To be perfectly honest, to what end does one host porn? Are pictures of anatomy in neutral ways still porn? Are artistic renderings of the human form? Are typical childhood photos? Specifically, the best way to combat the moral outrage that is sexuality (and all subject matter therein) is to have a series of good discussions with [your] children. Truly, any interested child will find "pornography" regardless of having a relatively "safe" outlet such as the Commons even within the scope of normal life. Any child telling you they never played 'doctor' is a fucking liar.
I'm certainly not stating that children should be exposed (har har) to pornography repeatedly, only that anyone looking for it need only open their eyes. To frame pornography in a light that sheds educational value is truly the best way to supplant the horrors of sex from the would-be innocent kids out there.
The truth of the matter is that some people get off on pictures of feet. Are pictures of feet, thus, porn? To what end does the definition become a four letter word? It's all about context.
On another note, as a 'civilized' culture, [we] are migrating further and further towards the notion that sex is evil, dirty, and not to be discussed or viewed ever, just as the slippery slope will lead to other less desirable facets of moral outrage--and that's a goddamned shame. There is nothing wrong with sex; [we should] stop insinuating that there is [something wrong with sex] to everyone, whether they listen or not.
'Wikimedia Commons admins who wish to remove from the project all images that are of little or no educational value but which appeal solely to prurient interests have my full support.'
"THEY CAME FIRST for the images,
and I didn't speak up because images of non-prurient information are of debatable public interest in an encyclopedia.
THEN THEY CAME for the risque subject matter,
and I didn't speak up because risque subject matter of non-prurient information is of debatable public interest in an encyclopedia.
THEN THEY CAME for the less debatable subject matter,
and I didn't speak up because less debatable subject matter of non-prurient information is of debatable public interest in an encyclopedia.
Who's saying they intend to drop the ads when you pay for the service? After all, that was to be a pro of the cable service when it was first introduced, and now we're still burdened with commercials.
Slashdot Mirror
Jam the cellphones within prison/jail grounds. Problem solved.
To be perfectly honest, to what end does one host porn? Are pictures of anatomy in neutral ways still porn? Are artistic renderings of the human form? Are typical childhood photos? Specifically, the best way to combat the moral outrage that is sexuality (and all subject matter therein) is to have a series of good discussions with [your] children. Truly, any interested child will find "pornography" regardless of having a relatively "safe" outlet such as the Commons even within the scope of normal life. Any child telling you they never played 'doctor' is a fucking liar.
I'm certainly not stating that children should be exposed (har har) to pornography repeatedly, only that anyone looking for it need only open their eyes. To frame pornography in a light that sheds educational value is truly the best way to supplant the horrors of sex from the would-be innocent kids out there.
The truth of the matter is that some people get off on pictures of feet. Are pictures of feet, thus, porn? To what end does the definition become a four letter word? It's all about context.
On another note, as a 'civilized' culture, [we] are migrating further and further towards the notion that sex is evil, dirty, and not to be discussed or viewed ever, just as the slippery slope will lead to other less desirable facets of moral outrage--and that's a goddamned shame. There is nothing wrong with sex; [we should] stop insinuating that there is [something wrong with sex] to everyone, whether they listen or not.
'Wikimedia Commons admins who wish to remove from the project all images that are of little or no educational value but which appeal solely to prurient interests have my full support.'
"THEY CAME FIRST for the images,
and I didn't speak up because images of non-prurient information are of debatable public interest in an encyclopedia.
THEN THEY CAME for the risque subject matter,
and I didn't speak up because risque subject matter of non-prurient information is of debatable public interest in an encyclopedia.
THEN THEY CAME for the less debatable subject matter,
and I didn't speak up because less debatable subject matter of non-prurient information is of debatable public interest in an encyclopedia.
THEN THEY CAME for ---"
One can be both a citizen and a terrorist. They are not mutually exclusive.
Who's saying they intend to drop the ads when you pay for the service? After all, that was to be a pro of the cable service when it was first introduced, and now we're still burdened with commercials.
You forgot one very notable game: Super Metroid ('94).
Good game design, music, and playability stand the test of time.