| Sami Haahtinen 2004-12-01, 4:28 am |
| Alexander Schmehl wrote:
> * Joe Wreschnig <piman@debian.org> [041130 09:08]:
>
> I'm not sure, how »pornography« is defined in the US and I really didn't
> intend to join your nice discussion, but could you please keep in mind,
> that it just show rough pixely pictures of a drawn woman?
for more info on legal aspects of pornography check out wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pornog...Legal_situation
> It would be more worth of a discussion, if the package should have
> "erotic" in it's description (my personal opinion would be: No).
I agree with you there.
Even though, i think this whole issue has been dealt with a million
times in this thread i must say this:
I think this is all about hypocrisy. I can say without a doubt that all
women in this world have seen a naked woman. And i seriously doubt that
there are many men out there that haven't seen a naked woman in some
point of their lives.
But as for this issue, this can all be solved by replacing the babe in
the images with a sheep, in the first pic it has all it's wool, the next
it's partially sheared and finally fully sheared. (in case of
overheating the image could change in to a roast)
I hope nobody objects to animal nudity.
There, issue solved.
-- Sami
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
|