>> ^BoneRemake:
HOLY HANNAH ! Fry's knose looks like it just got smashed to the left. does he have a messed up knose from previous incident ?


Stephen Fry had his nose broken many times when he was young while playing rugby.

I agree then. The 'fact' shouldn't be up to a vote if that's how this place is going to be run. Perhaps next time these things can be killed before innocent eyes can be harmed by NSFW parody.

However, I am serious about defining porn, at least in part, as things which would detract advertisers. I do enjoy videosift and while my moral barometer may be a bit more liberal than some, I would like to see it continue.

I do not believe that the EIT video is porn, but if advertisers would have an issue, I am ultimately fine with its removal.

'good judgement' = agree with me

I said it at the end of the 'circle-jerk' debate and I'll say it here; why all the debate? If Dag is going to kill it, better to kill it sooner rather than after a long protracted discussion that goes nowhere.

Oh and for a definition of 'porn' that videosift can use, how about this?: Anything that upsets the advertisers.

While these points may be distasteful to some, it seems to be what happens here so why can't it be in the FAQ?

P.S. choggie: nice bible quote, you've really made me think.

I'm glad we had this discussion. Could Dag just please kill these things sooner next time so we don't have to go through the illusion of a democracy?

The people who dont think this is porn have a reasonable solution: let the community downvote if they don't like it.

Isn't that good enough?

Sorry brain but *dupeof=http://www.videosift.com/video/When-a-Vagina-Monologue-Becomes-a-Dialogue

So where do we go from here? An eternal discussion?

Oh and choggie simply because you label the video porn does not make it so.

Parody.

Three people say its porn yet at least 10 think it isn't. Should we just do a poll?

Well prepaying is a pain in the ass. Why can't the public simply be trusted?

Oh yeah...dickweeds like this guy.

>> ^Shepppard:
I'm sorry, but anything that starts off with 12 seconds of cooch has to be classified as some form of porn.

Does it? http://www.videosift.com/video/The-ins-and-outs-of-a-Vagina

As you say, the point was not to stimulate sexually or titillate. So if we ban things that depict "sexual stimulation" then does this go too? http://www.videosift.com/video/Horny-Cat-is-HORNY or how about http://www.videosift.com/video/Office-Busts-Guy-Needing-Some-Private-
Time

Porn: "creative activity (writing or pictures or films etc.) of no literary or artistic value other than to stimulate sexual desire"

In no way is this intended to stimulate sexual desire. Rather, it is edited to show the absurdity and strangeness of such a video.

Can we not just laugh at this and call it a day? Why is there such moral outrage? Think about it for a second. Is it because you are personally offended, or is it because you think you *should* be offended?

This is fucking genius. What a bunch of prudes.

...christ