I find this exchange between you and @annie.oakley to be pretty informative as the the complexity of the issues involved. @annie.oakley's overprotective intention to prevent the agency of children has produced your defense and protest that almost precisely mirrors statements of paedophile's when denying their crimes.
I accuse neither of you of being inauthentic in your desire to protect children. Rather I note that our understanding and power of persuasion are mimicked by those seeking to conceal and enable their malevolence.
Perhaps recognizing this propensity of people to be manipulated, and seeking to employ means of strengthening our agreement while tolerating our differences, might have prevented the division between you and @annie.oakly, which seems certain to preclude you two working together protect kids from rapists.
You assume a lot based on one comment as I'm sure you know neither of us.
And you're comparing my response to that of a Paedophile which is ridiculous and insensitive.
I understand completely the control mechanism we live under and don't need a lecture from you on tolerance thank you very much.
Boy, did you misunderstand my comment!
Hello @valued-customer, I appreciate this insightful comment of yours. As a former professional commercial print model, I am intimately familiar with how the 'image creation' industry operates.
I do not pass judgement on someone for overlooking the (often insidious) exploitation of children that occurs in that industry, but I will beg to differ, even if that means hurting a few feelings.
@tremendospercy, I did not accuse you of exploitation, rather I was trying to point out that in the taking of those photos those children were in fact exploited in the literal sense of the word. Minors cannot consent to contracts, their parents likely signed the contract in exchange for something like a $25-50/hour "stock photoshoot" rate for maybe up to three hours of shooting. The parents may have pressured the child into it, and the contract likely stipulated that the copyright holder can use the images 'for anything for all of time' or something to that effect.
If you cannot see how I might consider the use of these identifying images of minors taken under such circumstances, one in which the child is even made to appear topless, to be in poor taste, then certainly we will have to agree to disagree. Cheers.
I understand your point @annie.oakley. I'm quite certain you don't have a problem with adults who were abused to use their own childhood photos. Photo shopped or not. Let me know if I'm wrong.
I would like to know if using images of actual murdered and mutilated children from case files, which should be part of the public domain, is something you would condone.
Please ignore my avatar at this time. I assure you I am not smiling here. ✌️
Your certainty expressed on the first point would be accurate, what an adult does with their own image is their business. But as to your second point I must ask:
Should photos of murdered and mutilated children be part of the public domain? Should they really?
What makes the public entitled to such photos of brutalized minor children being part of the public domain?
Are you a parent? Would you want photos of your murdered and mutilated child being public domain and posted all over the internet?
I can assure you I am not smiling either. I have been well aware of the depths and scope of the wickedness for some years now, and I watch these demon spawn with extreme prejudice. Perhaps I am making some incorrect assumption of the intent of your post to me, but if you think I am your enemy, I find that very odd.
I have no enemies that I'm aware of, nor am I seeking to make any. I was merely curious what your position might be.
As to your question to me. Again, as far as I am aware I am not a parent. I do have friends who are parents though and I'm sure their feelings would be mixed about such a thing. Some for it and some against. I will put it this way: If it is ok to allow images of mutilated lives (human and animal) in public news as well as raising awareness and funds for worthy causes. Then why not in this case?
No offense @annie.oakley but what should be and what is is none of my doing. I know plenty of people who cannot stand to see images of suffering animals yet bat not an eye or spare a heart beat for starving, displaced and yes mutilated innocent children when presented to them. Evidence to me of the mindscaping that has been perpetrated on society since the beginning of the television era.
I'm glad I caught this in my feed just before going to bed. I wouldn't have wanted you to think of me as an enemy for any longer than necessary.
~peace out...in~