"I wish the RCC would reform itself along with the main branch of the LDS church, the SDA's and the JW's ( they desperately need reform , none of the eighty something splinter groups can be called liberal in all actuality). …"
 |
The World's Largest Coalition of Nontheists and Nontheist Communities!
A discussion of the rules: rule #4
This is the fourth post in my ongoing discussion of the rules. Feel free to sound off, just try to keep on topic.
The Rule:
4. Do not post pornography, other adult material, or links to said items. A good rule of thumb is if you would not show it to a thirteen year old, it is not OK to post.
The Reason:
The posting of pornography is not the purpose of this site. For a number of reasons--including the possibility of legal consequences, the presence of minors, the strong and diverse opinions and feelings about pornography and other adult content as well as our desire to not have our community marginalized or filtered by workplace internet software--we concluded that allowing adult content would do more harm than good.
The Action:
There don't seem to be many people who have a hard time understanding this particular rule, still; if you are unsure about what does and doesn't constitute "adult content," go ahead and ask a mod. As with most infractions, the punishment will likely hinge on a variety of factors, but ultimately members can be banned for posting pornography on this site.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Stephen Moore on -
There don't seem to be many people who have a hard time understanding this particular rule, still; if you are unsure about what does and doesn't constitute "adult content," go ahead and ask a mod.
Well, I for one am unsure what is meant by "adult content". If it is merely an extension of "pornography", then the phrase seems redundant.
Also, given the international nature of this site, what may be considered "adult content" (vague as the phrase is) to one group or nationality of people may be considered appropriate to another group or nationality of people. There is the guideline included in the rule that A good rule of thumb is if you would not show it to a thirteen year old, it is not OK to post, but again opinions on this will differ. Hell, opinions will differ even between people of the same group or nationality.
And given that the onus is on what I, or any other poster, considers appropriate to allow a thirteen year old to see, I don't see how enforcement of this rule under that guideline can occur. Unless, of course, the poster admits that they were mistaken in posting that particular material because they acknowledge that it is not appropriate for a thirteen year old to see.
-
Permalink Reply by moJoe on -
Pictures of people who have jumped off of buildings or been decapitated would be other examples of "adult content" that don't conventionally qualify as porn, although I guess anything is possible.
I understand where you are going with your second statement, but again, the arbiters of what is and what is not "adult content" will be the mods. I wish there were a more definitive way to outline it, but there you have it.
-
Permalink Reply by Richard Haynes on -
For the record, we have always had a policy of deleting all pictures of dead bodies. This is the Ning enforces it as well. No room for compromise here.
-
Permalink Reply by Stephen Moore on
-
Oh, okay, I see what is meant by it. That sort of thing didn't even occur to me.
-
Permalink Reply by Sentient Biped on -
This explains a lot. I've seen a number of examples where adults behave like 13 year olds. They saw this rule and think that's required.
Actually this too is Ning ToS.
-
Permalink Reply by Jo Jerome on -
On the one hand, we do have some pretty blunt and graphic discussions about sex that many would not show to a 13 year old.
On the other hand, most 13 year olds are hearing way worse on the playground, if not already experimenting on their own.
If my (hypothetical) kid were to go looking for "dirty talk," I'd far, far rather they end up somewhere like A/N's Secular Sexuality group than any number of other places on the 'net.
I.e.; Certainly not ideal for 13 year olds, but a way better alternative to much of the shite they hear.
Same goes for profanity in other discussions. Say, anger at a news story. With all the places a child can go to hear a curse-word-salad, here it's usually (not always, but usually) accompanied by a frontal-lobe discussion of current events. I say we're ok there too.
-
Permalink Reply by funk Q on -
I wasn't going to get involved with this but having resisted for a week I've given in.
Why can't a thirteen year old with access to the internet be exposed to photos dead bodies on this site when they can probably google them in their thousands?
Why are "less fortunate" children - without computers - exposed to real life dead and dying in villages, refugee camps, war zones, disaster areas etc, etc?
Why are all children exposed to the violent, agonising and often erotic images portraying suffering and death of religious identities?
Political correctness or molly coddling?
-
Permalink Reply by Jo Jerome on
-
I don't know that it's a matter of "can't" versus "we choose not to be the source."
I'd have to agree though that there are such things as photos of dead bodies that are not in poor taste contextually, and sometimes even a necessary evil to drive home a point.
I'd be ok with reconsidering a blanket "no dead bodies" rule in favor of a case-by-case rule.
-
Permalink Reply by Scary Guy on
-
Sorry to bring back such a sleepy thread, but what about an adult atheist nexus section, hosted on another site that is specifically 18+ (the "age of reason" in the eyes of the law?)
Censorship is nobodies friend, although if I have to pick one or the other, I prefer to sit at the adults table as I can't stand children. Although, most wouldn't call me mature anyway....
Not to mention no pictures of dead bodies? What about in regards to religious atrocities such as ritual sacrifice, holy wars, suicide bombings, and regular suicides (with religious abuse as the root cause?)
-
Permalink Reply by Mean Kathleen on -
My two cents...we all know that porn doesn't belong on this site. We shall use our judgement and good taste will prevail.
CONNECT WITH ATHEIST NEXUS
Latest Activity
- Top News
- Everything
Debra Stevenson replied to matthew greenberg's discussion Pope Francis says even Atheists go to Heaven
Tony Carroll commented on Steph S.'s group Birding, Birders and all things Birds"
Hawk Headed Parrott"
Jessica Berman commented on Ruth Anthony-Gardner's group Hang With Friends"I'm sorry I haven't posted at all; my mother was treated for ovarian cancer this past year, but I follow the discussions. Joan I'm glad treatment is going well. The ChemoBrain is a strange thing. The whole process was a whirlwind for…"
Richard C Brown commented on Hessenroots's group Useless Without Coffee"The coffee is good.My body says sleep.Huh."
Joan Denoo commented on Ruth Anthony-Gardner's group Hang With Friends"11:00 PM had my first bout of nausea; Rx took care of it. I feel wonderful. Absolutely no pain, I can't finish a sentence or remember words so Cary, Laura and Laurie did their best to understand what I am trying to convey. I usually get enough…"
John Hutcheson posted a blog postAre the media too giddy over the Pope?
With all the media attention the on the Pope, important stories are being missed, human rights violations, Monsanto protection act, Russia march to blasphemy laws, and of the big story this week did Harry Potter vanquish dementors?See More
Ian Mason commented on Ruth Anthony-Gardner's group Hang With Friends"The medical profession seems to have improved in some areas at least. Personally I think some of that is due to the higher level of education of society as a whole. We know too much to put up with bad treatment now. I saw a documentary last year…"
© 2013 Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.
