OT Babe Thread

Ben Kenobi · January 19, 2004, 00:32

Dear Markos:

Several months ago, when Apolyton used to have server problems before the upgrade, we disbanded the Babe Thread due to the server load caused by the thread.

Since then, a variety of other reasons have been posted, and you seem to have decided that while it is okay to post pictures of women you know, it is not okay to post pictures of famous, and beautiful women.

I understand that you would want to put restrictions, to ensure that people do not flood the thread with pictures. Why not allow posters to post one or two pictures of women a day, and allow the thread to grow from there? This way, you could exercise a reasonable control over the babe thread, while permitting Apolyton posters to have such an outlet.

I am sure that I am not the only Apolyton poster who would like to see a return of the babe threads, so I would really appreciate posts from other members who would also like to see such a thread.

In the end, it must be up to the owners what type of site they wish to have. If tastefully done, as the threads have been in the past, I can see the thread contributing to Apolyton.

Sincerely,
Ben Kenobi

Skanky Burns · January 19, 2004, 00:52

Seconded.

vovan · January 19, 2004, 01:11

Indeed, I was an active participant of the babe threads back then, and wouldn't mind it being revived.

Thirded.

FrustratedPoet · January 19, 2004, 02:52

DEAR GOD PLEASE SAVE US FROM MARIAH ****ING CAREY!

Nubclear · January 19, 2004, 04:00

Markos, don't do it!
The "Babe Thread" is ungodly and full of sin and the OT is better without it.

Asher · January 19, 2004, 04:12

If we get a babe thread, we need a hunk thread.

Nubclear · January 19, 2004, 04:24

Gayporn thread

Ben Kenobi · January 19, 2004, 04:50

CT:

What makes the babe thread full of sin?

FP:

Of course, variety is the spice of life.

Ben Kenobi · January 19, 2004, 04:53

Quote:

If we get a babe thread, we need a hunk thread.

Getting a little ahead of things, eh?

Nubclear · January 19, 2004, 04:53

Quote:

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
CT:

What makes the babe thread full of sin?

The skin, the emotions of arousal for a woman who you have no serious emotional connection with.....
Your a man of religion, yet you promote such sin? Bah.

Asher · January 19, 2004, 05:02

Quote:

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Getting a little ahead of things, eh?

No, just stating the corollary...

Ben Kenobi · January 19, 2004, 05:14

Quote:

The skin, the emotions of arousal for a woman

So just looking at the face of a pretty woman would be sinful?

Nubclear · January 19, 2004, 05:16

Quote:

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

So just looking at the face of a pretty woman would be sinful?

If the intent is arousal, then yes.

Ben Kenobi · January 19, 2004, 05:20

So then it is possible to post pictures of beautiful women just because they are beautiful?

Nubclear · January 19, 2004, 05:21

No, because the intent will always be for sexual arousal, not to worship their beauty.

Ben Kenobi · January 19, 2004, 05:24

Quote:

to worship their beauty.

So idolatry would be okay, but not arousal?

Nubclear · January 19, 2004, 05:30

Perhaps the correct word would be "reverance", not quite "worship".

But I do not consider idolatry to be a sin.

Ben Kenobi · January 19, 2004, 05:43

So then, I could make a shrine to Mariah Carey, worship it every morning, and I would be a religious person in your book?

Nubclear · January 19, 2004, 05:44

No. Where did you get that?
Your religious because you've proven it in almost every thread I read.

However, a shrine to Mariah Carey would be for the wrong reasons and therefore sinful.

Ben Kenobi · January 19, 2004, 05:59

I see no difference between idolatry and the shrine of Mariah Carey. The two are the same. That's why I'm concerned that you consider me to be a religious person, yet you don't think idolatry to be a sin. After all, the second commandment says,

"You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. You shall not bow down to them or worshp them."

Deut 5:8-9

Also, I do think you can show pictures of beautiful women, yet not for the purposes of arousal. Ever hear of art?

Nubclear · January 19, 2004, 06:04

Quote:

That's why I'm concerned that you consider me to be a religious person, yet you don't think idolatry to be a sin.

Those two are completly different topics. I can consider a Wiccan to be a religious person and still not think idolarty is a sin.

Quote:

Some quote from some book

Irrelevant, as the Bible is no longer a viable source for unadulterated religious information.

Quote:

Also, I do think you can show pictures of beautiful women, yet not for the purposes of arousal. Ever hear of art?

The "Babe Thread" is hardly art.

Ben Kenobi · January 19, 2004, 06:10

Quote:

Irrelevant, as the Bible is no longer a viable source for unadulterated religious information.

Tell me then why I should care about what you find sinful?

Nubclear · January 19, 2004, 06:12

Quote:

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

Tell me then why I should care about what you find sinful?

You don't need to.
I was voicing my opinion to Markos.

Ben Kenobi · January 19, 2004, 06:19

Quote:

I was voicing my opinion to Markos.

Well, you'd better hope he finds your arguments more compelling than I do.

duke o' york · January 19, 2004, 07:08

I don't particularly want a Babe Thread, but at the moment I'm very keen on seeing a religious ethics thread.

MrWhereItsAt · January 19, 2004, 07:14

Tass is just believing in his own divinity.

/me whispers

He's got some powers in the ACDG, We refer to him and Googlie as Gods. I think that's got to him.