- Time
- Post link
bkev said:
What does that even mean?
Chuck Testa = nope
Where were you in '77?
Going away? Post so here! — Page 19
- Time
- Post link
- Time
- (Edited)
- Post link
bkev said:
I'm not Frink, but it bothers me some too and here's my two cents. It's not the picture that's offensive. It's the usage of it as a pro-life statement. The avatar in this case is meant to represent the person's beliefs, and therefore, advocate for them. Though more of a positive reinforcement than some pro-life advocates I've seen - for example, Earth Day pro-life protesters used blown-up pictures of dead fetuses in San Diego, and it was uncomfortable to walk past and out of place at the event - it's still a misplaced emotional appeal.
Just my two cents.
When is emotional appeal misplaced and when is it not? Not sure why I'm even on this kick right now, but I remember while at the University of Arizona, week after week different folks representing different ideals would use emotional appeal to try and drown out common sense. As I've said in the politics thread, there were numberless opponents to the Iraq War, and in order to tell us to "Get Out Now!", emotional appeal was thrown all over the place, showing hundreds of empty boots on the mall, gory stories of American soldiers committing heinous acts (though by far in the minority), unfairly attributing every single death to George W. Bush...are these well placed emotional appeal?
Maybe you might argue that they're not particularly graphic, unlike abortion pictures. Okay, so let's look at more graphic imagery. How many pictures of naked Jewish corpses stacked and ready to be burned have you seen? Have you ever seen the footage of the Saigon execution? Have you ever seen footage of the inhumane Tutsi slayings at the hands of the Hutus in Rwanda? How many images have you seen of murdered Middle Easterners at the hands of IS? Have these not stirred emotions in you? I guarantee, they have been used for emotional appeal? Were they misplaced?
You see, when you abort a fetus, whether you like it or not, it's messy business. And pretty early on, it is easy to see that you are not killing a blob or a prawn, but a very underdeveloped human child, with fingers, toes, a head, a heart. It may be graphic, but it's also reality. Some people find the thought abhorrent. Then why might it be inappropriate to use the image of an aborted fetus as a representation of why a pro-life proponent might be misplaced emotional appeal?
And so this remains on topic...
COME BACK TO US TRIDENT! WE CAN'T LIVE WITHOUT YOU!!! WE ARE NOT WORTHY OF YOUR PRESENCE, BUT WE NEED YOU!!!
Maybe now he'll feel loved enough to return.
- Time
- Post link
darth_ender said:
bkev said:
I'm not Frink, but it bothers me some too and here's my two cents. It's not the picture that's offensive. It's the usage of it as a pro-life statement. The avatar in this case is meant to represent the person's beliefs, and therefore, advocate for them. Though more of a positive reinforcement than some pro-life advocates I've seen - for example, Earth Day pro-life protesters used blown-up pictures of dead fetuses in San Diego, and it was uncomfortable to walk past and out of place at the event - it's still a misplaced emotional appeal.
Just my two cents.
When is emotional appeal misplaced and when is it not? Not sure why I'm even on this kick right now, but I remember while at the University of Arizona, week after week different folks representing different ideals would use emotional appeal to try and drown out common sense. As I've said in the politics thread, there were numberless opponents to the Iraq War, and in order to tell us to "Get Out Now!", emotional appeal was thrown all over the place, showing hundreds of empty boots on the mall, gory stories of American soldiers committing heinous acts (though by far in the minority), unfairly attributing every single death to George W. Bush...are these well placed emotional appeal?
Maybe you might argue that they're not particularly graphic, unlike abortion pictures. Okay, so let's look at more graphic imagery. How many pictures of naked Jewish corpses stacked and ready to be burned have you seen? Have you ever seen the footage of the execution of a Saigon execution? Have you ever seen footage of the inhumane Tutsi slayings at the hands of the Hutus in Rwanda? How many images have you seen of murdered Middle Easterners at the hands of IS? Have these not stirred emotions in you? I guarantee, they have been used for emotional appeal? Were they misplaced?
You see, when you abort a fetus, whether you like it or not, it's messy business. And pretty early on, it is easy to see that you are not killing a blob or a prawn, but a very underdeveloped human child, with fingers, toes, a head, a heart. It may be graphic, but it's also reality. Some people find the thought abhorrent. Then why might it be inappropriate to use the image of an aborted fetus as a representation of why a pro-life proponent might be misplaced emotional appeal?
These are indeed good points...
And so this remains on topic...
COME BACK TO US TRIDENT! WE CAN'T LIVE WITHOUT YOU!!! WE ARE NOT WORTHY OF YOUR PRESENCE, BUT WE NEED YOU!!!
Maybe now he'll feel loved enough to return.
But these...? ;-)
I was once…but now I’m not… Further: zyzzogeton
“It wasn’t the flood that destroyed the pantry…”
- Time
- (Edited)
- Post link
I feel no need to post on a forum where people use fetus pictures as avatars to indicate they are anti-abortion with every post they make, no matter the content of the post. I don't see why that's so difficult to understand.
On topic, welcome back greenie!
- Time
- Post link
So you don't like people who feel strongly about their moral views, or do you just dislike when their views differ from yours?
- Time
- Post link
You can't think of anything I could put in my avatar that would bother you?
I fail to see how your question is relevant.
- Time
- Post link
I don't disagree. Don't post there of course. But why is the principle of using such pics wrong?
- Time
- (Edited)
- Post link
TV's Frink said:
I feel no need to post on a forum where people use fetus pictures as avatars to indicate they are anti-abortion with every post they make, no matter the content of the post. I don't see why that's so difficult to understand.
On topic, welcome back greenie!
James Bond Jr said:
I never left...
<span style=“font-weight: bold;”>The Most Handsomest Guy on OT.com</span>
- Time
- Post link
darth_ender said:
I don't disagree. Don't post there of course. But why is the principle of using such pics wrong?
I said it was wrong?
- Time
- (Edited)
- Post link
Last edited on September 12, 2015 at 8:59 PM by greenpenguino (Reason: Yeah, I know it's from one of the shit Bond films (of which there are so, so many. *sigh*) but that bit is pretty cool. And it's near the end, so that's a plus
hey! perhaps because you've been gone so long you've forgotten, but the "*sigh*" belongs to me.
- Time
- Post link
Warbler said:
Last edited on September 12, 2015 at 8:59 PM by greenpenguino (Reason: Yeah, I know it's from one of the shit Bond films (of which there are so, so many. *sigh*) but that bit is pretty cool. And it's near the end, so that's a plus
hey! perhaps because you've been gone so long you've forgotten, but the "*sigh*" belongs to me.
Oh yeah, well DOUBLE STANDARDS on you!!
<span style=“font-weight: bold;”>The Most Handsomest Guy on OT.com</span>
- Time
- (Edited)
- Post link
I need my own silly catchphrase ... something that perfectly sums up just who I am in a nutshell ...
Ah, I got it!
"Take a stalk on the wild side."
- Time
- Post link
TV's Frink said:
darth_ender said:
I don't disagree. Don't post there of course. But why is the principle of using such pics wrong?
I said it was wrong?
Well, you said, "Yep," in response to bkev who said it was "misplaced emotional appeal," hence my question about when emotional appeal is acceptable and when it's not.
- Time
- Post link
Well, it was more of a general "yep" than specific to any one part of the post, but let's just say that I would consider it misplaced if it were done on a forum I wanted to post on. If you were to change your avatar to a fetus, for example, I would find it unfortunate that you would choose to take a jab at me.
- Time
- Post link
So, if I understand this correctly, due to one individual on a forum of over 488,000 members having for his/her avatar a fetus you would not post there...?
Does this not seem at least somewhat curious...? Hopefully none here will take you up on the challenge and drive you from this site as well...! ;-) [The interesting item of note for me is that I have never yet encountered this poster to my knowledge...]
Regardless, I find it very interesting. There are a wealth of opinions and ample room for courteous disagreement...but it is heavily moderated so one must mind one's manners...probably you would be banned within ten posts...so you are likely correct: it is no place for thee... ;-)
Besides, we simply cannot have you further splitting your attentions...this place would suffer for it...!
I was once…but now I’m not… Further: zyzzogeton
“It wasn’t the flood that destroyed the pantry…”
- Time
- Post link
As of yet, we don't have any formal rules on avatars. There have been a couple questionable ones in the past though.
Do not give the moderators a reason to make one.
Where were you in '77?
- Time
- Post link
SilverWook said:
As of yet, we don't have any formal rules on avatars. There have been a couple questionable ones in the past though.
Do not give the moderators a reason to make one.
Oh you need not worry on my account...I was never much a one for exploiting biology...did not enjoy the subject...would not enjoy the avatar...although it is interesting that it reminds me that I once had a grade-school teacher who wore a plastic fetus around his neck during the time that his wife was pregnant. I suppose it is a thing that some people do...?
So I must then wonder if Frink would then quit the building under such circumstances...?
I was once…but now I’m not… Further: zyzzogeton
“It wasn’t the flood that destroyed the pantry…”
- Time
- (Edited)
- Post link
You guys are hilarious.
TV's Frink said:
Post Praetorian said:
So perhaps I should have simply posted a link originally...at this point I do not suppose it truly matters...
I see a bunch of fetus pictures there...I don't think you want me posting.
http://www.catholic.com/news/help-catholic-answers-spread-the-gospel-of-life
- Time
- Post link
So... the guy with the fetus avatar opts out of viewing avatars...?
Interesting...
- Time
- (Edited)
- Post link
Also.
Http://www.catholic.com/blog/tim-staples/kim-davis-is-a-hero
My point is that I see all sorts of offensive things there and I have no interest in posting there. You guys twist that however you "want."
- Time
- (Edited)
- Post link
Gross.
- Time
- Post link
I can think of several interpretations for what you mean. Which one are you going for?
- Time
- Post link
Also, I didn't quite follow this one:
ray_afraid said:
So... the guy with the fetus avatar opts out of viewing avatars...?
Interesting...
- Time
- Post link
TV's Frink said:
I can think of several interpretations for what you mean. Which one are you going for?
Just voicing my disgust at the article linked to.
TV's Frink said:
Also, I didn't quite follow this one:
ray_afraid said:
So... the guy with the fetus avatar opts out of viewing avatars...?
Interesting...
Ah, well, in this link, originally posted by Praetorian, the guy with the fetus avatar says "many people are like myself who opted to turn off signatures and avatars". So, he or she is trying to make some sort of statement with their avatar, yet they don't wanna see any others, or even be subjected to their own. I just find that odd.