mildly pornographic avatar pics on Sciforums

imaplanck. said:
No he said define it, not give an example of, or an opinionated comparison of.
Click to expand...

Its the same definition given earlier by the dictionary quote - the word "mild" tagged on to the front means that it achieves the same means in a less explicit fashion

Beats me why you require a definition beacuse obviously you chose your avatar to communicate a very specific idea

(and just in case there was any doubt you tagged a suitable banner to go with the avatar)
;)
 
Last edited:
I know I'm on LG's ignore list (his "I'm a pussy and can't take real debate" list) but could someone ask him why his avatar depicts two males frantically gang raping a young girl?
 
lightgigantic said:
Its the same definition given earlier by the dictionary quote - the word "mild" tagged on to the front means that it achieves the same means in a less explicit fashion

Beats me why you require a definition beacuse obviously you chose your avatar to communicate a very specific idea

(and just in case there was any doubt you tagged a suitable banner to go with the avatar)
;)
Click to expand...

Yeah it was only for comedy effect though.:)

BTW Superman just asked, why does your avatar depicts two males frantically gang raping a young girl?
 
superluminal said:
I know I'm on LG's ignore list (his "I'm a pussy and can't take real debate" list) but could someone ask him why his avatar depicts two males frantically gang raping a young girl?
Click to expand...
Chuckle.
lightgigantic said:
A mildly pornographic image is something like imaplanck's avatar image - technically when you look at it, there's nothing to see, but it speaks in a language less subtle than a flashing neon sign.
Click to expand...
I'd suggest that putting 'mildly' in front of 'pornographic' is meaningless. Either something is 'pornographic' or it isn't. So it follows that (to take a completely random example) imaplanck's avatar is either 'pornographic' or it isn't. If it is I'm sure the moderators will take appropriate action, since the use of pornographic imagery is a violation of the site rules; and if it isn't, then, well.. then that means that this whole thread is a waste of time. Which means that me typing all this is a wa..

Grrr. Tricked.
 
Simple, people use avatars like that to porn you into submission. It's a nice tactic to win debates, simply feminize the competition, or make them so horny they get confused and can't think straight. It's a wonderful strategy.
 
NP m8


I would have changed the Av by now as I usually get bored, but I haven't. Why do you suppose that is? care to psychoanalyse that aswell? ;)
 
imaplanck. said:
Yeah it was only for comedy effect though.:)

BTW Superman just asked, why does your avatar depicts two males frantically gang raping a young girl?
Click to expand...

I guess he has been getting a few funny ideas from your avatar and carried it through to mine
what does he think this is a picture of I wonder?

pspi_blot.jpg


;)
 
Last edited:
lightgigantic said:
But then why do you express abhorrence with the predictable result of such fascinations?
Click to expand...

There was no adhorrence in the inception. I do however have a long history of being a rebel without a cause.
There is nothing wrong with displaying a liking for consenting members of the opposite sex. I wonder if your objection stems beyond the desire to impose traditional christian virtues on non christians.;) ;)
 
lightgigantic said:
A mildly pornographic image is something like imaplanck's avatar image - technically when you look at it, there's nothing to see, but it speaks in a language less subtle than a flashing neon sign.
Click to expand...

Really?

I'm not particularly distracted or offended by his avatar.

Much ado about nothing?

Go up to the link "User CP" at the top of any page on SciForums, in that gray bar, and then to "Edit Options". Scroll down to "Thread Display Options" and uncheck "Show Avatars".

lightgigantic said:
I guess he has been getting a few funny ideas from your avatar and carried it through to mine
what does he think this is a picture of I wonder?

[snip]

;)
Click to expand...

I see Theodore Roosevelt's face. Why? Is Teddy's face pornographic? Should I be offended by politicians' faces?
 
I think samcdkey is the worst offender, she has her pussy displayed prominently on her avatar! how offensive! ;)

avatar22054_24.gif
 
cato said:
I think samcdkey is the worst offender, she has her pussy displayed prominently on her avatar! how offensive! ;)

avatar22054_24.gif
Click to expand...

Its a very pretty pussy. That makes it special and hence art rather than pornography ;)
 
imaplanck. said:
There was no adhorrence in the inception. I do however have a long history of being a rebel without a cause.
There is nothing wrong with displaying a liking for consenting members of the opposite sex. I wonder if your objection stems beyond the desire to impose traditional christian virtues on non christians.;) ;)
Click to expand...

Well that certainly would be a strange set of events, especially considering I am not christian

But that aside I wasn't aware that the connection between parenthood and sex was a christian precept
 
“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
A mildly pornographic image is something like imaplanck's avatar image - technically when you look at it, there's nothing to see, but it speaks in a language less subtle than a flashing neon sign.
”
Really?

I'm not particularly distracted or offended by his avatar.

Much ado about nothing?
Click to expand...

Does pornography have to be offensive to be pornographic?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top