I wasn't aware there was any personal animosity between us, raas. There certainly ain't on my side.
I simply believe that occasionally you make ridiculous statements, and I offer my own view. Sometimes I'll slip in a joke in order to make my posts appear less hostile. Unfortunately, when you're in this mode, you tend to miss the fact I'm not trying to persecute you for your views, but simply challenge them.
To characterise my posts as personal attacks (when they clearly aren't) is a neat way of avoiding any of the points I make.
Well, if my views are so "ridiculous", surely it would be best to clarify where and how they are wrong, and then that would leave you in a great position to constructively improve them and enlighten me with your superior levels of understanding?
Saying
"Sorry to say this, but your argument is pretty fucking dumb" just comes off as rude, petty and puerile.
And "sweeten a terse message with a little humour" does not at all fairly describe your post to me. The humour is clearly at my expense, and insinuating I post peoples photobucket pictures without permission is just another subtle defamation.
As I said before, I largely
agree with most of what SHM said, I just think a couple of pictures from the entire album maybe considered inappropriate, knowing of the sensitivities of child porn on the Internet, and also consideration that it may cause embarrassment to the person photo'd. I can't see how that is so ridiculous and " fucking dumb" to suggest. Your post just reads argumentative and ignorant. I could guess the content before reading it, just by looking at the username.
^ The "personal animosities" statement was probably aimed at myself or another perceived situation that has since been u/a. Given the latter has been u/a I'll just say that I have no personal animosity towards Raas or anybody else as such. Some people do really, really annoy me at times though and Raas would fit that category to a tee. I can separate disagreement - however vehement - from the person though.
I meant
people - like yourself - who claim some form of moral superiority because they claim to have some form of spiritual or religious belief which is inherently superior to any other form of moral belief system. Only their own particular one presumably cos otherwise there'd be none of the squabbling between various forms of religious belief but suddenly that's all forgotten when it suits to claim superior numbers equate to actual superiority. More hypocrisy, Raas? You do surprise me
But that aside, it
is only these "moral majority" types who are obsessed with naked children as far as I can see. Who else trawls the internet to dredge up perfectly innocent pix and try to whip up a Paedogeddon frenzy over them other than such people? Wouldn't even cross the mind of people who don't already have it on their mind - for whatever reason. I'm not suggesting that these people are some kinda closet paedo group but am saying their own unfounded fears and prejudices are so grossly disproportionate to anything that exists in reality that their actions are more likely to create problems where there would otherwise be none. Nobody who doesn't have an unhealthy interest in the naked childform would look at such pix as anything other than what they are. By kicking up such a fuss I'd be reasonably sure they've now made it on to various harddrives around the world for grubbier purposes than there is any intrinsic suggestion of purely because they've now been labelled as being worth a wank.
This post is pretty spectacular, even for you.
I can't believe you try dragging in my religious views, which has nothing to do with the perspective and simple points I offered, towards the appropriateness of the photo's. Like Sammy, you completely miss my argument and get carried away with your own attempts at belittling and defaming.
You're depiction that religious people, such as myself have a moral superiority complex which leads us to be, as you described "obsessed with naked children"... is so delusional and unrepresentative of people who simply hold valid concerns on the appropriateness of publishing such material, it's laughable.
Shambles said:
Your point on privacy is as vapid as others have pointed out but I'll repeat my question you didn't feel the need to answer cos is of some relevance: where are you drawing this arbitrary line? Should all pictures of all children ever shown publicly be destroyed? All pictures of anybody under 18 - in any state of dress cos privacy has nothing to do with one's state of dress - should be banned (presumably retroactively too given the tendency for "moral majority" types to trawl for old pix to dredge up). This is what you are suggesting as far as I can tell. If not, what grounds are you deciding (on behalf of others) count as infringement of privacy and which don't? Why do you feel you should be the one to decide rather than the parents?
I don't decide anything, I just offer a perspective. Facebook decide to shut them down. And most other Internet sites they're published on. The law also, is above the parents choice and whether he violates that becomes a determination towards their existence. But, if someone feels that one is acting inappropriately, people should be able to speak out and raise their concerns. I don't see anything wrong in that.
's ya 