greggerypeccary wrote on May 31^st, 2014 at 6:45pm:


Hardly analogous to an image where there is an equally obvious 'erection,' inspired by, directed at, a female child.

Aussie wrote on May 31^st, 2014 at 6:41pm:
Since the very definition of porn requires it to be arousing or titillating. You have been told this before many times because you have had trouble recognising what is and isn't porn in the past. Do you ever learn?

Quote:

If you insist on classifying it as porn, then you think it is arousing, either to yourself or someone else. No one else is trying to classify it as porn, ergo it is you that finds it arousing or you see something in the cartoon that would be arousing to someone else.

In either case your mind is closely associating with those that you feel would find this arousing.

To be classified as porn, it must be arousing to someone, somewhere. What do you find arousing about it or what do you think someone else would find arousing about it?

Only you can tell us what is going on in your mind Aussie 

Context is important. Innocent images of children playing on the beach can be classified as pornography when dealing with pedophilia. As I said previously, when taken in context, the picture is clearly not meant to arouse - it's meant to offend. Judging by this thread, it's working.

Annie Anthrax wrote on May 31^st, 2014 at 7:01pm:

That is the whole point here. It is clearly not porn and in no way can it be labeled as porn. There is no ambiguity here relative to that cartoon. There is no doubt it is meant to offend and not arouse.

Aussie is claiming it should be removed because it is porn. Obviously trying to argue its removal for its offensiveness wouldn't work so he is trying to skirt the issue by claiming it is porn and therefore should be removed.

The trouble he has run into is that he is insisting that it is porn. Totalitarians often find themselves in these predicaments.

The cartoon posted by Aussie is in poor taste. Is it porn....NO.

The movie clip of anchorman is hilarious, is it in poor taste? To some maybe, is it porn.....NO.

Is Aussie merely sensationalising the cartoon for really no other reason than his own weird amusement ......

Quite possibly.

Rhet-Oracle wrote on May 31^st, 2014 at 7:16pm:

It's more likely a passive aggressive form of control by seeking to impose a ban on what he finds offensive by classifying it as porn when it is clearly not porn.

IQSRLOW wrote on May 31^st, 2014 at 7:20pm:


That's the way you want to paint it.  Whatever you want to call that image, it ought not be displayed here.  I'll bet it never makes the front (or any other) page of any newspaper.  Care to explain why without any reference to Islam?

Quote:

Again, that is a subjective call by a totalitarian mind.

At least you have conceded that it is not porn.