Ducati Monster Forum

http://www.newsweek.com/id/136306?GT1=43002


he he..... lot's-o-boobie threads would have been the norm [laugh]

can you imagine.

board rule:  each post must contain nudity   [laugh]

mitt

what the...  :P

One company...  owning bigchurch.com, penthouse, and adultfriendfinder.com...  you gotta wonder about some of the folks signing up... are they all ignorant?   :-\

well...

is this morally equivilant to owning a ford and a chevy, or loving both the M-16 and the AK-47, or thinking the charlie and the horse are best when combined into a speedball?

(i've got nothin'.)

Im assuming it was a somewhat rhetorical question, but the answer could be yes and no... 

Im sure there are a ton of people who didnt know that VS owned the DML and a bunch of other boards, I dont know which ones they are.
 (hypothetically speaking)
if they kept the DML had not changed and VS also owned an "I like getting pee'd on" forum, which I was moral opposed to, I dont know if it would stop me from going on the DML.  I guess the question would boil down to "do I like this more, than I am against that?"     

I also just looked up bigchurch.com because I have never heard of it and this is was it says about their parent company:

  The FriendFinder Network is the leading global online relationship network, allowing over 100 million registered members to confidentially and anonymously meet people with similar interests and mindsets in a safe, fun environment. Founded in 1996 and privately owned, The FriendFinder Network operates with a staff of over 200 from its corporate headquarters in sunny Palo Alto, California.

You would have to do a bit of digging to find out that these people own Penthouse too.  Its just not worth most peoples time

To the non-religious observer, I suppose that's all it looks like.  Ford and Chevy.  For myself and a large number of my real-life friends, it's incomprehensibly more important.  (incomprehensible to the morally ambiguous observer, that is)

To the one whose lifestyle is founded in Judeo-Christian values, those two sites are morally irreconcilable, and (knowingly) paying the parent company is essentially condoning the other behaviours.  Note that I am not saying anything about the folks who are unaware of what else the parent company owns.

This is simply meant to be an informative post, so that hopefully the reader will realise that no, not everyone takes the same morally flexible view of such... er, "diverse" business interests.  (and realise that some who have a less flexible view do in fact frequent this board)

I knew that ducati.ms was one of theirs, I'm registered there.. the monster section was boring.. the SBK section is good and there are plenty of helpful people there.

Gixxer.com is (i think) on of their's also - I've never really been active there either but it is also a good source for info when you have an 18 year old sportsbike and want to learn a bit more about it.

The DML.. well, the transition has just been wrong.

Never mind.

in the interests of full disclosure, i was just being flippant in my response.

to address it less dismissively, i think the varied properties of the corporation show a general moral indifference, but i'm happy to leave it up to the individual to determine what that means to him or her, or how they'd like to address it.

Man am I tired.
I could swear when I first looked at the thread starter it said boobspapa... :o


 ;D

just playing  [evil] advocate here...

Does it make a difference that it is a business?   If they were non-profit, would it matter?   Would you no longer use the DMF if they creators also had a porn site?  

hmmm... I think I may put a profile on bigchurch.com. They'd never see what hit 'em  [evil]

I should know better than to take this bait, because I've debated enough of this with you before... [roll]

For me, yes, it would matter.  No, I wouldn't use the site anymore.  This is in the situation where the site owners/creators also operated a site I considered morally reprehensible, and the connection between said owners and the other site was apparent to me.

Again, informative post only, I'm not telling anyone else here what to do.

I have trouble seeing why you wouldn't continue on here (there:bigchurch/dmf) and just never go to the other site (over there: porno)

If its a way to get the message out in a positive way, but has a slight negative aspect, is the greater good not worth it?

The 100% right or its all crap thoughts are what the guys spewing nonsense at SEC Football games are about, and though they thinking they are doing the good work of God by screaming: "you are going to hell for coming to this game, drinking a beer and hoping the auburn QB is crushed under the Georgia defense"

It always bothers me so much, that I cannot help but tell them everytime I see them on Beale St. that they are doing far more harm than good to the Christian cause.

I'd also like to point out that I don't think that it waters down the message at all either, since there aren't porn-related ads at the church website, so I don't think it boycotting can be justified on the grounds that the message is diluted.

Is it okay if I don't drink, and still hope the Auburn QB is crushed under the Alabama Defense?  ;D

I used to frequent bondage.com; I know the people who founded and ran it. But I would have certain ethical problems with supporting them now, knowing they are owned by a company that also promotes Christianity, which is morally reprehensible to me.

Reality is, however, that just about anything you can use or buy is probably owned, somewhere up the line, by a corporation whose ethics you despise. There are all kinds of surprises if you start digging.

Do you have cable television?  You realize, of course, that your cable company broadcasts and profits from those adult pay-per-view movies to which all subscribers have access.  Likewise, your internet service provider profits from the large number of people who use the internet primarily to visit adult-oriented sites. 

If you truly want to free yourself from supporting corporations involved in adult enterprises, you pretty much have to go off the grid completely.  Nearly all forms of electronic media profit from the adult entertainment industry.

 [laugh]  I knew that last post of mine would bring people out of the woodwork lookin' for a fight...

ATO, I agree with your assessment of people who show up at public events and start hatin' on everyone.  Personally, I don't believe they represent Christianity in an actual Biblical sense.  I'd challenge them to show me the verse(s) that backs their behaviour, which I agree is doing more harm than good.

I will "boycott" sites whose parent companies support reprehensible behaviours because I cannot in good conscience knowingly fund an organization that also creates and profits from something I find highly objectionable.


You find reprehensible a faith whose text tells the followers to provide for the poor/widows/orphans, that the follower cannot (and should not try to) force anyone else to follow it, and that the greatest commandment is love?

I'm not saying there aren't bad things done by people who profess to be Christian.  I am saying the text itself does not advocate those behaviours.

Now, if you just don't like your Creator telling you that certain behaviours are bad for you (lust, greed, drunkeness, etc)... well, that's between you and Him.  I'm not sure I'd call a whole faith "reprehensible" because of that.

Or... were you just being tongue-in-cheek, playing devil's advocate?  ;)



And lastly, sleestak, no, I don't have cable.  I do have internet.  While my provider might profit from people who buy the service to go do their own thing, to my knowledge said provider is not the one creating, maintaining, and selling ad space on those sites (key difference).  The service provider isn't making moral choices for the people who buy the service.  To judge Verizon, Qwest, or other service providers for the misuse of their service would be like passing judgement on Snap-on when a criminal uses a breaker bar to bash a victim's head in.  The responsibility lies with the user at that point.

Same goes for people who misuse Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Taoism, Hinduism, etc, as justification for evildoing.  The fault lies not with the religion, the fault lies squarely on the shoulders of the individual misusing it.


Mods: if we're way over the religion line, just say so, and I'll bow out.  My goal here is to answer questions and clarify misunderstandings.

I don't think we're over any lines, but if so, i'm thinking we could move it to the politics section.

I would think, then, from reading your post, that you would not, in good conscience use a service provider that did not block access to the pornographic, or otherwise objectionable sites (2g1c is not pornographic in my eyes, just gross, though the music was lovely).

There are such service providers that offer such a product.

man..... simple... boobies on the DML comments were all I was look'n for.


and one SacDuc anal referance would have been welcome.

Bibleboy,

I don't profess to subscribe to any particular faith (although I do feel like I hold myself to a reasonably conservative moral code). I just wanted to say that I really liked your response above.

And I think there may be some carryover between the sites just because of their templates. I actually did look around the bigchurch site and found several lines like: "find your hot christian mate on bigchurch.com"

fine...

dude, if Penthouse bought the DML, I would enjoy being engulfed by those marvelously enormous, airbrushed ads. So much so, that I would welcome a good pop-up too. Ain't no need for some blocker to censor that. And finally, finally, Sac's question of "anal?" could be found in those hallowed pages of penile enlargements and friend finders.

No?

Oh No!  :-X [laugh] :-\