Comment on I propose a rule change
Spotted_Lady@wolfballs.com 2 years agoYou knew what I meant. It is much like the Supreme Court justice who said, "I can't tell you what pornography is, but I know it when I see it."
So a non-disturbing photo of a dead person would be like someone who just peacefully died, like photos from a funeral service. Disturbing would be things like blood, brains, and protruding bones.
goldenballs@wolfballs.com 2 years ago
Not all the same things are disturbing to everyone, it depends what you're used to. Whatever your supreme court says, art or lingerie catalogues can be used as porn
Spotted_Lady@wolfballs.com 2 years ago
Still, you know what I mean. And interpretation changes nothing. I mean, I can find things "offensive" (that is, agree that other people do) withing finding it offensive.
goldenballs@wolfballs.com 2 years ago
I don't really understand what you mean.
Spotted_Lady@wolfballs.com 2 years ago
You know exactly what I mean by non-disturbing. There is no need to be coy about it. While it is subjective, everyone understands the basics. Otherwise, the news wouldn't have blurred out the severed head the one guy was carrying.