| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/07/2002 11:31:21 AM · #1 |
| While I understand you have the right to insult peoples religion. I don?t think this is the place. And I will vote accordingly. I don?t think I can give a zero. |
|
|
|
10/07/2002 11:38:15 AM · #2 |
|
|
|
10/07/2002 11:42:31 AM · #3 |
| One of the images this week certainly appears to be trashing a particular religion. Frankly, I believe people have the right to state their opinions in most any way they want, so I was not upset by the pic. However, I scored it low because it was a lousy shot as I recall. |
|
|
|
10/07/2002 11:47:16 AM · #4 |
I agree with you. I don't think that is cool at all. Those people don't have anything better to do then to hurt others. Sad, but true.
Originally posted by Milton:
While I understand you have the right to insult peoples religion. I don?t think this is the place. And I will vote accordingly. I don?t think I can give a zero.
|
|
|
|
10/07/2002 11:47:30 AM · #5 |
Originally posted by Milton:
While I understand you have the right to insult peoples religion. I don?t think this is the place. And I will vote accordingly. I don?t think I can give a zero.
Milton,
From the site rules:
Submissions may not promote hatred towards any group of people or single person. Blatantly offensive and lewd photographs will not be tolerated. Nudity is allowed, but pornography is not. Use your good judgement here -- if it's going to get us kicked off our host, it will be disqualified. Quoting a wise professor, "I don't know what IT is, but I know IT when I see IT."
You are correct, this is not the place to insult religion. I have not gone through this week's entries yet, but if you believe a specific photograph violates the rule above please request the disqualification. We will review the photograph and deal with it accordingly. I'd prefer to avoid discussion about any photograph while it's being voted on, though.
Thanks,
-Terry
|
|
|
|
10/07/2002 12:35:01 PM · #6 |
please don't vote to disqualify pictures based on what you perceive to be the subject matter, or point of the photo. first off,it's not always easy to put your finger on what the photographer's trying to say. second, we should be more free on the internet than we are outside it, not less; it's the free exchange of ideas that keeps us coming back for more. in this day and age anybody who's into the web should be a rabid civil libertarian. finally, these are pictures, and while they may offend the sensibilities of some of the more delicate blossoms who come to this sight, they're not going to hurt anybody. who wants to live in a world where we don't have our hearts stirred, where all is bland and non-offensive? as bad as the offensive pic may be, at least it makes us think. test your boundaries and those of others, learn about yourself and the world, start a meaningful debate about something you caree about. post a comment, use these forums, let your voice be heard, just please don't disqualify. thanks, peace.
|
|
|
|
10/07/2002 12:44:26 PM · #7 |
I don't agree. Messing with peoples religion is like messing with the color of their skin. It is for me anyway. Its obviously a touchy subject. It is always hard to discuss religion in anything or to anyone. Everyone has their own opinion and are easily offended. That is why it should be left out unless it is positive. :)
I would!
Originally posted by johnny_4_president:
who wants to live in a world where we don't have our hearts stirred, where all is bland and non-offensive?
|
|
|
|
10/07/2002 12:58:22 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by johnny_4_president:
please don't vote to disqualify pictures based on what you perceive to be the subject matter, or point of the photo. first off,it's not always easy to put your finger on what the photographer's trying to say. second, we should be more free on the internet than we are outside it, not less; it's the free exchange of ideas that keeps us coming back for more. in this day and age anybody who's into the web should be a rabid civil libertarian. finally, these are pictures, and while they may offend the sensibilities of some of the more delicate blossoms who come to this sight, they're not going to hurt anybody. who wants to live in a world where we don't have our hearts stirred, where all is bland and non-offensive? as bad as the offensive pic may be, at least it makes us think. test your boundaries and those of others, learn about yourself and the world, start a meaningful debate about something you caree about. post a comment, use these forums, let your voice be heard, just please don't disqualify. thanks, peace.
As I said "While I understand you have the right to insult peoples religion. I don?t think this is the place. And I will vote accordingly. I don?t think I can give a zero. "
As for disqualifying pictures I can not do that. Only the people who run the site can. All I can do is express my self. And remember I believe we all can do that (it is America). |
|
|
|
10/07/2002 01:03:02 PM · #9 |
OK, I know it's wrong to talk too openly about a photo in the current challenge, but this seems like a special case, so I'm going to say some things.
First of all, how would the meaning of the photo be changed if the book in question was "The Origin of the Species" by Charles Darwin? Would this be thought of as offensive towards atheists/scientists who believe in evolution? I don't think so. It's a commentary on a school of thought or a belief system, not hatred towards its proponents.
Secondly, how is expressing an opinion like this any different from the anti-smoking photos in this challenge? They are also taking the concept of "garbage" a step further and using it to comment on an issue. My mother has been a smoker most of her life and has never been able to quit, and she feels quite upset when people make anti-smoking remarks around her, as though they're blaming her for something she doesn't really have any control over... but that doesn't mean people should be censored. If we are to make allowances on any political speech, where do we draw the line?
|
|
|
|
10/07/2002 01:08:12 PM · #10 |
Go Lisae.
For some reason I was thinking of an analogy of if the photograph had been of a Fabio-bound "trashy" romance novel (which of course would offend all of those who read such works of art). But Origin of Species is much better. |
|
|
|
10/07/2002 01:18:35 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by lisae:
OK, I know it's wrong to talk too openly about a photo in the current challenge, but this seems like a special case, so I'm going to say some things.
First of all, how would the meaning of the photo be changed if the book in question was "The Origin of the Species" by Charles Darwin? Would this be thought of as offensive towards atheists/scientists who believe in evolution? I don't think so. It's a commentary on a school of thought or a belief system, not hatred towards its proponents.
Secondly, how is expressing an opinion like this any different from the anti-smoking photos in this challenge? They are also taking the concept of "garbage" a step further and using it to comment on an issue. My mother has been a smoker most of her life and has never been able to quit, and she feels quite upset when people make anti-smoking remarks around her, as though they're blaming her for something she doesn't really have any control over... but that doesn't mean people should be censored. If we are to make allowances on any political speech, where do we draw the line?
The darwin example is better than the smoking one, i think, because a couple of the shots i have looked at with cigs in them were showing the butts etc as trash. I haven't seen them all, i understand, but the one or two i have seen were such. The religious thing bothered me, for reasons that i will explain to that person in the comments, not in the forum. I used to get offended at such stuff, but then i learned that my God didn't need me to defend Him, or His book; He can do it on His own. :-)
* This message has been edited by the author on 10/7/2002 1:25:47 PM. |
|
|
|
10/07/2002 01:21:29 PM · #12 |
<open can of worms here>
why is it that nobody complains when religious images, in no matter what context, are thrust upon those that would just as soon not see any at all?
why is YOUR religion better than NO religion?
why can't those that get fed up with the whole thing say as much without being blasted?
aren't ALL opinions equally valid, seeing as they are ONLY opinions?
close can --- YEAH, RIGHT!
|
|
|
|
10/07/2002 01:29:48 PM · #13 |
The way I see it, every photo is going to offend at least someone. I don't know why, and I can't explain the phenomenon, but it happens. I think the issue here, is HOW MANY people it offends. For example, I don't know how many different religions we have here, but just say for a Thanksgiving challenge, Someone take a photos of their beautifully set up ham dinner. That DOES give 7th day adventists the option to request DQ. Eating pork is offensive to them. (I dated a 7th day adventist) But, the general population of DPC would not find it offensive. I guess it still remains this...if the Administrators find if offensive or not. That's the final say. Now, if this were a primarily 7th day adventist site, and a catholic posted a photo of their ham dinner...I bet it would get DQ in a heartbeat. But that's just not what this is all about. It's about being fair, and honest, and what you find offensive, maybe someone else doesn't. I will say this..I don't know which photo you are refering to, but I hope you are all fair, and if you request DQ for not respecting YOUR views, than I think you might be just as bad for not respecting the views of the photographer. I just can't WAIT to see the results of this 7 deadly sins challenge. I see nudes, LOTS of nudes. LOL.
Anyway, I'm going to go look for that photo now, and vote it on artistic quality and creativity.
~Heather~
|
|
|
|
10/07/2002 01:30:16 PM · #14 |
<open can of worms here>
why is it that nobody complains when religious images, in no matter what context, are thrust upon those that would just as soon not see any at all?
why is YOUR religion better than NO religion?
why can't those that get fed up with the whole thing say as much without being blasted?
aren't ALL opinions equally valid, seeing as they are ONLY opinions?
close can --- YEAH, RIGHT!
sneaks a bite at a tiny worm
Same goes for jingoistic, nationalistic, bombastic so-called "patriotic" images, too!
finishes, closes lid on way out
* This message has been edited by the author on 10/7/2002 1:29:55 PM.
* This message has been edited by the author on 10/7/2002 1:30:38 PM.
|
|
|
|
10/07/2002 01:33:47 PM · #15 |
And the discussion has come back to *that* again.
<groans and goes to vote on pictures> |
|
|
|
10/07/2002 01:37:27 PM · #16 |
Insulting religion? What about insulting Expression and Thought?
While the picture in question supposedly trashes MY religion, that religion teaches me to have compassion and use common sense concerning another person's differing view.
What is the danger of a person having a thought, and expressing it, no matter how unpleasant it may be to another?
I personally did not like the picture and gave it a low score; however, I'm more insulted by the idea that any person's expression of ideas may be stifled whenever they are seen as unpopular.
Why is tolerance only a one street?
|
|
|
|
10/07/2002 01:38:39 PM · #17 |
I wholeheartedly agree with the Moderator in his call for us to not discuss a specific photo during the vote, so I will state this is the most generic terms I possibly can.
If we decide as a community that we are 'ok' with degrading / defaming any group that we don't agree with, we need to do so with a clear understanding of where it could end up. Will we accept people expressing any view regardless of whom is being attacked? Is it open season on every group we disagree with?
There are many groups that are the target of hate speech today. I personally think it is wrong to post an image that may cause someone to think it's ok to attack a gay man with a baseball bat. I also think that glorifying the burning of a cross on someones lawn because you don't like their race or religion is not a 'freedom' that makes the world a better place. Photographs that encourage or condone the exploitation or mistreatment of children or women should not be tolerated, at least in my opinion... call me a facist :).
Basically, I'm saying I don't think there is much question that a line must be drawn somewhere... The question that remains is where to draw it... But Christians aren't very popular this year, so I guess it's ok to bash them. Right?
|
|
|
|
10/07/2002 01:39:53 PM · #18 |
I don't know what IT is, but I know IT when I see IT to every one this is a little different.
A photo of a body can be a beautiful thing. Or it can be garbage porn. Where is the line?
I shot a picture of my 5 year old in the shower all you saw was his head. It was a nice shot, not porn.
The same shot 20 years ago it might be porn.
Submitting a photo of the Quran in wake of 9-11 might be ok but not to the follower and me.
This is just my opinion. The good thing is we can express.
This is a great reason to let submitters(?) of photos to add text and explain what they wanted to express. |
|
|
|
10/07/2002 01:42:19 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by Milton:
This is a great reason to let submitters(?) of photos to add text and explain what they wanted to express.
It's also a great reason not to. |
|
|
|
10/07/2002 01:51:30 PM · #20 |
On an additional note (I found the photo) Did anyone ever stop to think that the people might not possess the materials in the photo if they were meaning to "bash" the topic of the photo?? For example, If I didn't celebrate Christmas, I wouldn't own a christmas tree. If I were vegetarian, there wouldn't be steak in my freezer. If I were against guns, there wouldn't be a 22 in my safe. Get it? Try to think positively here.
I will also say that I didn't submit to this challenge, so I'm totally openminded here, and just so you know I have no idea who's photo it is, and it's not mine. I'm just trying to rationalize here, and think that there might be a hidden message in the photo. Read "between the lines", if you get my drift.
I'm trying to be quite litteral here, without being obvious. I don't think they were trying to say what you think they were trying to say. OK, I will shut up now and respect the wishes that the photo not be discussed.
Just think before you react. Please.
|
|
|
|
10/07/2002 01:52:28 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by drewmedia:
Originally posted by Milton:
[i]This is a great reason to let submitters(?) of photos to add text and explain what they wanted to express.
It's also a great reason not to.[/i]
Gotta agree with Drew on this one.
|
|
|
|
10/07/2002 01:54:15 PM · #22 |
Originally posted by drewmedia:
Originally posted by Milton:
[i]This is a great reason to let submitters(?) of photos to add text and explain what they wanted to express.
It's also a great reason not to.[/i]
Now that I have time to think about it your correct about the comment section. And hbunch7187 is all so correct .
See talking dose work. He has the right. I am going to change my scoring and base it on the quality of the photo.
Sorry for the thread.
Thank all of you for you help.
This site should be about the quality not the content of the photo. |
|
|
|
10/07/2002 01:57:53 PM · #23 |
Originally posted by hbunch7187:
...think that there might be a hidden message in the photo. Read "between the lines", if you get my drift.
I'm trying to be quite litteral here, without being obvious. I don't think they were trying to say what you think they were trying to say. OK, I will shut up now and respect the wishes that the photo not be discussed.
Just think before you react. Please.
Actually I agree with Heather as it pertains to this photo, and I commented as much to the photographer. But I'm trying not to discuss it (not very successfully :) ) I don't think this shot means what some folks think it does. I'm just arguing the generic point that free speech should have limits. Your rights stop where my nose starts :) |
|
|
|
10/07/2002 02:00:23 PM · #24 |
Originally posted by spiderman:
<open can of worms here>
why is it that nobody complains when religious images, in no matter what context, are thrust upon those that would just as soon not see any at all?
why is YOUR religion better than NO religion?
why can't those that get fed up with the whole thing say as much without being blasted?
aren't ALL opinions equally valid, seeing as they are ONLY opinions?
close can --- [i]YEAH, RIGHT!
[/i]
Spiderman, I'm repeating your entire post because you put it so well.
As an aside, I don't believe anyone submitted a shot of a can of worms; that would have been cool! :)
|
|
|
|
10/07/2002 02:13:01 PM · #25 |
But Christians aren't very popular this year, so I guess it's ok to bash them. Right?(oh man, didn't do that quote somebody else thing right, I'll work on that)
Um, I really don't think that pic is bashing Christians, I think every OTHER religion is being bashed. My interpretation anyway.
* This message has been edited by the author on 10/7/2002 2:13:30 PM. |
|
