Zone1 This picture was banned on FaceBook

[WinterBorn]

I wasn't sure if this was the place to post this.

And I know some people on this board have an intense hatred of Facebook. I don't care about that.


The picture below was banned from Facebook because of a complaint from some uptight crazy woman.

The woman survived breast cancer. She had a double mastectomy. And then she had a lovely tattoo done to cover the scars of her life-saving loss.

How can some puritanical busybody object to such a picture of triumph?

 

[Darkwind]

What do you care?

You are doing exactly what they did.

Belittling someone.

 

[WinterBorn]

What do you care?

You are doing exactly what they did.

Belittling someone.

Belittling someone who had another woman's triumph removed.

One of the worst parts of a mastectomy, in addition to losing the breast(s) is living with the scars. This woman turned it into a celebration of beauty.

 

[Gabe Lackmann]

I would have just went with tattoos of some really great tits.

"In memory of...1985-2017"

Below.

Perfect.

 

[JGalt]

Ewww. Dirty Inkie.

 

[ding]

I wasn't sure if this was the place to post this.

And I know some people on this board have an intense hatred of Facebook. I don't care about that.


The picture below was banned from Facebook because of a complaint from some uptight crazy woman.

View attachment 668831

The woman survived breast cancer. She had a double mastectomy. And then she had a lovely tattoo done to cover the scars of her life-saving loss.

How can some puritanical busybody object to such a picture of triumph?

Because you can only please some of the people some of the time?

 

[Darkwind]

Belittling someone who had another woman's triumph removed.

One of the worst parts of a mastectomy, in addition to losing the breast(s) is living with the scars. This woman turned it into a celebration of beauty.

What does that matter? YOU are still belittling someone for something YOU don't agree with. Just as they did.

 

[ding]

The woman survived breast cancer. She had a double mastectomy. And then she had a lovely tattoo done to cover the scars of her life-saving loss.

How can some puritanical busybody object to such a picture of triumph?

It's almost as if you believe there is some universal code of moral decency that you expect everyone to understand and follow. Weird, huh?

 

[BlackSand]

I wasn't sure if this was the place to post this.

And I know some people on this board have an intense hatred of Facebook. I don't care about that.


The picture below was banned from Facebook because of a complaint from some uptight crazy woman.

View attachment 668831

The woman survived breast cancer. She had a double mastectomy. And then she had a lovely tattoo done to cover the scars of her life-saving loss.

How can some puritanical busybody object to such a picture of triumph?

.

It would have been interesting to know why Facebook banned the picture.
At the same time, it takes a special kind of idiot to be offended by something that isn't present in the picture ...

.​

 

[ding]

.

It would have been interesting to know why Facebook banned the picture.
At the same time, it takes a special kind of idiot to be offended by something that isn't present in the picture ...

.​

Legal positivism. They have a rule and they are following the letter of the rule (legal positivism) rather than the spirit of the rule (natural law). We can thank atheism for that one.

 

[westwall]

What does that matter? YOU are still belittling someone for something YOU don't agree with. Just as they did.

Either this country has free speech, or it doesn't.

Fight for all, or lose all.

 

[Mac1958]

The woman survived breast cancer. She had a double mastectomy. And then she had a lovely tattoo done to cover the scars of her life-saving loss.
How can some puritanical busybody object to such a picture of triumph?

We really are a strange species, aren't we?

 

[BlackSand]

Legal positivism. They have a rule and they are following the letter of the rule (legal positivism) rather than the spirit of the rule (natural law). We can thank atheism for that one.

.

Legal positivism is still a bit of a stretch, because she cannot expose breasts that are not there in any shape or form.
You can see more boobs with a woman wearing a skimpy bikini on a beach ...

.​

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

I wasn't sure if this was the place to post this.

And I know some people on this board have an intense hatred of Facebook. I don't care about that.


The picture below was banned from Facebook because of a complaint from some uptight crazy woman.

View attachment 668831

The woman survived breast cancer. She had a double mastectomy. And then she had a lovely tattoo done to cover the scars of her life-saving loss.

How can some puritanical busybody object to such a picture of triumph?

So if a guy has a vasectomy then gets a tattoo, would the results be the same, or justified?

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

I wasn't sure if this was the place to post this.

And I know some people on this board have an intense hatred of Facebook. I don't care about that.


The picture below was banned from Facebook because of a complaint from some uptight crazy woman.

View attachment 668831

The woman survived breast cancer. She had a double mastectomy. And then she had a lovely tattoo done to cover the scars of her life-saving loss.

How can some puritanical busybody object to such a picture of triumph?

Or maybe it was Coyote, because when you have anthills for breasts, anything bigger must be offensive.

 

[ding]

.

Legal positivism is still a bit of a stretch, because she cannot expose breasts that are not there in any shape or form.
You can see more boobs with a woman wearing a skimpy bikini on a beach ...

.​

That's how legal positivism works in practice. She's a woman and is exposing her chest. That can't be allowed according to the letter of the rule.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Most women opt for reconstruction.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

Most women opt for reconstruction.

Blacks opted for reconstruction a while ago, look at the results of that.

 

[BlackSand]

That's how legal positivism works in practice. She's a woman and is exposing her chest. That can't be allowed according to the letter of the rule.

.

Stop ...
Here is Facebook's rule and policy, and it specifically addresses post mastectomy photos ...

"Where such intent is clear, we make allowances for the content. For example, while we restrict some images of female breasts that include the nipple, we allow other images, including those depicting acts of protest, women actively engaged in breast-feeding and photos of post-mastectomy scarring."

Nothing in the picture violates their Stated Policy ... It isn't Legal Positivism ...

.​

 

[ding]

.

Stop ...
Here is Facebook's rule and policy, and it specifically addresses post mastectomy photos ...

"Where such intent is clear, we make allowances for the content. For example, while we restrict some images of female breasts that include the nipple, we allow other images, including those depicting acts of protest, women actively engaged in breast-feeding and photos of post-mastectomy scarring."

Nothing in the picture violates their Stated Policy ... It isn't Legal Positivism ...

.​

It is because they did not have a letter of the law exception which matched. They will have to add another exception which describes this case exactly because that's how legal positivism works. A never ending litany of rules and exceptions because they can't accept it not being in writing.