On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 10:46 PM, David Moran <fordmadoxfraud(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote:
"just because we can have 4500 pictures of erect
penises, doesn't
mean we should."
For what reason, specifically?
FMF
On 1/29/09, Chad <innocentkiller(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 10:22 PM, David Goodman <dgoodmanny(a)gmail.com
wrote:
> voyeurism isn't relevant to our culture?
>
> On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 10:09 PM, Chad <innocentkiller(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
>
> > Emphasis on usefulness. We're about providing free content, and I
would
> hope
being culturally significant would still be a priority. I always
> considered
> that a major point in inclusionism/deletionism debates. Are we
remaining
culturally relevant? Talking about pop culture as well as historical
events,
places, customs, etc. Providing information about
naked people, their
habits, customs, fetishes even: I consider this culturally relevant.
Hosting
> a picture looking up a girl's skirt is hardly culture, and is
borderline
voyeurism.
If we're a dumping ground, of course none of this matters at all.
-Chad
Voyeurism for the sake of itself: no. Just as masturbation for the
sake of itself, sex for the sake of itself, and any other such image
without significance would be judged in the same way. As I said:
just because we can have 4500 pictures of erect penises, doesn't
mean we should.
Quality over quantity.
-Chad
What do you gain culturally from the last 4400 that you didn't get
in the first 100?
-Chad