Spoffin
22-04-2004, 17:19
If any players wish to ask questions regarding general policy on this point, then they may start a new topic.
Well, seeing as you said I could...
Additionally, I would like to point out that it is not your place to decide what should be taught to other people's children. If the parents of a particular child decide not to teach the concept of oral sex to their child, it is not your place to override them.
--The Democratic States of Cogitation
"Think about it for a moment."
Founder of The Realm of Ambrosia
If you're talking about sexual content, thats one thing. But if you're talking about a general rule, thats patently absurd. Imagine that, if as a parent, I were to exercise my right to prevent my children knowing about... chickens, for instance. I forbid my children to, in any way, shape or form, gain knowledge of chickens. Or suppose I forbid them to learn anything about christianity. Does that mean that because of my frankly bizzare choices over the subject matter that is appropriate for my children to hear, that everyone else on the forum should be banned from talking about it?
If you're saying that talking about sex on NationStates is not allowed, thats fine. But if you're saying that parents who don't come here should be allowed to censor the words written and read by people who do, thats just... wow, crazy.
Well, yes, the topic could of been discussed in a different fashion. Perfect example is, you don't have to talk about the "acts" preformed in a homosexual relationship to debate homosexuality, nor do you have to be racist to discuss racism.. etc.. it is all in how you say it I suppose. However, this was unacceptable by Nationstates standards.
I don't think I agree that its a perfect example. Looking at the post, is there any way you can see that it could possibly have been about less about the act of oral sex whilst still being a thread on the topic of oral sex? Again, its fine if you say that the whole topic is unacceptable, but I don't see how you could do what it is you suggest.
(reposted here for conveinance, will edit if inappropriate)
I'm guessing the majority love oral sex but no doubt there will be a few who somehow imagine it ain't "god-approved" and refuse to indulge. I'm always amazed though when I hear of folks who really like and even expect to receive oral sex but don't willingly give it to their partner - they seem like hypocrites to me.
The same post on a different topic could go:
I'm guessing the majority don't mind homosexuals but no doubt there will be a few who somehow imagine it ain't "god-approved" and refuse to indulge. I'm always amazed though when I hear of folks who say they aren't bothered by gay people, "just as long as they don't see it"- they seem like hypocrites to me.
Would that have been locked? If not, then isn't it actually the subject manner which is offensive rather than the way it was written?
Well, seeing as you said I could...
Additionally, I would like to point out that it is not your place to decide what should be taught to other people's children. If the parents of a particular child decide not to teach the concept of oral sex to their child, it is not your place to override them.
--The Democratic States of Cogitation
"Think about it for a moment."
Founder of The Realm of Ambrosia
If you're talking about sexual content, thats one thing. But if you're talking about a general rule, thats patently absurd. Imagine that, if as a parent, I were to exercise my right to prevent my children knowing about... chickens, for instance. I forbid my children to, in any way, shape or form, gain knowledge of chickens. Or suppose I forbid them to learn anything about christianity. Does that mean that because of my frankly bizzare choices over the subject matter that is appropriate for my children to hear, that everyone else on the forum should be banned from talking about it?
If you're saying that talking about sex on NationStates is not allowed, thats fine. But if you're saying that parents who don't come here should be allowed to censor the words written and read by people who do, thats just... wow, crazy.
Well, yes, the topic could of been discussed in a different fashion. Perfect example is, you don't have to talk about the "acts" preformed in a homosexual relationship to debate homosexuality, nor do you have to be racist to discuss racism.. etc.. it is all in how you say it I suppose. However, this was unacceptable by Nationstates standards.
I don't think I agree that its a perfect example. Looking at the post, is there any way you can see that it could possibly have been about less about the act of oral sex whilst still being a thread on the topic of oral sex? Again, its fine if you say that the whole topic is unacceptable, but I don't see how you could do what it is you suggest.
(reposted here for conveinance, will edit if inappropriate)
I'm guessing the majority love oral sex but no doubt there will be a few who somehow imagine it ain't "god-approved" and refuse to indulge. I'm always amazed though when I hear of folks who really like and even expect to receive oral sex but don't willingly give it to their partner - they seem like hypocrites to me.
The same post on a different topic could go:
I'm guessing the majority don't mind homosexuals but no doubt there will be a few who somehow imagine it ain't "god-approved" and refuse to indulge. I'm always amazed though when I hear of folks who say they aren't bothered by gay people, "just as long as they don't see it"- they seem like hypocrites to me.
Would that have been locked? If not, then isn't it actually the subject manner which is offensive rather than the way it was written?