DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Photography Discussion >> Man in park with a camera = Pervert????
Pages:  
Showing posts 101 - 125 of 191, (reverse)
AuthorThread
07/16/2008 07:54:20 AM · #101
Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Originally posted by raish:

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Originally posted by raish:

Photography and the general carriage and use of a camera are essentially innocent, but they're not divine right.


Perhaps in your country.


If by that you mean perhaps not in 'my country' and thus by implication that you are in possession of some sort of country in which use and carriage of photographic equipment is divine right then it's a bit meaningless for me because a) I have no country and b) neither does divinity.

Cartoons


Sigh...I can't explain everything to you.


If you could understand what you read then others wouldn't explain it over again to you as a reaction to your calling reasonable statements 'gibberish'. If you could write coherently then your own statements might be self-explanatory.

Perhaps in your country as a response to what I wrote means precious little while tentatively implying all sorts of things, most of which I suspect you don't mean.

There is no divine right to carry or use a camera anywhere in the world.
07/16/2008 09:13:53 AM · #102
Originally posted by raish:


There is no divine right to carry or use a camera anywhere in the world.


There's no such thing as a divine right to anything. That would require a God. If you can prove such a being exists, then I would concede the possibility of divine rights. That's going to need another thread though.

07/16/2008 09:26:13 AM · #103
Originally posted by raish:

If you could understand what you read then others wouldn't explain it over again to you as a reaction to your calling reasonable statements 'gibberish'.


If you can explain how this is not gibberish, go for it.

Originally posted by Ivo:

Genuine connection, dare not be that blatant in definition. Implied? Most certainly! Its a form of "criminal profiling".


Only the last six words make a sentence and even that is nearing the nonsensical.

07/16/2008 09:26:46 AM · #104
Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Originally posted by raish:


There is no divine right to carry or use a camera anywhere in the world.


There's no such thing as a divine right to anything. That would require a God. If you can prove such a being exists, then I would concede the possibility of divine rights. That's going to need another thread though.


Not to mention that 'rights' are as much a man-made construct as any omnipotent being supposedly bestowing them upon us.
07/16/2008 09:27:53 AM · #105
Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Originally posted by raish:


There is no divine right to carry or use a camera anywhere in the world.


There's no such thing as a divine right to anything. That would require a God. If you can prove such a being exists, then I would concede the possibility of divine rights. That's going to need another thread though.


Then our precious "human rights" are merely those granted by the fickle consensus of society, guided by the media elite...i.e. there really aren't any rights, just priveleges. Don't count blessings, just stay out of trouble!

07/16/2008 10:08:37 AM · #106
Originally posted by farfel53:

Then our precious "human rights" are merely those granted by the fickle consensus of society, guided by the media elite...i.e. there really aren't any rights, just priveleges. Don't count blessings, just stay out of trouble!


There is a universal declaration of human rights and I believe it's a good and a profoundly significant document. I don't think it says anything about cameras. As 'privilege', etymologically, is private law, then the UDHR does rather curtail privilege (or try to) in a number of areas.
07/16/2008 10:15:57 AM · #107
Originally posted by raish:

Originally posted by farfel53:

Then our precious "human rights" are merely those granted by the fickle consensus of society, guided by the media elite...i.e. there really aren't any rights, just priveleges. Don't count blessings, just stay out of trouble!


There is a universal declaration of human rights and I believe it's a good and a profoundly significant document. I don't think it says anything about cameras. As 'privilege', etymologically, is private law, then the UDHR does rather curtail privilege (or try to) in a number of areas.


It's not endorsed by any deity, is it?
07/16/2008 10:16:58 AM · #108
Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Originally posted by raish:

If you could understand what you read then others wouldn't explain it over again to you as a reaction to your calling reasonable statements 'gibberish'.


If you can explain how this is not gibberish, go for it.

Originally posted by Ivo:

Genuine connection, dare not be that blatant in definition. Implied? Most certainly! Its a form of "criminal profiling".


Only the last six words make a sentence and even that is nearing the nonsensical.


Ivo refers to:

Originally posted by togtog:

...I don't believe there is a genuine connection between photography and being a pervert,.
(quote snipped)

Here's his statement fluffed out:

(Is there a) Genuine connection,(?) (I) dare not be that blatant in definition. (Is there an) Implied (connection)? Most certainly! It(')s a form of "criminal profiling".
07/16/2008 10:18:27 AM · #109
Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Originally posted by raish:

Originally posted by farfel53:

Then our precious "human rights" are merely those granted by the fickle consensus of society, guided by the media elite...i.e. there really aren't any rights, just priveleges. Don't count blessings, just stay out of trouble!


There is a universal declaration of human rights and I believe it's a good and a profoundly significant document. I don't think it says anything about cameras. As 'privilege', etymologically, is private law, then the UDHR does rather curtail privilege (or try to) in a number of areas.


It's not endorsed by any deity, is it?


Can't answer for deities, old son, but I very much doubt it.
07/16/2008 10:34:55 AM · #110
Originally posted by KaDi:

There should be nothing wrong...but we know better. We know there are pedophiles. We know they prey on children at parks looking for the vulnerable ones. We know there are pervs who might, at the minimum, take the pics for their own "pleasure" and, at worst might post them on the internet in inappropriate ways....


We know better - really. What do you think the percentage of pedophiles in the population is? 80%... 90%? There are people who get off from stockings or leather or sheep or whatever - do we need to ban those things also? If a woman sat there taking pictures can you honestly say you would care?

Would I let my kids go into a toilet with a stranger - obviously not but we have to get a bit of a grip on reality. Besides, we all know a photg with a big camera is a terrorist as well and we should be locking them up for that anyway, so I guess it's okay.
07/16/2008 10:41:28 AM · #111
Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Originally posted by raish:

If you could understand what you read then others wouldn't explain it over again to you as a reaction to your calling reasonable statements 'gibberish'.


If you can explain how this is not gibberish, go for it.

Originally posted by Ivo:

Genuine connection, dare not be that blatant in definition. Implied? Most certainly! Its a form of "criminal profiling".


Only the last six words make a sentence and even that is nearing the nonsensical.


I am humoured by the extent you will go to elevate your own crusdade at the expense of others. Your attempt to distort a perfectly coherant debate through childish ridicule must be elevating? If you wish to fixate on my comment, I am pleased as it seems to have challenged the capabilites of what appears to be your second language, english. I, for one, feel humbled by your worldliness, singularity amongst us free thinkers, annonymity and rectal orifocity. That is my divine right.

BTW: Thanks Raish for the attempt to offer clarity but is seems the waters are too deep, and too muddy.
07/16/2008 10:47:14 AM · #112
The significance of the incidence of pedophilia pales beside the matter of what's at stake: It only takes one.

That's not a defence of hysteria but it does explain why someone might ask you not to take photographs or question why you are doing so.

I'm always amazed by the amount of deference that comes my way when I'm carrying an important looking camera. If people think it makes me important then bully for them, but there's no reason for me to start thinking that.
07/16/2008 10:55:25 AM · #113
Originally posted by Ivo:

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Originally posted by raish:

If you could understand what you read then others wouldn't explain it over again to you as a reaction to your calling reasonable statements 'gibberish'.


If you can explain how this is not gibberish, go for it.

Originally posted by Ivo:

Genuine connection, dare not be that blatant in definition. Implied? Most certainly! Its a form of "criminal profiling".


Only the last six words make a sentence and even that is nearing the nonsensical.


I am humoured by the extent you will go to elevate your own crusdade at the expense of others. Your attempt to distort a perfectly coherant debate through childish ridicule must be elevating? If you wish to fixate on my comment, I am pleased as it seems to have challenged the capabilites of what appears to be your second language, english. I, for one, feel humbled by your worldliness, singularity amongst us free thinkers, annonymity and rectal orifocity. That is my divine right.



The debate was coherent until you started tossing in random words for some unknown reason.

You have no divine rights. There's no such thing.

"orifocity" ?? Evidently you've taken it upon yourself to now invent words. President Bush would be proud. Are you his progeny?

Message edited by author 2008-07-16 10:59:19.
07/16/2008 11:03:39 AM · #114
Originally posted by robs:

Originally posted by KaDi:

There should be nothing wrong...but we know better. We know there are pedophiles. We know they prey on children at parks looking for the vulnerable ones. We know there are pervs who might, at the minimum, take the pics for their own "pleasure" and, at worst might post them on the internet in inappropriate ways....


We know better - really. What do you think the percentage of pedophiles in the population is? 80%... 90%? There are people who get off from stockings or leather or sheep or whatever - do we need to ban those things also? If a woman sat there taking pictures can you honestly say you would care?

Would I let my kids go into a toilet with a stranger - obviously not but we have to get a bit of a grip on reality. Besides, we all know a photg with a big camera is a terrorist as well and we should be locking them up for that anyway, so I guess it's okay.


I'm sure if you consider all the other words I have typed here you would not leap to assumptions about my position on this topic. What you quote was part of a reply to togtog's assertion that we ought to lock up our children. I also don't think people should become hysterical, on either side of the issue...but I've already expressed that point of view.

To answer the question of pedophiles in the general population, here are some stats you might be interested in:

Originally posted by [url=//www.yellodyno.com/Statistics/statistics_child_molester.html:

Yellow Dyno Website[/url]

"There are 400,000 registered sex offenders in the United States, and an estimated 80 to 100,000 of them are missing. They're supposed to be registered, but we don't know where they are and we don't know where they're living.
- Ernie Allen, President of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Childrento co-anchor Hannah Storm on The Early Show

Dr. Gene Abel estimates that between 1% and 5% of our population molest children.
- CNN Specials Transcript #454-Thieves of Childhood.

Nearly all the offenders in sexual assaults reported to law enforcement were male (96%).
- Sexual Assault of Young Children as Reported to Law Enforcement, 7/00, NCJ 182990, U.S. Department of Justice

Acquaintance perpetrators are the most common abusers, constituting approximately 70-90% of all reported perpetrators.
- Finkelhor, D. 1994[/quote]

So what are the odds a child will be victimized by a stranger in a park? Pretty slim, I'd guess. And it's probably more likely that they'd encounter such a person online. But, as raish pointed out while I prepared this post, it only takes one.

(fixed link)

Message edited by author 2008-07-16 11:19:37.
07/16/2008 11:15:42 AM · #115
Originally posted by KaDi:


To answer the question of pedophiles in the general population, here are some stats you might be interested in:

Originally posted by [url=//www.yellodyno.com/Statistics/statistics_child_molester.html:

Yellow Dyno Website[/url]
"There are 400,000 registered sex offenders in the United States, and an estimated 80 to 100,000 of them are missing. They're supposed to be registered, but we don't know where they are and we don't know where they're living.
- Ernie Allen, President of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Childrento co-anchor Hannah Storm on The Early Show


So what are the odds a child will be victimized by a stranger in a park? Pretty slim, I'd guess. And it's probably more likely that they'd encounter such a person online. But, as raish pointed out while I prepared this post, it only takes one.


Plus it's worth noting that this figure for "registered sex offenders" includes a significant number of individuals who have no history of or (presumably) inclination towards pedophilia. For example, if you, as a college student aged 20, got drunk at a fraternity party, had sex with an underage girl who crashed the party with a fake ID, and got arrested/tried/convicted because her parents called the police, you're gonna wear that sex offender tag for the rest of your life.

Happened to a friend of mine.

I'm NOT arguing that that this was OK behavior, but I do NOT think it's fair that young men liek this get lumped into a permanent and perjorative database with aggressive adult rapists and child molesters...

R.
07/16/2008 11:19:27 AM · #116
Originally posted by KaDi:


So what are the odds a child will be victimized by a stranger in a park? Pretty slim, I'd guess. And it's probably more likely that they'd encounter such a person online. But, as raish pointed out while I prepared this post, it only takes one.


From your statistics it appears that the camera-wielding people to fear are the ones you invite over for Christmas dinner.

Originally posted by Statistics Are Meaningless:


Acquaintance perpetrators are the most common abusers, constituting approximately 70-90% of all reported perpetrators.
- Finkelhor, D. 1994


Message edited by author 2008-07-16 11:20:17.
07/16/2008 11:20:29 AM · #117
Originally posted by violinist123:

Originally posted by KaDi:


So what are the odds a child will be victimized by a stranger in a park? Pretty slim, I'd guess. And it's probably more likely that they'd encounter such a person online. But, as raish pointed out while I prepared this post, it only takes one.


From your statistics it appears that the camera-welding people to fear are the ones you invite over for Christmas dinner.

Originally posted by Statistics Are Meaningless:


Acquaintance perpetrators are the most common abusers, constituting approximately 70-90% of all reported perpetrators.
- Finkelhor, D. 1994


Yup. Especially if he's a man over 40. What's your point?
07/16/2008 11:25:48 AM · #118
Originally posted by KaDi:

Nearly all the offenders in sexual assaults reported to law enforcement were male (96%).


"Reported to law enforcement" being the key detail there. As we already have discussed, if a woman was taking photos, no one would call the police. Women are assumed to be free of this crime so are questioned much less. This is the problem with stereotyping, if you assume a party to be guilty you will hound them until you have proof, if you assume them to be innocent you will never question them at all.

This story is being covered on digg.com as well and as one commenter put it, it is gender stereotyping, if a woman hits a man it is funny, if a man so much as touches a woman it is sexual harassment or assault. It is impossible for women to do any wrong in this society we have created.
07/16/2008 11:31:08 AM · #119
Originally posted by togtog:

It is impossible for women to do any wrong in this society we have created.


Well, maybe White women.
Or White women from the middle and upper economic classes.
Or White women with money from Western countries....

Of course people are stereotyped. I never said they weren't. I never said it was right.

Is this topic now about fear of being a man with a camera in a public space?
07/16/2008 11:37:29 AM · #120
Originally posted by KaDi:

Originally posted by violinist123:

Originally posted by KaDi:


So what are the odds a child will be victimized by a stranger in a park? Pretty slim, I'd guess. And it's probably more likely that they'd encounter such a person online. But, as raish pointed out while I prepared this post, it only takes one.


From your statistics it appears that the camera-welding people to fear are the ones you invite over for Christmas dinner.

Originally posted by Statistics Are Meaningless:


Acquaintance perpetrators are the most common abusers, constituting approximately 70-90% of all reported perpetrators.
- Finkelhor, D. 1994


Yup. Especially if he's a man over 40. What's your point?


Take your kids to the park whenever there's a family gathering.
07/16/2008 11:44:38 AM · #121
Originally posted by violinist123:

Take your kids to the park whenever there's a family gathering.


Sorry but I don't get your meaning.
07/16/2008 12:00:46 PM · #122
Originally posted by KaDi:

Originally posted by togtog:

It is impossible for women to do any wrong in this society we have created.


Well, maybe White women.
Or White women from the middle and upper economic classes.
Or White women with money from Western countries....

Of course people are stereotyped. I never said they weren't. I never said it was right.

Is this topic now about fear of being a man with a camera in a public space?


Maybe this should be the topic... cause as much as we go around the issue, if it had been the mans wife taking the pictures, we likely wouldn't be having this whole conversation right now.

It is true that for the most part women (in the wester world anyway) are generally thought to be innocent of this type of thing, while men are generally suspect... I don't think this has much to do with reality more than it does with perception (as I would wager that there are many more cases of abuse perpetrated by women that are never reported).
07/16/2008 12:12:06 PM · #123
Not addressing anyone specifically...

As for public places like parks. I do not believe it is anyones responsibility to cater to anyone else's paranoia and fear. If someone is scared of a stranger in a public park, then honestly I believe it is that persons problem not the strangers.

Visiting a park is a privilege, it does not grant anyone special rights in fact it takes some away. The right to privacy being one, that goes out the window, that is what houses and buildings are for.

Sorry to sound insensitive but I kinda am, I'm finding out just how much this topic offends me that I and my hobby are somehow less important than a mom and her kids running after butterflies...

On another note, from the US Department of Justice:
"In 90% of the rapes of children less than 12 years old, the child knew the offender, according to police-recorded incident data."

Which is what I have always heard, you have more chance of dying while driving to or from the park because of a car wreck than any person actually at the park causing you or your family problems. Unless your child knows the person, then I guess bets are off....

But really, just be a good parent, keep an eye on your kids, make note of those who are around the area and what they are doing. Nothing wrong with being suspect of the photographer, are they slowly getting closer, do they seem to be looking over their shoulder.

Parents should be alert, but that doesn't mean coming up and harassing a stranger even if holding a camera, or worse calling the cops on them, that is harassment and it crosses the line when you step into their personal space or interfere with their business whatever it is.

Some days I think people assume these child molesters have some sort of teleportation ray gun and will make their child vanish or something.

Sorry if I'm being a piss, maybe I need to take a break from this thread...

Message edited by author 2008-07-16 12:13:19.
07/16/2008 01:15:31 PM · #124
Originally posted by togtog:

Not addressing anyone specifically...

As for public places like parks. I do not believe it is anyones responsibility to cater to anyone else's paranoia and fear. If someone is scared of a stranger in a public park, then honestly I believe it is that persons problem not the strangers.


'Paranoia' and 'fear' are your chosen pejoratives here. If people are, say, uneasy and concerned, then it would be nice to think that others might try to put them at their ease, if necessary by some modification of their own behaviour. You could call it being nice, being polite, being considerate etc. It isn't your duty by any legal rulebook that I know of, but manners maketh man.

ETA the general tone of the rest of your post I can swallow :-)

Message edited by author 2008-07-16 13:18:02.
07/16/2008 01:37:02 PM · #125
Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by KaDi:


To answer the question of pedophiles in the general population, here are some stats you might be interested in:

Originally posted by [url=//www.yellodyno.com/Statistics/statistics_child_molester.html:

Yellow Dyno Website[/url]
"There are 400,000 registered sex offenders in the United States, and an estimated 80 to 100,000 of them are missing. They're supposed to be registered, but we don't know where they are and we don't know where they're living.
- Ernie Allen, President of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Childrento co-anchor Hannah Storm on The Early Show


So what are the odds a child will be victimized by a stranger in a park? Pretty slim, I'd guess. And it's probably more likely that they'd encounter such a person online. But, as raish pointed out while I prepared this post, it only takes one.


Plus it's worth noting that this figure for "registered sex offenders" includes a significant number of individuals who have no history of or (presumably) inclination towards pedophilia. For example, if you, as a college student aged 20, got drunk at a fraternity party, had sex with an underage girl who crashed the party with a fake ID, and got arrested/tried/convicted because her parents called the police, you're gonna wear that sex offender tag for the rest of your life.

Happened to a friend of mine.

I'm NOT arguing that that this was OK behavior, but I do NOT think it's fair that young men liek this get lumped into a permanent and perjorative database with aggressive adult rapists and child molesters...

R.

In our state you can be put on the sex offender list if you go pee outside and someone who doesn't approve can call the cops. I'm not saying it's ok to pee outside in front of everyone, but when I grew up it was normal for a boy to go behind a tree and pee if we were no where near a restroom.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 03/28/2024 04:20:22 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 03/28/2024 04:20:22 AM EDT.