Photographing children

"Ken Tough" wrote in message
...
Mxsmanic wrote:

Ron Hunter writes:
I have read that some beheaded people were conscious for up to 8
seconds. NOt sure how this was determined. Don't want to think much
about it.

In the case of guillotine executions, they simply observed the person's
head. He couldn't speak, but he turn his eyes to look at someone
speaking to him.

That doesn't necessarily imply consciousness. The same works with
people dreaming in REM sleep, though their eyelids are closed.
I don't think 18th century medical research on consciousness is
going to be all that reliable. I'll grant that brain activity
won't stop instantly, but doubt it involves consciousness.

There's really only one way to find out for sure, but you have to take the
answer secretly to the grave...
....Any volunteers???

"Mike Kohary" wrote in message
...
Mark² wrote:
"Toni" wrote in message
oups.com...
Like wondering how
many milliseconds of vision and cognitive awareness you could
maintain as
your head falls after having it lopped off by a gillotine...

LOL, I thought I was the only person who ever wondered that. Also,
would you recognize your body over there and would you have time to
be horrified?

I'm not alone after all!!


I also wonder whether if the blade stopped immediately...keeping your
severed head pressed against the blade after detachment...whether the
pressing blade might briefly curb the bleeding enough to maintain a
bit more blood pressure...which might allow a few full seconds of
awareness.
II get the death penalty someday I think I'll ask for this, and then
try and devise a way to signal someone like you with my eyes one way
or the other...
Deal?

So, you were saying about IQ...?


The IQ comment was more regarding the lack of insight conveyed regarding the
kiddie-brawl question more than the question itself... I note that some
here actually are using their brains to think this goulish quandry through a
bit...

"Mike Kohary" wrote in message
...
Mark² wrote:
"Toni" wrote in message
oups.com...
Like wondering how
many milliseconds of vision and cognitive awareness you could
maintain as
your head falls after having it lopped off by a gillotine...

LOL, I thought I was the only person who ever wondered that. Also,
would you recognize your body over there and would you have time to
be horrified?

I'm not alone after all!!


I also wonder whether if the blade stopped immediately...keeping your
severed head pressed against the blade after detachment...whether the
pressing blade might briefly curb the bleeding enough to maintain a
bit more blood pressure...which might allow a few full seconds of
awareness.
II get the death penalty someday I think I'll ask for this, and then
try and devise a way to signal someone like you with my eyes one way
or the other...
Deal?

So, you were saying about IQ...?


The IQ comment was more regarding the lack of insight conveyed regarding the
kiddie-brawl question more than the question itself... I note that some
here actually are using their brains to think this goulish quandry through a
bit...

"Ron" == Ron Hunter writes:

Ron That is possible. State law here only requires that a
Ron picture be 'provocative' in order to be classified as child
Ron pornography. So what, exactly, IS provocative? What I
Ron consider 'cute' may be 'provocative' to someone else. The
Ron classic nude baby on the bearskin rug is DEFINITELY illegal
Ron here. sigh.

Just as long as you comply with these few simple rules, there
shouldn't be any problems, no matter what country you are in or where
the photo will be seen:

1. No skin is to be visible AND

2. Child must be your own child AND

3. No (obscene) clothing is to be visible AND

4. Must have written permission from child before performing activity
(ie. taking the photo). This written permission is not valid
unless:
a) child is 5 years or younger and has watched a complete
james bond movie within past hour or
b) child is under 10 years and has watched die hard 1 or
die hard 2 within past hour or
c) child is under 15 years and has constructed own bomb
without any parental assistance
AND

5. Child must be either male or female AND

6. Must have indisputable proof that you are not a pervert or a human
and have written permission from local police station AND

7. Must not be taken at beach, public swimming pool, changing rooms,
etc AND

8. Must not look like it was taken at beach, public swimming pool,
changing rooms, etc AND

9. Must not be taken with a camera on a mobile phone AND

10. Must be taken when full moon is present and must sacrifice the
child after the event to the gods.

I don't think I missed anything.

grin

Seriously, some of the moral rules we impose on ourselves are a
complete mess, e.g. we have children watching violent TV shows (and
making bombs too), but we get upset when somebody takes a photo...
--
Brian May

"Ron" == Ron Hunter writes:

Ron That is possible. State law here only requires that a
Ron picture be 'provocative' in order to be classified as child
Ron pornography. So what, exactly, IS provocative? What I
Ron consider 'cute' may be 'provocative' to someone else. The
Ron classic nude baby on the bearskin rug is DEFINITELY illegal
Ron here. sigh.

Just as long as you comply with these few simple rules, there
shouldn't be any problems, no matter what country you are in or where
the photo will be seen:

1. No skin is to be visible AND

2. Child must be your own child AND

3. No (obscene) clothing is to be visible AND

4. Must have written permission from child before performing activity
(ie. taking the photo). This written permission is not valid
unless:
a) child is 5 years or younger and has watched a complete
james bond movie within past hour or
b) child is under 10 years and has watched die hard 1 or
die hard 2 within past hour or
c) child is under 15 years and has constructed own bomb
without any parental assistance
AND

5. Child must be either male or female AND

6. Must have indisputable proof that you are not a pervert or a human
and have written permission from local police station AND

7. Must not be taken at beach, public swimming pool, changing rooms,
etc AND

8. Must not look like it was taken at beach, public swimming pool,
changing rooms, etc AND

9. Must not be taken with a camera on a mobile phone AND

10. Must be taken when full moon is present and must sacrifice the
child after the event to the gods.

I don't think I missed anything.

grin

Seriously, some of the moral rules we impose on ourselves are a
complete mess, e.g. we have children watching violent TV shows (and
making bombs too), but we get upset when somebody takes a photo...
--
Brian May

On Fri, 1 Apr 2005 09:42:00 +0200, Ken Tough
wrote:

Mxsmanic wrote:

Ron Hunter writes:
I have read that some beheaded people were conscious for up to 8
seconds. NOt sure how this was determined. Don't want to think much
about it.

In the case of guillotine executions, they simply observed the person's
head. He couldn't speak, but he turn his eyes to look at someone
speaking to him.

That doesn't necessarily imply consciousness. The same works with
people dreaming in REM sleep, though their eyelids are closed.
I don't think 18th century medical research on consciousness is
going to be all that reliable. I'll grant that brain activity
won't stop instantly, but doubt it involves consciousness.

Why? You don't need a spine to think. For all we know, the
head could be alive and thinking for about 1-2 minutes.
Wouldn't it be a kick if it talked?
-Rich

In article ,
RichA wrote:

Why? You don't need a spine to think. For all we know, the
head could be alive and thinking for about 1-2 minutes.
Wouldn't it be a kick if it talked?

If it could, it would sort of imply that the executioner had goofed, because
the lungs would still be attached...

"RichA" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 1 Apr 2005 09:42:00 +0200, Ken Tough
wrote:

Mxsmanic wrote:

Ron Hunter writes:
I have read that some beheaded people were conscious for up to 8
seconds. NOt sure how this was determined. Don't want to think much
about it.

In the case of guillotine executions, they simply observed the person's
head. He couldn't speak, but he turn his eyes to look at someone
speaking to him.

That doesn't necessarily imply consciousness. The same works with
people dreaming in REM sleep, though their eyelids are closed.
I don't think 18th century medical research on consciousness is
going to be all that reliable. I'll grant that brain activity
won't stop instantly, but doubt it involves consciousness.

Why? You don't need a spine to think. For all we know, the
head could be alive and thinking for about 1-2 minutes.
Wouldn't it be a kick if it talked?
-Rich

Hmmm...
No vocal cords...no lungs...no blood pressure...
Talking would be quite a trick indeed!

"RichA" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 1 Apr 2005 09:42:00 +0200, Ken Tough
wrote:

Mxsmanic wrote:

Ron Hunter writes:
I have read that some beheaded people were conscious for up to 8
seconds. NOt sure how this was determined. Don't want to think much
about it.

In the case of guillotine executions, they simply observed the person's
head. He couldn't speak, but he turn his eyes to look at someone
speaking to him.

That doesn't necessarily imply consciousness. The same works with
people dreaming in REM sleep, though their eyelids are closed.
I don't think 18th century medical research on consciousness is
going to be all that reliable. I'll grant that brain activity
won't stop instantly, but doubt it involves consciousness.

Why? You don't need a spine to think. For all we know, the
head could be alive and thinking for about 1-2 minutes.
Wouldn't it be a kick if it talked?
-Rich

Hmmm...
No vocal cords...no lungs...no blood pressure...
Talking would be quite a trick indeed!

Ron Hunter wrote:


That is possible. State law here only requires that a picture be
'provocative' in order to be classified as child pornography. So what,
exactly, IS provocative? What I consider 'cute' may be 'provocative' to
someone else. The classic nude baby on the bearskin rug is DEFINITELY
illegal here. sigh.

Following some notorious cases like the lady down in Texas a couple
years ago, I would expect (or hope) that law enforcement are standing
back and giving it a re-think.

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.