'd be nice to see public (non-mature restricted) areas on FA be designated PG-13 zones, like the forums.



Fuck yeah.


----------



## Aden (Aug 13, 2009)

LizardKing said:


> Fuck yeah.



I am a stodgy reasonable old person and I love it.


----------



## Takun (Aug 13, 2009)

Aden said:


> I am a stodgy reasonable old person and I love it.



U CAN'T SENSOR THE INTERNET.  I'M SUING U.


----------



## Aurali (Aug 13, 2009)

I see a bunch of whining, but no suggesting... come on people... Suggest change. Make change. If not.. well, it's just more whining.


----------



## Aden (Aug 13, 2009)

Eli said:


> I see a bunch of whining, but no suggesting... come on people... Suggest change. Make change. If not.. well, it's just more whining.



I'm seeing a bunch of whining about whining, but no suggesting. :V


----------



## Takun (Aug 13, 2009)

What is there suggest?  Journals and pages should be pg13 including comments.  Comments on submissions should reflect their rating.


----------



## Nightingalle (Aug 13, 2009)

Takumi_L said:


> What is there suggest?  Journals and pages should be pg13 including comments.  Comments on submissions should reflect their rating.



This.  There's nothing to suggest.  It's pretty fucking obvious what needs to be done.  And anyone who sexrps on journals or whatever should be smacked with a ban for a week and told ' dont do that shit anymore' :|


----------



## Aurali (Aug 13, 2009)

It's all about the way you guys present things. If you present it well, you will be taken more seriously, and you might actually have your idea heard. There are reasons Ashley is always misread by the main site staff :3



Takumi_L said:


> What is there suggest?  Journals and pages should be pg13 including comments.  Comments on submissions should reflect their rating.


Then say that! Instead of weird stories about the moderation sucking or more. spend a minute to try to make your POINT the primary concern of the argument... Make things easier, and yes. Sometimes staff misses an obvious rule. Ask them to change that. Is it really that hard? 


Oh: Aden, I wasn't referring to you :3


----------



## Armaetus (Aug 13, 2009)

How about someone make a journal and doing a graphic sex chat, including RP in the open to prove a point?


----------



## AshleyAshes (Aug 13, 2009)

Glaice said:


> How about someone make a journal and doing a graphic sex chat, including RP in the open to prove a point?


 
Cause none of us wanna be the first dick fucks that get banned for it.


----------



## Aden (Aug 13, 2009)

AshleyAshes said:


> Cause none of us wanna be the first dick fucks that get banned for it.



It's working already!


----------



## Armaetus (Aug 13, 2009)

AshleyAshes said:


> Cause none of us wanna be the first dick fucks that get banned for it.



Of course they want us to do something stupid _THEN_ act accordingly despite is says NOTHING about it in the TOS.


----------



## Rigor Sardonicus (Aug 13, 2009)

Devious Bane said:


> Only excuse if it is one for that matter.



...say that again, in English?


----------



## Devious Bane (Aug 14, 2009)

Rigor Sardonicus said:


> ...say that again, in English?


Stupid people are stupid.


----------



## Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs (Aug 17, 2009)

Dragoneer said:


> I do think there's a limitation between freedom of expression and people who engage in sexual RP in the journals/comments, however.


 
I'll use an example a fellow troll used when talking about yiff and nude paintings of the past. 

When furries make yiff art they are making art to masturbate to. They are getting sexually stimulated by it. Other people who draw, sculpt and paint can draw, sculpt and paint a nude man or woman without being sexually stimulated, or have their work be inspired by sexually stimulation. They respect and are comfortable with the human body. There's a difference.


----------



## Jiyiki (Aug 17, 2009)

Yes, it is a sex chat site.


----------



## Delphinidae (Aug 19, 2009)

KoiFishSushi said:


> random people who see a picture of your pet dog on the front page or through search and are all ' ohh yeahhh nice sheath' or sick shit like that


Considering that furries took a variety of appreciated features from real live animals, I honestly don't think complimenting "the originals" is sick. It also doesn't mean that the person in question is doing related things in real life.

For example, I might say that little girl X, Y or Z is sexy, but that won't make me stalk and capture any actual girls in the neighbourhood. Or I might say that "whoa this weapon is amazing for murder" in a videogame, but that doesn't mean I'm a killer.

I don't know where the FA servers are hosted, but if it's the US (or a variety of other countries), then *freedom of speech* is in effect. And if someone says a dog's sheath is sexy, then there's nothing you can do about it. *You do not have a right not to be offended.* If you don't like something, just turn away. It's not hard.


----------



## Nightingalle (Aug 19, 2009)

Delphinidae said:


> Considering that furries took a variety of appreciated features from real live animals, I honestly don't think complimenting "the originals" is sick. It also doesn't mean that the person in question is doing related things in real life.
> 
> For example, I might say that little girl X, Y or Z is sexy, but that won't make me stalk and capture any actual girls in the neighbourhood. Or I might say that "whoa this weapon is amazing for murder" in a videogame, but that doesn't mean I'm a killer.
> 
> I don't know where the FA servers are hosted, but if it's the US (or a variety of other countries), then *freedom of speech* is in effect. And if someone says a dog's sheath is sexy, then there's nothing you can do about it. *You do not have a right not to be offended.* If you don't like something, just turn away. It's not hard.



Sorry but if someone looks at a picture of my dog and decides to point out her cunt and say how hot it is, I have every right in the world to be offended and demand that person's comment be removed for it being unnecessary and offensive.


----------



## GraemeLion (Aug 19, 2009)

Delphinidae said:


> I don't know where the FA servers are hosted, but if it's the US (or a variety of other countries), then *freedom of speech* is in effect. And if someone says a dog's sheath is sexy, then there's nothing you can do about it. *You do not have a right not to be offended.* If you don't like something, just turn away. It's not hard.



There is no such thing as universal freedom of speech
------------
The first amendment reads : Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
---------

Read it.  It doesn't say you have free speech.  It says the government of the United States, in their governmental dealings, shall not restrict what you say.

It says NOTHING about what Dragoneer can do with his servers.  He can say "No Christians allowed" and be done with it.  He can say "No women."   He can ban people from using the letter y.  

You have NO freedom of speech in privately owned areas.    The only "freedom of speech" people have is that the Congress won't stop you from speaking.


----------



## Aden (Aug 19, 2009)

Delphinidae said:


> Considering that furries took a variety of appreciated features from real live animals, I honestly don't think complimenting "the originals" is sick. It also doesn't mean that the person in question is doing related things in real life.



It sure freaks the hell out of me. It's like the fine line between fantasy and reality, and they've made it a bit too real.



> For example, I might say that little girl X, Y or Z is sexy



Uh


----------



## TehSean (Aug 19, 2009)

People are just now noticing this....????


----------



## Delphinidae (Aug 20, 2009)

KoiFishSushi said:


> Sorry but if someone looks at a picture of my dog and decides to point out her cunt and say how hot it is, I have every right in the world to be offended and demand that person's comment be removed for it being unnecessary and offensive.


That sounds like being a whiny bitch. "I didn't get the comment I expected, I must delete them, bwhaaaaa etc."
While I agree that FA needs a "hide comment" feature for the page/submission owners to access, I don't think it solves anything.

If I had a pet and someone complimented them, I'd appreciate it. That's just me, I guess.

My point was, people can say a variety of things, but that doesn't make them anything yet. In fact, some of those "weird comments" might otherwise come from the best people you'd ever meet._
Unless it has bad spelling._


----------



## Nightingalle (Aug 20, 2009)

Delphinidae said:


> That sounds like being a whiny bitch. "I didn't get the comment I expected, I must delete them, bwhaaaaa etc."
> While I agree that FA needs a "hide comment" feature for the page/submission owners to access, I don't think it solves anything.
> 
> If I had a pet and someone complimented them, I'd appreciate it. That's just me, I guess.
> ...



Ok you post up a picture of your dog/cat/child and let see how you feel when someone goes ' Oh murrrrr looks like he's happy. I'd suck his cock.'

:\  It's nasty.  It's not a compliment, it's gross.  

People can say a variety of things and if an artist finds it innapropriate, for now the only way we have to get the comment removed is trouble tickets.  

And if those comments are coming from the 'best people I'd ever meet', I'm pretty sure I wouldn't want to meet the person who's eyeing my dog like a fucktoy. :B


Edit: Just realized I'm talking to someone who draws feral dolphins fucking and how much of a moot point this whole conversation is.  He oogles dolphins and probably wants to fuck them - clearly his point of view on this situation is skewed and fucked up u_____u

Yep, not replying to _this_ thread again, it's pointless XD


----------



## Delphinidae (Aug 20, 2009)

KoiFishSushi said:


> Edit: Just realized I'm talking to someone who draws feral dolphins fucking and how much of a moot point this whole conversation is.  He oogles dolphins and probably wants to fuck them - clearly his point of view on this situation is skewed and fucked up u_____u
> 
> Yep, not replying to _this_ thread again, it's pointless XD


Think what you will, all I'm doing is letting people say what they want. You have the freedom to block users from commenting, you have the freedom to simply ignore their feedback, but it's not right to bully anyone for it.

And that's a straight view, not a skewed one.
For example, I'm against marriage also, and I might voice my opinions every now and then, but I never harrass or strong-arm anyone with those views and nobody said people have to agree with me, either. If somebody has grandiose dreams of marriage, I won't open a trouble ticket saying "this comment doesn't agree with my world views, OBLITERATE". Because they simply did nothing against me.

A person might say, "nice dog, I'd suck him", and my reply would be "so what". Why is that worse than another guy looking at, say, scat porn and commenting "oh I want that in my mouth"? These are just thoughts or opinions, nobody's out there to get your pet, they didn't stab your mother, they didn't kick your dog (pun intended), it's just a comment, a simple thought.

With that in mind, cry me a river, build a bridge and get over it.


----------



## AwkwardPanda (Aug 21, 2009)

Delphinidae said:


> Think what you will, all I'm doing is letting people say what they want. You have the freedom to block users from commenting, you have the freedom to simply ignore their feedback, but it's not right to bully anyone for it.
> 
> And that's a straight view, not a skewed one.
> For example, I'm against marriage also, and I might voice my opinions every now and then, but I never harrass or strong-arm anyone with those views and nobody said people have to agree with me, either. If somebody has grandiose dreams of marriage, I won't open a trouble ticket saying "this comment doesn't agree with my world views, OBLITERATE". Because they simply did nothing against me.
> ...


Oh good god.. Do you actually spend time _thinking_ about what you say, or do you just spill whatever comes out of your mouth onto your keyboard? Seriously? Using the defense of hypothetically saying a little girl is sexy? What the hell is wrong with you, dude? You actually consider that a defense?? That's like saying that, oh hey, you might have child porn on your computer, but hey it doesn't matter as long as you're not out surfing the playgrounds!

She is _allowed_ to be offended, because she posts photos in her gallery to show her friends and her watchers, not so some vile, disgusting furfags can come gawk at her dog's twat and declare their displeasure with the dog being spayed.

You are really sick, dude. You rant about freedom of speech, but if you posted a photo of your child and people were posting comments saying 'Oh man look at those great little tits!', yeah I'm real sure you'd be all about freedom of speech. Just as people have free speech, so too do people have the right to want some of the disgusting things said removed from their web page. It is, after all, a web page.

And thank you for sharing your entirely unbiased opinion. You're not even bringing up the argument of free speech because you truly believe in it, you're bringing it up because YOU'RE one of those sick fucks who will oggle a live animal and want to fuck it.

Seriously, man. There is something _wrong_ with you. You should seek help before some poor unsuspecting animal tears out your throat with its teeth when you try to 'mount' it. Not saying that the world couldn't use a few less of people like you, but hey..


----------



## Delphinidae (Aug 21, 2009)

AwkwardPanda said:


> Seriously, man. There is something _wrong_ with you.


I'm very glad that you've _just_ registered to let me know this important conclusion.

Now that the tea party is over, allow me to escort you back to your cave.


----------



## Aden (Aug 21, 2009)

> For example, I'm against marriage also, and I might voice my opinions every now and then, but I never harrass or strong-arm anyone with those views and nobody said people have to agree with me, either. If somebody has grandiose dreams of marriage, I won't open a trouble ticket saying "this comment doesn't agree with my world views, OBLITERATE". Because they simply did nothing against me.



Missing the point. It's not about agreeing or disagreeing with opinions. It's about what's decent and what's over the line to the submitter of the picture.



> A person might say, "nice dog, I'd suck him", and my reply would be "so what". Why is that worse than another guy looking at, say, scat porn and commenting "oh I want that in my mouth"?



Both of my replies would be "WHY would you share that with me?" And if it's on a PG-rated picture? Simply uncalled for.



> These are just thoughts or opinions, nobody's out there to get your pet, they didn't stab your mother, they didn't kick your dog (pun intended), it's just a comment, a simple thought.



Funny thing about thoughts - they're what make real actions go.



> With that in mind, cry me a river, build a bridge and get over it.



Psh, I heard that one in like 5th grade. :V



Delphinidae said:


> Think what you will, *all I'm doing is letting people say what they want*. You have the freedom to block users from commenting, you have the freedom to simply ignore their feedback, *but it's not right to bully anyone for it*.



Um.

Besides, they'll just keep posting those comments if we just ignore it.


----------



## Delphinidae (Aug 21, 2009)

Aden said:


> Psh, I heard that one in like 5th grade. :V


Oldie but goodie. 



Aden said:


> Besides, they'll just keep posting those comments if we just ignore it.


Then block.


----------



## Aden (Aug 21, 2009)

Delphinidae said:


> Then block.



Nah, I'd rather let them know why they're wrong and should feel bad about being alive. Blocking's last-resort.


----------



## AwkwardPanda (Aug 21, 2009)

Delphinidae said:


> I'm very glad that you've _just_ registered to let me know this important conclusion.
> 
> Now that the tea party is over, allow me to escort you back to your cave.


Well I couldn't pass up the chance to poke at the freakshow. And block isn't a good enough solution, 'tard. Besides, is it physically hurting anyone allowing the owners of their own galleries remove comments from their page? No. Good god you are some kinda circus act.


----------



## Verin Asper (Aug 21, 2009)

after reading thru this whole shit, I come to believe; yes certain comments will irk the submitter. Also going about I came to realize something: The reason those folks who post those kind of comments slowly learn those kind of comments are ok due to doing it to other artist or those who submit pictures either not telling them its wrong or it irks them. Those same folks then continue to post in such a way due to they believing its totally alright by the submitter to say their dog is hot due to the last one not saying anything about it when they posted a pic of their dog. Its why I started telling those who comment like that; that it irks me, that its not right or its rude.


----------



## Aden (Aug 21, 2009)

Crysix Corps said:


> after reading thru this whole shit, I come to believe; yes certain comments will irk the submitter. Also going about I came to realize something: The reason those folks who post those kind of comments slowly learn those kind of comments are ok due to doing it to other artist or those who submit pictures either not telling them its wrong or it irks them. Those same folks then continue to post in such a way due to they believing its totally alright by the submitter to say their dog is hot due to the last one not saying anything about it when they posted a pic of their dog. Its why I started telling those who comment like that; that it irks me, that its not right or its rude.



See? SEEEEE? Someone gets it!


----------



## Verin Asper (Aug 21, 2009)

Aden said:


> See? SEEEEE? Someone gets it!


I need to get my PhD in dumb-downology


----------



## Foxstar (Aug 21, 2009)

KoiFishSushi said:


> Edit: Just realized I'm talking to someone who draws feral dolphins fucking and how much of a moot point this whole conversation is.  He oogles dolphins and probably wants to fuck them - clearly his point of view on this situation is skewed and fucked up u_____u
> 
> Yep, not replying to _this_ thread again, it's pointless XD



This.


----------



## Delphinidae (Aug 21, 2009)

Foxstar said:


> This.


...is Sparta.

I got some watchers thanks to this thread.
lol


----------



## Aden (Aug 21, 2009)

Delphinidae said:


> I got some watchers thanks to this thread.
> lol



Oh FA, you never fail to disappoint.


----------



## Trpdwarf (Aug 21, 2009)

To Mr I like to draw porn of dolphins aka probably a zoophile, get over yourself.

Not all furs come here to pander to perverts like yourself. If they don't want perverse stuff in their comment boxes, than they have that right. It does not matter if you don't personally care what other people say in your profile. Other people are not you.


If someone posts a picture and they don't want lewd remarks, it's their picture, their profile, their comment box, get over it. With freedom of speech comes responsibility. If you cannot be responsible STFU.


----------



## Attaman (Aug 21, 2009)

Wait, so I'm seeing people argue "It's alright to have M- and AO-rated comments visible to minors", "You should be allowed to vocally ogle someone's pet's ass," and similar things?  Thank you FAF, I needed that laugh.

Please tell me that, if you [those arguing for such] went to work and showed pictures of your children / pets, you'd chuckle and laugh if someone said "Oh man, I'd fuck that seven ways to Sunday".  Or if Pornography popped up on Nick Junior / PBS while a young 'un was watching it, you'd go "Oh you wacky TV stations."


----------



## Delphinidae (Aug 21, 2009)

Attaman said:


> if Pornography popped up on Nick Junior / PBS while a young 'un was watching it, you'd go "Oh you wacky TV stations."


You betcha.
lol

I don't have pets and I don't plan any children. They cost too much money.


----------



## Aden (Aug 21, 2009)

Delphinidae said:


> I don't have pets and I don't plan any children. They cost too much money.



And therefore it's okay to make lewd comments on pictures of everyone else's children and pets.

Huh?

And when is this


Aden said:


> It'd be nice to see public (non-mature restricted) areas on FA be designated PG-13 zones, like the forums.



going to be put into the AUP, already? |:c


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Aug 21, 2009)

*COMMON SENSE*
*This Thread Has None*​


----------



## Grimfang (Aug 21, 2009)

Delphinidae said:


> Considering that furries took a variety of appreciated features from real live animals, I honestly don't think complimenting "the originals" is sick. It also doesn't mean that the person in question is doing related things in real life.



You think lewd, zoophilic comments are perfectly acceptable? And on any submission (regardless of the age of the submitter)?

This argument also draws it away from the original point, which is this: User submits picture to general audience (visible to little kids), and receives obscene comments. It's not about whether or not bestiality is good or bad.



Delphinidae said:


> For example, I might say that little girl X, Y or Z is sexy, but that won't make me stalk and capture any actual girls in the neighbourhood. Or I might say that "whoa this weapon is amazing for murder" in a videogame, but that doesn't mean I'm a killer.
> 
> I don't know where the FA servers are hosted, but if it's the US (or a variety of other countries), then *freedom of speech* is in effect. And if someone says a dog's sheath is sexy, then there's nothing you can do about it.



They're based in Virginia. A little browsing around, and I'm seeing something about a Class 6 felony charge for bestiality. Virginia also has really awesome sex offender laws.

Freedom of speech does not protect your right to make lewd comments to people of any age. And again, there are _young'ns_ on this site.



Delphinidae said:


> *You do not have a right not to be offended.* If you don't like something, just turn away. It's not hard.



That's ridiculous. You're throwing around "free speech" in defense of one's obscenities, but suggesting someone just "turn away" from the comments on their work, in their gallery. People should be able to freely express their rage and disgust at obscene and inappropriate comments being made. This is why people don't just feel disgusted by zoophilia, but rant on it. This is why zoophiles frequently find themselves being hit by a bus of trolls.

I'm having a hard time understanding how it is seen as acceptable by someone to make these sorts of comments on a site open to a wide ranging audience. It is technically not an adult website, but rather a public website with filtered adult content.

Things like this in real life actually make people think, "Oh, wow.. that's really fucking creepy." In real life though, at least the fact that you got aroused from someone's dog isn't being graffiti'd on the dog.



Delphinidae said:


> Think what you will, all I'm doing is letting people say what they want. You have the freedom to block users from commenting, you have the freedom to simply ignore their feedback, but it's not right to bully anyone for it.



As already stated by some others, this is a terrible argument. You can't just preemptively block someone. This is after the damage is already done. And there is currently no way to hide comments.

"Just resubmit it!" is another shitty response to this issue.



Delphinidae said:


> And that's a straight view, not a skewed one.
> For example, I'm against marriage also, and I might voice my opinions every now and then, but I never harrass or strong-arm anyone with those views and nobody said people have to agree with me, either. If somebody has grandiose dreams of marriage, I won't open a trouble ticket saying "this comment doesn't agree with my world views, OBLITERATE". Because they simply did nothing against me.



This is just so, so, so very incomparable and irrelevant to comments regarding sexual obscenities, even if it isn't about animals.



Delphinidae said:


> A person might say, "nice dog, I'd suck him", and my reply would be "so what". Why is that worse than another guy looking at, say, scat porn and commenting "oh I want that in my mouth"?



That is worse because you're comparing two scenarios: Comments in response to one submission being porn, and one not being porn.


ugh.


----------



## Aurali (Aug 21, 2009)

Grimfang said:


> That is worse because you're comparing two scenarios: Comments in response to one submission being porn, and one not being porn.



For a reasonable comparison, It's like if Grimfang walked into your house and said, "Your mom is hot. I'd tap that fiiine ass." You'd probably be offended.

*wait's for grim's response*


----------



## HoneyPup (Aug 21, 2009)

It would be nice if there was a "hide comment" option. 

Delphin, nobody wants comments like that left on pictures of their pets. It's really disgusting how people can turn something innocent like a pet photograph into something perverse. It's offensive.


----------



## Stratelier (Aug 21, 2009)

prettylilpup said:


> ... It's offensive.


And possibly bannable.


----------



## Verin Asper (Aug 21, 2009)

Delphinidae is pretty much in a losing battle here

Supporting the fact the OWNER of that Submission have no right to tell the Commenter the comment they left they dont like. Sure the one who left the comment have the right to do the initial post, but the owner of the Submission have the right to say "Thats fucked up" or "thats very wrong" to that person. If its Clean art, an adult grade post shouldnt be needed to be posted. If its Mature or Adult, to few it irks them to get a heavy sexualized comment, but an adult one is expected.


----------



## Delphinidae (Aug 22, 2009)

Crysix Corps said:


> Supporting the fact the OWNER of that submission have no right to tell the commenter the comment they left they don't like


I'll ignore the bad grammar for a moment, and say that I never stood up for commenters OR tried to suppress the submission owners.

The submission owner might get offended. And the owner can say and do _whatever he wants_ in response.
But he doesn't have the right not to get offended in the first place. If something can go wrong (e.g. a comment), it simply will eventually.

I also supported the idea of a dA-style "hide comment" feature for FA as an equaliser.
Therefore, I hardly see your point.


----------



## Verin Asper (Aug 22, 2009)

Delphinidae said:


> I'll ignore the bad grammar for a moment, and say that I never stood up for commenters OR tried to suppress the submission owners.
> 
> *The submission owner might get offended. And the owner can say and do whatever he wants in response.*
> But he doesn't have *the right not to get offended in the first place.* If something can go wrong (e.g. a comment), it simply will eventually.
> ...


The Submission owner DOES have the right to get offended still
stop clashing with yaself


----------



## Grimfang (Aug 22, 2009)

Eli said:


> For a reasonable comparison, It's like if Grimfang walked into your house and said, "Your mom is hot. I'd tap that fiiine ass." You'd probably be offended.
> 
> *wait's for grim's response*



Pretty much.

I was more imagining the scenario of walking into Petco and telling some mother and her children how hot their dog is.

But yeah, given the fact that there is no option to hide comments currently, that should be taken into consideration. I know it's easy to concede into just "Oh, well, I wouldn't care if someone said something obscene to one of my submissions," but just because one person is willing to slaughter any bit of common decency in a mutual exchange doesn't mean everyone else is. At least not to certain extents, which just seem prone to happen here especially.


----------



## Trpdwarf (Aug 22, 2009)

Delphinidae said:


> I'll ignore the bad grammar for a moment, and say that I never stood up for commenters OR tried to suppress the submission owners.
> 
> The submission owner might get offended. And the owner can say and do _whatever he wants_ in response.
> But he doesn't have the right not to get offended in the first place. If something can go wrong (e.g. a comment), it simply will eventually.
> ...



Stop being silly.

A person has every right to be offended when someone does something offensive. People will and are capable of being irresponsible with their "freedom of speech".


----------



## Delphinidae (Aug 22, 2009)

Crysix Corps said:


> stop clashing with yaself


I'm not.
For $9 I'll offer you a fantastic lesson in comprehension. Jump on this deal while it's hot.


----------



## Delphinidae (Aug 22, 2009)

Trpdwarf said:


> A person has every right to be offended when someone does something offensive. People will and are capable of being irresponsible with their "freedom of speech".


Precisely!

You need some lessons in comprehension as well?
I said nobody has the right NOT to get offended. That's what people are trying to achieve somehow, you see. A perfect world where everything is to their liking.


----------



## Aurali (Aug 22, 2009)

Delphinidae said:


> Precisely!
> 
> You need some lessons in comprehension as well?
> I said nobody has the right NOT to get offended. That's what people are trying to achieve somehow, you see. A perfect world where everything is to their liking.



Still very.. err..

I'd rather not be offended by something you post if given the chance. Someone does have the right to not (reasonably) tolerate being offended, even if they don't have the right to not be offended.
If you were to tell me you'd have sex with my dog, out of the blue... I'd probably block you from my profile and report you to staff. :/


----------



## Verin Asper (Aug 22, 2009)

Delphinidae said:


> Precisely!
> 
> You need some lessons in comprehension as well?
> I said nobody has the right NOT to get offended. That's what people are trying to achieve somehow, you see. A perfect world where everything is to their liking.


There is NO PERFECT WORLD thats for one

two I can be offended by the person comment all I want cause its my submission, but guess what I also do, correct them, tell them that is wrong actually. I dont want things to my liking but I dont want to make it perfect for the other.

you are talking about just turning away, thus further teaching that person that kind of posting is fucking alright


----------



## Trpdwarf (Aug 22, 2009)

Delphinidae said:


> Precisely!
> 
> You need some lessons in comprehension as well?
> I said nobody has the right NOT to get offended. That's what people are trying to achieve somehow, you see. A perfect world where everything is to their liking.



No but I think you do.

Nobody....meaning no one, has the right to not to get offended? Otherwise no one should ever be offended because they have no right to feeling offense? You need a lesson in sentence structure dood.

In the words some-one else, that is both grammatically and logically unstable.


----------



## Delphinidae (Aug 22, 2009)

Trpdwarf said:


> No but I think you do.
> 
> Nobody....meaning no one, has the right to not to get offended? Otherwise no one should ever be offended because they have no right to feeling offense? You need a lesson in sentence structure dood.
> 
> In the words some-one else, that is both grammatically and logically unstable.


I don't think I need lessons from you, considering your quoted post (to mention just one) has typos of its own. Also, the words "someone else" were never mentioned anywhere near.


----------



## Trpdwarf (Aug 22, 2009)

Delphinidae said:


> I don't think I need lessons from you, considering your quoted post (to mention just one) has typos of its own. Also, the words "someone else" were never mentioned anywhere near.



My typo's don't get in that way of showing that you are making little to no sense.


----------



## Delphinidae (Aug 22, 2009)

Crysix Corps said:


> There is NO PERFECT WORLD thats for one
> 
> two I can be offended by the person comment all I want cause its my submission, but guess what I also do, correct them, tell them that is wrong actually


Seriously, you should stop replying until you get versed in the arts of reading comprehension.

*You didn't understand a single thing I had said.* That's pathetic.
Okay, maybe you understood a single one, but that wasn't enough.


----------



## Verin Asper (Aug 22, 2009)

Delphinidae said:


> Seriously, you should stop replying until you get versed in the arts of reading comprehension.
> 
> *You didn't understand a single thing I had said.* That's pathetic.
> Okay, maybe you understood a single one, but that wasn't enough.


You state earlier


Delphinidae said:


> The submission owner might get offended. And the owner can say and do _whatever he wants_ in response.
> But he doesn't have the right not to get offended in the first place.


do note you are stating here that the Submission owner had no right to get offended at all in the first place yes, but also stating they might get offended.

you probably dont even comprehend yourself due to the fact we are talking about the person leaving a comment that offended the owner of the Submission. YES it will happen, but the fact is the owner of that submission have full rights to tell the person "Hey...that offends me, please dont do that"


----------



## Tokoyami (Aug 22, 2009)

...

So the person who submits a piece of art has nor ight to go through there comments and filter what they find objectionable!?

So with your logic in mind the admins of this forum have no right to get rid of comments like "N***** N***** N*****" just because they find them objectionable.  Please tell me you see the flaws in this argument.


----------



## Hydramon (Aug 22, 2009)

Oh wow, just reading through this, it has changed to a completely different topic. The OP originally stated about people creating journals, without NSFW tags for that matter, for the sole purpose of sexual roleplay and other things of that matter, and also using FA as a sex/date site.
I also noticed that the OP appears to have been banned, and I'm guessing it is from this. No offense Dragoneer, but they brought up a valid point, and your argument did seem quite flawed. And if I am correct that the OP got banned for this thread, then I also believe that is completely unfair. They pointed out an issue which is a massive flaw in the community, and they also disagreed with you. I don't see how this is a basis for banning them.
This could be rectified by many simple solutions. You could create filters for journals, or create a rule that would minimize this sort of problem. I don't know. I'm not the admin.

And on the other issue in this thread. Delphinidae, I think what you are failing to acknowledge is that the rude and offensive remarks are being posted on General art, not Mature or Adult. Art that is accessable and postable by minors. Do you honestly believe that this is alright?

I would say more, but I have to go.


----------



## Fauz (Aug 22, 2009)

Free speech is a bag of cat shit


----------



## TehSean (Aug 22, 2009)

I think the core of the subject is:

While all the other site functions have a General / Mature setting, journals that could and should be set to mature are generally-accessible.

The idea that NSFW tags protects an adult-themed journal from the public is retarded because if that were ever true, then the entire gallery would be based on that philosophy already.  

It's not. So what it is is a don't ask, don't tell policy.

We don't ask if minors read adult journals, so it clearly doesn't happen... (lol)


----------



## Verin Asper (Aug 22, 2009)

Hydramon said:


> Oh wow, just reading through this, it has changed to a completely different topic. The OP originally stated about people creating journals, without NSFW tags for that matter, for the sole purpose of sexual roleplay and other things of that matter, and also using FA as a sex/date site.
> I also noticed that the OP appears to have been banned, and I'm guessing it is from this. No offense Dragoneer, but they brought up a valid point, and your argument did seem quite flawed. And if I am correct that the OP got banned for this thread, then I also believe that is completely unfair. They pointed out an issue which is a massive flaw in the community, and they also disagreed with you. I don't see how this is a basis for banning them.
> This could be rectified by many simple solutions. You could create filters for journals, or create a rule that would minimize this sort of problem. I don't know. I'm not the admin.
> 
> ...



The OP got Banned for something else, they be back as its a temp ban


----------



## Delphinidae (Aug 22, 2009)

Crysix Corps said:


> do note you are stating here that the Submission owner had no right to get offended at all


For the umpteenth time, for Christ's (or whatever's) sake, learn to read.
That's *not* what I'm stating.

I'm not telling you what it is I was stating, figure it out yourself.


----------



## Trpdwarf (Aug 22, 2009)

Delphinidae said:


> For the umpteenth time, for Christ's (or whatever's) sake, learn to read.
> That's *not* what I'm stating.
> 
> I'm not telling you what it is I was stating, figure it out yourself.



Stop back-peddling just because you fail to  make an argument hold water, zoophile.


----------



## Delphinidae (Aug 22, 2009)

Trpdwarf said:


> Stop back-peddling just because you fail to  make an argument hold water.


Stop defending a person who can't even read.

He keeps saying *I said people don't have the right to get offended*, and he keeps being *wrong*. I never said that. And you even defend this dyslexic person.
Nice edit at the end of your sentence. As if it was an insult.


----------



## Verin Asper (Aug 22, 2009)

Delphinidae said:


> For the umpteenth time, for Christ's (or whatever's) sake, learn to read.
> That's *not* what I'm stating.
> 
> I'm not telling you what it is I was stating, figure it out yourself.


Law of the internet
The Rate of Cursing, degrading and insults rise as the grounds of arguments fall.


Delphinidae said:


> The submission owner might get offended. And the owner can say and do _whatever he wants_ in response.
> *But he doesn't have the right not to get offended in the first place.*


----------



## Aden (Aug 22, 2009)

Delphinidae said:


> For the umpteenth time, for Christ's (or whatever's) sake, learn to read.



You're not very clear as to what you're stating, then. Please try again.


----------



## Rigor Sardonicus (Aug 22, 2009)

Actually, Delphinidae's making a very reasonable point here.

While the generally accepted rules of decorum dictate that you _shouldn't_ say such disturbing things on something not meant to be perverse, the fact remains that people _can_ and _do,_ and the submitter can't really do anything but admonish and block those who choose to.

There really is no such thing as the right not to be offended. As long as people _can_ say what they want to, they _will_ say what they want to--even if it's lewd.


----------



## Trpdwarf (Aug 22, 2009)

Delphinidae said:


> Stop defending a person who can't even read.
> 
> He keeps saying *I said people don't have the right to get offended*, and he keeps being *wrong*. I never said that. And you even defend this dyslexic person.
> Nice edit at the end of your sentence. As if it was an insult.


 
In your words "I said nobody has the right NOT to get offended" which translates to every person who speaks common English, "You don't have the right to be offended". Now maybe in your mind you mean something else but the way you are saying it, people are translating as is.

So either you are back peddling because you are losing your battle, or you need to find a better way to say what you mean to say so it matches what is in your mind.

Also what of the little edit? It makes me wonder if the reason you fail to see why people should be outraged over certain stuff is because you are a zoophile. You don't take offense to that, which is why something like "I'd suck your dog" would not be offensive. To other people it would because they oppose things like Bestiality/Zoophilia


----------



## MayDay (Aug 22, 2009)

Delphinidae said:


> Precisely!
> 
> You need some lessons in comprehension as well?
> I said nobody has the right NOT to get offended. That's what people are trying to achieve somehow, you see. A perfect world where everything is to their liking.



That statement was oxymoron mate. Go back and reflect on it. You're in effect contradicting yourself. I reckon it's your sentence structuring that needs brushing up. 

And I think consumers have the right to choose what they want to read. If they aren't comfortable with anything, they should have the right to have it filtered out or labelled.Sometimes, tolerance has its limits.

Not that I have an issue with explicit journals personally.


----------



## Delphinidae (Aug 22, 2009)

Trpdwarf said:


> In your words "I said nobody has the right NOT to get offended" which translates to every person who speaks common English, "You don't have the right to be offended".


No. There are two negatives in the sentence, so in your simple language, it translates to "Everyone may get offended."

And that was my point. You can't avoid it. You're not living in some dream world. No matter what you do, you'll eventually be offended. And people shouldn't throw a fit when it happens.

I'll say it again slowly: Nobody... has the right... not to get offended.
It means: "you don't have a right to stay away from offense". You have a chance maybe, but not a right. This is because there will always be a perceived arse who annoys you.

If you want to lecture a part-time English teacher on his own language, sure, place your bets.


----------



## Delphinidae (Aug 22, 2009)

Aden said:


> You're not very clear as to what you're stating, then. Please try again.


Sure thing.

"Nobody has the right to be offended" = "You don't have the right to be offended" (This is what YOU said)
"Nobody has the right *not* *to be* offended" = "You don't have the right to *avoid being* offended" (This is what I said)

Get it yet?
Mother Nature, why do you force me to sink this low?


----------



## Rigor Sardonicus (Aug 22, 2009)

Trpdwarf said:


> In your words "I said nobody has the right NOT to get offended" which translates to every person who speaks common English, "You don't have the right to be offended".


Incorrect.

The idea of a "right not to be offended" is that pepole have the right, basically, to be free from any comment or action that would cause them offense. Nobody has that right. People _do_ have the right to take offense to things and ask or tell the offending parties to stop--but they _do not_ have the right to expect people not to make offensive statements, because there's no way it'll ever happen. That's why FA has a block feature.

Fun fact: I speak "common English" and I knew exactly what he meant.

I think you're burning out, Trp. Maybe you should take a break from the forums for a while.


----------



## Ozriel (Aug 22, 2009)

Delphinidae said:


> No. There are two negatives in the sentence, so in your simple language, it translates to "Everyone may get offended."
> 
> And that was my point. You can't avoid it. You're not living in some dream world. No matter what you do, you'll eventually be offended. And people shouldn't throw a fit when it happens.
> 
> ...



Your context was placed as "No one has a right to be offended", it should have been typed as "you cannot avoid offense". Otherwise it could be easily taken out of context and stated as "You have to accept the offense and not retaliate as being offended".

Despite your profession, if you do not take into consideration how others see it, it can be taken out of context.


On topic: people have to be aware that if a minor receives any replies from an adult, it can be considered a Class 6 misdemeanor.


----------



## Trpdwarf (Aug 22, 2009)

Delphinidae said:


> No. There are two negatives in the sentence, so in your simple language, it translates to "Everyone may get offended."
> 
> And that was my point. You can't avoid it. You're not living in some dream world. No matter what you do, you'll eventually be offended. And people shouldn't throw a fit when it happens.
> 
> ...



You do know why double negatives are taught as not being something you put in a sentance? It causes confusion as to what is going on right now.

If that is what you mean to say, than why not state it as such in beginning instead of wording it in a way that it's context and translation is the opposite of what you mean to say?

I understand that the world is not perfect and you cannot avoid offense but that does not mean people who get offended should not react, or going back to an earlier part of this thread, tell the person "Hey I don't don't like that." or "Don't say that".

I mean when I went to AC I had to expect that some people would be rude. But when someone walked up to me telling me that "I make their Anus bleed" and "I make their retina's Bleed" as a really bad pick up line I had every right to tell them "I did not need to know that and go away".

When it comes to submissions if someone says something they should not say, they should not have to ignore it. They should have the right to have certain kinds of comments removed especially sexually explicit stuff. Now you can keep stroking your ego to save face, but you've been wrong the whole time in this thread. I suggest you just leave.


----------



## Verin Asper (Aug 22, 2009)

Delphinidae

you support people to ignore the the comment, problem is that just gonna breed that person to continue to post like that to others. We still have the right to say to the person of the comment "Hey, thats not right, dont post something like that again"

There is a difference between "cute dog" and "I want to bone your dog"


----------



## Aden (Aug 22, 2009)

Delphinidae said:


> "Nobody has the right *not* *to be* offended" = "You don't have the right to *avoid being* offended" (This is what I said)



Okay.

Too bad it's not about rights. It's about common decency.


----------



## Torinir (Aug 22, 2009)

Aden said:


> Okay.
> 
> Too bad it's not about rights. It's about common decency.



There's nothing common about decency any more. >.>


----------



## Rigor Sardonicus (Aug 22, 2009)

Torinir said:


> There's nothing common about decency any more. >.>



This.

People, either learn to use the block function or just suck it up.

We all laughed at those uptight Bible-thumpers who protested shock-jock radio shows, right?

Well, some of you are advocating the same thing here

That's also thread derailment, since Ashley was talking about _people typefucking in their journals_, not saying things like "oh murr nice dog".


----------



## TehSean (Aug 22, 2009)

What are you chumps rambling about philosophy when the topic is about site consistency with Adult/General settings with Journals that the admins deliberately ignore even though they should not be discussing things that go under Adult because of the filter's limitation (Journals cannot be filtered at all, and must be General at all times)


----------



## Delphinidae (Aug 23, 2009)

Rigor Sardonicus said:


> People, either learn to use the block function or just suck it up.


Good to see someone with a functioning brain.

To add to the discussion, please everyone watch this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xPhje8wepyg
The audio portion may not be work safe.


----------



## Trpdwarf (Aug 23, 2009)

Rigor Sardonicus said:


> Incorrect.
> 
> The idea of a "right not to be offended" is that pepole have the right, basically, to be free from any comment or action that would cause them offense. Nobody has that right. People _do_ have the right to take offense to things and ask or tell the offending parties to stop--but they _do not_ have the right to expect people not to make offensive statements, because there's no way it'll ever happen. That's why FA has a block feature.
> 
> ...



What do you expect people to think? They read that jumbled up mix of words from guy, along with his thing about "Well if someone says lewd comments about your dog" (or something to that effect) that you should ignore it.

I understand what he meant. I know that what he meant got lost in translation with what came out. It's little wonder why people translated what he said as not being what he meant considering the messed up stance he took in the beginning. That's all I have to say. I understand why people misread what he said considering what he has said and the rather poor choice of sentence structure.


----------



## Carenath (Aug 23, 2009)

Derailed into arguing, reported.

Closed...


----------

