A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

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.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Photo Techniques » Photographing People
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Be careful about photographing your kids!



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old October 15th 03, 12:42 AM
Mxsmanic
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old October 15th 03, 02:35 AM
Ron Hunter
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old October 15th 03, 02:37 AM
Ron Hunter
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.

  #45  
Old October 15th 03, 02:43 AM
Mxsmanic
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old October 15th 03, 03:11 AM
Asbjørn Bjørnstad
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old October 15th 03, 03:27 AM
Asbjørn Bjørnstad
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old October 15th 03, 03:47 AM
Gregory W. Blank
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old October 15th 03, 04:15 AM
Mxsmanic
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old October 15th 03, 05:06 AM
Francis A. Miniter
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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 09:03 PM
Cyanotypes as a kids art project. Lots of questions... RiffRaff General Photography Techniques 1 January 28th 04 08:13 AM
Photographing In The Shower -- Help Requested This Guy Here General Photography Techniques 2 December 7th 03 05:05 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:04 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.