|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Rob Philpott wrote: f you want to smoke, that's your business and not for others to tell you whether you can or can't (as long as you do it such that if affects no-one else),
... provided you sign a waiver that you will not be treated in any hospital paid by my tax dollars by any doctor affiliated with a public health system funded by me.
In general, I see it as a continuum between a society that has very few rules and provides very few services and a society with lots of rules but also lots of services. Different cultures sit/stood in different places going from the Old Testament where the 10 commandments were quite enough but, if something bad happened to you, you had only your immediate family to count on. Nowadays in complicated social-democratic countries with tons of rules there are also myriad support systems from social services to ambulances, police, coast guard and whatnot.
Unfortunately you cannot have one without the other: if you want to be free to do whatever you want, don't ask for public services to come help you when things go south. Looks like most people would rather have a social safety net and are willing to accept certain limitations in their lifestyle (like not smoking in public places). As most social compromises, this is a pendulum that might well swing the other way.
Mircea
|
|
|
|
|
I mostly agree with view 1, but maybe view 2 is necessary for some people. E.g. my neighbour will smoke even when he's sick and I hear him nearly coughing his lungs out every day. I understand it's an addiction and maybe some people need to be forced to quit, for their own health.
|
|
|
|
|
This is what smokers get to look forward too: Emphysema[^].
As a lifetime asthmatic, I can tell you, from experience, that not being able to breathe is no fun at all. So my choice is not to breathe second hand smoke. That is my personal right. I am not interested in emphysema on top of my asthma.
Graeme
"I fear not the man who has practiced ten thousand kicks one time, but I fear the man that has practiced one kick ten thousand times!" - Bruce Lee
|
|
|
|
|
There's bad habits ... and then there are enablers of bad habits; creating addictions.
"Before entering on an understanding, I have meditated for a long time, and have foreseen what might happen. It is not genius which reveals to me suddenly, secretly, what I have to say or to do in a circumstance unexpected by other people; it is reflection, it is meditation." - Napoleon I
|
|
|
|
|
Get reminded of this person.
He outlived all the doctors who advised him to quit smoking.
Looks like one in a billion possibility, though.
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, you have to love the world's oldest man spends his days 'eating and smoking'!
Regards,
Rob Philpott.
|
|
|
|
|
My wife is allergic to cigarette and cigar smoke. She does her best to avoid smokers as a result and we won't go places where we have reason to believe there will be smokers, but when someone lights up in areas that are posted as no smoking they are now impacting her health.
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
