Allegro.cc - Online Community
Post Reply

Allegro.cc Forums » Allegro.cc Comments » Thread locks too soon

rss feed Print
Thread locks too soon
MiquelFire
Member #3,110
January 2003
avatar

I felt that Cave was the best character in the series so far. Too bad that we may not get more stuff from him.

---
Febreze (and other air fresheners actually) is just below perfumes/colognes, and that's just below dead skunks in terms of smells that offend my nose.
MiquelFire.red | +Me
Windows 8 is a toned, stylish, polished professional athlete. But it’s wearing clown makeup, and that creates a serious image problem. ~PCWorld Article

Polybios
Member #12,293
October 2010

So now they're apparently removing paintings which show women in a "wrong" way, pretending to want to start a debate about it. Not some almost-pornographic eye-catcher-crap, but a painting by Waterhouse. I ran into an exhibition showing much of his work by chance while staying in London years ago, otherwise I wouldn't know him.

If I'm not allowed to see Waterhouse, something is very wrong. >:(

It reminds me of the Nazis who removed so called "degenerate art" from museums.

Neil Roy
Member #2,229
April 2002
avatar

I felt that Cave was the best character in the series so far. Too bad that we may not get more stuff from him.

Agreed, I absolutely loved him. Laughed so much, I already miss playing it. I played through Portal 1 three times, done Portal 2 twice now, may have to play through it a third time, maybe try going for more achievements or something. I just wish I could explore that lower world more, such an amazing job they did on it.

Portal 2 is awesome. Stephen Merchant is awesome. Spaaaaaace!

Oh wait, was he the one who done the voice of that robot at the start? That was awesome! He done an amazing job. "Remember when we were together and I would say come back and you would come back? Good times those" (something like that). ;)

Aaron Bolyard
Member #7,537
July 2006
avatar

Polybios said:

So now they're apparently removing paintings which show women in a "wrong" way, pretending to want to start a debate about it

Where is the evidence the gallery is lying?

Quote:

It reminds me of the Nazis who removed so called "degenerate art" from museums.

The difference is it's a choice made by a museum on its own volition, not a decision enforced by a state where disobeying means death.

I mean, don't alt-righters complain when they're compared to Nazis for that reason?

Polybios
Member #12,293
October 2010

You are totally right with your differentiation, but the similarity is elsewhere: the intrusion of politics and censorship into art, or rather art history; in this case in the disguise of a "debate". It's just totally stupid, a debate about what? Couldn't you debate better with the work being shown in the first place? You certainly cannot debate with Waterhouse anymore.

There are thousands of similar motives in works of art scattered everywhere around the globe. This is human tradition and history, this is past. No politburo can change that and no debate. If you don't want to alter the painting (I hope they won't), you can only decide to show or not show it. So it's the starting point of censorship, no matter what they claim. The painting is gone, without debate. They even removed postcards from the museum's shop. How democratic; decide first, debate later.

Want to ban all women wearing few/no clothes from art history? They are human. What should humans create art about? Pigs? Paint women with veils only? How boring.

Besides, it's a fucking ancient myth. Want to change those, too, to suit the political climate or, even, worse, to prevent someone feeling "offended"?

There are situations in life where women are the object of others' desires. Such is life. Life is depicted in art. If you censor art, you take something away from life, you diminish it. This is a stupid thing to do.

Besides, a painting is totally passive; It doesn't beat or bully or discriminate against anyone. It doesn't pose a threat to anyone.
If someone feels offended by a painting like this, the painting is certainly not the problem. >:(

Yet another thing: The solution to everything that is not sterile and might affect people (even negatively): put it down, remove it, don't mention it. Never challenge anyone, because every subjective feeling is always right by definition, never grow up, but make the world a more childish, a more sterile place. >:(

Neil Roy
Member #2,229
April 2002
avatar

Polybios said:

Want to ban all women wearing few/no clothes from art history? They are human. What should humans create art about? Pigs? Paint women with veils only? How boring.

I totally agree with you.

What the heck is wrong with a painting of a nude woman, or a man for that matter. It's just art. Women are beautiful. I think there's other things people can focus on. if they don't like them, ummmm, don't go to that museum? That's a nice looking painting, very well done. Nothing "pornographic" about it.

I'll never understand how people get so uptight about nudity. Not porn and sex, but the style you see in well done art, or even photographs, so long as their done in good taste.

Heck, even biblically (a subject I am hesitant to bring up on here), Adam and Eve were totally nude and God didn't have a problem with it until THEY were ashamed. I still can't figure out why they were ashamed. But... I don't have a problem with nudity at all, I love a well done painting or photograph, like say, a nude of a woman walking down a nice beach or something, painted or photographed looks nice.

Edit: Loved that painting, I think I have a new background image. 8-)

bamccaig
Member #7,536
July 2006
avatar

I preferred the GLaDOS character to Wesley or whatever his name was, but he did win me over by the end of the game. The original Portal was pure awesomeness. The sequel was good in that they added new game mechanics, and still kept with some of the humor.

If you enjoyed Portal and haven't played it yet then I can recommend "Portal Stories: Mel" which was a third party project that is officially licensed. It's sort of a different story that takes place in the same universe. It's been a while, but I think they still used a dose of humor for the commentary throughout the game, and it's a series of new puzzles to do too. And last time I checked it was free (gratis) on Steam. I don't like to consider that kind of thing as being truly part of the story (i.e., if there was ever a Portal 3 I would probably not consider Mel's story as happening unless Valve referenced it), but it's a perfectly fun digression. They did a really good job with it. I can't remember if it was indie or not, but either way I was impressed with the job they did.

Append:

I guess I didn't refresh before posting. It seems the discussion has turned to censorship of paintings portraying nude females. The first thing that I note is that The Guardian displayed a picture of a painting of topless women on its site without even prompting for an age or otherwise guarding the image. I don't think that's harmful.

In fact, "Feminist" activists argue all the time that breasts aren't even "sexual" and attempt to make them "normalized" so that women can be topless in public without catching an eye. So from at least one corner of Feminist doctrine breasts aren't even supposed to draw your attention. I happen to disagree because I personally believe that breasts are naturally provocative. In any case, certainly nudity is natural and healthy and should be allowed in art without scrutiny.

I don't know if there are other paintings that are more "provocative", but the painting of the topless women in a pond pulling a man in is certainly not "pornographic". Not even close. I would fucking know. I could write a novel. >:( >:( >:(

I have no patience for these Feminists, social justice warriors, or political correctness police. If women are as strong as men then man the fuck up and deal with it. >:( And if they aren't, firstly stop claiming they are, shut the fuck up, and still fucking deal with it. As somebody else said, you don't have to go to the museum.

Not every work has to appeal to every person. If that were a rule then no art would be displayed at all. I'm sure I could find a lot of really amazing works completely disinteresting. If I could have all of that work removed because it doesn't appeal to me imagine how much work would be censored?

I think it's especially shitty if an art gallery itself is making this decision to do it by itself. Whoever is in charge of this should be fucking fired. Obviously, they don't understand their role properly. >:(

Append:

Well I tried to find the really extreme Waterhouse paintings that they must be trying to suppress. Nope, couldn't find them. It seems that innocent one with some topless young women in a pond is the huge atrocity. Give me a fucking break. ::)

Neil Roy
Member #2,229
April 2002
avatar

I almost died laughing at this, especially near the end! ;D

video

bamccaig said:

If you enjoyed Portal and haven't played it yet then I can recommend "Portal Stories: Mel" which was a third party project that is officially licensed.

Awesome, thanks, I'll check that out for sure.

Quote:

In fact, "Feminist" activists argue all the time that breasts aren't even "sexual" and attempt to make them "normalized" so that women can be topless in public without catching an eye.

I actually agree with the feminists on this point. Women for example in Egypt were often topless yet in the Bible Israel lived there for 400 years and again when Jesus was first born and not a peep about it is ever mentioned as being wrong. Sorry for the Bible talk, but I do feel it is important as some people will try and use it to somehow justify such ideas. In the city where I live it is now legal for women to go topless... I'm still waiting, but none want to. I told my wife she can now walk outside topless but she will have none of it. LMAO ;D Yet they moaned and complained for ages all over the news. I feel a little ripped off, I was promised boobs!!! ;D

But if they think men won't look at them at least a little sexual, when we were denied seeing them for hundreds of years, sorry, we're gonna notice. It won't be until women have been walking around topless for a while and it becomes normalized that men will notice less I think. Some cultures it has been normal for a while now and you see on videos and such men not even looking.

Ironically the only mention of seeing someone nude as being wrong is do with children seeing parents. And I think it has more to do with showing respect than anything else. It's actually a subject I have been researching lately in my own Bible studies. Looking up "lust", the meaning of the word, what all the Bible mentioned about nudity, still researching, but it's an interesting topic, to me anyhow. I found it a little ironic to see a post about it here given that I just recently started looking into this very topic.

bamccaig
Member #7,536
July 2006
avatar

Neil Roy said:

I almost died laughing at this, especially near the end! ;D

Ahahahahah, I grew up with a dog, but I now have a cat because my [future] "wife" wanted one. ::) Cats are assholes. That video is so true. If we didn't live on the 4th floor of an apartment we might have a dog instead, but this one shits in a box instead of us having to walk its ass outside 3 times a day. :P

Quote:

I actually agree with the feminists on this point. Women for example in Egypt were often topless yet in the Bible Israel lived there for 400 years and again when Jesus was first born and not a peep about it is ever mentioned as being wrong.

I am not aware of the history of topless women, but then again just because they weren't writing about it doesn't mean that it wasn't sexual. Based on that logic, they might have been fucking random people in the streets and nobody noticed because it was so commonplace. :) What we can gather from stories in the Bible is that men were every bit as horny as they are now, and that women understood the power their bodies gave them.

There are nudist communities that would argue that our entire bodies are perfectly natural and there's no need for clothing at all. Presumably, they are not distracted at all by naked women because they see them all the time. While that's probably true to some extent, you cannot deny that sexual activity is needed by most of us on occasion, and if you happened to be in "need" it would probably be "hard" to not notice. ;D

Perhaps in a society where everybody is getting laid on a regular basis it wouldn't be distracting, but since we live in a society where people get to choose whether or not to have sex, and some people are ostracized, as a result I don't think it would be particularly successful to have the typical sexual "power" partially exposed in public.

On the other hand, I'm open to consider the alternatives. Nudity doesn't particularly bother me. I really do appreciate the female form. However, I'm willing to consider evidence of people being completely unprovoked by it in public. On the other hand, I imagine that society's developed these rules for some reason. I don't imagine any society's exist that are completely nude 24/7. I'd actually be surprised to find society's that were nude that were not sex fiends. :P

Quote:

Bionically the only mention of seeing someone nude as being wrong is do with children seeing parents.

I don't think that word means what you think it means. :-X

Quote:

Bionically: utilizing electronic devices and mechanical parts to assist humans in performing difficult, dangerous, or intricate tasks, as by supplementing or duplicating parts of the body...

That aside, I don't think your point is true. I think the majority of people have some story of seeing their parents naked at some point in their life. I know that in my childhood I saw both of my parents naked at least once. I don't think society is generally against that as long as it's "innocent" in nature.

However, Western culture at least is very uncomfortable with children and sexuality to the point of not talking about it at all. For example, masturbation. It's completely taboo. It's just seen as wrong. Most people would not even be able to have a discussion about it. Their minds immediately just shut down and they react emotionally.

On the other hand, I disagree that the only mention of someone nude being wrong is regarding children (though again I have no idea what you meant by "bionically"). People are easily offended by adult nudity as well. Both male and female, though humorously male nudity is considered far more offensive/controversial. Sexist! It is somewhat understandable since penises, particularly erect penises, are obviously very provocative. Though vaginae (I typed "vaginas", but the spell checker said no...) can be provocative as well, they tend to be relatively benign unless the woman is assuming a posture which displays the vagina "openly" which would be difficult to do unless you're doing some kind of crab walk or something. :P To be fair, a flaccid penis is also rather benign, but decidedly less attractive.

Append:

Also it has apparently been legal for women to go topless in Ontario for about 20 years, but I can count the number of topless women I have seen in public (or outside of my household) on zero hands (unfortunately). :(

Neil Roy
Member #2,229
April 2002
avatar

bamccaig said:

I don't think society is generally against that as long as it's "innocent" in nature.

Yeah, I don't see a problem with that. I seen my mom nude and even joked with her about it. I think the biblical reference has more to do with purposely trying to see them nude with more of a sexual reference. Accidents happen after all as you said.

Quote:

On the other hand

This made me laugh out loud... after just talking about masturbation. Pun intended? ;D

I'm not even sure if masturbation would be considered wrong Biblically, it's a topic (nudity, lust etc) I want to research. I don't tend to go to churches but look into these things myself. For example, the word "lust" means to strongly desire something and Biblically is used in reference to all sorts of things like lusting after money etc... and one wording in the Bible said "if you look upon a woman WITH LUST", meaning, you strongly desire her, as opposed to just looking. I was talking to my wife and told her, if just looking at a woman and finding her attractive was considered "lust" than I would have to gouge my eyes out! :D As I said, it's a topic I just started to look into. I don't wish to start a religious debate again, or preach, it's just something that interests me as I am a normal guy who appreciates the female form and I do not feel it is wrong to look at women, clothed or nude in a non-sexual manor, without lusting after them, though it may be too tempting for some to go that route so probably people should be careful.

As for "Bionically", check my original message, I don't recall typing that, I swear the internet changes my spelling on me! But I went back and corrected it. When I seen it, I was like "Bionically"?! Where the fuck did that come from?!?!

I guess I have to learn to read my posts over at least once before I post them. Not afterwards. ;)

Quote:

unless the woman is assuming a posture which displays the vagina "openly" which would be difficult to do unless you're doing some kind of crab walk or something

LMFAO!!! Too funny... ;D ;D ;D

Quote:

Also it has apparently been legal for women to go topless in Ontario for about 20 years, but I can count the number of topless women I have seen in public (or outside of my household) on zero hands (unfortunately). :(

You're in Ontario as well? Still trying to get my wife to go out topless. :D

Edit: Oh, and I guess in Germany it is legal for anyone to be completely nude in public so long as you're not "causing a public grievance". I think I seen a picture one time of a totally nude blonde woman walking down some city street and I was wondering where that could have been. Probably Germany. Interesting.

Edit2: Interesting post here! Most states in the USA allow topless women, I didn't know that.

https://www.quora.com/As-a-woman-in-which-countries-can-I-legally-walk-around-topless-exposing-my-breasts

bamccaig
Member #7,536
July 2006
avatar

Neil Roy said:

This made me laugh out loud... after just talking about masturbation. Pun intended? ;D

I don't think that I mentioned masturbation until later in the post, but I won't deny a laugh. :D

Neil Roy said:

LMFAO!!! Too funny... ;D ;D ;D

I thought that was quite clever. :D

Neil Roy said:

You're in Ontario as well? Still trying to get my wife to go out topless. :D

I am. I don't think I'd encourage it personally. Until it's somewhat commonplace I think that it would be attracting a lot of unwanted attention. It reminds me of a saying I've heard locally in regards to having a son versus a daughter (wording is not exact): With a son you only have to deal with one prick. With a daughter you have to deal with every prick. :P

The same logic applies. If women truly believe it to be a good thing then they should organize an agreed upon start date where they all stop wearing tops. At least if they are all doing it then the unwanted attention wouldn't be entirely focused on a few. And if they are correct then the attention would fade in time. But if they don't even really want to bare their chests, and they're just bitching just because they can, then it's pretty sad IMO. There are far more important things to worry about. But I would totally support national everybody is topless from now on day!

There used to be rumors of topless women at a popular beach near my city when I was a kid. It was probably around the time that the laws were changed or clarified. People used to claim that there were women riding sea-doos (personal water crafts) topless out on the lake, but unless you had binoculars you'd never see anything. It could have just been shit disturbers spreading rumors trying to get a rise out of people.

Sometimes I ride by that beach on my motorcycle when I'm passing by just to see if I get to see anything. So far I haven't even come close. :P The whole thing was a ruse. Probably cost taxpayers a million dollars for nothing!

Neil Roy
Member #2,229
April 2002
avatar

bamccaig said:

trying to get a rise out of people.

;D

When I tell my wife to go topless, I am just kidding with her. It's always funny to see her reaction. ;)

The only topless women here (Kingston), has been a pair of lesbians just doing it to show off. And some teenagers that were doing it for some publicity... I don't even remember why.

It bugged me because it was ALL you heard about for the longest time and you wouldn't know there was a law allowing it at all, nothing has changed. Just something to complain about I think. Even at our beach, where we have sunbathers all the time, nothing. It's not fair dammit!!! ;D

Here's a pic I found, I think in Germany, not sure. Hard to imagine this being normal (I censored it)...

{"name":"611255","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/d\/5\/d54256aa77118edddcd7dfc102bdb7d1.jpg","w":640,"h":480,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/d\/5\/d54256aa77118edddcd7dfc102bdb7d1"}611255

bamccaig
Member #7,536
July 2006
avatar

There was a music video allegedly shot in Montreal (or was it Paris, I can't remember) of a French girl group that shot the video by walking fully nude from one end of a notorious foot-traffic street to the other. The whole thing was shot as one sequence. I fucking love the footage, but it's censored so I wish I could find an uncensored version! :D The song is French so it's hard to really appreciate lyrically, but I appreciate the music video! I think it was titled "Yeah, Yeah, Yeah", but I don't remember the artists.

Append:

Then again, I guess Blink 182 were actually wearing skin-colored speedos for their nude music video and the censorship made the viewer unaware so it's possible these girls did the same. Apparently Blink 182 did a remake for one of their more recent songs where they had popular vlogger women do the naked walking through the streets, but again they were actually wearing skin colored clothing and the blurring effects made it indistinguishable. Rip off!

Eric Johnson
Member #14,841
January 2013
avatar

That's some top-notch blurring, Neil! You could land a job working for the Japanese adult film industry with those skills. ;)

Neil Roy
Member #2,229
April 2002
avatar

That's some top-notch blurring, Neil! You could land a job working for the Japanese adult film industry with those skills. ;)

Click the image. It looks like no censoring at all when small (which I found sort of funny, not intended), but when you click the image to enlarge it you will see the naughty bits are in fact hidden. ;)

I liked how it turned out to be honest, doesn't look censored at all until you click it. 8-)

bamccaig
Member #7,536
July 2006
avatar

Neil Roy said:

I liked how it turned out to be honest, doesn't look censored at all until you click it. 8-)

Just like Japanese adult "art" and "photography". >:(

Neil Roy
Member #2,229
April 2002
avatar

bamccaig said:

Just like Japanese adult "art" and "photography". >:(

I wouldn't know, I don't go looking for Japanese porn. Though I do understand they have laws which make them censor the lower private parts.

But you guys seem to know a lot about it. ;)

Eric Johnson
Member #14,841
January 2013
avatar

I don't know if it's true or not, but I've heard there are products you can buy which reverse the mosaic blur featured in Japanese pornography.

Neil Roy
Member #2,229
April 2002
avatar

I can't see how, unless their photos have layers. What I did altered the photo directly, so there's no going back.

Eric Johnson
Member #14,841
January 2013
avatar

I guess the blurring works by moving parts of the source image around in a predictable manner. If you know the pattern/algorithm/seed for the blurring, you could essentially step backwards through it to get the original image.

But like I said, I don't know if they're real or not... it's just what I've heard.

EDIT:

Kind of like how those sliding picture puzzles work.

{"name":"611256","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/f\/1\/f1ac4c0fb473eb7f0d48eaa5e3f80a37.png","w":369,"h":307,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/f\/1\/f1ac4c0fb473eb7f0d48eaa5e3f80a37"}611256

Neil Roy
Member #2,229
April 2002
avatar

Yeah, but this doesn't slide parts around. What it does (at least what I used) pixelates the image. Takes a square area of the image, averages the colours and makes all pixels that colour, and repeats that over your selected area, the size of the large square pixels adjustable by you. So you get a mosaic of squares. So there's no undoing it.

Perhaps the Japanese method differs, but I somehow doubt it.

For example, here is my profile picture entirely pixelated using the same method, only smaller in size...

611258

I used a size of 7, which means this 160x160 image is like a 23x23 image expanded to fit 160x160 without interpolation.

Elias
Member #358
May 2000

I depixeled it with Inkscape's "trace bitmap" function:

611260

--
"Either help out or stop whining" - Evert

bamccaig
Member #7,536
July 2006
avatar

LennyLen
Member #5,313
December 2004
avatar

Minecraft Neil:

611258

Minecraft with texture pack Neil:

611260

Neil Roy
Member #2,229
April 2002
avatar

bamccaig said:

I always suspected that Neil was secretly a pirate.

LMAO, nice! ;D

I should have known that would happen. I just used Irfanview. You can make a box around what you want to filter with your mouse, or do the entire image. Press CTRL+E and select one of many filters, for this, it was "Pixelize".

Post Reply


Go to: