What do you think of_______?
07-25-03 | 12:12 PM
#26
Thread Starter
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
Joined: Jun 1999
Posts: 7,568
Received 229 Likes
on
129 Posts
From: Part of the Left-Wing Conspiracy
Final thoughs as I don't want to drag this out.
I would never ignore anyone on here, I am thicker skinned than that.
Just because it "has specific roots in Otter lore" doesn't mean it should continue.
Because it not directed at humans is not an excuse. I would rather have it directed at humans, as they can respond. We have seen the thread about the guy climbing his balcony to save his dog and most people reponded that if it was a human, the firefighters would have saved him AND they supported the guy saving him. While they are not human, they do deserve respect.
I don't think we should use the "Well, otters get it, so it should be ok" rule. If the majority wanted to see bloody war pics, would it be ok? If the majority wanted to discuss Star Wars DVD bootlegs, would that be ok?
I think most people, would feel killing innocent animals offensive.(note, all this self-defense stuff would be fine to discuss, but that is not this case) buskerdog, mentions the "joke" getting old too.
If it was a joke in a existing thread, everyonce in a while...mmm ok, not that big of a deal. But when someone starts threads specifically around killing a pit bull, that crosses the line.
I'm sure Dave is joking about his treatment to animals, I get that. But to keep joking about killing them, and others commenting and joking about it, IS offensive, and is no different than many other off-limit topics, just as Jules calling people names is off-limits, even though that was a joke.
I would never ignore anyone on here, I am thicker skinned than that.
Just because it "has specific roots in Otter lore" doesn't mean it should continue.
Because it not directed at humans is not an excuse. I would rather have it directed at humans, as they can respond. We have seen the thread about the guy climbing his balcony to save his dog and most people reponded that if it was a human, the firefighters would have saved him AND they supported the guy saving him. While they are not human, they do deserve respect.
I don't think we should use the "Well, otters get it, so it should be ok" rule. If the majority wanted to see bloody war pics, would it be ok? If the majority wanted to discuss Star Wars DVD bootlegs, would that be ok?
I think most people, would feel killing innocent animals offensive.(note, all this self-defense stuff would be fine to discuss, but that is not this case) buskerdog, mentions the "joke" getting old too.
If it was a joke in a existing thread, everyonce in a while...mmm ok, not that big of a deal. But when someone starts threads specifically around killing a pit bull, that crosses the line.
I'm sure Dave is joking about his treatment to animals, I get that. But to keep joking about killing them, and others commenting and joking about it, IS offensive, and is no different than many other off-limit topics, just as Jules calling people names is off-limits, even though that was a joke.
07-25-03 | 12:20 PM
#27
DVD Talk Hero
Originally posted by Numanoid
Yeah, he's a big dog lover. In fact, here's his dog:
Yeah, he's a big dog lover. In fact, here's his dog:
Chrisedge, I guess I just disagree. For the record, I love my dog more than you can imagine. I think she is the most incredible being on this planet, and I can't imagine life without her.
But I just don't see the problem here...
07-25-03 | 04:12 PM
#30
Admin Emeritus
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 12,842
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
From: Texas, our Texas! All hail the mighty state!
Originally posted by MJKTool
If you dont like a topic, dont click the thread and read it. Simple enough......no?
If you dont like a topic, dont click the thread and read it. Simple enough......no?
Originally posted by Chrisedge
I'm sure Dave is joking about his treatment to animals, I get that. But to keep joking about killing them, and others commenting and joking about it, IS offensive, and is no different than many other off-limit topics, just as Jules calling people names is off-limits, even though that was a joke.
I'm sure Dave is joking about his treatment to animals, I get that. But to keep joking about killing them, and others commenting and joking about it, IS offensive, and is no different than many other off-limit topics, just as Jules calling people names is off-limits, even though that was a joke.
07-25-03 | 04:49 PM
#31
DVD Talk Hero
FWIW, there is some truth here and also something else.
The problem I would have with this thread in particular is that is starts out with some false premises (IMO). If the issue (as it now seems to be) is that "I take personal offense at this style of edgy humor about shooting dogs.".... that is a valid point.
It does not automatically mean that the subject matter is offensive enough or violates the rules of the forum. But your being offended is a valid point which I understand. One point I would like to make is that just because you are offended, is not automatically a reason for a mod/admin to take action or for us to revise the rules. Not a day goes by that someone does not report some post they find offensive, and I don't agree that it violates the forum rules, or is generally offensive to all.
There are a couple threads in Other right now, I personally find very offensive for my own reasons. I am just ignoring them. Well, mostly ignoring them.
FWIW, I think the threads about shooting your dogs have indeed gone over the top in the past. And there has been some closed threads a while back. I closed at least one. It's a thin line though about allowing people freedom to make bad jokes and stomping down on a lot of threads. In some cases, it is easier for admins to make/follow certain rules and apply those rule sets.
An example was the pics of the brothers released by the USA. Turns out they were not that bad. I was glad to see the gore quotient to be quite low. But there are rules, and when we allow one thing to go past, we will get called on it the next time we apply the same rules, so some consistency is valued in this regard.
The problem I would have with this thread in particular is that is starts out with some false premises (IMO). If the issue (as it now seems to be) is that "I take personal offense at this style of edgy humor about shooting dogs.".... that is a valid point.
It does not automatically mean that the subject matter is offensive enough or violates the rules of the forum. But your being offended is a valid point which I understand. One point I would like to make is that just because you are offended, is not automatically a reason for a mod/admin to take action or for us to revise the rules. Not a day goes by that someone does not report some post they find offensive, and I don't agree that it violates the forum rules, or is generally offensive to all.
There are a couple threads in Other right now, I personally find very offensive for my own reasons. I am just ignoring them. Well, mostly ignoring them.
FWIW, I think the threads about shooting your dogs have indeed gone over the top in the past. And there has been some closed threads a while back. I closed at least one. It's a thin line though about allowing people freedom to make bad jokes and stomping down on a lot of threads. In some cases, it is easier for admins to make/follow certain rules and apply those rule sets.
An example was the pics of the brothers released by the USA. Turns out they were not that bad. I was glad to see the gore quotient to be quite low. But there are rules, and when we allow one thing to go past, we will get called on it the next time we apply the same rules, so some consistency is valued in this regard.
07-25-03 | 06:16 PM
#32
Banned
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 4,049
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Southern California
Originally posted by LurkerDan
Um, aside from the obvious hunting example provided by Def, here in Colorado (not sure if it's statewide, but it is the law in many counties for sure) you can shoot a dog on your property, whether or not the dog was actually chasing livestock, and whether or not you actually have livestock (although those are the origins of the rule). SO, not always illegal.
Um, aside from the obvious hunting example provided by Def, here in Colorado (not sure if it's statewide, but it is the law in many counties for sure) you can shoot a dog on your property, whether or not the dog was actually chasing livestock, and whether or not you actually have livestock (although those are the origins of the rule). SO, not always illegal.
