I realize this is off-topic, and that I should not feed the trolls any further, but if these ideas straight out of the dark ages are left unchallenged, it may seem to casual readers of the archives or the list that everybody here agrees with them. On 22 Apr 2004, at 4:05, Markus Triska wrote: > Sven: > > The picture is in no way offensive and anyone who draws a relation > > to the Dutroux tragedy is either sick himself or overly cautious. > > I think we can agree that most of us rather would not have a > screen-shot of an adult woman or man, half-naked like this, I think we can agree that we should not speak for others, lest our ignorance shines through too clearly. I reserve the right to make judgements about nude photos on a case by case basis. Personally, I have no a priory objection to any form of nudity. I do object against exploitation, but I also object against caving in to distorted morals. People do not lose dignity when they are shown naked. > in the screen-shots section, albeit professional models who get > paid for their job. I do not know why you make a difference for > children. Because there is no loss of dignity for naked children. Whether you are a religious person who follows the teachings of Christ, who said that children are without sin, or whether you actually noticed the Enlightenment that struck Europe a couple of centuries ago, no-one (well, allmost no-one) thinks a photo of a naked baby is wrong, undignified or sexually arrousing. > If I had not mailed Dave, how long would the photo still be around? > Maybe his children will be thankful some day, when they understand > what was going on, that not everyone has a photo of them with no > clothes on. And maybe if you had not mailed Dave, his children would have been spared of such extremes of narrowmindedness for a little while longer. That would truly have been something to be grateful for. > Given that Dave seems to have understood my point and removed the > picture, I don't know why you think Dave seems to have understood your point; it certainly does not follow from his removing the picture, which was for other reasons: Dave: + when I read this mail, I got defensive a bit - the thought + that someone thought the photo could be viewed sexually kind + of turned my stomach. So I took it down. In other words, it's not your point, but the fact that you raised it, that you could think of such a gruesome thing, that made Dave take the picture down. Your morals have nothing to do with it; if they had, Dave would probably not have taken the picture in the first place, let alone posted it. -- branko collin collin@xxxxxxxxx
