| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/23/2002 10:53:26 PM · #151 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
Originally posted by myqyl:
[i]Originally posted by jmsetzler:
[i]let's not rehash what is nudity/art/pornography again... I think this thread has about lived its useful life...
I agree with you John, but I have last question. Earlier in the thread you said you were on 2 other sights without nudity. Could you share the URLs? Then everyone can be somewhere they are happy :)[/i]Thanks for those two sites.
Photo Critique Forum
DigitalPhotoContest.com
[/i]
|
|
|
|
10/23/2002 10:54:13 PM · #152 |
| I am going to make a run to the head and then get some hot dogs and popcorn. Does anyone need another beer? |
|
|
|
10/23/2002 11:06:04 PM · #153 |
Originally posted by clicker:
I am going to make a run to the head and then get some hot dogs and popcorn. Does anyone need another beer?
The most insightfull thing said so far. |
|
|
|
10/23/2002 11:08:55 PM · #154 |
Originally posted by myqyl:
Originally posted by hedonist:
[i]<clip> ...Yet I still got comments that this was pornography and had no place on this site. <clip>
Actually I only see one comment that said that and it was from PTLParsons who also found my entry offensive. Anyone's guess? From the name of this person, they are either ultra-conservative, or they are a troll pretending to be ultra-conservative so they can grip about all the right wing fanatics that oppress them. My guess is the later[/i]
I don't mind saying I am the one that made those comments. Why do you have to resort to name calling just because I stated how I feel about your photo. You had your right to take the picture, post it on the site knowing there are a lot of perfectly normal people out here that have their own likes and dislikes. I have my right, by you putting your photo on here, to tell you what I think. I thought that was the reason for posting a photo - to get comments, feedback, in other words - constructive criticism. I am a normal, adult, female who happens not to look at nude females or any thing that belongs in the privacy of a bedroom. If that makes me whatever you called me, so be it. I personally think there is something wrong with someone that wants to take pictures of nudes no matter what the challenge is. If this is where their mind is all the time, they have a problem not me. I think you put this on to stir up something. It's rather childish to get this upset about one persons opinion.
* This message has been edited by the author on 10/23/2002 11:36:15 PM. |
|
|
|
10/23/2002 11:41:32 PM · #155 |
<running this thread into the ground>
Originally posted by PTLParsons:
... I'm no prude ...
<6 minutes later>
It is pure porn if you can see pubic hair ...
<16 minutes later>
... They will always get a one from me on this site, only cause I can't give a minus ...
obviously, not on the papal committee that hired Michelangelo --- but could've been on the one that wanted clothing painted on the nudes
<from one of the earlier posts>
I recommended you be disqualified and would do it again
the site rules states that "Nudity is allowed, but pornography is not. Use your good judgement here" --- i believe in this case, good judgement means taking into consideration the group-mind of the site, not your own narrow view --- i also believe that i'm entitled to the opinion that, if you give all nudes a vote of 1 without considering artistic merit, you have a narrow view --- finally, i believe that i'm going to have a beer now :)
|
|
|
|
10/23/2002 11:57:40 PM · #156 |
Unless you're saying an object has a way to kill without a user.... it's a moot point and you're being a liberal irrationalist, which is what gun control is all about :) We don't convict a gun, we convict a human for violation of crimes. (A knife's original human purpose is to kill, to hunt, to protect) Anyway, we all have our personal beliefs on this and we can agree to disagree, but i don't think you're calling for censorship or any time of "rating" systems. God forbid we should become the Soviet Union where everything is banned except for the people in control.
Shoot Straight,
Paganini
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by paganini:
[i]
Why is there a need for a checkbox for guns and bullets? A gun is an object, same goes for bullets. It takes a human to put it to bad use, it's a tool. I think if we're going to do a check box for it, we need to do it for:
- knife, it can kill too
- baseball bat, it can kill too
- fist, it can kill too
- foott, it can kill too
- car, it can kill too
- hammer, it can kill too
These items CAN be used to kill, but their primary and intended function is generally constructive (to humans).
A gun's INTENDED use is to kill. Or to pactice at becoming more proficient and economical at killing -- bullets are expensive, you know.
I don't find a hammer offensive, UNLESS you depict it smashing someone's hand. An image of a gun I generally find offensive unless it is depicted in a context opposing its use. I can appreciate the art and engineering which go into small arms, without "liking" them, and would probably be more appreciative if you showed a stack of guns being smashed by a big hammer.
Please don't criticize folks over what they are or are not offended by. Feel free to express what you, yourself, are or are not offended by. I only worry about someone who correctly claims to not be offended by anything...[/i]
* This message has been edited by the author on 10/23/2002 11:57:03 PM.
|
|
|
|
10/24/2002 12:06:37 AM · #157 |
Originally posted by paganini:
God forbid we should become the Soviet Union where everything is banned except for the people in control.
The Soviet Union crumbled 10 years ago, pag. Watch the news sometimes :P.
I'd just like to say to all those people who have advocated using a PG13 or R rating for nudes here, you are missing out on one fundamental flaw with that system... the US has far different standards for those ratings than Europe or other western countries like Australia. Many movies that are rated R in the US are PG here, including the South Park movie which made such a huge joke out of being R rated :). There is more nudity on network TV in prime time in my country than there is on DPC.
I think that like anything else on this site, we have to find a broad consensus on nudity that satisfies most of the people most of the time. That's the philosophy here. Sometimes a lot of people will be challenged and have to think a little bit, but most of the time most of the people should be comfortable. Whatever that turns out to be, let's find it.
|
|
|
|
10/24/2002 12:22:07 AM · #158 |
Why is it that someone always has to put the other person down and then make their point? Can we talk or discuss with out being hurtful? I think he was just making a point. Did you have to be so rude? You are a moderator, Right?
Originally posted by lisae:
Originally posted by paganini:
[i]God forbid we should become the Soviet Union where everything is banned except for the people in control.
The Soviet Union crumbled 10 years ago, pag. Watch the news sometimes :P.
|
|
|
|
10/24/2002 12:27:10 AM · #159 |
Originally posted by Sonifo:
Why is it that someone always has to put the other person down and then make their point? Can we talk or discuss with out being hurtful? I think he was just making a point. Did you have to be so rude? You are a moderator, Right?
I apologise if that came across as rude, even with a "tongue-in-cheek" emoticon (this one: :P). It wasn't intended as a put-down, just a joke.
|
|
|
|
10/24/2002 12:44:05 AM · #160 |
| PTLParsons also left a comment that she was going to recommend my pic for disqualification but thought that by saying so it would make a better point. Quite honestly it didn't and I was dumbfounded as to why she would recommend me for disqualification. Is it the nudity issue? There is no way in a million years I would have thought my pic fit into this catagory. I still don't think it does or ever will. |
|
|
|
10/24/2002 01:48:40 AM · #161 |
PTL, My shot didn't even have a person in it. There was no nudity... Just jewelry... Sorry my wife's pearls offended your sensibilities :)
Originally posted by PTLParsons:
Originally posted by myqyl:
[i]Originally posted by hedonist:
[i]<clip> ...Yet I still got comments that this was pornography and had no place on this site. <clip>
Actually I only see one comment that said that and it was from PTLParsons who also found my entry offensive. Anyone's guess? From the name of this person, they are either ultra-conservative, or they are a troll pretending to be ultra-conservative so they can grip about all the right wing fanatics that oppress them. My guess is the later[/i]
I don't mind saying I am the one that made those comments. Why do you have to resort to name calling just because I stated how I feel about your photo. You had your right to take the picture, post it on the site knowing there are a lot of perfectly normal people out here that have their own likes and dislikes. I have my right, by you putting your photo on here, to tell you what I think. I thought that was the reason for posting a photo - to get comments, feedback, in other words - constructive criticism. I am a normal, adult, female who happens not to look at nude females or any thing that belongs in the privacy of a bedroom. If that makes me whatever you called me, so be it. I personally think there is something wrong with someone that wants to take pictures of nudes no matter what the challenge is. If this is where their mind is all the time, they have a problem not me. I think you put this on to stir up something. It's rather childish to get this upset about one persons opinion[/i]
|
|
|
|
10/24/2002 03:58:55 AM · #162 |
Having made your statement, and reiterated it, this thread is outdated, run into the ground. Hardly! It has just begun. This discussion will not end even when DPC has passed into digital oblivion. You think that you can settle an age old arguement by dismissing you opponents with vague insults? Or can you persuade them by well reasoned disertations? This conversation will go on.
The purpose for such discussion is not to come to a conclusion that will in its perfection create the utopia we long for. It is to open our minds. To make us think. |
|
|
|
10/24/2002 04:19:41 AM · #163 |
| the human body is entertaining...What it can do, how it can be portrayed, whether it's art? Well then that might depend on what action is being portrayed. |
|
|
|
10/24/2002 04:35:58 AM · #164 |
Originally posted by takethat:
the human body is entertaining...What it can do, how it can be portrayed, whether it's art? Well then that might depend on what action is being portrayed.
no! upon how that action is portrayed. |
|
|
|
10/24/2002 07:09:04 AM · #165 |
I am the last person anybody here has to be worried about offending! >:-D
That said...I am tired of folks dragging up Michaelangelo or other past masters to support their argument for nudity or depictions of s&m or whatever the "fetish du jour" is.
That is not the argument here for most of what I have read.
The main concern here is freedom for EVERYBODY. Meaning if we can figure out how to allow the most freedom for the photographers to take whatever photo they want AND the most freedom for folks who might get in trouble at work or feel that nudity is against their personal beliefs.
I am not so much concerned about the personal belief part as I fall on the side of expression but if we can offer a simple cookie to block the photo from being shown on the main page upon opening DP Challenge that will at least keep people from getting in trouble at work or having the kiddies at home exposed to adult images while their mom or dad hang out on the forums.
But telling people they are ignorant or uneducated in the enlightend ways of the art world just because they might draw a line about what type of images they find offensive is ignorant and uneducated in itself...IMO >:-/ |
|
|
|
10/24/2002 07:59:24 AM · #166 |
|
|
|
10/24/2002 10:33:36 AM · #167 |
I agree with Hokie, I have been coming to DPC a lot less this week due to the image on the front page. Not that it offends me, but that it might cause trouble for me at work. Unfortunately, there is no way to prevent the image to be displayed unless I use a browser that lets me block images but even then, it doesn't always work right.
|
|
|
|
10/24/2002 10:56:31 AM · #168 |
I also can not access the site at school, because someone might see it and not realise it was a proper photography site.
|
|
|
|
10/24/2002 11:08:53 AM · #169 |
okay - no more censorship analogies that include grand masters or nudity
how about this one --- DATELINE February 2001 --- Taliban leaders order destruction of all statues in Afghanistan
every event in history has a timeline - every timeline has a beginning - somewhere, someplace, somebody made that first decision that seeded the greater idea
what will the selective blocking of DPC images grow into?
|
|
|
|
10/24/2002 11:23:07 AM · #170 |
Originally posted by spiderman:
every event in history has a timeline - every timeline has a beginning - somewhere, someplace, somebody made that first decision that seeded the greater idea
what will the selective blocking of DPC images grow into?
A very slight change in site demographics?
(As people who want to see more nudity realise they just have to go to another of the thousands of sites out there where they can get it.... pr0n is big on the interweb you know.)
|
|
|
|
10/24/2002 11:31:46 AM · #171 |
Originally posted by spiderman:
<running this thread into the ground>
Originally posted by PTLParsons:
[i] ... I'm no prude ...
<6 minutes later>
It is pure porn if you can see pubic hair ...
<16 minutes later>
... They will always get a one from me on this site, only cause I can't give a minus ...
obviously, not on the papal committee that hired Michelangelo --- but could've been on the one that wanted clothing painted on the nudes
<from one of the earlier posts>
I recommended you be disqualified and would do it again
the site rules states that "Nudity is allowed, but pornography is not. Use your good judgement here" --- i believe in this case, good judgement means taking into consideration the group-mind of the site, not your own narrow view --- i also believe that i'm entitled to the opinion that, if you give all nudes a vote of 1 without considering artistic merit, you have a narrow view --- finally, i believe that i'm going to have a beer now :)
[/i]
I don't give all nudes a "1", only those that are porn and not artistic - which I guess is in the eye of the beholder. The ones I gave a "1" I felt were porn because they had a titalating shock value to good morals. I don't understand this obsession with the nude body. If my husband wanted to take nude pictures of other women I would be very upset with him. If he wanted to take nude pictures of me, why he has me. If he wanted to take nude of pictures of me for the world to see I'd hit him over the head with the camera probably. Why, because I would think he would not want other people to see his wife nude any more than he would want other men being with his wife, in the biblical sense. That is one reason I call it porn. |
|
|
|
10/24/2002 11:42:05 AM · #172 |
Originally posted by spiderman:
okay - no more censorship analogies that include grand masters or nudity
how about this one --- DATELINE February 2001 --- Taliban leaders order destruction of all statues in Afghanistan
every event in history has a timeline - every timeline has a beginning - somewhere, someplace, somebody made that first decision that seeded the greater idea
what will the selective blocking of DPC images grow into?
I don't feel it will "grow" into anything. It's a personal preference option. One that will make it easier for people to access this at work, or at the library. We already have an option to block material from the front page. No one has complained about that to the best of my knowledge.
If I may step in here and say that this is really going no where. If you wanted your opinions to be heard, they were. We heard them, and we acknowledged them. All of us. So some don't agree with others. Big stinking deal! Is this community one that will let that get in our way? One that's going to break apart because of DIFFERENCES?
We are incouraged with our photography with the phrase "think out of the box". Despite our differences, differet ways of thinking and different opinions. We have one thing in common. Photography.
We all look at pictures. Every day. Some of us look at different pictures, so what. We take pictures. Some of us take different pictures. So what.
I guess what I'm getting at, is we need you. Each and every one of you. No matter what you think, and how you feel. We need you in our "photo" community. We need you not in this thread. We need you outside this thread. We need you in the voting section. We need you making comments. We need you taking pictures.
I don't care what the pictures are of. I consider myself to be easy going, and laid back. I think I have gotten along with everyone here. I am asking you, as a fellow photographer, as a fellow person who enjoys photos, and as a friend, to please transfer this energy into voting and commenting and taking photos.
We can concentrate on what we enjoy, on what IS common to us.
Does THAT matter to anyone anymore?
I would like to see these aweful differences put behind us, and to see something good arise in it's place.
In other words, I ask you to let this die, and when it is bumped from our main screens, I ask you all to bring up something positive, something that will help us in what we all want to do. Take pictures.
~Heather~
|
|
|
|
10/24/2002 11:45:29 AM · #173 |
Originally posted by spiderman:
how about this one --- DATELINE February 2001 --- Taliban leaders order destruction of all statues in Afghanistan
every event in history has a timeline - every timeline has a beginning - somewhere, someplace, somebody made that first decision that seeded the greater idea
what will the selective blocking of DPC images grow into?
There's a fundamental difference here. In the news story you quoted, the government denied the people the right to view certain types of art. What we are talking about is a system where the VIEWER can choose whether to view certain types of art. The Taliban's action was about central control, this is about individual freedom.
-Terry
|
|
|
|
10/24/2002 11:46:13 AM · #174 |
Originally posted by kosmikkreeper:
Hi Aelith
Thanks! To be honest, I can't beleive that my photo would even shock! It's a basic nude shot with a twist. :o)
Some had the nerve to call it porn! Now that's insulting!
If you didn't mean for it to be porn why show the pubic hair. He could have started eating at about her navel. The might have taken it out of the porn catagory
|
|
|
|
10/24/2002 11:49:52 AM · #175 |
Originally posted by PTLParsons:
... The ones I gave a "1" I felt were porn because they had a titalating shock value to good morals...
no - they had a shock value to your morals -- while those may be the very definition of "good" morals to you, they are obviously (by the nature of this very thread) not the same "good" morals some of the rest of us have
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 03/12/2025 05:48:42 PM EDT.
