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 |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Be careful about photographing your kids!
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.... Maybe survelliance is not such a bad idea, yesterday some criminals got the bright idea to rob a church in Baltimore. We are being watched. George Orwell was a prophet. -- JC Maybe you should get off the computer right now. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Be careful about photographing your kids!
On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 17:52:45 GMT, "Jeremy"
wrote: You missed the point, entirely. Did I? I think you did. The point is that there's a lot of over zealous application of these protections. While I agree with the protections, I do not trust that everyone can apply them equitably. Some innocent people, as the articles in this thread show, are actually hurt by the idiotic blind enforcement. Here's a statistics joke that sums that up: "You know how stupid the average guy is, right? Well half of them are even dumber than that." And by the way I don't favor anarchy. I just resent it when stupid people abuse authority (often unknowingly because, after all, they're stupid). Take all the nude photos you want--just don't exploit innocent children in the process. Confine your photography to adult subjects, and you will not hear a peep out of me, nor from virtually anyone else. Of course you do realize that the problem with that is determining who gets to judge what is and is not exploitation. And we're back to the stupid people problem. -- JC |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Be careful about photographing your kids!
Giorgis writes:
Often ? That is getting a little paranoid in it self :-) I'm not so sure. People really interested in child pornography are going to gravitate towards the largest, safest sources of that. The largest collections of child pornography are in the hands of law enforcement agencies, and employees of those agencies often have access to the collections under cover of a legitimate interest in anti-pornography activities. But for someone who actually loves kiddie porn, there would be no better occupation than as an investigator of kiddie porn. Similarly, pedophiles in general are attracted to jobs that bring them in contact with children, and some of the most suitable jobs in that category are the ones in which they are supposed to be helping children. So priests, counselors, cops, child psychologists, and the like are more likely to be pedophiles. Of course, pedophilia is rare, and most people who enjoy working with children have no sexual interest in them. Yes, it does follow from this that someone who takes a keen interest in photographing children exclusively might have some prurient interest in kids (although most such photographers don't). However, it does _not_ follow that someone who photographs children is automatically a pedophile. A lot of photographers photograph anyone who looks interesting, including kids. Incidentally, it is often assumed that photographers who take pictures of beautiful women are sexually motivated. However, one mark of a good photographer is that he does not have sex on his mind when taking pictures of pretty women. He might notice before or after the shoot that a particular woman is pretty--but never while taking the photos. When you take pictures, it's focus, composition, lighting, etc. ... but not sex. The ones who think about sex behind the viewfinder are con artists. Its a pity that you cant even smile at a child in a park and they look at you funny. Yes. Especially since 99.999% of people who smile at children in parks are not pedophiles. Additionally, the person most likely to abuse a child (sexually or otherwise) is one of his parents (usually his mother). Having said that, I foudnd it funny today driving along when I saw a fire engine with a sign. "Wanna feel the heat, how about work for the fire brigade" A lot of people who are fascinated with fire become firefighters. Others become arsonists. In the first case, a person recognizes his preoccupation and puts it to good use. In the second case, a person just indulges his preoccupation, despite the damage it does. There are probably parallels among pedophiles. -- Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Be careful about photographing your kids!
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. My impression was that some of the male coaches were just motivated by an interest in sports, whereas a lot more of the female coaches were motivated by an interest in young girls. -- Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Be careful about photographing your kids!
|
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Be careful about photographing your kids!
J C writes:
AND therein lies one of the problems with strangers taking pics of kids in public places, as mentioned in the above thread. Strangers are no more likely to use the photos in perverse ways than you are. Today it's simply too easy for the stuff to be mass distributed. But almost nobody mass-distributes pictures taken of children, particularly innocent, normal photographs. Most people are paranoid because they watch too much TV, and see too much sensationalism on news programs. The world is not filled with pedophiles, no matter what you've heard on CNN. -- Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Be careful about photographing your kids!
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. -- Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Be careful about photographing your kids!
gr writes:
Let's say some twisted perv, named "Jeremy" for example, goes to a public beach and snaps a bunch of pictures of little Johnny swimming nude. Now, let's say Jeremy then enjoys "getting off" on the pictures in the privacy of his own home. Where's the harm? Where's the victim? Nobody is hurt by that action, any more than some pervert taking pictures of women at the beach and "getting off" on them at home. Correct. Yet, I'd be willing to bet that 90% of people would claim Jeremy should be jailed. Ridiculous! Go after people that do real harm. They're the ones that should be stopped. The State has no business being a moral guardian. Every time they do so, they end up screwing it up. Correct again. It's a case of people acting based on their own emotions, instead of acting based on the best interests of others. If nobody is harmed by something, there's no reason to outlaw it. -- Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Be careful about photographing your kids!
Jeremy writes:
"Little Johnny" is the victim, because images of him were captured by someone without any permission, and with absolutely no guarantee that they wouldn't be shared with other perverts. Apart from the standard violation of his right to control the use of his image, in what way is he a "victim"? Look, if you don't like it, call your congressman. That's the law, enacted by a democratically-elected legislative branch, and never challenged or overturned by the Supreme Court. I feel certain that you'd immediately adopt the opposite opinion if Congress passed legislation in direct conflict with your own preferences. The security of children has more importance than your supposed "freedom" to take photos of someone else's naked kids. Children are not generally made insecure simply by having photographs taken of them. Neither are adults. Can't you find some other issue to vent on? The only person I see venting is you, and I'm not sure where you found the source of all this steam. Why all this indifference to the rights of kids to be left unmolested by dirty old men? Taking pictures of someone in public is not molestation. (In fact, taking pictures is never molestation, but the exact rights differ based on the situation.) -- Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Be careful about photographing your kids!
"gr" wrote in message
... Wow... orginally I thought you were just a troll. I now see you're just a warped bible-thumper. "There wouldn't be a NEED for homosexuality laws if there weren't all those perverts out there, taking photos and doing lots of other despicable acts." Nice try, troll, but again, NO CIGAR. You replaced the words "KIDDIE PORN" with the word "HOMOSEXUALITY," in a deliberate attempt to troll these newsgroups. I am filtering you and this thread out, as it is clear that you had no intention of discussing matters pertaining to photography. Adios, troll, and I urge others to block him as well. |
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 |