If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
Be careful about photographing your kids!
George Kerby writes:
"Nominally female"? Does that mean what I think it does? It means that they were supposedly women, but many of them looked like men. And they often had extremely short, bleached blonde hair, tiny breasts, and sharply defined features. -- Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly. |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
Be careful about photographing your kids!
Mxsmanic wrote:
Ron Hunter writes: Thank heaven for digital cameras. Think twice about that. Digital cameras tremendously simplify the distribution of images electronically. It's possible to produce pornography without anyone else knowing about it, and very cheaply and simply. If that pornography happens to involve exploitation of children, then digital cameras tremendously facilitate that exploitation. so do polaroids, camcorders, artist brushes and canvas. Don't blame the tool, blame the tool user. Of course, the flip side is that digital cameras make it much harder for the thought police to operate, so if you are producing pornography that doesn't exploit anyone, they come in handy for keeping the nutcases out of the loop. They assure reasonable privacy, at least. |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
Be careful about photographing your kids!
Mxsmanic wrote:
Sloopy writes: We'll mark you down as someone who is *not* sickened by kiddie porn. That, of course, makes *you* sick. Actually, _all_ pornography leaves me queasy. What does that make me? Doens't all pornography make you queasy, too? No. I am a normal 61 year old male, and sometimes I need a bit more stimulation than I did at 25. If it makes you queasy, you probably should see a doctor and find out why sexual stimulation makes you feel that way. |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
Be careful about photographing your kids!
George Kerby wrote:
On 10/14/03 3:00 PM, in article , "Mxsmanic" wrote: Ron Hunter writes: No. The ideal job for a pedophile is gymanstics coach. Not only do they get to see children in skimpy, or tight clothes, and watch them move, and pose, and show off, they get PAID to touch. A fox hired to guard a hen house doesn't have it so good. I've often had my doubts about school coaches. Some of the ones I recall in boys' P.E. were pretty strange. The ones in girls' P.E. were far stranger. Yep! I knew that only you would take both boys AND girls P.E. No wonder you live in France! __________________________________________________ _____________________________ Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com The Worlds Uncensored News Source Maybe he did the transgender thing while in school... Grin. |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
Be careful about photographing your kids!
Ron Hunter writes:
They assure reasonable privacy, at least. But only spies, terrorists, pedophiles, and drug dealers need privacy, right? What have you got to hide? -- Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly. |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
Be careful about photographing your kids!
"Jeremy" writes:
Despite our shortcomings, the United States wrote the book on how to be a free society, and we are the model for many other cultures that are striving to become more free. Part of being a "free society" is keeping our CHILDREN FREE of being EXPLOITED. I know I shouldn't, but I can't resist. Too bad you didn't ratify the book (To be fair, it has been signed.): From http://www.unicef.org/crc/faq.htm#009 : # The Convention on the Rights of the Child is the most widely and # rapidly ratified human rights treaty in history. Only two countries, # Somalia and the United States, have not ratified this celebrated # agreement. Somalia is currently unable to proceed to ratification as # it has no recognized government. And from http://web.amnesty.org/pages/deathpenalty-children-eng : # The use of the death penalty for crimes committed by people younger # than 18 is prohibited under international human rights law, yet some # countries still execute child offenders. [snip] # Since 1994 Amnesty International has documented 20 executions of # child offenders in five countries: the Democratic Republic of Congo, # Iran, Nigeria, Pakistan and the USA. At least one of these # countries, Pakistan, has since changed its laws to exclude the # practice. [snip] Thirteen of the 20 executions were in the USA. Nice company you've got... -- -asbjxrn |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
Be careful about photographing your kids!
J C writes:
Unfortunately, there's no way to scientifically prove that had he not worn it he would have died. To prove it you'd have to have two identical crashes where one person wore a seatbelt and the other did not. And when I say identical, I mean exactly identical. Crash test dummies? -- -asbjxrn |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
Be careful about photographing your kids!
In article ,
J C wrote: Now I realize that you are foaming at the mouth over the intuitive guess that seatbelts save lives. It does seem reasonable to guess at that. However, an intuitive guess, is not proof. Proof requires a higher standard. -- JC You know, I might take offense at your stupidity but it really does not mean jack to me. But here goes an attempt to show the error behind your line of reasoning. First and foremost cars come equipted with airbags, seat belts and air bags. The seat belts hold you in position and the airbags save your life. These are tools at best & there of course is no guarantee. Most reasonable people accept that they are better off with than without these things. I might believe your line of reason if I had not had the following personal experience: A number of years ago (over fifteen) , my brother and his girl friend were at a stop light without seat belts on. Two cars speeding from the left came through the intersection side by side one car hit my brothers car at over 100 mph. Both he and his girl friend were ejected from the car through the rear windsheild. Luckly for my brother he only broke his back in a couple of places. His girl friend died when she hit the side walk. You can guess all you want,..... and by all means don't wear your seat belt, it really makes no difference what you do, I'll keep wearing mine. Have a nice day :-) -- website: http://members.bellatlantic.net/~gblank |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
Be careful about photographing your kids!
Gregory W. Blank writes:
You know, I might take offense at your stupidity but it really does not mean jack to me. You don't consider him stupid, and his post means a lot more than jack to you. That's why you wrote an entire post in reply. But here goes an attempt to show the error behind your line of reasoning. See above. You know, you could have saved a line by skipping the personal attack. It undermines your position and wastes bandwidth. I might believe your line of reason if I had not had the following personal experience: An emotional response to anecdotal, empirical evidence? -- Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly. |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
Be careful about photographing your kids!
you might want to take a look at David Loftus' new book, "Watching Sex:
How Men Really Respond to Pornography". He maintains, among other things, that men's social commentary about "pornography" [whatever is understood by that] and their behavior differ markedly. For instance, most men say that children should not be exposed to sex and violence [in movies, etc] until at least their mid-teens. But it turns out that the people saying this also state that they were exposed to these things before the age of 12 and that there is nothing wrong with them. Part of the problem is what is understood by pornography. Is the Venus de Milo pornographic? If not, is "Le Petit Dejeuner"? If not, is Rodin's "The Kiss"? In the 1920s, "Lady Chatterly's Lover" was widely considered pornographic. Now, it is considered incredibly tame. "The Last Tango in Paris" incurred much condemnation when it came out - early 70s. Now it is a classic, even with the butter scene. Maybe, you are thinking, "No, No, I don't mean naked bodies or written descriptions of sex, I mean visual portrayals of sexual intercourse." That too is a moving target. I would suggest that director Zalman King ["Wild Orchid", "Lake Consequence", "Women of the Night"] has tastefully portrayed sexual interactions for well over a decade now. Is the issue then what is tasteful - not what is ethical? Would pornography then be what is not yet accepted as tasteful? This is not to say that films that brutalize children or others is acceptable. No one deserves to be harmed in the making of a film, humans as well as animals. As for what people see, police investigators and coroners see things far, far worse than the average movie viewer will ever see. Now that is something to make one queasy. Does this make them evil? We presume not. So the point cannot be that viewing something makes one a worse human being. Francis A. Miniter Mxsmanic wrote: Sloopy writes: We'll mark you down as someone who is *not* sickened by kiddie porn. That, of course, makes *you* sick. Actually, _all_ pornography leaves me queasy. What does that make me? Doens't all pornography make you queasy, too? |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Is photographing the homeless unethical? | Mike Henley | 35mm Photo Equipment | 11 | June 16th 04 01:48 AM |
Books on Composition, developing an "Eye"? | William J. Slater | General Photography Techniques | 9 | April 7th 04 04:22 PM |
photographing moose in the "Anchorage Hillside" area? | Bill Hilton | Photographing Nature | 4 | March 9th 04 08:03 PM |
Cyanotypes as a kids art project. Lots of questions... | RiffRaff | General Photography Techniques | 1 | January 28th 04 07:13 AM |
Photographing In The Shower -- Help Requested | This Guy Here | General Photography Techniques | 2 | December 7th 03 04:05 PM |