|
Jeremy Falcon wrote: Once you start taking photos of naked kids everywhere, it's a fine line between learning and child abuse. That's a parental matter anyway and doesn't belong in schoolbooks.
You tell me that I must not bring the photo albums from my childhood to the US of A.
In my childhood, kids went naked on the beach, or played in the garden naked, until they started school. In my days, that was after you had turned seven. Within the family, kids different sex might go in the shower together until their bodies started showing clear signs of puberty (which was a lot later then than it is today). Noone worried about "child abuse" just because you could see naked kids lots of places. Immature kids were not considered objects for sexual gratification. Cute, of course, so you might want to take their photo, but not in any erotic sense.
The "child abuse" industry has grown as a result of the body panic we see today. It is not an issue in nudist resorts. It is not an issue in cultures where kids run around naked everywhere, not just on the beach. Except that with the current body panic, we have made it "child abuse" just to take a picture of a cute, naked kid on the beach. Or anywhere else. It wasn't in my childhood.
As there are lots of photos of me naked as a kid, by modern standards I was repeatedly abused in my preschool years. Noone knew until forty or fifty years later. You could of course claim that I, without doubt, was a victim, so taking my photo on the beach as a preschooler was not a victimless crime. Therefore, the old photo albums should be burned and any of my relatives, friends or neighbors who ever photographed me, or any other kid, in the nude fifty years ago, should be reported to the police. That is what I do not want.
In some schoolbooks, photos of naked humans do belong, e.g. in sex ed and in geography where you learn about cultures where kids (and even adults) do go naked. Censoring their bodies is censoring of their culture. I suspect that your reference to "schoolbooks" cover a wider range than syllabus books: You don't want "such books" to be available to school kids at all, e.g. in a school library (where kids who don't want to check out such books have their full freedom not to).
You probably won't believe me (and certainly you wouldn't take steps to verify it  ): Kids and adults who regularly see naked human bodies of all ages and both sexes, as something everyday, natural thing, are not harmed by seeing one more body. Or a photo of one.
The harm comes from the condemnation, the panic, the fear of something undefined but it is sure to ruin your life.
Jeremy Falcon wrote: I'm proud of my country for saying no to that.
So I take it that you don't want The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn to be available in your school library in an uncensored version. When they go swimming, not only do they get stark naked, but they even make fun of, draw the attention to, how white their waists are, usually covered by their shorts. When Huck and Jim go down the Mississippi, "we was always naked, day and night, whenever the mosquitos would let us". You can't let vulnerable kids read about anyone who treats nudity as something "natural"!
|
|
|
|
|
trønderen wrote: In my childhood, kids went naked on the beach, or played in the garden naked
Not just in my childhood, my kids did that as well
|
|
|
|
|
There's a difference between your kid disrobing and playing in the backyard while you chase after them to put undies on and making it a thing to publish pictures of naked kids in books en masse. I don't know why this is lost on some people.
People want to pretend natural this and natural that, but nobody eats natural food or pays attention to natural instincts (like polygamy). We don't live in the garden of Eden anymore. Yet, naked kids is a "natural" thing we fight for? Why?
And yes, that's rhetorical. I know the answer.
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
Jeremy Falcon wrote: while you chase after them to put undies on
You do not understand this at all. I never chased after my naked dog to put his undies on. In cultures where naked kids are accepted as something normal, they "chase their kids to put undies on" no more than I chase my dog.
I am not afraid of publishing pictures of my naked dog. There are movements in the US of A working for making it unlawful for pets to display their 'private parts', mandating clothing for dogs in public. If we have the same change in attitude to clothing of dogs as we have seen the last 30-40 years in clothing of kids on the beach, we will end up with people pointing to my old photos of naked dogs, asking me in a stern voice why "it is lost on me" that this sort of pictures stimulate zoophilia.
I don't know of many people who let their kids run around naked when the kid wants to (and that is quit a lot) who are "fighting for it" - they are relaxed and ask "Why not?" The fighters are those fighting to ban, to condemn, to create victims, guilt and shame. Not those who thinks it is OK.
|
|
|
|
|
The fact you compared kids to dogs means this conversation is pointless.
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
It happened earlier than that. Such as when you compared photographs of kids on the beach to "Poisonous plants and murder" and declared that you "know the answer" to why people think naked kids are OK without relating it to erotic attraction and actions - which seems to be the "natural" reaction in your mind.
Maybe you have been studying Freud a little too much.
If you possibly can, please stay away from kids in my family and my neighborhood. I wouldn't feel safe if you were around them. Especially if they are playing on the lawn or at the beach in little or no clothes. I am truly scared by what goes on in your mind whenever you see a naked child, or even think of one.
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, I don't need moral advice from a commie who carries around pictures of naked kids in books. Take your little moral high ground act and spare me. And, I'll do you one better... stay away from me period. Even online. I don't associate with evil.
And maybe, you haven't studied anything at all.
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
trønderen wrote: You tell me that I must not bring the photo albums from my childhood to the US of A.
There are always going to be people that defend pictures of naked kids and those who are against it. I'm against it. I think it's vile and disgusting and opens the door for predators. Nothing you say will change my mind.
What I find odd is why do people want to see this so much? Why defend it so vehemently? You know what else is natural? Poisonous plants and murder. Humans are supposed to be smarter.
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
I think it might be advisable to stay at home, in the familiar culture of condemnation, shaming, guilting and creating victims of imaginary crimes.
You seem to, in your mind, create implications of simple nakedness, with regard to what it makes expected, permitted and accepted, in ways that are in serious conflict with the moral and legal values in societies where nudity is not met with panic, but a relaxed attitude. Actually, you are at risk of being view as one with dubious fantasies and desires.
Just stating that there are lots of photos of me naked as a kid, and that is OK, is far from "defending it vehemently". It is nothing even close to that of putting those family photos in the same slot as "poisonous plants and murder", claiming that a 50+ year old family photo album "opens the door for predators".
And when you (in your answer to Jörgen Andersson, above) write: "Yet, naked kids is a "natural" thing we fight for? Why? And yes, that's rhetorical. I know the answer", that "answer" that you "know", even if you only imply it without stating it, reflects something about your mental world. Actually, it is a rather grave accusation against me, my parents and lots of relatives, and numerous other people living in a culture/moral that differs from your own.
I wouldn't be surprised if you in a few years declare that you "know the answer" why I let my dog run around with uncovered genitals, and even "make it a thing to publish pictures of naked dogs in books en masse".
It seems as if you have found the right place and moral society to live in. Stick to that place. Please.
|
|
|
|
|
Humans are not dogs. I'm a Freudian who's studied the human mind a lot more than the average person. I don't expect everyone to be introspective enough to fully understand the human mind, yet I'm still surprised when I see ignorance in action. Which you can infer says something about me and you'd be correct. But I am not wrong about what I speak of... not at all.
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
I am against the pictures of naked kids being published or sent via social media or messenger but a private album that is only for the family or close friends and that will be inherited by the child when grown up... I have nothing against it.
Here were I live is pretty common to let the kids have a bath or play naked in garden. I see nothing wrong with it.
If I saw someone unknown taking pictures from the limit of the yard, I would call the cops right away. But if I see the same person taking the pictures in the garden where the rest of the family members are present as long as the kids sound happy, sincerelly laughing and so on... Not my business.
M.D.V. 
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
We're mostly the same, except I'd tell my kids to put on some undies. Just don't see why folks don't get there's a difference between that and these "books" they're defending.
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
To be honest... I am not defending the books, but I do think that information, when given fully and correctly is the best kids can get. To learn properly anatomy and differences between girls and boys, I do not care if they see naked human bodies or drawing of naked human bodies.
I see your point and your concerns, usually I am one message chain braker, but I forwarded this one to a big part of my contacts: Nachricht von Ella | Without Consent - YouTube[^]
On the other hand, I do think too that, in some arguments of yours, you go too far in the other direction.
I wonder... where is the healthy middle point?
M.D.V.
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
Nelek wrote: On the other hand, I do think too that, in some arguments of yours, you go too far in the other direction.
Well... not sure if that relates to this thread in particular or just my general chats on CP. If it's the latter, I totally agree. Although, from my perspective I don't because I love talking about deep subjects, study a lot, do critical thinking, and understand a lot of things most people won't bother to or they're just not capable of.
Like, I know your intent with talking. So, I'm not as snarky ya know. So, if you asked me about stuff others may consider too deep, I'd eat it up like candy. Deep down, this is how I prefer to operate. In doing so, I've learned what 99% of people never will. The weak can't handle the truth. The strong live for it. The weak outnumber the strong. But when you start dropping truth bombs online... get ready for the hate.
I get it though; I annoy weak people. The person most hated is he who speaks the truth. And, I'm sure some on CP may think me crazy, but it's only the "crazy" people who are considered a genius after their time.
Nelek wrote: I wonder... where is the healthy middle point?
Well, that would take a level of maturity like you've displayed. Not sure I have that.  And I know for sure most peeps on CP don't.
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
I am someone that usually polarize people too, some love me, some hate me, most both depending on how is my day going. 
Jeremy Falcon wrote: I'm sure some on CP may think me crazy
Not sure if crazy is the correct word... PITA would be more accurate   
Jeremy Falcon wrote: but it's only the "crazy" people who are considered a genius after their time.
I have a little problem with the "only", not all crazy and not always. There are a lot of crazy people that will remain considered crazy after their time.
Jeremy Falcon wrote: The weak can't handle the truth.
I would change the "weak" with "wrong", there are strong people that can't handle it either.
Jeremy Falcon wrote: But when you start dropping truth bombs online... get ready for the hate.
One of my favourite contras... "Oh, perfect! Insults... the last resource when simple minds run out of arguments. If at least they were original..." that drives them nuts
Jeremy Falcon wrote: Well, that would take a level of maturity like you've displayed.
Thanks. It is not usual to see you making a compliment, and even more scarce to get it personally.
M.D.V. 
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
Nelek wrote: I am someone that usually polarize people too, some love me, some hate me, most both depending on how is my day going
Welcome to the cool club.
Nelek wrote: Not sure if crazy is the correct word... PITA would be more accurate
Nelek wrote: There are a lot of crazy people that will remain considered crazy after their time.
Touché
Nelek wrote: I would change the "weak" with "wrong", there are strong people that can't handle it either.
Well in particular, I mean strong minded... which isn't always being stubborn. Totally agree there are a lot of stubborn people that may come of as such, but I consider them closed off and hardly any better.
Nelek wrote: One of my favourite contras... "Oh, perfect! Insults... the last resource when simple minds run out of arguments. If at least they were original..." that drives them nuts
I ain't gonna lie, I've done that too. You're right in that it's a cop-opt. After decades of arguing though... I kinda like it.
Nelek wrote: It is not usual to see you making a compliment, and even more scarce to get it personally.
Totally agree there. I do have a negative bias which stems from my contrarian core philosophy. And please take this the right way, but there's also the fact that deep down I don't have much respect for peeps online that hide behind fake screen names and profiles. I did that too as a kid. I grew up. So, for sure, when it comes to CP I already know the caliber of people I'm dealing with.
But yeah, I feel ya. I have worked on giving out compliments in real life. So, I am better at it. Just ya know... probably never gonna happen with CP.
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
Jeremy Falcon wrote: Well in particular, I mean strong minded... which isn't always being stubborn. Totally agree there are a lot of stubborn people that may come of as such, but I consider them closed off and hardly any better.
Fair enough
Jeremy Falcon wrote: You're right in that it's a cop-opt
 cop-opt? Never saw this expression before...
Jeremy Falcon wrote: And please take this the right way, but there's also the fact that deep down I don't have much respect for peeps online that hide behind fake screen names and profiles. I did that too as a kid. I grew up.
I can understand it, but I have been using this Nick since the very beginning in most of the places I have been online in my life (even in games), so the ones I met 25 years ago (and still remember it) would be able to recognise me as well...
Fvck... I just realized I have used "25 years ago", referring to me in adult age... damn it
M.D.V.
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
Nelek wrote: cop-opt?
Have no idea how that phrase came to be... but it means to avoid doing something. Taking the easy way. Not doing it, etc.
Nelek wrote: Fvck... I just realized I have used "25 years ago", referring to me in adult age... damn it
Welcome to the club brother. On the upside we get to start taking Bingo seriously soon.
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
trønderen wrote: I don't know the legal status of the pocket edition
Your concern is probably valid.
Not so much as to whether a native born US citizen can buy them but rather whether an immigrant or even visitor who either brings them in a bag or attempts to have them shipped from another country might go through.
Even if finally deemed legal the legal costs for defending oneself could be crippling.
|
|
|
|
|
Not so amusing story about books
When I departed the U.S. Army in 1967 I took a job with a very reputable pharmaceutical company CIBA
One of our promotional concepts was to distribute to Medical Schools and Teaching Hospitals books by
Frank Netter.
Frank H. Netter - Wikipedia[^]
In High School for 4 years I had a Library Science Class with a wonderful teacher.
So when I obtained a complete set of Netter Atlas's I decided to donate these to my High School Library
The same teacher was still there and was so excited she called the Biology teacher to come have a look.
Please bear in mind these lithographs are anatomically correct.
Biology teacher said "I think we need to have these approved before students can see them"
Now I know why I did not learn any useful Biology !
YES that was 1970 IMHO we have lost our way when we censor books
|
|
|
|
|
trønderen wrote: I do not consider a ban on public smoking a "moral" law, but a way to protect myself (and others) from harm.
While I do believe in freedom, I gotta agree with this too. If it were victimless that would be one thing... it's not though.
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
No, those viewpoints are not mutually exclusive.
If you do it such that if affects no-one else, you're not a member of society.
Smoking affects my Insurance policy/Tax, so it isn't just about secondary smoking.
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, some insurance companies have surcharge (significant one) for smokers. I know because I had a friend in my previous company that smokes (hardly anybody still smokes in the US). I wonder in this case why they don't have the same penalty for fat people, or alcoholics? Because they vastly outnumber the smokers and are bigger burden for the health system.
Advertise here – minimum three posts per day are guaranteed.
|
|
|
|
|
Single Step Debugger wrote: (hardly anybody still smokes in the US)
I question that statement.
Quick look suggests it is still 10%. And that is 'cigarettes'.
Looks like it goes up to 20% when one includes vaping with nicotine.
|
|
|
|
|
10% sound about right, but it looks like you've never been to Europe. Or outside the US. People smoke! I mean like...half of them.
Advertise here – minimum three posts per day are guaranteed.
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
