Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Comment on Article Comparing HP vs. Epson Printers  (Read 10680 times)
paulbk
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 468



« Reply #20 on: March 21, 2007, 10:45:52 PM »
ReplyReply

RE: "I had not realized that some people in the US were this sensitive to nudity. Although what Rob C wrote about Talibans is going too far, I understand what he means."

Not too far. I agree with Rob C. 100%.

I have no problem with folks who find the image in question offensive. I have a big problem when they try to impose their sensitivities on me.

p
« Last Edit: March 21, 2007, 10:46:29 PM by paulbk » Logged

paul b. kramarchyk
Barkhamsted, Connecticut, USA
John Camp
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1259


« Reply #21 on: March 21, 2007, 11:05:19 PM »
ReplyReply

I would also prefer notification of this kind of material. I almost misssed it.  

JC
Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8901


« Reply #22 on: March 21, 2007, 11:25:19 PM »
ReplyReply

Just goes to show how significant sex is in our society. Without it, I think it would be no exaggeration to say, we would not exist.
Logged
Pete JF
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 200


« Reply #23 on: March 22, 2007, 12:58:20 AM »
ReplyReply

Sexual repression is a helluva drug. If my kids had seen me looking at that pic I would have just told them to pull up a chair and set a spell. When you create walls around fairly innocent stuff like this, you only feed the fire and encourage the notion that it is wrong, dirty, abnormal. America is pathetic in this regard. I say we should have pictures of naked people everywhere...naked naked naked. Those girls are pretty and seemed to have enjoyed the photo shoot. Rejoice.
« Last Edit: March 22, 2007, 12:59:40 AM by Pete JF » Logged
cmburns
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 45


« Reply #24 on: March 22, 2007, 03:19:50 AM »
ReplyReply

I've spent the last couple of months in New Zealand and Australia and spent a decent amount of time in Europe in the past few years. I am shocked now to be back in the USA and see how censored our television and life in general is here. I watched some USA tv show in New Zealand where they do plastic surgery. In America they of course blur out the breasts because seeing those would be traumatizing. In New Zealand you see the breast, same show, just not blurred out. Honestly they should probably blur them out, in the USA you see two blurry lumps. In New Zealand you get to see that after the operation one lump is a few inches lower than the other and a different size, lol.
     I also got very use to watching Gordon Ramsay cuss out everyone and anyone on his BBC show. Those words of course would damage a young lad or lass here in the USA. Thankfully the show isn't shown here, well they tried with Hells Kitchen but it was so bleeped out you didn't know what was going on. One thing I didn't see a lot of there was gratuitious violence. Thankfully here I can see all I want, well of course unless it's real. Overseas I got to see photos and videos of the war in Iraq showing blood and dead people, sometimes even dead US soldiers. Thankfully that all gets censored out here in the USA so we don't have to think about it.
         What i'm trying to say is what seems the norm here in America is utterly preposterous to the rest of the western world. Some friends in New Zealand were amazed that we didn't allow nudity and cussing on tv, because of the influence of the church in America, yet these same church people were completely for the war where thousands of people were being killed.
     Americans tend to think of Canada as our bassackwards Molson drinking neighbors to the north eh. But they're generally a lot more advanced and European in their censorship attitudes. Just watch some of the documentaries on CBC sometime to see this. Oh yeah, we don't get those here in America, too much cussing and nudity mixed in with the information, and hell too much information for that matter, might get people in the USA thinking and we sure don't want that. I bring up Canada because the last time I checked, that was where Michael was from. People should keep this in mind before they start telling him to change this website that's read worldwide, so that it meets with the USA's draconian standards on what's morally decent or not.
« Last Edit: March 22, 2007, 03:21:05 AM by cmburns » Logged
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #25 on: March 22, 2007, 04:58:45 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi

mac - I think that too much attention is already watsed on Modesty; we have a Chancellor in the UK who wastes even more time on a hussy called Prudence...

Jae - The example of a teacher being fired in the US is mirrored in the UK where an entire art, yes, ART class was closed because a teacher had photographed a mature student, wearing a bikini, sitting on a back-to-front chair in the manner of our famous Christine Keeler of governmental scandal fame. Those mini-Talis are more prevalent than you might think.

Bernard - A well reasoned post and one with which I have a great deal of sympathy. I worked as a fashion and then, later, calendar photographer from the mid-sixties onward until my turn had passed; I have two kids who were born in the 60s and as a photographer, I was very aware of what was going down in the world of magazines. I had a subscription to Playboy for many of those years and I used to leave it around in full sight of the entire family. Sometimes the kids flicked through it, mostly they didn't have the slightest interest. Then, possibly to compete with Penthouse, I felt Playboy moved into a direction of which I wasn't fond and I cancelled. So there you are - even this libertine has a level of inner approval of what he reads or otherwise. But that's far from a Taliban mindset!

To those who didn't know the magazine of those years: yes, it did indeed have wonderfully written articles on all manner of subjects and if one wanted to improve the range of one's vocabulary, it was a good place to start!

As to whether the picture that started all this has anything to do with loving relationships, I haven't a clue; I'd be more inclined to believe that the two girls probably worked in the same model agency and that's all that there is to it.

Nice shot.

Ciao - Rob C
« Last Edit: March 22, 2007, 05:03:28 AM by Rob C » Logged

Ben Rubinstein
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1733


« Reply #26 on: March 22, 2007, 07:44:23 AM »
ReplyReply

It's lesbian pornography. Whether you are OK with that is one thing but call a spade a spade.
Logged

Petrjay
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 104


« Reply #27 on: March 22, 2007, 08:46:27 AM »
ReplyReply

Come on pom, gimme a break - that photograph might be hokey, pedestrian, and feature all the warmth of George Bush signing another death warrant, but porn it ain't. I can't help but wonder if the OP would post warnings in the vicinity of Auguste Rodin's "The Kiss" or Michelangelo's "David." Frankly, I've become weary of being lectured on the subject of morality by a pack of self-righteous frauds who think nothing of slaughtering thousands while wringing their hands over the prospect of their kids actually seeing what a human being looks like. Anyone who's afraid of what appears on the internet or television has the options of turning off or getting rid of their computers or TVs, or better yet, actually supervising their kids. Now there's a novel concept.
Logged
Ben Rubinstein
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1733


« Reply #28 on: March 22, 2007, 09:25:05 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Come on pom, gimme a break - that photograph might be hokey, pedestrian, and feature all the warmth of George Bush signing another death warrant, but porn it ain't. I can't help but wonder if the OP would post warnings in the vicinity of Auguste Rodin's "The Kiss" or Michelangelo's "David." Frankly, I've become weary of being lectured on the subject of morality by a pack of self-righteous frauds who think nothing of slaughtering thousands while wringing their hands over the prospect of their kids actually seeing what a human being looks like. Anyone who's afraid of what appears on the internet or television has the options of turning off or getting rid of their computers or TVs, or better yet, actually supervising their kids. Now there's a novel concept.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=108063\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I'm sorry? Two naked women hugging each other and with that expression on their faces and it's not porn? Maybe not very explicit porn but it certainly is pornography. You're entitled to it but I have a right to want not to be exposed to it as do a huge proportion of the world who would agree with me. If you want to be liberal then maybe think of the rights of people who don't agree with you, who believe in their rights to protect their own morality?

I think that I could have expected not to come across such a picture on this website. On the majority of photo forums any post with nudity is prefaced with a warning be it 'nude' or 'don't look at work', etc. That is respecting others rights, beliefs and morals. To advocate exposing the public to such a photo without any warning, in the full knowledge that many people will find it offensive is to make yourself as guilty as those you class as hypocrits above.

Do you not realise just how offensive the American concept of 'you will accept our lack of morality when we shove it in your face' is to so much of the rest of the world? Your statement above, I'm not allowed access to the internet because if I do then I must accept that I will have nudity and porn shoved in my face inadvertedly and without warning. How dare you cut off the entire internet to me just because you can't accept me having a problem with that kind of exposure. Why can I not be warned at least so that I have the CHOICE! You don't seem to think that I should be allowed a choice at all, that I have to accept your views.

The OP may choose not to go to see the art you mention, but when he is exposed to something like that photo on a website that he could have assumed that he wouldn't have seen that photo then I can agree that he has a valid reason to have been surprised. This is MR's website and he can do as he pleases, it's his right to do so. However given the level of public exposure that this website has it would be resonable to request a level of sensitivity to the percentage of viewers who will find such a photo offensive even if it just be a warning.
Logged

howiesmith
Guest
« Reply #29 on: March 22, 2007, 09:55:40 AM »
ReplyReply

I have a question for those who need to look at pornograhy.  When searching for it, do you look at LL first?  Last?  Not at all?

I would guess LL never comes to mind.  So, surprise.  Those looking for pornograhy don't look, those not expecting get surprised.
Logged
CatOne
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 386


WWW
« Reply #30 on: March 22, 2007, 10:32:09 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
It's lesbian pornography. Whether you are OK with that is one thing but call a spade a spade.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=108054\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

ROFL.  Dude, it's an artistic picture.  Pornography, indeed.  Make sure you tithe this weekend.  $20 minimum!
Logged

LoisWakeman
Guest
« Reply #31 on: March 22, 2007, 10:34:18 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
but it certainly is pornography. [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=108067\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The problem with that statement - and others of the opposite view above - is that often, pornography (like beauty) is in the eye of the beholder. It is not possible except at the very extreme to be dogmatic about what is or isn't offensive, pornographic, beautiful, ugly, or whatever.  And even at the extreme, there will be some weirdo who thinks it's OK.

One person's porn is another's pinup or mild erotica or yawnfest. Now, I must go and see what all the fuss is about.
Logged
howiesmith
Guest
« Reply #32 on: March 22, 2007, 10:42:17 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
And even at the extreme, there will be some weirdo who thinks it's OK.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=108077\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
But Lois, don't weirdo extremists have rights too?

The OP did not even suggest that they don't, merely that it would be helpful to warn.
Logged
Ben Rubinstein
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1733


« Reply #33 on: March 22, 2007, 10:44:35 AM »
ReplyReply

According to wikipedia:

"In general, "erotica" refers to portrayals of sexually arousing material that hold or aspire to artistic or historical merit, whereas "pornography" often connotes the prurient depiction of sexual acts, with little or no artistic value. "

My apologies. Not that I expected erotica either...
Logged

macgyver
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 510


« Reply #34 on: March 22, 2007, 10:48:40 AM »
ReplyReply

Thank you Pom, I am so sick of people so caught up in advocating their own right to see something that they blow past others who might not want to see something.
Logged
Pete JF
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 200


« Reply #35 on: March 22, 2007, 11:01:05 AM »
ReplyReply

That ain't porn, folks.

It, might be soft porn..erotica (same thing IMO) depending on where you grew up and what taboos you were gifted with by your parents, community or church. My parents would have laughed and winked at each other and then said.."son, that ain't art." And I would have said, "Maybe not, mom and dad, but for now it'll do."

...No nipples, no boody. If you go to the art museum you'll see paintings that are more graphic/revealing than that. Nothing more than you would see on flip through a fashion magazine, National Geographic in it's prime or a walk down the beach on a hot summer day. the mischevious look on the girls face? Big deal..gay people do exist.

That photo doesn't cut it as art, that's for sure...I think the boys at the printing stuido use that as a standard for a good print, that's about it. For them, it's all about the tonal gradation and dither on curved surfaces.

I think Michael's having a good giggle on this one...
« Last Edit: March 22, 2007, 11:04:01 AM by Pete JF » Logged
paulbk
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 468



« Reply #36 on: March 22, 2007, 12:16:00 PM »
ReplyReply

The most interesting aspect about all this is how it exposes members’ core values. One could read each post beginning to end and check the box that applies:
(a) understands art, (b) uptight artist not.

Good grief people! Look at the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel. Is that gratuitous sex? I think not.

p
« Last Edit: March 22, 2007, 12:16:38 PM by paulbk » Logged

paul b. kramarchyk
Barkhamsted, Connecticut, USA
howiesmith
Guest
« Reply #37 on: March 22, 2007, 01:01:23 PM »
ReplyReply

This is another topic that arguments will probably not change anyone's point of view.

As a Christian, I don't believe that at the final judgement (shown in the Sistine Chapel), "But I am an artist" will be an adequate defense.  Nor will "I don't believe that."

Jesus taught that we are responsible for telling others, but not for their decisions.  This may cut both ways.  Nonbelievers are not responsible for the beleiver's decision.
Logged
michael
Administrator
Sr. Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4894



« Reply #38 on: March 22, 2007, 01:03:44 PM »
ReplyReply

OK folks, I think we've explored this sufficiently.

Michael
Logged
Pages: « 1 [2]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad