By: longweekend58
23/05/2008
8:38 pm Yahoo! Profile:
longweekend58 Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
<>>>>>More laws wont help; its already highly illegal
There's just no political, or, in the case of the radio station involved, ratings gain, to be made from admitting that there was nothing there>
These are the kind of sideshows that divert from where the real problem is. |
|
By: kerry_33au
23/05/2008
8:40 pm Yahoo! Profile:
kerry_33au Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
| this subject hits very close to home. I had a couple of close friends when I was 13 who holidayed at one of their fathers place for a long weekend. The girls father took nude pictures of these girls in provocative poses. I wont go into detail because this was a long time ago and I cant remember all the details. I can tell you the guy did go to prison. Do I look at it being his rights taken away because they must of searched his house? NO I do not. |
|
By: kerry_33au
23/05/2008
8:41 pm Yahoo! Profile:
kerry_33au Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
You would be willing to accept the banning of all child photos other than your own?
Tell me where it is that I said this! |
|
By: cheeky_dee_au
23/05/2008
8:42 pm Yahoo! Profile:
cheeky_dee_au Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
"cheeky-dee when are you ever going to be able to comprehend anything other than your own self centeredness. " Ever? You've 'known' me for a whole 5 minutes. Nice assumption.
"And your comment is also stupid - either that or you are unable to comprehend what you read. You see the comment was not about YOU (sorry to hurt your ego) it was in regard to any paedophiles that may come alone to see the pics."
Considering I am not one, I can't really speak on behalf of the paedophiles, so that is why I speak for what *I* know in this post. Switch me for someone else if it makes it easier. I never said it was about me, but hey, way to go on getting personal.
"dah... think beyond your square box..." or maybe in your case, glass house?
Sometimes I really think some people just type without a clue..."
True, but not in that post. I think you should sit and think about what the point was. Accusing people of being stuck in a box, when it appears you are stuck in yours is well, like you said, stupid. I think it may just be you that might need to get a clue. |
|
By: news.judge
23/05/2008
8:43 pm Yahoo! Profile:
news.judge Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
Exactly. Chaos, we're running so far off the tracks, it's scary. Because of man's selfishness. We want it all, if we want to look at pics of nude pre-teens we should be allowed. It's not my fault that the children didn't really want the pics taken, it's my right, want want want, don't spoil my fun, I hate being told that I can't have something, it's not fair. I don't care who gets hurt, as long as I have my way.
Clean up a bit, we're way polluted.
---------------
WOWSERS!!!!
WWWOOOOWWWWWSSSSSSSSSSEEE ERRRRRRRRRRRRRSSSSSSSSSS! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! |
|
By: schwangfucious
23/05/2008
8:44 pm Yahoo! Profile:
schwangfucious Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
>>>>>>>>pictures of these girls in provocative poses
But that's kind of the point, kerry, there was nothing sexual about these photos. There was a link to the website yesterday and I had a look, and there was no sex about it. But when you see it on the TV with big black CENSORED - PAEDOPHILIA bars all across it, suddenly it looks sexual. If they'd shown it on TV without it being censored everyone would've realised that there was no "provocative poses". It was dead set asexual. Your friends father took sexual pictures and that's pornography, this was just boring tripe, done, presumably, specifically to generate the publicity it got |
|
By: lefowlerau
23/05/2008
8:45 pm Yahoo! Profile:
lefowlerau Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
"yep...me too lefowlerau...not often i agree with longweek but has happened several times lately!!"
I try not to make a habit of it.
:D
Interestingly, whether the pictures are aesthetically pleasing or not; they have certainly stimulated some lively debate on a number of issues realting to art, censorship and exploitation.
Without even seeing the shots, one could surmise already that they have served their purpose as art. They have certainly forced us think about our stances on these issues and defend them if necessary. The may have even served to unearth a certain degree of hypocracy.
This is reminiscent of the petitions against Guillermo Vargas' Habakkuk.
Vargas pointed out that (even though it was a hoax - the dog in question was actually well fed at night when the exhibition closed) a lot of the people who were morally outraged about a dog starving in an Art Gallery would probably walk past a number of starving dogs (and people) in the street and not raise an eyelid.
Once again, good art forces us to face difficult questions about ourselves, individually and as a society.
Speaking of art, I'm off to the movies!
Cheers. |
|
By: longweekend58
23/05/2008
8:47 pm Yahoo! Profile:
longweekend58 Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
<this subject hits very close to home. I had a couple of close friends when I was 13 who holidayed at one of their fathers place for a long weekend. The girls father took nude pictures of these girls in provocative poses. I wont go into detail because this was a long time ago and I cant remember all the details. I can tell you the guy did go to prison. Do I look at it being his rights taken away because they must of searched his house? NO I do not.>
I sympathise with your story but I am having a lot of trouble forcing you to the actual point of the argument. the POINT is this (again). Do you support a dramatic reduction in personal freedoms in order to gain CHild Protection. I listed a few possibilities - one of them was the removal of the right of association with children other than your own. Another was the right to posess photos of children other than your own. Another was the right of police to sear yours (or anyones) home at any time without suspicion to verify that you are obeying these laws.
And they are just a few freedoms. PLEASE answer this post on topic. |
|
By: cheeky_dee_au
23/05/2008
8:49 pm Yahoo! Profile:
cheeky_dee_au Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
"And the other side is that loss of these freedoms doesnt help the problem anyhow. paedophilia doesnt happen out in the open so banning things out in the open will be totally ineffective. More laws wont help; its already highly illegal. It is just this seemingly helpless feeling that 'we must be doing something' and so draconian and pointless measures suddenly have appeal."
Certainly. |
|
By: longweekend58
23/05/2008
8:49 pm Yahoo! Profile:
longweekend58 Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
<Vargas pointed out that (even though it was a hoax - the dog in question was actually well fed at night when the exhibition closed) a lot of the people who were morally outraged about a dog starving in an Art Gallery would probably walk past a number of starving dogs (and people) in the street and not raise an eyelid.
Once again, good art forces us to face difficult questions about ourselves, individually and as a society.
>
very interesting observation. Thanks. I presume u r off to an arty movie and not Indiana Jones? |
|
By: ripfelix
23/05/2008
8:57 pm Yahoo! Profile:
ripfelix Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
"but I am having a lot of trouble forcing you to the actual point of the argument."
Isn't this exactly the attitude you find reprehensible? |
|
By: kerry_33au
23/05/2008
8:57 pm Yahoo! Profile:
kerry_33au Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
sympathise with your story but I am having a lot of trouble forcing you to the actual point of the argument. the POINT is this (again). Do you support a dramatic reduction in personal freedoms in order to gain CHild Protection. I listed a few possibilities - one of them was the removal of the right of association with children other than your own. Another was the right to posess photos of children other than your own. Another was the right of police to sear yours (or anyones) home at any time without suspicion to verify that you are obeying these laws.
I did not see you post this before and I think you are getting off the main point and topic of this argument and this is getting ridiculous. No I dont support dramatic reduction in personal freedoms. |
|
By: longweekend58
23/05/2008
8:59 pm Yahoo! Profile:
longweekend58 Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
<"but I am having a lot of trouble forcing you to the actual point of the argument."
Isn't this exactly the attitude you find reprehensible?>
I wont pretend I understand that! I made a clear cut comment to which her responses have been tangential at best. I enjoy debating, but I'd like to be on the same page as the opposition! |
|
By: longweekend58
23/05/2008
9:00 pm Yahoo! Profile:
longweekend58 Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
<Some say that Child Protection must be at 'all costs'. if it is at the cost of much of our individual freedoms, is that too much?
NO!!>
kerey: this is what confused me. It is your explicit agreement with what I said. But I'm glad you dont really believe that because that woudl be very disturbing. |
|
By: kerry_33au
23/05/2008
9:03 pm Yahoo! Profile:
kerry_33au Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
But that's kind of the point, kerry, there was nothing sexual about these photos. There was a link to the website yesterday and I had a look, and there was no sex about it.
I thought the point was the fact that the child was photographed naked and put on public display. Weather there was any sexual content is depends on the viewer. |
|
By: longweekend58
23/05/2008
9:07 pm Yahoo! Profile:
longweekend58 Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
<Weather there was any sexual content is depends on the viewer.>
Dont you think making it that subjective is just begging for deliberate misinterpretation? if nudity CAN equal sexual, then nudity wil ALWAYS equal sexuality. and then no nudity can ever be expressed non-sexually. SOme people will get off on anything. You cant avoid it and you cant legislate against it. Nudity doesnt mean pornography.
on a personal note tho, I wouldnt go see it if it was next door. I dont find it offensive altho I do find it in bad taste. But bad taste and personal preference are poor bases for judgment. |
|
By: schwangfucious
23/05/2008
9:08 pm Yahoo! Profile:
schwangfucious Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
>>>>>>>I thought the point was the fact that the child was photographed naked and put on public display. Weather there was any sexual content is depends on the viewer.
Not in a legal sense. My understanding is if there isn't overt sexualisation of genitalia then it isn;t child pornography. I think you'll find that this exhibition was only shut down because these types of radio stations virtually DICTATE public policy on these types of issues. For example, during the children overboard affair John Howard wouldn't speak to the senate committee. He'd appear on Alan Jones about four times, but he wouldn;t speak to the senate committee. Says a lot, I think.
So I think you'll find that the pollies and police only shut it down to keep the radio stations happy, and once the furore dies down the charges will disappear, because there was nothing there to prosecute for |
|
By: kerry_33au
23/05/2008
9:09 pm Yahoo! Profile:
kerry_33au Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
<Some say that Child Protection must be at 'all costs'. if it is at the cost of much of our individual freedoms, is that too much?**
ok. This was the comment I was refering too. You got me confused because you said "all costs" and then said "much of our individual freedoms" I don't see that as being specific. |
|
By: antago.nist
23/05/2008
9:10 pm Yahoo! Profile:
antago.nist Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
"oo"oo"oo" Welcome to N*A*Z*I Germany!. To think that you would willingly sacrifice your freedom of association for this. You would ditch your constitutional protection against illegal search and seizure. And what about the right to take photos of crows that may (shock horror) contain children. Ready to go to jail for that 'offence'.
Wow I go afk for a few hours to have a life and I check in and without diving too far back I find a post that indicates someone is still on topic.
Cheers longweekend.
I tried to engage a few people face to face on this over the last 2 hours and 'polarised' doesn't come close. |
|
By: ripfelix
23/05/2008
9:12 pm Yahoo! Profile:
ripfelix Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
| The point as I see it is not whether it is pornographic or not, rather should photos of nude underage girls be accepted as legitimate in any form of media, be it art, advertising, movies etc. |
|
By: schwangfucious
23/05/2008
9:13 pm Yahoo! Profile:
schwangfucious Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
>>>>>on a personal note tho, I wouldnt go see it if it was next door. I dont find it offensive altho I do find it in bad taste.
I'd agree on that. I couldn't see any "Artistic" merit in it, just the same as I couldn;t see any "pornographic" content. It was just boring sh ite! But on the subject of sexualising children, it was about as sexual as getting out of the shower. the controversy is probably going to cause more harm to girl than having the pictures taken. Now she probably thinks she's a dirty little who re who's been selling her ar se to paedophiles. That can;t be good for her self esteem |
|
By: imagetaker2003
23/05/2008
9:13 pm Yahoo! Profile:
imagetaker2003 Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
| I say....GROW UP AUSTRALIA......this photographer is recognized all over the world.....there is a difference between art and porn...recognize it. D (photographer) |
|
By: schwangfucious
23/05/2008
9:14 pm Yahoo! Profile:
schwangfucious Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
| Can't keep talking, wife wants to use the computer |
|
By: longweekend58
23/05/2008
9:14 pm Yahoo! Profile:
longweekend58 Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
<<Some say that Child Protection must be at 'all costs'. if it is at the cost of much of our individual freedoms, is that too much?**
ok. This was the comment I was refering too. You got me confused because you said "all costs" and then said "much of our individual freedoms" I don't see that as being specific.>
May have been a tad unclear. Glad it was cleared up, but there ARE people who woudl happily give up personal freedoms to keep them safe from predators and terrorists only to find out that they have placed themselves in prison and thrown away the key. |
|
By: ripfelix
23/05/2008
9:22 pm Yahoo! Profile:
ripfelix Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
"happily give up personal freedoms to keep them safe from predators and terrorists"
Don't we do this every day. Public drunkenness laws protect us from drunken louts in public. Public nudity protects us from flashers. In fact almost every law is designed to protect someone from something. You will only trade the freedoms if you practice the illegal behaviour.
What you actually do by demanding less freedom is to invite lower levels of protection. |
|
