• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is this offensive to you?

What do you think?

  • I support them putting it on the front page.

    Votes: 28 40.0%

  • They shouldn't have put the picture on the front page.

    Votes: 1 1.4%

  • They shouldn't have had a picture at all.

    Votes: 4 5.7%

  • Come on its just boobs

    Votes: 37 52.9%
  • Total voters
    70
"Is this offensive to you?"

Not at all - quite educational, really. Now I know that Jews have mammary glands. I thought they lay eggs, or something.
 
Cyrylek said:
"Is this offensive to you?"

Not at all - quite educational, really. Now I know that Jews have mammary glands. I thought they lay eggs, or something.
Click to expand...

Rhinefire???
 
Girls are awesome. Except the ones that aren't!
 
could a mod please delete the video I posted in post #130? did not notice that after the clip plays some of the images that pop up contain pictures that some might consider to be pornographic.

sorry about that. didn't notice and it wasn't brought to my attention until too late to edit the post
 
pbrauer said:
This picture was obviously on the front page of the New York Times. The article was about breast cancer. What do you think?


  • I support them putting it on the front page.
  • They shouldn't have put the picture on the front page.
  • They shouldn't have had a picture at all.
  • Come on its just boobs
Click to expand...

I'm not offended by it, but until they start showing men's peckers on the front page, I'll consider it inappropriate.
 
It's highly offensive. It's essentially public nudity and doesn't belong in places where children can see it.
 
Risky Thicket said:
Here's why the NY Times did it - to force attention on the issue of breast cancer. It worked and it worked very well! Good for the Times. I thought I'd never say that.

Honestly, how much discussion nationally or even on this board would there have been if the NYT had used a pink ribbon graphic instead? Very little. If tight arsed Americans have a problem with it it's doubtful that most of them read the NYT to start with.
Click to expand...

No, the attention isn't on breast cancer, it's on public decency, since that's what this thread is about.
 
I'm not offended enough yet, someone show some more nip
 
finebead said:
I don't find it offensive, not the body part. I find it unnecessary, and I find the newspapers appeal to people's prurient interest, probably in their commercial interest, to be offensive. If you're Hustler, we know who you are. NYT, you're not supposed to be Hustler. It's commercialism, they want to catch people's eye and pull it to the paper to get them to read further, hook them and get them to buy a copy. I bet it worked and the issue sold better than normal.
Click to expand...

I agree. Because of the size of the picture and being on the front page, it was done to sell papers. This year New York Times earnings were down 93%.

The New York Times: Earnings down 93 percent - CBS News

If your headlines won't sell your paper, sex is an alternative. Who knows next week they may have a picture of an adult male's penis who survived circumcision. ;)
 
vesper said:
I agree. Because of the size of the picture and being on the front page, it was done to sell papers. This year New York Times earnings were down 93%.

The New York Times: Earnings down 93 percent - CBS News

If your headlines won't sell your paper, sex is an alternative. Who knows next week they may have a picture of an adult male's penis who survived circumcision. ;)
Click to expand...

No.. penis pictures would not sell papers. It takes female anatomical parts to do that
 
marduc said:
No.. penis pictures would not sell papers. It takes female anatomical parts to do that
Click to expand...
How about some nice tight ends? :)
 
vesper said:
How about some nice tight ends? :)
Click to expand...


Mornin Vesper.
hat.gif
I'm up for a game.
thumbsup.gif


th



As long as I am not called for Illegal use of the hands......I'm good to go.
icon_thumright.gif
 
MMC said:
Mornin Vesper.
hat.gif
I'm up for a game.
thumbsup.gif


th



As long as I am not called for Illegal use of the hands......I'm good to go.
icon_thumright.gif
Click to expand...

I'm afraid I would get called for "unnecessary roughness" and "holding". maybe even "illegal **** from the back"
 
OscarB63 said:
I'm afraid I would get called for "unnecessary roughness" and "holding". maybe even "illegal **** from the back"
Click to expand...

Yeah.....and I know I will get hit with that Encroachment penalty a few times too. :lol:
 
MMC said:
Mornin Vesper.
hat.gif
I'm up for a game.
thumbsup.gif


th



As long as I am not called for Illegal use of the hands......I'm good to go.
icon_thumright.gif
Click to expand...

or unnecessary roughness, illegal motion, piling on, or "illegal ____ in the back"?!

edit: dammit, Oscar beat me to the punch on a couple of them
 
marduc said:
or unnecessary roughness, illegal motion, piling on, or "illegal ____ in the back"?!

edit: dammit, Oscar beat me to the punch on a couple of them
Click to expand...


th



That's okay.....I just want to see them Mark off Illegal Procedure on the girls. :lol:
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom