Aggressive Avatars

Yeah, seriously..... aggressive avatars? Isn't that an oxymoron?

My last one was a snake, I wonder if that was considered an "aggressive avatar"?

 

Ok, so I was wrong*, I assumed by your comments that mentioned you not being very concerned about a person being banned for having a gun oriented avatar I thought you supported banning avatars. Seeing that you do not advocate banning aggressive gun orientated avatars I apologize for the misunderstanding. Again if are not against banning avatars ignore the rest of my reply and please accept my apology.

This isn’t the first time I have had to apologize for being wrong when …ummm’ debating with the opposite sex.


Rev A

 

Did you hear that dis from Ms Gwendoline aussiefree2ride? Man and I so wanted to see a photo of a giant grasshopper. Well defend yourself mate!

Rev A

 

WOW! A spellink lessun!

 

So you did the dirty on him hey? Complaining about petty little things like avatars and getting posters banned just because they don`t suit you, indicates some serious control issues. I hope you can get some help and learn to enjoy life, it`s not all that bad.

 

people who get banned do so because of their own posts, not because of other posters.

 

I did the dirty on no one. His banning was independent of me, of anything I said...

He was banned, as Cass pointed out, "for his own posts".

I didn't say "boo" to him, the mods, or anyone... apart from this thread here where I NEVER named him by name.

Control issues, yeah of course. I also have a magic wand I use to get people banned. Your projections are juvenile. And your comprehension skills - that seem to only revolve around your silly projections, are particularly useless.

 

There could be the odd avatar that goes too far? Do you think?

I was glad of the responses here. I was testing my reaction to the reactions of others here. And found it illuminating. I personally thought this one particular avatar went too far. And not because it was a "gun". I don't care about guns... but I would stress that I prefer them pointing away. There were aspects of the avatar that made it wrong "to me" on many levels. But that's me. And others have said what they think and fair enough. I am pretty certain the poster was not banned for his avatar but for his posts.

No need to apologise, but thank you. And I also apologise for my tone in my last post.

 

I wish you the best in life. Hope you feel better soon.

 

You have no need to apologize either but thanks. I have learned over the years to admit when I am wrong, even if I think I am not wrong its best to review my words after a cooling off period. Yes I agree that a avatar could be offensive to nearly everyone and should be censored. As an artist I do not say that lightly, I so detest censorship. However I will not do some subjects in my art or photography. Its the usual, child abuse or porn etc. However I am still projecting my morals and ethics on others. That said we must as a civilized society draw the line somewhere. And that is the catch isn’t it?

I don't want to open up a can of worms but the reason I choose religion to define my morals rather than secular humanism is because SH definition of morals rests on a sliding scale which is tied to the current era. In other words I think that if we (man) are allowed to judge what is moral or immoral, in time we will be allowing every sick thing we now so detest as deviant and repugnant ! Usually morals if allowed to be defined by man loosen up towards what is called deviant behavior. Not the other way round eh? So where does the slide to deviance end? Would one day torture and sexual sadism of children be allowed as public spectacle ? Yes I think so if enough time passes. There is even evidence to suggest that is true. In Ancient Rome all of the above and worse was accepted as normal entertainment.

So I feel we need a set of ethical and moral rules that can not be changed. Religion provides that safeguard.

Rev A

 

Unlike me who doesn't wish a total stranger anything... particularly one that is sexist and derogatory to the prime minister. Class act, you.

No doubt John Howard was an extremely handsome rugged drool-worthy man in your eyes.

Good grief.

 

Thanks, I know what you mean, I tend to be the same in that regard.

Yes, definately lines are to be drawn... and it would be a big catch...

I don't detest censorship, and possibly because I work in a field where censorship issues come up a lot. And because I see how far some things can go.

I think everyone has a moral compass. But sometimes they're covered over. Or compromised, and such stuff.

We're all different, I guess. What you ascribe to religion... I would probably ascribe to "character". I see it as character over religion... in terms of those issues of deviancy, morals, etc. I think a "good" character can make determinations / judgments every bit as good (and sometimes better) than religion. But that's me.

I think people of good character can be safeguarded to do the right when they aren't religious...

Since not everyone is religious... but everyone does have a "character", I would personally put "character" as being the paramount ingredient as to how we manage to progress along as decent humans...

 

FWIW - My avatar is "Columbia", who is the female personification of the United States.

I chose this specific picture for four reasons --
1) I love my country.
2) I love women.
3) It also happens to be the name of the town I lived in in mid-Missouri for a number of years.
4) It's from a cool TV show I watched as a youth.

Pop Quiz: When Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin landed on the moon, the ship that they landed in - the lunar module - was named "Eagle". The ship that took them from Earth to the moon and back - the command module - was named...??

 

Did someone mention presumptions?

 

I am happy we have had the chance to speak. It's been very enlightening.

Rev A

 

Dang, nice shoes........