-
 KDE-Apps.org Applications for the KDE-Desktop 
 GTK-Apps.org Applications using the GTK Toolkit 
 GnomeFiles.org Applications for GNOME 
 MeeGo-Central.org Applications for MeeGo 
 CLI-Apps.org Command Line Applications 
 Qt-Apps.org Free Qt Applications 
 Qt-Prop.org Proprietary Qt Applications 
 Maemo-Apps.org Applications for the Maemo Plattform 
 Java-Apps.org Free Java Applications 
 eyeOS-Apps.org Free eyeOS Applications 
 Wine-Apps.org Wine Applications 
 Server-Apps.org Server Applications 
 apps.ownCloud.com ownCloud Applications 
--
-
 KDE-Look.org Artwork for the KDE-Desktop 
 GNOME-Look.org Artwork for the GNOME-Desktop 
 Xfce-Look.org Artwork for the Xfce-Desktop 
 Box-Look.org Artwork for your Windowmanager 
 E17-Stuff.org Artwork for Enlightenment 
 Beryl-Themes.org Artwork for the Beryl Windowmanager 
 Compiz-Themes.org Artwork for the Compiz Windowmanager 
 EDE-Look.org Themes for your EDE Desktop 
--
-
 Debian-Art.org Stuff for Debian 
 Gentoo-Art.org Artwork for Gentoo Linux 
 SUSE-Art.org Artwork for openSUSE 
 Ubuntu-Art.org Artwork for Ubuntu 
 Kubuntu-Art.org Artwork for Kubuntu 
 LinuxMint-Art.org Artwork for Linux Mint 
 Arch-Stuff.org Art And Stuff for Arch Linux 
 Frugalware-Art.org Themes for Frugalware 
 Fedora-Art.org Artwork for Fedora Linux 
 Mandriva-Art.org Artwork for Mandriva Linux 
--
-
 KDE-Files.org Files for KDE Applications 
 OpenTemplate.org Documents for OpenOffice.org
 GIMPStuff.org Files for GIMP
 InkscapeStuff.org Files for Inkscape
 ScribusStuff.org Files for Scribus
 BlenderStuff.org Textures and Objects for Blender
 VLC-Addons.org Themes and Extensions for VLC
--
-
 KDE-Help.org Support for your KDE Desktop 
 GNOME-Help.org Support for your GNOME Desktop 
 Xfce-Help.org Support for your Xfce Desktop 
--
openDesktop.orgopenDesktop.org:   Applications   Artwork   Linux Distributions   Documents    LinuxDaily.com    Linux42.org    OpenSkillz.com   
 
Apps
News
Groups
Knowledge
Events
Forum
People
Jobs
Register
Login

-
- Poll . 

How much nudity should be allowed in user uploads?


Posted by Frank on Feb 4 2007
Freedom of speech is important. Everything that is not against the law is OK40%40%40% 40%
Let the users decide. Everything with a score below 20% is deleted anyway.30%30%30% 30%
All kinds of nudity should be forbidden here.12%12%12% 12%
I want more porn.12%12%12% 12%
I don't care.6%6%6% 6%
Votes: 2525
goto page: prev   1  2  3 

-

 A simple solution

 
 by blaster999 on: Feb 6 2007
 
Score 50%

I am a developer of a portal that allows users to upload files (including pictures and videos). We found a very simple solution: there's a checkbox on the upload form, which says "The file contains erotic materials". So, if it's checked, the file is marked as erotic in the DB. Users must enable "show erotic content" in their profile settings in order to see erotic files uploaded by others. I think the same could be done here.


"Does it make you suffer 'cause you have to die?
Is it best to live a lie?"
Bad Religion - Destined for Nothing

Reply to this

-
.

 Re: A simple solutio

 
 by Yaba on: Feb 6 2007
 
Score 50%

Good idea


Reply to this

-

 Re: Re: A simple sol

 
 by Yaba on: Feb 7 2007
 
Score 50%

On the other hand: so far I haven't seen real pornographic content. Such a checkbox might encourage people to post such content


Reply to this

-

 Re: A simple solutio

 
 by Ekardnam on: Feb 6 2007
 
Score 50%

Deviantart has something similar to this, and I think it works as it should.
By the way, it's called "Mature Content" on dA.


Reply to this

-

 Re: Re: A simple sol

 
 by Hintzy on: Feb 7 2007
 
Score 50%

Yeah, I think "mature" would work better than "erotic". To me, "erotic" implies something explicity sexual, while "mature" and "artistic nudity" are more on the same level.


There are 10 types of people in this world: those who understand binary and those who don't.
Reply to this

-

 Re: A simple solutio

 
 by tardigrade on: Feb 17 2007
 
Score 50%

Excellent idea. Especially if it would keep them out of the "get new wallpapers" integrated into KDE. It is just tacky to have those girl backgrounds in there.


Reply to this

-
.

 AO - adults only

 
 by dadeisvenm on: Feb 8 2007
 
Score 50%
dadeisvenmdadeisvenm
Venom 3D Incorporated
Home

If you section it off and have it labeled AO requiring credit card verification it might be passable.

Personally I don't like it. Porn sites are for porn, kde-look is for art. Porn is barely that.


Reply to this

-

 Reality Check

 
 by DocTomoe on: Feb 8 2007
 
Score 50%

Credit Card Age Verification? Porn? WhoTF has mentioned porn? This is about erotic imagery. Porn is the depiction of a sexual act. Erotic imagery is not.

Erotic imagery has been a form of art since the beginnings of mankind, and has been used for almost any purpose from artistical inspiration over propaganda to advertising.

As you state, kde-look is for art. Then we should not distinguish between art we like and art we don't like.

PS.: I'd be OK with a button "This is NSFW". I'd also be ok for a "This is religious", "This is hate-speech" or "This is an offensive green piece of art". Please add all those artificial filters.


Reply to this

-

 Re: Reality Check

 
 by cschembari on: Feb 10 2007
 
Score 50%

I agree, Doc. The girl-themed items I've seen here may demonstrate varying levels of artistic skill but they all qualify as art. Not one of them is porn. If such a post of porn ever did surface here, it probably would get voted down and off the site fast.

The artist, esp. the new artist, should be encouraged, not flamed down because their chosen subject includes rather more anatomy than we're used to in public.

I wrote a lot about this here because I've lately been spending a lot of time visiting a site that's a prime example of this - http://www.domai.com/ - a site full of very tasteful, respectful, and highly artistic photos of nude young women shown in a non-sexual setting, with the purpose being an open and innocent admiration of the Beauty of Woman. Unlike the vast rafts of porn sites on the Web (which only cheapen the models and make you feel dirty inside), this site can elevate one's spirits thoroughly. Also unlike those other sites, its newsletter section is full of testimonials from men and women (even one Christian minister!) saying how much they like the site for its respect for women.


Reply to this

-

 Re: Reality Check

 
 by cschembari on: Feb 10 2007
 
Score 50%

BTW, something I forgot to mention earlier:

1) Hey, DocTomoe, what does "NSFW" mean, anyway?

2) I voted for what I later found out was the most popular sentiment above, "Freedom of speech is important. Everything that is not against the law is OK". In line with that, have the site administrators here actually verified that xivona, the only actual nude photo poster I've seen here, really is 21 and not just a very precocious minor?


Reply to this

-

 Re: Re: Reality Check

 
 by blaster999 on: Feb 10 2007
 
Score 50%

By "NSFW" he probably meant http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSFW


"Does it make you suffer 'cause you have to die?
Is it best to live a lie?"
Bad Religion - Destined for Nothing

Reply to this

-
.

 Re: Reality Check

 
 by dadeisvenm on: Feb 12 2007
 
Score 50%
dadeisvenmdadeisvenm
Venom 3D Incorporated
Home

Color Playboy how ever you want to its still a creative activity (writing or pictures or films etc.) of no literary or artistic value other than to stimulate sexual desire.

I seriously doubt a wallpaper submission like:

http://www.kde-look.org/content/show.php?content=45315

Is considered "artistic" by said (Webster) definition.

I'm sure there is a bias here. If you think nude imagedry of women are ok, then nude young men are fine as well and equally considered art right?

May of the wallpapers, themes, etc... talked about in this discussion do not contain ANY artistic value, therefore it can not be considered art.


Reply to this

-

 Re: Reality Chec

 
 by hansalfredche on: Feb 13 2007
 
Score 50%

Well, it is still artistic someway, especially compared to other stuff like this:

http://www.kde-look.org/content/show.php?content=52232

Just because you don't like it (I don't neither) doesn't mean it must be censored. It's such a stupid attitude.

Nude men? For sure, that's just obvious that can be regarded as art (see below).

"May of the wallpapers, themes, etc... talked about in this discussion do not contain ANY artistic value, therefore it can not be considered art."

Your definition of: Art and artistic value.

OK. And now, are the following art or porn (don't worry, the pictures linked do not even show a real person, just cold stone)?
http://sights.seindal.dk/photo/9224,s925f.html
http://www.shunya.net/Text/Herodotus/images/aphrodite-cupid-pan.jpg


Reply to this

-

 Re: Re: Reality Chec

 
 by dadeisvenm on: Feb 13 2007
 
Score 50%
dadeisvenmdadeisvenm
Venom 3D Incorporated
Home

WordNet 3.0
http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?o2=&o0=1&o7=&o5=&o1=1&o6=&o4=&o3=&s=pornography

Its a GENERAL definition that I apply to my sentence.

The example of what I posted as being porn by the definition is valid.

Your post is of a nude statue of Hercules and a nymph or Pan i guess trying to seduce a young woman.

What was the context of the creation of these pieces? What era were they made in and how does their creation correlate to todays definitions. Obviously the definition of pornography CAN be applied to the paintings on the brothels in ancient Japan, or the hieroglyphs in Egypt or Playboy.


Reply to this

-

 That definition ...

 
 by hansalfredche on: Feb 14 2007
 
Score 50%

... is so vague, that you can make it say almost anything. A pink background CAN satisfy that definition. Or any picture of a person, even when not nude ...

And what is "literary or artistic value"? That introduces a value system and this means you can not be right (neither can I) in a GENERAL basis.

For me that "Ubuntu Girl" is poor quality art. Not more, not less. It's just too flat to stimulate any sexual desire ...

Hieroglyphs? No way! They disqualify from your definition because they are used as a writting system (they have some utility). Even if they would show explicit postures, the fact that they are used as writting system make your defintion inapplicable. Otherwise the letter "X" is porn ...


Reply to this

-
.

 Re: That definition

 
 by dadeisvenm on: Feb 19 2007
 
Score 50%
dadeisvenmdadeisvenm
Venom 3D Incorporated
Home

A "pink" background can NOT satisfy that definition unless the color "pink" is a sexual trigger to an individual a since that is the extreme there is no way the color "pink" can be considered pornography by any normal means.

There is a reason why pornographic material is sectioned off from most mainstream media. Penthouse forum is not high art and I don't recall any pornstars receiving Oscars for "best performance". Its not art by any basic definition.

I didn't mean ALL hieroglyphs. Some did depict pornography and it being a form of writing, its literary pornography.



-

 Re: That definition

 
 by hansalfredche on: Feb 21 2007
 
Score 50%

@dadeisvenm

As I can't answer deeper in the thread I will do it here.

I understood you only meant some hieroglyphs, but, well, by what you are saying about hieroglyphs the letter "X" or the word "love" is pornography. Sorry, it's just the simple consequence. Either ALL hieroglyphs aren't, or then you have to admit that certain words and letters are porn. No way around it. You can not say that because we are now using a different writting system that all others have to be treated in an inferior manner (hey, just go to China and tell the people they are using porn for writting while your equivalent is not!).

And by your own logic the pink color can endeed satisfy your definition (just remember we are all different). But I suppose it is baseless to argue about that as you won't admit.

But well, we are talking porn while the initial question was about nudity.



-

 Re: Re: Re: Reality Chec

 
 by DocTomoe on: Feb 15 2007
 
Score 50%

Your post is of a nude statue of Hercules and a nymph or Pan i guess trying to seduce a young woman.

Being afraid of nudity is one thing, as long as your fear does not empair other peoples lifestyle. Not knowing about the most basic foundations of western civilization is another matter, especially when living in a western country like Britain...

Please educate yourself on the terms of greek/roman mythology. Wikipedia is a good mentor on this.


Reply to this

-

 Re: Re: Re: Re: Reality Chec

 
 by DocTomoe on: Feb 15 2007
 
Score 50%

Strike that "Britain" out and replace with "US", my bad.



-

 Re: Re: Re: Re: Real

 
 by dadeisvenm on: Feb 19 2007
 
Score 50%
dadeisvenmdadeisvenm
Venom 3D Incorporated
Home

I take a life drawing class every now and then and I have drawn someone in the nude. The context of the sculptures in the previous post have less to do with sex TODAY and more to do with portrayal of said character. To clearly categorize these pieces all someone has to do is answer the question I posted.

What was the context of the creation of these pieces?

What era were they made in and how does their creation correlate to todays definitions?

To me, its art. The portrayal of the human body is base and typical of a "strong man".



-

 Re: Reality Chec

 
 by hansalfredche on: Feb 13 2007
 
Score 50%

And you too should make a little tour in the Vatican museum. You can even do it online:

http://mv.vatican.va/3_EN/pages/MV_Home.html

Sistine Chapel is really interessting when it comes to nudity AND art. Just try to argue it is not art. Just try ...


Reply to this

-
.

 Re: Reality Check

 
 by DocTomoe on: Feb 15 2007
 
Score 50%

Color Playboy how ever you want to its still a creative activity (writing or pictures or films etc.) of no literary or artistic value other than to stimulate sexual desire

You, sir, are obviously a sexually frustrated and/or religiously impaired twen. Please feel advised that the limitations of your cultural backgrounds are likely not applying to more than 50% of worlds population. Mankind really has bigger problems than nipples - censorship is one of them.

http://www.kde-look.org/content/show.php?content=45315

Not a very good photo, but not porn either.

If you think nude imagedry of women are ok, then nude young men are fine as well and equally considered art right?

Of course it is. Do you want to imply you are also some homophobic?

May of the wallpapers, themes, etc... talked about in this discussion do not contain ANY artistic value, therefore it can not be considered art.

I don't want to invoke Godwin's law, but some guys I unfortunately share nationality with used to say that exact words in a very similar context.

Personally, I wouldn't put some of those up as my wallpaper. I'd also wouldn't put some Otto Dix up as my wallpaper, either.


Reply to this

-
.

 Re: Re: Reality Chec

 
 by dadeisvenm on: Feb 20 2007
 
Score 50%
dadeisvenmdadeisvenm
Venom 3D Incorporated
Home

You, sir, are obviously a sexually frustrated and/or religiously impaired twen. Please feel advised that the limitations of your cultural backgrounds are likely not applying to more than 50% of worlds population. Mankind really has bigger problems than nipples - censorship is one of them.

Married with children so and happily Christian grounded, but that has no bearing here. For the small percentage of population that ARE able to access pornography it is a HUGE problem in many societies. Don''t belittle the pick elephant in the room. Pornography is a 57 billion dollar a year industry (12 billion in the US). The worlds oldest profession claims more lives then war, so how do you belittle something of direct connect to it?


http://www.kde-look.org/content/show.php?content=45315

Not a very good photo, but not porn either.


surely you jest. What "artist" value does it serve other then being salacious?

Of course it is. Do you want to imply you are also some homophobic?

I'm implying that photos of dude with cock pieces and bulging chubs would get modded faster then you can say "A". Why don't you post to see what people would say.


I don't want to invoke Godwin's law, but some guys I unfortunately share nationality with used to say that exact words in a very similar context.

please don't. The topic is to important to do so.

Personally, I wouldn't put some of those up as my wallpaper. I'd also wouldn't put some Otto Dix up as my wallpaper, either.

ditto, but your not the owner nor are you a proper representation of the kde-look.org body as a whole.


Reply to this

-

 Re: AO - adults only

 
 by EdBlack on: Feb 14 2007
 
Score 50%

With the greatest of respect, I think credit card based age verification would be unthinkable for a site like kde-look.org.

Let it continue to be used by people who want to view adult content on other sites, it has nothing to do with desktop look and feel, or even the slightly fruity images you inevitably get on such sites.

i) it's beyond too much trouble for people using this site.

ii) not everyone of age in every country has/can have one. You can usually only get a gun license if you're an adult - but you wouldn't use that for age verification for the same reasons.


iii) browsing has nothing to do with people's payment details or securing them - this would come across as insane to the casual KDE user, rather like asking for a DNA sample.

iv) anything that would require that level of intrusive age verification would probably be deemed inappropriate for the site even as it stands now, so what would it protect?

See what I mean?


Reply to this

-
.

 Simple indeed

 
 by bico on: Feb 12 2007
 
Score 50%

Our Creator, has also an "opinion" about this issue:

"But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart."

"Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge."


"Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved." (Romans 10:13)
Reply to this

-

 Re: Simple indeed

 
 by MrNeutron on: Feb 12 2007
 
Score 50%

You know, it is possible to look upon the nude figure without lustful intent. It's called self-control. Or should we emulate the Muslims, who believe that women should cover up in burkas from head to toe because men can't control themselves?

Nudity is not sex, and not all nudity is erotic. The body is a beautiful creation of God, valuable and noble in and of itself, and Man in his shame, not God, desires it to remain covered. It is not what we wear upon our bodies, but what we do with our bodies that makes us decent or indecent.


Reply to this

-

 Re: Simple indeed

 
 by hansalfredche on: Feb 13 2007
 
Score 50%

Thats your opinion you translate into a bibble text taken out of context. Please stop that.

Or then explain me this: Chappelle Sixtine (Vatican).
http://www.cosmovisions.com/MichelAngeAdamSixtine.jpg
http://www.univ-montp3.fr/~pictura/Images/NePasOuvrir/0/A0909.jpg

Nudity is compatible with christianity or the above could not be tolerated!!!


Reply to this

-

 Re: Simple indeed

 
 by hansalfredche on: Feb 13 2007
 
Score 50%

Even better: Online visit of the Vatican Museum! So the Vatican is showing nudity on his own website! You really need some serious arguments to explain this. It's nudity all over the place! I also recommend a little visit for those interested, really a good site the Vatican has prepared about the nice collection they have (second link).

http://mv.vatican.va/3_EN/pages/x-Schede/CSNs/CSNs_G_Giud_big.html
http://mv.vatican.va/3_EN/pages/MV_Home.html


Reply to this

-

 Re: Simple indeed

 
 by raven65az on: Feb 13 2007
 
Score 50%

ok, that is just pathetic.
Lets also filter preaching.
ADULTERY!!! "Honey, I'm leaving you for a splash screen, you get the kids"


Reply to this

-

 Re: Simple indeed

 
 by DocTomoe on: Feb 15 2007
 
Score 50%

Oh, that's *YOUR* creator, not mine.


Reply to this

-

 Re: Simple indeed

 
 by sphincter on: Feb 19 2007
 
Score 50%
sphinctersphincter
Home
-
Rob Hughes 0

United States of America, Richardson, TX
Last visit May 24 2008
0 Friends
0 Groups

More info
Send a message
Add as friend
Other contents
--

That would be your creator, not mine. You don't speak for me. And frankly, I find your arrogant assumption that you can speak for me offensive in the extreme. So how about you take your creator, fold it until it's all corners, and insert it diagonally? That's a good boy.


Reply to this

-

 Ideas

 
 by EdBlack on: Feb 14 2007
 
Score 50%

Personally, I think that when things are a bit risque it looks a little less professional, and I wouldn't do it myself. I don't however think that the human body should be prohibited from other people's submissions, and I am 100% happy seeing other people's ideas as they think they should look - pretty people, art, grimacing penguins and all.

Still, if this were a perceived problem, one solution would be to tag anything that's a bit risque, have that content "switched off" by default for users, and make it clear that's happening. That way browsers can switch that on if they like, submitters who are wavering would be mildly discouraged from slightly smutty submissions, granny and the kids wouldn't be presented with it right off the bat, but the site wouldn't be nannified.

Everyone's happy.

- An alternative implementation of the same idea would be to have a "kid/granny safe portal" - an alternative domain from which tagged stuff was simply not available and you could even leave the original site as is. I dunno.


Reply to this

-
.

 Official KDE website

 
 by its on: Feb 15 2007
 
Score 50%

I would like to remind you that KDE-Look is not a fan made wallpaper collection portal. This is an official KDE Desktop Environment look and feel website.
We all are actively trying to promote Linux, and KDE in particular, as a real and credible business and home desktop solution. Therefore we simply can not afford to lower to plank and say - 'Well, let's allow nudity. It's Ok with us.' Because, while it might be 'Ok' with us it will certainly be a problem for the businesses and even many households.
So, let's not be childish. We are no children here. If any of us wants to get a 'cheesy' wallpaper for our desktop, we all know where we should look for it. And it certainly shouldn't be KDE-Look.org


it-s
Reply to this

-

 Re: Official KDE web

 
 by TubaSoldier on: Feb 16 2007
 
Score 50%

I second this motion.
Nudity has its place and it is not here. There are many many many many many more internet sites with nudity. KDE-Look should stay business and household oriented.
Freedom of speech is a cop out for wanting to do what you want without any consequences or regard for those who you share this site with. I'm all for freedom of speech, but I also have RESPECT for others thoughts and feelings. Something that major free speech advocates forget.


Reply to this

-

 Re: Official KDE web

 
 by hansalfredche on: Feb 19 2007
 
Score 50%

WHERE do you draw the line? I see exactly what you mean, but your statement is not as clear as you would like to have it. Just look at all those adds on the walls (perfumes, watches, cars, shower gels ... ). Your argument with businesses is not really good. Precisely because we are adults we should tolerate nudity, but not ANY nudity.

Families? Sure, but I don't see big problems. I'm not saying KDE-Apps should host overly provocating content, but some nudity doesn't hurt. Just look around. I was confronted with (some) nudity as a kid, all the neighbours were, and todays kids are too (adds, the lattest video clip, etc.). Now, of course, it shouldn't be to explicit, but it is not a problem per se. And finally, the probability a kid lands on a porn advertisement is bigger than a kid landing on KDE-Apps. You seem very optimistic all those little kids will rush to KDE and find out themselves how to get here at the first place.

A pragmatic approach is probably the best.


Reply to this

-
.

 Re: Re: Official KDE

 
 by dadeisvenm on: Feb 19 2007
 
Score 50%
dadeisvenmdadeisvenm
Venom 3D Incorporated
Home

kde-look.org is a site driven to promote the artistic aspect of the KDE desktop environment. Kde-look is not in the business of SELLING products (so far) that would warrant the use of salacious material for marketing sake. The same goes for KDE.

This isn't a site promoting liquor, Victoria Secrets, or Prophylactics and KDE-looks content shouldn't shouldn't reflect that.


Reply to this

-

 Re: Re: Re: Official

 
 by TubaSoldier on: Feb 22 2007
 
Score 50%

Exactly, Which is why KDE-Look should maintain a highly professional appearance. Could you imagine trying to convince your employer to use Linux at work and he found nudity on pages associated with it? Good Luck trying to get that to happen.


Reply to this

-

 Re: Official KDE

 
 by hansalfredche on: Feb 23 2007
 
Score 50%

OK, if you see it that way, fine for you. However, I seriously doubt most people here want to focus on business. If it is the primary target group, sorry, you miss something. Not all businesses have the same needs, world visions and expectations. Most will find this site OK, even with some nudity. Most do not even care about wallpapers! Just come back on earth! This site is not the reason why people choose KDE.

How do I hinder my employer of choosing Windows even if there are far more sites assosiated with it showing nudity? Huh?

What is all that GPL/Open Source stuff all about again? Getting higher penetration in desktop market? Let me laugh! You are giving away freedom here. By the way, your talking goes well in the line with the GNOME folks. They do have a more strict focus on "usability" and "business-compatibility". That must not be something bad, but I don't think it would suit KDE well.


Reply to this

-

 Re: Re: Re: Official KDE

 
 by hansalfredche on: Feb 23 2007
 
Score 50%

@dadeisvenm

I never suggested selling anything. I just said businesses use nudity themselves. Please do not make me say things I haven't said.

@Tuba Soldier

Please reread yourself and then reread dadisvenm. And I never said KDE-Apps/Look should loose any professional appearance. I'm just saying some (decent) nudity is OK (70% of voters seem to say the same btw.). Not more, not less.

You two are both saying opposite things. Tuba Soldier you actually want to sell/promote something:
"Could you imagine trying to convince your employer to use Linux at work and he found nudity on pages associated with it?" -> sell a product, site as marketing material.

While dadeisvenm accuses me (wrongly) of the following:
"Kde-look is not in the business of SELLING products (so far) that would warrant the use of salacious material for marketing sake."


Reply to this

-
.

 Re: Re: Re: Re: Offi

 
 by dadeisvenm on: Feb 27 2007
 
Score 50%
dadeisvenmdadeisvenm
Venom 3D Incorporated
Home

Do you see the ads on the top and sides? Kde-look.org is a business. I SAY, Its business is the promoting and hosting of its artistic content. In its promotion, several "artist" submissions are merely tasteless salacious material that fit the definition of pornography. As with any site sponsored for services such as this it is imperative that non-artistic material find no place here at kde-look.org, because the environment its named for does not need that type of stigma. A little non-artist nudity gives way to more non-artistic material. Where should the line be drawn? I say set the bar high. You say set the bar low; allow for some nudity artistic or not. You say that the KDE-look.org would be stifling freedoms. Excuse me while I laugh because your assuming you have freedoms on kde-look.org. kde-look.org is a privately owned site. If the powers that be deem it so, then it will be. Arguing about about the "house rule" to the "house" is nonsensical. Feel lucky that they even allow us to use the site let alone post on it.Its a privilege not a right.


Reply to this

-

 Re: Official KDE web

 
 by nixternal on: Feb 21 2007
 
Score 50%

I agree, BUT at the same time KDE is all about Freedom as well. Now from a marketing standpoint having nudity is a threat to KDE. Sure it will attract 14+ year old boys, but remember we also have females who tend to frequent the site and not all of them want to see some nudity. I know I get quite annoyed when I check out something on this site, and someones avatar is an image of a totally nude woman on all fours with her derrière looking right at me.

I am all for nudity as art, not nudity to make some pimpled face teenager giggle. How about creating a "Nude Art" section, or better yet, show those who need nudity for artwork, Deviant Art has a great collection. Sorry for the rambling, I am trying to watch Boston Legal at the same time :)


Rich Johnson (nixternal)
"The great thing about democracy is that it gives every voter the chance to do something stupid."

Reply to this

-

 my 2¢, you kids...

 
 by thomas12777 on: Feb 23 2007
 
Score 50%

this is a page about kde.
either restrict content (holds especially for wallpapers) to KDE related stuff only or don't restrict it at all.
you'll allways offend someone by something - following this is crap.

and so called worrying "moms" + "dads":
you better should not have kids that you can grow little psychos, teaching them your freaky nonsense attitudes so they become afraid of what they are...


Reply to this

goto page: prev   1  2  3 

Add commentAdd commentall pollsSuggest new pollBack



-
-
Do you like or dislike Ubuntu Unity?
 Yes, unity is alien technology!
 It is less confusing than Gnome 3 default, shell.
 Granny thinks it is much more usable than Gnome 2
 Canonical is embarrasing itself with this split project
 Gnome 3 default shell is much better
 I dislike Unity, Gnome 3 default shell is alien technology!
 None of the above, I like the 2Gb for free and Apple alike behavior. Will post a comment instead

resultmore
 
 
 Who we are
Contact
More about us
Frequently Asked Questions
Register
Twitter
Blog
Explore
Apps
Jobs
Knowledge
Events
People
Updates on identi.ca
Updates on Twitter
Facebook App
Content RSS   
Events RSS   

Participate
Groups
Forum
Add App
Public API
About KDE-Apps.org
Legal Notice
Spreadshirt Shop
CafePress Shop
Advertising
Sponsor us
Report Abuse
 

Copyright 2003-2014 KDE-Apps.org Team  
All rights reserved. KDE-Apps.org is not liable for any content or goods on this site.
All contributors are responsible for the lawfulness of their uploads.
KDE and K Desktop Environment are trademarks of KDE e.V.