Photographers prohibitted

saltoricco said:

KSV said:

saltoricco said:

So gays should have less rights than you and me????

Click to expand...

Again, my generic answer would be "yes", just because if I say "no"
I should automatically assume that say pedophiles "can not do it
another way" and therefore has the same rights to express their
sexuality as you or me

Click to expand...

The difference between gays and pedophiles is that the former don't
do anybody any harm but pedophiles exploit the defenseless and
destroy lives. We probably agree there is no right that allows one
to victimize others. The comparison is way off.

• Holger

Click to expand...

WOW! How much gay supporters here! Let me rephrase it. Again, I do not care what gays doing each to other. But what I am disagree with is this ugly show called "gay festival". I believe that I shoud have rights do not see it and also I believe that I should have rights to protect my kids from seeing this ugly and disgusting stuff. Now one can say - "If you dislike it, do not watch it!". But how practically I can do it? Do not switch evenimg news on? Get out of city during this zoo show? Any other suggestion? So how about my rights? And, Holger, you are not riht that comparison is too much way off just because "active" gays is just one step from boy-oriented pedophilia

KSV said:

WOW! How much gay supporters here!

Click to expand...

I would prefer 'Basic human rights supporters' ;-)

KSV said:

"active" gays is just one step from boy-oriented pedophilia

Click to expand...

Well personally I find that offensive, as by that logic it means as an active hetrosexual I am just one step from girl-oriented pedophilia????

--
------------
Joel

*ist DS, Sigma 18-125/3.5-5.6, Sigma 50/2.8 DG EX Macro, Pentax-M 50/2, Pentax-FA 28/2.8, Tamron 70-300/4-5.6

Joele said:

I would prefer 'Basic human rights supporters' ;-)

Click to expand...

Well, if you believe that ability to be a gay is a fundamental human right, what can I say?

DS_Dave said:

Sorry, it aint a mental disease -animals and insects do it too and
they certainly dont have the higher brain function we do. It's
part of nature, just the bible wont accept it.

Click to expand...

Yea, they (animals) also exercise canubalizm (including their parents/children) and also have sex with their parents/children/brother/sisters, ... So what? I guess human been should be somewhat different, or I am wrong again?

KSV said:

KSV said:

I would prefer 'Basic human rights supporters' ;-)

Click to expand...

Well, if you believe that ability to be a gay is a fundamental
human right, what can I say?

Click to expand...

Well isn't it?
--
Brett



The Journey is the Thing

KSV said:

Well, if you believe that ability to be a gay is a fundamental
human right, what can I say?

Click to expand...

In my understanding of ethic one should be allowed to do anything that does not harm others. How do gays actually harm others?

KSV: I like how you don't retreat to polemic defense. And I suspect your feelings, when you see a gay festival, are similar to those I had when I first experienced the street life in India at age 10. But I have since come to realize that this picture is just the reality of life and is not all that bad, if you look closer. The people in this picture can enrich your life, if you are open for new perspectives.

• Holger

KSV said:

WOW! How much gay supporters here! Let me rephrase it. Again, I
do not care what gays doing each to other. But what I am disagree
with is this ugly show called "gay festival". I believe that I
shoud have rights do not see it and also I believe that I should
have rights to protect my kids from seeing this ugly and disgusting
stuff. Now one can say - "If you dislike it, do not watch it!". But
how practically I can do it? Do not switch evenimg news on? Get out
of city during this zoo show? Any other suggestion? So how about my
rights? And, Holger, you are not riht that comparison is too much
way off just because "active" gays is just one step from
boy-oriented pedophilia

Click to expand...

I never see it, I just don't watch it. Its a simple choice.

Hey, not that there is anything wrong with it!

Brian

saltoricco said:

In my understanding of ethic one should be allowed to do anything
that does not harm others. How do gays actually harm others?

Click to expand...

Well, follow this logic it is nothing wrong if I say since tommorow start shitting in the middle of the city right on the street. O, and will carry plastic bags and scoop with me to clean properly after myself. Obviously it will not harm others (physically of course). How it sounds? It sounds like on second day I am going to be in mental hospital! This is just an example witch shows that boundaries between "good" and "not so good" are very soft and sometimes even unseen. Everything come to public acceptance and via that to law. And it is just very sad to me that public tolerance to (say) gay festival much higer then to person with camera on beach. You watch it - if they started it is going to happen.

*isteve said:

Australian prisons would be
full to bursting with japanese tourists who cant read the signs

Click to expand...

This reminds me of Mona Lisa paiting in Louvre. Before entering the room with the painting there are two signs: no video allowed and no photography allowed. But when I actually came inside it was so crowded with japanese tourists jumping all over the paiting and taking pictures, even with using a flash

--
http://www.redpixel.ch

Hi,

yesterday I have been doing shopping in Asda and I had my camera with me because of earlier shooting. I really hate shopping so my wife was doing it and I wanted to take some nice pictures there (not impossible). But straight after entering Asda I had guy behind me who just waited until I take first shot and then he immediatly told me not to shoot because it's prohibited. While entering shop I checked all signs and there was no sign banning shooting. So I told him but neverless I was not succesful. So I ended with usual practice : wife was doing shopping and I was reading my favourites Photographic magazines

redpixel said:

This reminds me of Mona Lisa paiting in Louvre. Before entering the
room with the painting there are two signs: no video allowed and no
photography allowed. But when I actually came inside it was so
crowded with japanese tourists jumping all over the paiting and
taking pictures, even with using a flash

Click to expand...

An even funnier thing happened when I was at the sistine chapel, as I recall because it was about 8 years ago.

Not only flashes were prohibited but also signs prohibiting speaking or making noise. As I stood there shoulder to shoulder with other tourists being very silent, a load speaker came on and yelled out a long message in about four languages stating that you must be silent.

Brian

Yet another situation where the user of a camera phine would most likely be able to shot with impunity...

nemrtvy said:

Hi,

yesterday I have been doing shopping in Asda and I had my camera
with me because of earlier shooting. I really hate shopping so my
wife was doing it and I wanted to take some nice pictures there
(not impossible). But straight after entering Asda I had guy behind
me who just waited until I take first shot and then he immediatly
told me not to shoot because it's prohibited. While entering shop I
checked all signs and there was no sign banning shooting. So I told
him but neverless I was not succesful. So I ended with usual
practice : wife was doing shopping and I was reading my favourites
Photographic magazines

Click to expand...

--
http://www.renderosity.com/gallery.ez?ByArtist=Yes&Artist=TheJiggler

KSV said:

saltoricco said:

In my understanding of ethic one should be allowed to do anything
that does not harm others. How do gays actually harm others?

Click to expand...

Well, follow this logic it is nothing wrong if I say since tommorow
start shitting in the middle of the city right on the street. O,
and will carry plastic bags and scoop with me to clean properly
after myself. Obviously it will not harm others (physically of
course). How it sounds? It sounds like on second day I am going to
be in mental hospital! This is just an example witch shows that
boundaries between "good" and "not so good" are very soft and
sometimes even unseen. Everything come to public acceptance and via
that to law. And it is just very sad to me that public tolerance to
(say) gay festival much higer then to person with camera on beach.
You watch it - if they started it is going to happen.

Click to expand...

A valid if not very picturesque point. The problem with gay issues is that they are a mixture of logical arguments and moral arguments (which aren't always logical). If you believe that gay behavior is immoral then no amount of logical arguing will persuade you and there is an impasse. That is what I believe we have here. KSV believes that gay behavior is morally wrong and therefore trying to equate it with any moral or neutral behavior is fruitless. That is not to say that KSV is right or wrong, it is just what he believes. Now the problem becomes what do you do when you have people with such oppositional opinions trying to assert their rights. You have conflict and impasse and at some point, if there are enough people asserting there rights, societal shift. For a lot of people the belief is that the societal shift is currently in the wrong direction as we appear to be loosening our standards but in the end society will make that decision and society doesn't always make the right decisions.

I believe that is what is occuring with regard to the restrictions of photography. Currently there is a mania with regard to terrorism and terrorists. Because of the constant exposure through the news media we are led to believe that there is a terrorist behind every corner. There may be or there may not be, we do not know. In not knowing we will usually choose the path that insures our safety. The problem is how does society choose to deal with it? When society chooses to be protective of itself then the freedoms that we enjoy become restricted because that is how you protect yourself, you restrict the actions of others so that you can more easily predict and react to them and insure that they are not threatening to you. Unfortunately there are a lot of nonthreatening actions that can be used in threatening ways, like taking photographs. I can be photographing a bridge because I like the lines or shape or light OR because I am doing recon before trying to blow it up. How does the observer know the difference? So the safest thing to do (and the easiest because less thought is involved) is to restrict all photographers. Is that right or wrong? It is neither, it is just a choice. If you disagree with the choice then you work to change it but in so doing you must also provide an alternate action to address the original problem of safety or your attempt will most likely be fruitless.

Finally in the case of the incident at the nude beach, I happen to think that situation is just plain absurd. If the beach is a public beach then you have said to the world, here I am, have a look.

Larry

--
http://www.cook-imaging.com

This is a fascinating thread, but revisiting the original point: how is digitally capturing what can be optically captured a violation of the topless bathers rights? He/She went to the beach, to get naked. My eyes work, through a viewfinder or not, to see and record the image seen. Same with kids, we're not talking about me taking pictures of kids with no clothes on, in Abu Ghraib poses, are we? For mercy sake, if I can see it with my eyes, why I can't I "see" it with my camera? I can stare at kids (or breasts) till my eyes fall out ( and I have ! - the second one I mean) and no-one can control the thoughts in my head; so-called normal, or perverse. Their my thoughts, and they cannot be policed. But I capture some guy or gal in all their glory, a free choice they freely made, and suddenly I am being told I have crossed a line. This makes no sense, if there is no law telling me my eyeballs cannot partake, then you will NOT prevent me from capturing it with my camera. If you try it, one of us will end up in the clink; and it will most likely be me. My .02

larrycook99 said:

in the end society will make that decision and society doesn't
always make the right decisions.

Click to expand...

Here you just hit the nail on the head! This is probably what I liked to say from the start. Thanks for understanding

larrycook99 said:

Currently there is a mania with regard to terrorism
and terrorists.

Click to expand...

Better wording would be "hysteria", IMHO. And about pedophylia as well - as least here in Australia.

KSV said:

Get out of city during this zoo show? Any other suggestion? So how
about my rights?

Click to expand...

LOL, I just noticed that you act as if you live in Sydney talking about your rights to avoid this 'gay festival', but as YOU DO NOT live in Sydney but in Melbourne I think you could avoid it VERY EASILY, obviously your fear/hatred of people who don't obey YOUR morals is so great, you have to mislead us in your posts to suggest it affects you more than it really does....

Anyway I give up posting in this thread! no use argueing with you, I can't cure your close-mindedness....

--
------------
Joel

*ist DS, Sigma 18-125/3.5-5.6, Sigma 50/2.8 DG EX Macro, Pentax-M 50/2, Pentax-FA 28/2.8, Tamron 70-300/4-5.6

brianj said:

An even funnier thing happened when I was at the sistine chapel, as
I recall because it was about 8 years ago.

Not only flashes were prohibited but also signs prohibiting
speaking or making noise. As I stood there shoulder to shoulder
with other tourists being very silent, a load speaker came on and
yelled out a long message in about four languages stating that you
must be silent.

Click to expand...

LOL when I first went to the Sistine Chapel all they did as the noise gradually rose and rose was one of the guards gave a loud, sharp clap and everyone fell silent (but only for a few minutes

--
Brett



The Journey is the Thing

Dear Joele!

What I am believe in, what I am thinking, what I am doing and what I am posting couls quite differ each from other. If you CAREFULLY read what been posted here you could notice that "gay festival" only been taken AS AN EXAMPLE. If you still can not understand that, well, probably stop posting here would be right solution for you.

And yes I am living in Melbourne and very happy that this zoo show happens in Sydney - argubly most "non Australian" city in Australia.

Cheers

redpixel said:

*isteve said:

Australian prisons would be
full to bursting with japanese tourists who cant read the signs

Click to expand...

This reminds me of Mona Lisa paiting in Louvre. Before entering the
room with the painting there are two signs: no video allowed and no
photography allowed. But when I actually came inside it was so
crowded with japanese tourists jumping all over the paiting and
taking pictures, even with using a flash

Click to expand...

Crazy, and all the while you're not allowed to take photographs but they are allowed to take surveillance video of YOU.

redpixel said:

--
http://www.redpixel.ch

Click to expand...

--
Lance B

larrycook99 said:

Finally in the case of the incident at the nude beach, I happen to
think that situation is just plain absurd. If the beach is a public
beach then you have said to the world, here I am, have a look.

Click to expand...

I am in total agreeance with you, but I suppose they don't want their nude picture being sold to a magazine or displayed over the net.

Again, though, if they are prancing up and down the beach in the nude, then why should they care if it is on the net? Strange conundrum. People have strange ideas.

--
Lance B