I'm an atheist, and I intensely disagree with the sexualisation of everything in our society dressed as a new sexual revolution, and see it as a direct effect of capitalism.
The other day I read something about how society must “prevent the oversexualization of children” and that got me thinking, who will protect the oversexualization of society itself? The answer was obvious to me.
You say that as if there is no other reason to ban alcohol than religious belief, and not like alcohol being one of the most negative societal influences in the areas of human health, crime, public safety, and poverty. Just because humans are so cripplingly addicted to alcohol that banning was untenable doesn’t mean it was a bad idea.
Why would you assume a crime by default? The presumption of innocence is only a slogan in the US, just like the above mentioned secularity. Look what happened with the guy in this post. You can't even take a photo of your own kid.
Why don't you petition the government for a redress of grievances and oust them? It's an unlimited right guaranteed by the First Amendment that can remove tyrants without causing harm.
One example would be protecting employees from someone just bringing in photos of themselves with the sole intent of exposing themselves to the employee, as they have a captive audience.
> Sheila, a clerk at the photo store, flirts with George when he picks up his photos, commenting on a mustard stain that appears in one. He photographs everything, even Jerry taking a screwdriver to his stereo, as an excuse to see her again. A lingerie model's picture is accidentally mixed in with George's photos; he assumes it is a photo of Sheila she inserted as a come-on. Kramer convinces George to return the compliment with seductive pictures of himself.
If the local amateur porn producers know that 1 Hour Photo won't print their pictures, then 1 Hour Photo's employees are going to be stuck looking at far less amateur porn.
Sure, but the rule not to print naked adults might be useful and necessary to enforce a rule of "don't bring your amateur porn to this shop, please". Which I think is a reasonable request. Some might not be bothered, but the analogy to sending dick-pics comes to mind.
Puritans.
We “banned” alcohol for 13 years.
America’s greatest battle is with our dark religious past. We claim to be secular but really it’s an aspiration.
I'm an atheist, and I intensely disagree with the sexualisation of everything in our society dressed as a new sexual revolution, and see it as a direct effect of capitalism.
What say you
Still puritanism. Being an atheist doesn't mean you can't form bad beliefs.
We are talking an adults private photos, not a billboard on the freeway.
I think you'll have to expand a bit on that.
1)Government makes companies liable for hosted third party content
2)Companies set up workflows to detect said content
3)???
4)Blame capitalism
3 replies →
You can be an atheist and still be a prude. Having one supposed non-religious orientation or belief doesn't mean you are emancipated in other views.
The other day I read something about how society must “prevent the oversexualization of children” and that got me thinking, who will protect the oversexualization of society itself? The answer was obvious to me.
2 replies →
eh, I feel like alcohol bans were fashionable in the past. USSR did it, Finland did it...
Alcohol ban makes a lot of sense.... alcohol has been proven scientifically to adversely harm humans in any amount.
1 reply →
You say that as if there is no other reason to ban alcohol than religious belief, and not like alcohol being one of the most negative societal influences in the areas of human health, crime, public safety, and poverty. Just because humans are so cripplingly addicted to alcohol that banning was untenable doesn’t mean it was a bad idea.
Everytime you need to use any type of force (e.g., a ban) to impose your idea, you should really think if this is really a good idea.
there are many reasons to reduce harm.
there are absolutely no reason to ban it, because that only causes more harm.
somehow many people on Earth have a remarkable resistance to nuance.
Prohibition didn’t work. Everyone who wanted to kept drinking. Religious guilt is an ineffective motivator of change.
Source: human history.
It’s time to move on.
8 replies →
Let the human decide? If you're religious, God created everything - enjoy it all, or not...as you wish! Just don't force your ideas on others.
1 reply →
You are blaming alcohol for people's actions. That's disgusting and horrifying. I wonder what makes you say that. Religious?
As much as the evangelicals of America screw with the rest of the world in their quest for purity, the better answer seems to be:
How do you know those nudes are taken consensually? And what's your liability for developing ("reproducing") them?
Why would you assume a crime by default? The presumption of innocence is only a slogan in the US, just like the above mentioned secularity. Look what happened with the guy in this post. You can't even take a photo of your own kid.
1 reply →
> America’s greatest battle is with our dark religious past.
Apparently you’ve never been to Baltimore. There is no dark religious past haunting that city, just corrupt politicians.
Is it your claim that one medium sized city somehow has a bigger problem than the nation it exists within?
Baltimore has 10,000,000 people. The United States is larger by a factor of thirty three.
2 replies →
I’d live with corruption if they were at least competent at delivering essential services.
I expect most only complain about corruption because the basics aren’t being delivered, not out of a sense of civic responsibility.
1 reply →
Why don't you petition the government for a redress of grievances and oust them? It's an unlimited right guaranteed by the First Amendment that can remove tyrants without causing harm.
2 replies →
One example would be protecting employees from someone just bringing in photos of themselves with the sole intent of exposing themselves to the employee, as they have a captive audience.
This premise was in a Seinfeld episode:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Package_(Seinfeld)
> Sheila, a clerk at the photo store, flirts with George when he picks up his photos, commenting on a mustard stain that appears in one. He photographs everything, even Jerry taking a screwdriver to his stereo, as an excuse to see her again. A lingerie model's picture is accidentally mixed in with George's photos; he assumes it is a photo of Sheila she inserted as a come-on. Kramer convinces George to return the compliment with seductive pictures of himself.
Please tell me there is a pseudo-logical-fallacy for inadvertently invoking a Seinfeld plot.
2 replies →
This policy does nothing to impede a person with that intent. The employee still looked at the photo.
In fact, the policy was why they examined the photo carefully.
No, ive never heard of film :|
Briefly glimpsing a negative, and being forced to make an enlargment and checking the print quality, are two different things.
And obviously you can't prohibit viewing a negative you haven't seen yet...thus prohibiting the printing.
1 reply →
Being forced to look at people's amateur porn at your job is pretty lame.
I agree, but presumably it's already necessary to determine if it's a picture of a naked adult.
If the local amateur porn producers know that 1 Hour Photo won't print their pictures, then 1 Hour Photo's employees are going to be stuck looking at far less amateur porn.
Sure, but the rule not to print naked adults might be useful and necessary to enforce a rule of "don't bring your amateur porn to this shop, please". Which I think is a reasonable request. Some might not be bothered, but the analogy to sending dick-pics comes to mind.
So don’t work at a place that prints peoples private photos?