What is the problem with the link to the Yoda article at theonion.com?

I read the article myself, and there was no profanity or offensive content in it.

There were no sexual terms used, except for the word "penis," and there were no offensive phrases. It was actually funny because it should've been crude and vulgar, but actually isn't, when reflected upon and reread.

Quite simply, is the use of the penis banned from these forums?

If so, then the link is inappropriate. Otherwise, there is nothing at the link, or in the article, that is in the least bit inappropriate.

And if the word penis is banned, then something isn't right...it's a mere body part.

 

It was actually funny because it should've been crude and vulgar, but actually isn't, when reflected upon and reread.

The mod probably figured it would be vulgar and didn't read the article. I'm not sure the word that is in there is allowed on the JC or not.

 

A thread for the discussion of an article about Yodas nether regions is inappropriate for the JC.

And a link to the article is also inappropriate.

 

Penis is not a banned word but these forums are PG13.

The article may not have contained profanity but the thread in JCC invariably would have devolved into a discussion about Yoda's penis.

I fail to see how sexuality or reproductive organs even feature on a Star Wars message board in the first place.

 

They have about as much to do with it as do any other body parts...

Besides, is exercising prior restraint and threatening to ban anyone else who links to an article that is, in itself, completely PG-13, really fair?

 

They have about as much to do with it as do any other body parts...

Well, given you can show feet in a PG movie, but you cant show a penis, I fail to see how you can put a penis on the same level as "any other body parts"

From the Rules of Conduct on the Terms of Service page:
User agrees not to post material that is knowingly false and/or defamatory, misleading, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, that otherwise violates any law, or that encourages conduct constituting a criminal offense

Now, do you need to ask again?

 

You'd prefer I didn't post the warning and just banned the next guy who posts a link? ?

Please forgive me for being lenient.....

 

So the word "penis" is obscene, vulgar, and sexually oriented?

Mind you, I'm just talking about the word, not posting pictures of what one represents.

If the word itself is obscene, then we have to start burning our health books in high schools and colleges nationwide.

 

The word itself may not be, but the context in which it was used is.

 

Thinking of how it could be considered sexually oriented, I realized...

The word, by itself, is physically oriented, like the word hand.

When put into a certain context, yes, it can become obscene, vulgar, and/or sexually oriented.

However, my issue is that that article did not put it in such a context, even if one would expect it to.

Throughout the article it was only used in it's own context, as a body part.

Nothing obscene there at all.

 

did any of you people read the article? It was about wondering about Yoda's penis while watching all the movies, along with some pretty disturbing images. I agree that it was funny, but appropriate? Edge.

also, the onion is an adult site.

 

The article was anything but a frank discussion of Yodas anatomy. It mentions wanting to see a sexual storyline with Yaddle develop so as to see Yoda naked....

And by the way, a frank discussion of penises definitely isnt allowed in the JCC. AT BEST you MIGHT be able to have a frank discussion in the Senate floor. But even then, its highly doubtful.

At very best this is a borderline thread waiting to turn ugly.

 

Disturbing images?

Excuse me?

All the article contained was a picture of the face of the guy who wrote the article. He didn't really write it, probably, and he's not much to look at, sure, but to call him "disturbing" is a bit cruel.

And furthermore, there is nothing wrong, or explicit, about saying "Did you wonder about what his penis looked like?" or "I would like to see his penis."

There is nothing perverted about those two sentences, or obscene, or vulgar. Taken in the context they were used in, they're simply a fill-in for any other body part, be it a leg or a finger or an ear. Those could be used in the article in lieu of "penis" and it would still work, because the article itself, and the context it creates, are not inappropriate.

The article, and the ensuing debate over it, are the joke.

You see, you've provided the context mentally, and so deemed the article inappropriate. There is nothing in it that is inappropriate.

 

Taken in the context they were used in, they're simply a fill-in for any other body part, be it a leg or a finger or an ear.

You're missing the difference. The difference is that the penis is the male unit for reproduction while legs, fingers, and ears are not. We live in America and America has decency laws along with moral customs (which have probably destroyed any chance we have of making an equal society free of bull, IMHO). We do not talk about the finer points of procretion in public and amoung polite company. It is considered obscene. You may not like it, but it's something you must follow. Read Heinlein.

 

You're missing the difference.

No, I understand it, and dismiss it as superstitious and impractical.


The difference is that the penis is the male unit for reproduction while legs, fingers, and ears are not.

So shouldn't it be held in higher esteem? I've heard rumors that without procreation, none of us would exist.


We live in America and America has decency laws along with moral customs (have destroyed any chance we have of making an equal society free of bull).

Decency laws do not exclude general use of the word "penis." As for moral customs, we have none, or at least none that are formally adopted nationally. We are a free nation, and until something is written into law, it is not outlawed by any general morality. We're a varied nation. Until it's law, it's up to the individual.


We do not talk about the finer points of procretion in public and amoung polite company.

Maybe you don't, but some people would. It would not be illegal or immoral for them to do so, either, and it would harm no one. In fact, it could be informative.


It is considered obscene.

By whom is the word "penis" considered obscene? The word, mind you, not the word in picture, or the word in graphic context.


You may not like it, but it's something you must follow.

Again, I don't see why. It's not law, anywhere, that the word "penis" is obscene.


Read Heinlein.

Um, no.

 

theonion.com is on the "no link" list. While the article you linked to may not contain profanity, other articles on that site do.

A while back, somebody posted a link to playboy.com in his thread. Now, the page the link went to didn't show any nude pictures of women, but once at the site, it was easy to click on other pages that did. Same deal with The Onion. Some articles are fairly tame, but once on the site it's easy to find articles that aren't so tame.

That's why TFN doesn't allow anybody to link there.

 

I've linked to the Onion before without a warning.

 

theonion.com is on the "no link" list.

Wow, blacklisted. Amazing that such a funny, Star Wars-friendly site would be banned from the largest Star Wars board on the net, but there you have it.


While the article you linked to may not contain profanity, other articles on that site do.

Well, the internet is all connected. Somebody could get to pornography or inappropriate content from theonion.com just as quickly as they could from TFN.


A while back, somebody posted a link to playboy.com in his thread. Now, the page the link went to didn't show any nude pictures of women, but once at the site, it was easy to click on other pages that did.

Playboy is a pornographic magazine though, so one would assume the website would continue that trend.


Same deal with The Onion. Some articles are fairly tame, but once on the site it's easy to find articles that aren't so tame.

Well, honestly, that site contains more tame articles than inappropriate ones. And besides, as I already said, one could get to inappropriate content just as quickly from TFN as from theonion.com, because the internet is all connected. Like a web....a "worldwide" web, you might say.


That's why TFN doesn't allow anybody to link there.

I just find the decision slightly questionable. I understand the site contains some inappropriate material, but the appropriate outweighs the inappropriate, and besides, that site is about as much a Star Wars haven as any other site on the net.

 

I wasn't attempting to equate the content of The Onion with Playboy.com, I was just providing an example of the no link rule under similar circumstances.

And yes, everything is inherently connected since it's the internet and smut is easy to find, but as I understand, they don't want you to be able to get there from here.

 

Are links to Episode-X also banned here?

 

I'm familiar with the article and it is inappropriate. It deals with obscene anatomical parts and crude thoughts. All reproductive organs are dirty animal scum and should be thought of only in shame. Anything that implies the opposite has no place here. This all goes to prove my theory that The Onion is the tool of the devil.

To anyone unfortunate enough to have stumbled upon that article and have started thinking dirty things, I implore you to turn to your Old Testament and read any random passage from the book of Lamentations. The urges will pass.

 

alfy, what part of "no" do you not understand? ? ? ?

 

I read the article (in its paper form) and it didn't seem innapropriate for a PG-13 board.

It's just silly little article about a part of the body. A part of a fake, made up CG (or cloth/foam if you're talking about the puppet version) body. So in reality we're talking about some pixels, or Frank Oz's forearm.

The article could even be wildly incorrect in it's assumption that yoda even has a standard human penis. Think about it, Yoda isn't human, who know's what could be under there.

 

No, don't think about it! It's dirty! DIRTY! DIRTY! DIRTY! For Pete's sake, stop thinking!

 

alfy, what part of "no" do you not understand?

mac-nut, just read the last line of your own signature.

Basically, if you never question anything, you'll never learn anything, or effect anything.

In this case, I honestly think the joke of the article took effect and got it in trouble. The article itself is completely appropriate. The comedy of it is derived from the precise reaction that the mods have had to it....that simply because it mentions the word "penis," it must be a crude and sexually explicit article, offensive to all who read it.

But that's not the case.