Forums

[CHILD SAFETY]: Disallow graphic/suggestive avatars!

Sort:
ghostofmaroczy
ghostofmaroczy
Oct 6, 2014
0
#41
kleelof correctly evaluated:
ghostofmaroczy marked the day on his calender:
Benzodiazepine might have made the stupidest post in history:

I don't remember having fed on breasts. I consider them highly inappropriate.

Once again, brain damage.

#knighttobishopthree

Benzodiazepine
Benzodiazepine
Oct 7, 2014
0
#42

This is not the slightest bit funny unless your IQ is below 60, e. g.: you're brain damaged.

Kleelof, you're taking thigs completely out of context. Let me re-quote my post:

Benzodiazepine wrote:

I don't remember having fed on breasts. I consider them highly inappropriate.

When I was 4 (almost 5) years old, I ran over the road and got hit by a van. It briefly hit me and made me hit the ground with my head hard. I remember seeing the person run out with his hands on his head. The next thing I remember is waking up with a bandaged head and being told that I suffered a brain concussion.

I don't remember much of what happened before my 5th year of age. I don't know whether that's normal or due to my brain injury.

What kind of a retard is going to laugh (post "lol" or similar) on say the fact you broke your wrist, with, perhaps, lasting damage, when you fell of your tricycle as a kid?

Shame yourself...

camberfoil
camberfoil
Oct 7, 2014
0
#43

I believe that, given the context and mood of your earlier comments, our friend kleelof thought you were putting forward the story of the horrible accident as humor fodder, which, in this case, it was not. He is not a retard.

Achente
Achente
Closed: Inactive
Oct 7, 2014
0
#44

marcosite
marcosite
Oct 7, 2014
0
#45

Seriously though. Parents are not in control.  You can't protect your children from a billboard advert let alone the TV or internet.  Probably best to educate one's children as to what is seen.  Morals & opinions may vary but graphic representation is everywhere. 

Benzodiazepine
Benzodiazepine
Oct 7, 2014
0
#46
marcosite wrote:

Seriously though. Parents are not in control.  You can't protect your children from a billboard advert let alone the TV or internet.

I'd argue that they are.

When I was a child (we're talking about 10+ here).

Whenever we watched TV after 8 PM, when a movie contained a nude/explicit scene my parents (in particular the mother) firmly grasped the remote control every time and acted like they accidentally pressed a button, switching the channel or switching inputs or whatever and acting artificially confused as to what channel the movie was on only to find back after a minute or two and repeat the same process.

marcosite
marcosite
Oct 7, 2014
0
#47

Do you wish she'd just explained what was going on Benzodia?

Benzodiazepine
Benzodiazepine
Oct 7, 2014
0
#48

No, that would be too awkward.

jon_theo_09
jon_theo_09
Oct 8, 2014
0
#49

First, define exactly the phrase "suggestive avatars".

RonaldJosephCote
RonaldJosephCote
Oct 8, 2014
0
#50

   First, define exactly the phrase "suggestive avatars".   Suggestive avatars is anything that falls under, "the obvious".   A few months back we had a member who had a picture of a wonderful Greek stature. Which would of been fine, if the avatar was of the whole statue. But no, he took a close-up picture of the guy's penis, and then tried to rationalize--"the form of the human body is deautiful, blah,blah,blah.   I don't need to see somebody's junk when I'm posting.  (edit),   or at any other time, for that matter.          

kleelof
kleelof
Oct 8, 2014
0
#51
[COMMENT DELETED]
kleelof
kleelof
Oct 8, 2014
0
#52
jon_theo_09 wrote:

First, define exactly the phrase "suggestive avatars".

chrka
chrka
Oct 8, 2014
0
#53

That's just wrong! First mustard, then ketchup!

Benzodiazepine
Benzodiazepine
Oct 8, 2014
0
#54
NotAllowedTo wrote:

[...] I have to throw up ....

Please don't, I find that offensive!

RonaldJosephCote
RonaldJosephCote
Oct 8, 2014
0
#55

               "suggestive"    anything that has a double entende

camberfoil
camberfoil
Oct 8, 2014
0
#56

@#61 that's sick...

marcosite
marcosite
Oct 8, 2014
0
#57
RonaldJosephCote wrote:

   First, define exactly the phrase "suggestive avatars".   Suggestive avatars is anything that falls under, "the obvious".   A few months back we had a member who had a picture of a wonderful Greek stature. Which would of been fine, if the avatar was of the whole statue. But no, he took a close-up picture of the guy's penis, and then tried to rationalize--"the form of the human body is deautiful, blah,blah,blah.   I don't need to see somebody's junk when I'm posting.  (edit),   or at any other time, for that matter.          

Well done Ronald.  In-your-face-avatars are all very well 'til you have to look at them.  Chess.com should have a feature that allows you to cover any image you individually find offensive...tick this box if you do not wish to view avatars!....But it's not an exclusive adult only site so seems fair to not be too explicit.

Mr_Spocky
Mr_Spocky
Oct 8, 2014
0
#58

Oh ive seen worse avatars... chess.com should really put a warning or even ban those players!

RonaldJosephCote
RonaldJosephCote
Oct 8, 2014
0
#59

      I just posted a good one on the "creepy stalker" thread too. ENJOY!Laughing

marcosite
marcosite
Oct 8, 2014
0
#60

Not exactly.  Life, society, conformity if you prefer, still demands 'The Norm'.  If you would like to be accepted into The Norm then you will conform to some level, because, being a intelligent human being, you realise that is what you have to do.  Otherwise you become mentally ill, a terrorist, anarchist or some other description of devient.  There is always a line & most people recognise it.  Even respect it.  Wanting to shock 'society' into thinking is a good thing but blatant self-islolating issues rarely do that.