• 🇬🇧󠁿 🇸🇪 🇿🇦 🇮🇪 🇬🇭 🇩🇪 🇪🇺
    European & African
    Drug Discussion

    Welcome Guest!
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
  • EADD Moderators: Pissed_and_messed | Shinji Ikari

Father, photographer, Child Pornographer.

One Thousand Words said:
Most psychologist are no more accurate than astrologists.

Then again the Bible is a text passed on by mouth for 500 yrs so I don't really think accuracy is your strong point either
Click to expand...

otw, you're full of more shite than the entire of Shambles 35 minute links.

here's a linky for you:

read it and learn:

Wasn’t the Bible passed down verbally from generation to generation before it was written?


"A common misconception about the Bible is that it was passed down by word of mouth from generation to generation before it was written, so therefore it must be the words of men, and unreliable. If the Bible is man’s writing, then it deserves no more credit or attention than any other great book. In the final analysis, what we believe about the Bible will determine our attitude about it and in large part set the spiritual tone for our lives".
 
Looking at a photograph is the ultimate one-way communication. A photograph is just an arrangement of points of light as they existed for an instant in time, captured and reproduced by some chemical or electromechanical process. There is no way fir someone looking at a photograph to exert any influence at all over the person depicted therein.

I can see that some people might find this counter-intuitive at first, though.
 
^ Quite. This horror at the thought of entirely innocent pix of children exists purely in the mind of the beholder. It says far, far more about them than it does about those who take such photographs.

Creepy_McGee said:
read it and learn:

Wasn’t the Bible passed down verbally from generation to generation before it was written?
Click to expand...

That'd be correct for the (first) sequel but the original most definitely was passed down orally for hundreds of years. Part II is a compilation put together by either the Orthodox or early Catholic church depending on personal preference. I suspect you prefer neither so that'd leave you dangling by your third leg at best ;)
 
In situations such as this I find it useful to remember how stupid the average person is then also remember that 50% of the population is dumber than that.
 
Owen you're the one oblivious to seeing that what ur parents see, might not be acceptable to the entire WWW.

That makes you stupider, than probably 96% of the population







Then we have Shambles trying to defend OTW's ignorant claims, that he must have pulled out of his own arse. I'll have to get back to you t'moro with specifics, now not a lot of time right now to go googlin' etc
 
Yeah it's not just my parents who sees them though is it, it's anyone who enters her house. I wouldn't care if it was the internet either. It's clearly perfectly innocent in the case of this guy and there's nothing wrong with those pictures being available for everyone to see. It's art you fucking idiot.
 
What are we going to go for next, ban kids running around naked at the beach? What is wrong with this world ffs
 
THECATINTHEHAT said:
Yeah it's not just my parents who sees them though is it, it's anyone who enters her house. I wouldn't care if it was the internet either. It's clearly perfectly innocent in this case and there's nothing wrong with those pictures being available for everyone to see. It's art you fucking idiot.
Click to expand...

lol, changing ur story now

You're example was terrible, and unrepresentative to the whole case, no comprehension of the repercussions of widespread. We don't care what u think (which suits this argument); it's about the child in focus...

Now shy away, and think of the fallacy in your argument... rather than hopelessly trying to redeem ur pathetic argument.
 
Are you seriously suggesting that anything that somebody online might find offensive should be banned, Raas? Are you offering to be first?

I wasn't defending OTW's claims abuot anything I was clarifying is all. "The Bible" is a library of books - a compilation of dozens of texts written over centuries (look up what the word "bible" actually means beyond being the adopted name of your fave bedtime reading) - whilst I suspect you mainly think of "The Bible" in terms of the Jesussy bit. The earliest dates suggested for the four "accepted" gospels only allow for a couple to realistically have been written (or orated anyway - unless yer average member of the then minor Jewish cult happened to speak fluent Greek to similar standards to classically trained Greek writers of the age which seems a longshot for fishermen and tax collectors to be honest) by anybody alive at the time yer man Jeebus was supposed to be doing the rounds in more physical form. They're all much, much closer to the source than Part I (or certainly the majority of it) is though so I was actually (semi-)agreeing with you.
 
The earliest recorded text involving Jesus are at least 20yr after his death with most chapters written almost 80 yrs later.

Then you take into account translation errors from different languages and the accuracy of God's Word gets a little shaky.

The earliest copy of today's modern Bible is the Masoretic Text, which is from around 900AD.

Hooray, I was awake in at least on school sermon
 
Creepy_McGee said:
lol, changing ur story now

You're example was terrible, and unrepresentative to the whole case, no comprehension of the repercussions of widespread. We don't care what u think (which suits this argument); it's about the child in focus...

Now shy away, and think of the fallacy in your argument... rather than hopelessly trying to redeem urself.
Click to expand...

Er, what? How am I changing my story? The point I'm making is that documenting that stage of your child's development and allowing people to see it is in no way perverse. Whether it's a small number of people or a large number of people makes no difference. How is this ever going to harm the child in question?

The point about him being a photographer and it being art is merely further vindication of the total innocence of the photos and why there is no harm in allowing other people to witness them.

I genuinely worry for some people sometime. I love the way he has responded to the cretinous onslaught by turning it in some sort of meta-art by juxtaposing it with their responses. Most satisfying.
 
One Thousand Words said:
The earliest recorded text involving Jesus are at least 20yr after his death with most chapters written almost 80 yrs later.

Then you take into account translation errors from different languages and the accuracy of God's Word gets a little shaky.

The earliest copy of today's modern Bible is the Masoretic Text, which is from around 900AD.

Hooray, I was awake in at least on school sermon
Click to expand...

There are complete copies of many of the biblical texts which are far, far older than that (Dead Sea Scrolls etc) but the "full" text as in what you'd buy (or shoplift - still the most shoplifted book in history (oh the irony =D)) in a shop today obviously wouldn't have existed cos it was only assembled sometime around the 5th century.
 
If you look at the Old Testament, or more accurately the stuff Jews were probably right about, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers were supposed to be written by Moses some where between 16000-12000BC. Even then it wasn't written down for another 5000-10000 years yet. They were nothing more than stories told around a desert campfire to scare the little African kids to go to sleep. We still can't get an accurate copy of the Stonehenge plans so I doubt very much God's message hasn't been misinterpreted many times before King James got busy.

Psychiatry can't even explain homosexuals so they get lumped in with the religious quacks and doomsday preppers for me.
 
Actually, homosexuality is pretty easy to explain. We're gregarious predators with a long lifespan, and DNA isn't the sole means of heredity. There is more to raising the next generation of humans than mere eggs and sperm. Which makes homosexuality a far less deleterious trait than one might naïvely expect if they thought it was all about sex: Raising the next generation involves plenty of work which being gay doesn't stop anyone from doing.
 
Really? I know plenty of gay parents. The logistics are more or less the same, give or take a turkey baster.
(And a donor/surrogate or what have you...families are complicated business - but what's new?
Ask Jesus about complicated families [or at least Jesus as described by the Vatican for the past couple of hundred years, when they chucked in that shit about virgin birth and Mary making it with god])

As previously mentioned, however - I totally agree with you on this one, busty.
Who'da thunk it? Nude kiddies as a source of consensus.
Then again, Creepy's gotta be trolling. Or...simply being creepy.

I mean, really - the Internet is the tone we are supposed to set our ethical clocks by now? Hilarious.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, but the point is that it's neither necessary nor desirable for every adult to be breeding.

Being gay doesn't stop you from doing any of the other jobs that are necessary in bringing up the next generation -- teaching them life skills, bringing home food, maintaining the buildings of the village, and so forth and so on.
 
Christian missionaries in overpopulated developing nations that discourage proper sex education, contraception and family planning services (to people/communities that really cannot afford to have large families) do a lot more harm in this world than a father photographing his child at an age of innocence; before the body-shame of certain dominant cultures (another unfortunate export of Christian missionaries across the world) takes effect.

Toddlers do not have a concept of sex; the human body is naked in its natural state, and nothing is more normal and untainted by humanity than a child who has not learned shame - but our current western hegemony allows for only a really narrow acceptance of nakedness - one that is being confined more and more by extreme prudish ideologues (religious or not).

People get up in arms about the "sexualisation of children" at young ages, but taking offence - or seeing something inappropriate -about a kid being depicted without clothes in photographs (something that has been a part of photography - particularly in the past [however many] decades of home photography) is exactly the same premature 'sexualisation' of children (but i would argue far more sinister than a little girl wanting to copy adults by wearing a mini skirt or whatever.

This case is also a matter of freedom of expression and art.
One that lacks the sophistication to understand the argument in that case is probably a lost cause IMHO.

Belittling people for their religious beliefs is a form of bigotry - but using religious bigotry to be so petty is just the other side of the coin.
Sterilisation is a sound option in such cases, I feel.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top