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 |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
Be careful about photographing your kids!
"gr" wrote in message ... "Jeremy" wrote The security of children has more importance than your supposed "freedom" to take photos of someone else's naked kids. Again... how is the "security" of a child affected by whether someone takes a picture of them? Does it only apply to photographs? What about drawings, or written stories, or even thoughts? The kiddie-porn thing basically boils down to thought-police. It's an issue of a majority of people outlawing something that offends their moral standards. Even some parts of the U.S. still have laws outlawing homosexuality. "Freedom" should not apply only to the majority. The true test of freedom is how free are the minorities. That's right....That's what the constitution really is there for....To protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority....To return to the above discussion, how do you guys feel about child pornagraphy where there are no victoms....No children being photographed....All the images are constructed digitally....Should it be illegal to manufacture it, posses it, or both? |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
Be careful about photographing your kids!
"Mxsmanic" wrote in message ... Jeremy writes: You must be some kind of pervert, to suggest that, short of RAPE, it is OK for children to be exploited in this way. It's not okay to exploit anyone without his consent, but just taking pictures of a child isn't exploitation in itself. It doesn't matter whether the child is dressed or undressed. What matters is whether or not the child is being harmed. Too many people are wrapped up in their own perception of what is "dirty" or "clean," and they don't care at all about what is "harmful" or "harmless." The two are not the same thing. Your trying to associate PARENTS with the radical far right, because we are opposed to anyone's children being USED just so creeps like you can get off, is typical of the agenda of most sexual miscreants. The emotion of your reply is unwarranted with respect to the original post. Are you a member of N.A.M.B.L.A., too ("The North American Man-Boy Love Association"), whose motto is "Sex before eight, or it's too late." Grow up and get yourself a real woman, you sick *******. See above. The people who worry me are the ones who fly off the handle at the slightest misperception. Or people who "protest too much"....... |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
Be careful about photographing your kids!
"Sloopy" wrote in message ... In article , "gr" wrote: It's not the "kiddie-porn" that sickens me, it's the self-righteous attitude of the "moral majority". We'll mark you down as someone who is *not* sickened by kiddie porn. That, of course, makes *you* sick. -Sloopy |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
Be careful about photographing your kids!
"Sloopy" wrote in message ... In article , "gr" wrote: It's not the "kiddie-porn" that sickens me, it's the self-righteous attitude of the "moral majority". We'll mark you down as someone who is *not* sickened by kiddie porn. That, of course, makes *you* sick. -Sloopy It isn't whether or not you're sickened by it......It's whether, because you're sickened by it, you feel compelled to make a law that forces everyone to be sickened by it.....That's what sickens me........ |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
Be careful about photographing your kids!
"Jeremy" wrote in message k.net... I believe that it does great psychological and emotional harm to children to have them pose in suggestive positions--regardless of whether the photos show genitalia or sexual activity. Remember, these are children! I couldn't care less what consenting adults do, but we have a responsibility to protect children from the grave damage that would be done to them by smut peddlars and ordinary "horny old men." Just look at some of the Calvin Klein ads for underwear, if you want a good example of pushing the envelope. Those kids all look underage, and they are always posing in sexually suggestive attitudes. Trying to attack our child protection laws, by suggesting that they go against your view of what a "free" society should be, is simply without merit, and irresponsible. 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. Yes, but there are some who are against (would make laws prohibiting) computer generated child pornagraphy....Where the images are totally manufactured within the computer, and no models are used.....On the basis (I presume) that the mere existence of this type of material is, "bad" for the society....Or, IOW, it promotes pedophilia.......They would outlaw not only the manufacture of this type of material, but also its possession.......Parsonally, I believe this is overstepping the bounds of government regulation of a free society, since it presumes that a crime will be committed before the fact. |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
Be careful about photographing your kids!
"gr" wrote in message ... "Jeremy" wrote Just look at some of the Calvin Klein ads for underwear, if you want a good example of pushing the envelope. Those kids all look underage, and they are always posing in sexually suggestive attitudes. Oh... shudder! Here's a suggestion: turn off your T.V. if it offends your moral standards. Don't go around forcing everyone else to turn off their TVs. Burn any good books, lately? Yes....The question is not that the, "kids all look underage"....The question is, are any of them underage? - If not, then no one was hurt, and no crime has been committed. The presumption that others, looking at those ads, will go out and commit a crime, has no place in a free society....... |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
Be careful about photographing your kids!
"J C" wrote in message ... On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 10:32:25 -0500, Ron Hunter wrote: Still, were I to dig it out, I wouldn't take it to WalMart for printing. Yes. Too bad really. I think that most loud voices posting in this thread don't want to acknowledge (or simply don't see) that freedoms are being erroded. Here's another example of government gone wild: In the early 1960s (or thereabouts) Chrysler puts seatbelts into some of their cars and touts it in its marketing as a safety feature. Soon thereafter the government mandates seatbelts in all cars. In the 1980s the government decides that you must wear them, and if you are stopped for any violation and are not wearing a seatbelt, you get an extra fine. They also, however, stipulate that you cannot be pulled over and fined solely because you are not wearing a seatbelt. In the 1990s the government changes the laws. Now you can be pulled over for simply not wearing one. Our government takes small but ever increasing incremental steps toward controlling our lives. Now they we have cameras installed at stoplights and in some downtown areas. And this too will spread. We are being watched. George Orwell was a prophet. -- JC Yes....I call these, "padded cell laws".....The government is steadily marching toward the ultimate in protection of its people.....Putting all of us in our own padded cell, so that we can't hurt anyone, including ourselves.....The problem is, the ones who are making these laws (usually congressmen who are bought off by insurance companies) aren't affected by them......They play golf, and don't ride cycles....So, they make laws forcing cyclers to wear helmits, but don't make laws forcing you to wear one on the golf course. They will only stop this process when the laws affect them.....I like to say that I will be only too happy to usher them into their padded cell........... |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
Be careful about photographing your kids!
"Gregory W. Blank" wrote in message ... In article , J C wrote: In the 1990s the government changes the laws. Now you can be pulled over for simply not wearing one. Are you offering to pay the car insurance rate hikes for all those accidents where people were not wearing them ? This is a typically liberal thing to say....It is the business of insurance companies to insure us against accident. Not to change our lives so that they can make more money. When the insurance companies lobby our representatives to make laws (padded cell laws) that restrict our freedoms so that the insurance companies can turn a larger profit, then they have overstepped their bounds. |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
Be careful about photographing your kids!
"Ron Hunter" wrote in message ... Gregory W. Blank wrote: In article , J C wrote: In the 1990s the government changes the laws. Now you can be pulled over for simply not wearing one. First, I ALWAYS wear my seatbelt, have since they started putting them in cars. But I would MUCH rather see the laws just allow insurance companies to NOT PAY if the person injured wasn't wearing one. Put the onus on the individual. Are you offering to pay the car insurance rate hikes for all those accidents where people were not wearing them ? Our government takes small but ever increasing incremental steps toward controlling our lives. Do you vote? About 50% of Americans don't. Usually. Sometimes the candidates available don't make it worth the trip to the polling place (less than 1 mile). Now they we have cameras installed at stoplights and in some downtown areas. And this too will spread. Maybe a good thing, maybe bad, some intersections have a lot of people running yellow and red lights.....it only takes one head on accident to change your attitude. Our local police could write tickets all day at the signal light closest to where I live. We wouldn't even need property taxes! But they don't, it would obstruct traffic. The cameras get around that, and still get that revenue for the city/county/state.... Not from me, they don't....I commonly drive with garage-sale license plates on my car.....These tickets, as well as parking tickets, go to never-never land when I get them....You just have to learn how to fight, "Big Brother"..... |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
Be careful about photographing your kids!
"Gregory W. Blank" wrote in message ... In article , Ron Hunter wrote: Are you offering to pay the car insurance rate hikes for all those accidents where people were not wearing them ? First, I ALWAYS wear my seatbelt, have since they started putting them in cars. But I would MUCH rather see the laws just allow insurance companies to NOT PAY if the person injured wasn't wearing one. Put the onus on the individual. Good for you, after all it does make sense.......and yes that would be ideal. Usually. Sometimes the candidates available don't make it worth the trip to the polling place (less than 1 mile). If you don't vote you can't complain, all else I consider, bs,... but I understand what you mean. Now they we have cameras installed at stoplights and in some downtown areas. And this too will spread. Maybe a good thing, maybe bad, some intersections have a lot of people running yellow and red lights.....it only takes one head on accident to change your attitude. Our local police could write tickets all day at the signal light closest to where I live. We wouldn't even need property taxes! But they don't, it would obstruct traffic. The cameras get around that, and still get that revenue for the city/county/state.... The police have an inordinate amount of work if traffic watching is included I agree and would rather have the Police available to stop crime or assist when needed. If you don't commit crime you don't have to worry about being caught doing wrong on camera plain and simple concept. Just as is the typically liberal concept that we shouldn't have a fourth amendment guarantee against unreasonable search and seisure.....If you haven't committed any crime, then why would you care? Yes....George Orwell was a visionary allright........ |
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 |