I don't know what made you assume that I glorify such things but then again you've done a whole lot of assuming about me on this thread. (You know what they say about assuming.....)

I didnt adressed that to you, it was rather a general proposition. Anyhow, have a look at your statement, if you want to have an idea where assumptions might come from. your argumentations are a bit to unstable for my taste, so I wont discuss this issue any further.

There are certain things that just don't belong in public

I agree with that. insulting or pornographic content doesnt belong here. Even though insults will always be caused, by those that feel insulted, by what ever. It will always depend on your idea of a term. So it will nearly be impossible to avoid insults.
Although! This tiny little icon, which maybe measures 4mmx6mm, is hardly big enough to recognize anything on. complaining about this pile of pink pixels is absolutely hilarious. In the best case, it makes your whole complain look cranky.

if you want to have an idea where assumptions might come from. your argumentations are a bit to unstable for my taste,

You've complained repeatedly about people not answering your questions. Then when I point out the sheer amount of assumptions you've been making you give this vague response. "Your argumentations are a bit too unstable for my taste." What the heck is that even supposed to mean?

This tiny little icon, which maybe measures 4mmx6mm, is hardly big enough to recognize anything on

Apparently it's quite big enough, otherwise this thread wouldn't of even happened.

In the best case, it makes your whole complain look cranky.

To dismiss valid complaints as "just cranky" is to open the door for worse things. Small violations of the rules can easily lead to larger ones if unaddressed.

Edited 2/15/2015 03:11:40

Seems silly to me that such a fuss would be made about a pink oval.

I would like to share a television watching experience with you. It was about 5pm on a regular cable network and my friend was watching a show about plastic surgery. A lesbian had been going through hormone treatments and was having a mastectomy to further her transformation. She pretty much looked like a fat squat dude already. She had a better beard than a lot of guys I know. I really couldn't imagine that anyone would be attracted to this lady but that's not important because it's a medical show.
So she takes her shirt off and the doctor is drawing lines on her and of course the nipples are blurred out because it's indecent to show those. The surgery begins and the doctor starts slicing. The nipples are still blurred out until he removes them and sets them aside. Then the audience is allowed to see them. They show all of the slicing and scooping and detached parts as this goes on.
Finally the surgery is over and they do a side by side. Before with nipples blurred and after when she is sewn up like Frankenstein's monster no blur.

To me this program showed how backwards the U.S. is when it comes to censorship. I don't understand why it's okay to show a severed nipple and everything getting scooped out of the breast but not the nipple in it's natural state.

My guess is the fear of nudity and sex are hold overs from the Victorian age but I don't really know where it comes from. I don't think children should be allowed to watch porn, but they do, and I doubt it's as bad as all of the violence they are bombarded with.

Blortis, I agree with your conclusion.

when I point out the sheer amount of assumptions you've been making you give this vague response. "Your argumentations are a bit too unstable for my taste." What the heck is that even supposed to mean?

first of all there was only one assumption, which was moreover set in a general context, that you took personally for no reason. regarding on the second part; you seem to contradict for the sake of provoking a confrontation. I cant see any valid facts within your argumentation, which makes the discussion pointless!

Apparently it's quite big enough, otherwise this thread wouldn't of even happened.

obviously, thats the reason...

To dismiss valid complaints

to state your opinion to be true, eliminates the basis of the discussion, which just proves the inability to elaborate on this term. If this complaint is valid or not should firstly be determined. otherwise you may found your complaint on a wrong premise.

Edited 2/16/2015 00:00:34

first of all there was only one assumption, which was moreover set in a general context, that you took personally for no reason

You made other assumptions earlier in the thread as well.

There is something I will never understand. why do you hillbillies think nudity is a bad thing? while you think it is totally appropriate to arm civilians with every kind of fire amrs they might desire?

>Assuming I'm a "Hillbilly"
>Assuming I'm against any kind of gun control

For the record, I'm not taking anything personally. I've merely been pointing out how you've been making unfounded assumptions. People always assume anger when none is present, but I suppose that's the nature of talking through text.

you seem to contradict for the sake of provoking a confrontation. I cant see any valid facts within your argumentation, which makes the discussion pointless!

I haven't seen many facts from your side either. Discussions like this often involve a high level of opinion, however I've made my stance and the facts of the matter pretty clear. Having genitals for an icon is against the rules.Similar issues are against established laws. There are your facts.

If this complaint is valid or not should firstly be determined.

It is a valid complaint because the situation in question violates the rules. Unless you're intent is to turn this into a debate about whether the rules banning this sort of thing are valid or not.

Edited 2/16/2015 02:31:25

The most insulting thing about this conversation I've found is the fact I've wasted 15 minutes of my life which I'll never get back reading all the comments.

PS, I love a good vagina.