all things considered, I find neither offensive to me.

the main fact here though, is this thread so shouln't be up until voting closes, it could effect the outcome

I agree with reyrey

I love threads like these.

Oops, was that too violent?

wait Rey isn't that picture offensive!1 he's got no face for pete's sake!!

two facts I think we ALL do not dispute...



Its kind of tough at this point to say, "sorry, too much gore" or *gasp* "sorry, too much nipple simulation with a hint of camel toe". Its a big site-wide tourney and to knock one out at this stage of the game seems incredibly unfair.

Without defined guidlines, we will forever be able to argue things like this...and I for one...am grateful

and stop being so humble. have an opinion and state it with conviction!

no, but I can see his nipples... and that offended me!!!

Showwhatever. Thank you for the great life lesson. I had no idea life was rough, brutal and often nasty. It was well beyond my comprehension that television and other forms of media recreate violence -- and often graphically. I guess with that my opinion is totally changed.

I mean, come on, did you even read anything I wrote? Or did you just have a snap reaction that you tried to construct into a point? It has nothing to do with who finds what offensive. I could give fuck-all about that. I'll repeat my point, if that is a real person, whoever made it should feel like an asshole.

You see, showwhatever--I'll put it in the same explanative way you did-- on this Television and in other forms of media, there is often violence. Terrible, nasty violence. Most of the time, though this violence is not real. We can call it "fake". Sometimes there is real violence, though-- and this is usually "news", which is for information--not for votes in a contest.

Using real violence for entertainment or art died out after lynchings in the South, public hangings in the west, and the guillotine. Well, there was that one b-movie about a decade ago about the crazy artist who created his works from the flesh of his victims (ooooh, creepy). But that was a movie, and it sucked.

The point is when people suffer--real suffering, not "fake" suffering--it doesn't matter who is offended by it. If someone takes that suffering and tries to craft it into a meaningless tool for entertainment or shock value, it makes that person an asshole (uh the person turning it into a piece of entertainment, not the victim). The point is not whether it offends little Vunt Jr. or not, but that it exploits someone else's very real pain for some (comparatively) meaningless competition.

-Chris

first of all...

BUZZZZZZZZ! cant do that. not as funny as when I said the "whatever" thing first. Try Showsomething maybe.

now...let me break it down for you...

this was the part I thought was pretty good. sarcastic...in sort of a hurtful way...(cept for the "whatever" thing. get your own gig")


fairly accurate.


This is where it starts to go down hill...
Perhaps whomever made that particular chop has experienced some great injustice in their lives much like you with your uncle. Maybe this is the way they have found to deal with it. Maybe what that image says to many of us is not that the creator is some sort of insensitive prick but that violence, real violence, is a real and ugly thing and maybe, just maybe, it makes us more sensitive to the results of real and ugly violence...and that is it...not such a bad thing if you look at it like that. I dont know...Im speculating here...trying to construct a point...


Don't kid yourself. Real or fake, violence in the media is done for one reason and only one...votes in a contest...boosting the bottom line.


dont forget those Faces of Death movies...and what about the WWF?



*deep breath*
...and in conclusion...
You've really gone over the edge on this one, Chris. Its an image portraying a very graphic, violent scene. It is not promoting violence...it wasnt done to cause suffering...it was a fun contest to create an image with enough impact to get votes.

This member did not seach for "suffering" so that it could be crafted into a tool for entertainment and shock value. Get it into perspective man.

it wasnt PS'd but from what I gather there at houseofhorrors (where the pict is from) its from a movie... but atleast you all can see.. it was fake violence & not real... so lets move on shall we?
http://www.houseofhorrors.com/crypt/images/gun%20shot%20to%20head.jpg

http://www.houseofhorrors.com

one thing is for sure, it made people think... and isnt that what art is supposed to do? make you think? stir emotion?
my 2¢

Thanks Shaman. By the way,
I agree with reyrey

ok, now that we´re done with the brains, let´s deal with the nipples... any volunteer to seek for the sources???

I agree with Lrossa and Showcase, and whoever else is right...as for my opinion, I too thought that the chop with the gun to the guy's head is graphic, but thats obvious. However, the reason I don't have a problem with either entry is that they are considered "art," and art is always acceptable, right?

I must add that the faces of death videos where mostly faked. I personally dont mind either of the images but i have to ask, when does nudity become allowed and not allowed. I find nudity in art adds more to the feeling of the image, I use nudity alot in my images and my kids, parents and partner dont find them offencive at all. In fact my mum has one or two framed and hanging on the wall for all to see. Is it sexual organs that people find offencive, where do you draw the line.

The gun one was a bit shocking (this coming from the guy that chopped a rat into a kid's mouth, and a knife into his chest).

I don't think either should be pulled though.