Fun Stuff > CHATTER
Child Pornography or Art? Is there a line, if so where?
axerton:
--- Quote from: gardenhead_ on 25 May 2008, 03:09 ---
art is subjective. just because you think this isn't art doesn't mean other people don't. and if other people find some form of beauty or meaning in it that isn't sexual or perverted or deviant, who are you/the lawmakers to take that away from them because you can't comprehend that?
--- End quote ---
I did not at any stage say that I didn't think it was art, I was merely saying that I believe that this one tiny area that art should avoid
I just don't understand why everyone is so willing to throw away their liberties to protect against 'terrorism' and yet seemingly everyone is willing to fight tooth and nail to protect a few photos and painting.
I'm sorry I don't mean to come across as over-the-top-internet-argument-guy, but it's kind of hard to come up with a dispassionate well thought out argument when this whole subject makes me remember something that causes my eyes to mist over with fury.
Jimmy the Squid:
Um, I know anecdotal evidence is totally frowned upon in informal conversations but I don't know anyone who is in favour of the ridiculous anti-terrorism laws. Seriously, no one.
MadassAlex:
I think what some people need to realise (from earlier in the thread) is that people move on from most bad experiences! I almost drowned when I was 10 years old, but I've never really feared water much, even after that. But some people might. That's the nature of being human.
Basically, some people are way out of line* by using absolute views of human behaviour to prove their point of view. Who are you to say that no-one can recover from [event]? Give them some credit and realise that the molestation of a person does not ruin them. It may or may not alter their perceptions, but even if it does it just means that they experience things a somewhat differently from you. Who are you to imply that victims of sexual, physical and mental abuse have a less valid perceptual set than others?
* Have whatever viewpoint you want, but it's extremely arrogant and selfish to use behaviour observed in some victims of abuse as evidence that all of them are something less than you or me. Yes, I know none of you actually said that. I doubt even those who made the posts were aware of that implication and didn't have it in mind, and yet it remains.
I'm absolutely baffled how some individuals try to argue for the sake of abuse victims while at the same time belittling the hell out of them.
--- Quote ---I just don't understand why everyone is so willing to throw away their liberties to protect against 'terrorism' and yet seemingly everyone is willing to fight tooth and nail to protect a few photos and painting.
--- End quote ---
Giving away liberties for the sake of security is understandable to some extent.
However, the liberties of art are all-important to a society that claims to be free and democratic. If you're allowed to censor art, what good is it to us? The use of art has been, for quite a while, to confront people and explore new ideas. If you removed that capacity from it, in any shape or form, you remove not only the potential for expression in that medium but one of the baser values that our society holds so dear.
Plus, banning these pics in particular is just goddamned over-prudent. Ignore the fact that children have genitals and they will go away! I cannot begin to explain how censoring these images really just reeks of denial and fear without protecting anyone and just harming rights.
est:
I am more worried about Axerton's absolutely horrible statement. It's not his call to judge whether someone's better of dead or not. With time and the right support & help people can get through some pretty tough things. People can never get through being dead.
est:
As for the artworks, they're art. There's nothing sexual about them. What's the fucking deal?
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version