Swiss arrest Roman Polanski on US request in sex case - Page 14 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

tankdriver · #**196** 10-04-2009, 01:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmbdiesel

Truly a slippery slope you tread, my friend. 13 will get you 20, I think is the expression....

And what about those pictures of toddlers in the bathtub every parent has? It may be a slope, but it's not a cliff.

t walgamuth · #**197** 10-04-2009, 07:37 PM

Those do not count.

tankdriver · #**198** 10-04-2009, 08:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by t walgamuth

Those do not count.

Convenient.

t walgamuth · #**199** 10-04-2009, 10:42 PM

What? Pictures of naked kids in a bath? (I am not talking about 13 year olds!).

tankdriver · #**200** 10-05-2009, 12:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by t walgamuth

What? Pictures of naked kids in a bath? (I am not talking about 13 year olds!).

Excluding them from the debate is convenient. If your position is that no kid should ever be photographed without clothes, then those bath pictures count. If your position is that some kids can be photographed nude, but not other kids, then your position makes no sense.

t walgamuth · #**201** 10-05-2009, 06:16 AM

I don't believe I said no kid should ever be photographed without clothes.

cmbdiesel · #**202** 10-05-2009, 08:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tankdriver

Excluding them from the debate is convenient. If your position is that no kid should ever be photographed without clothes, then those bath pictures count. If your position is that some kids can be photographed nude, but not other kids, then your position makes no sense.

Correct me if I am wrong, but you seem to be arguing for the sake of argument, either that or you are completely lacking the moral and ethical background which normal people use to differentiate between cute pictures of toddlers in the tub and inappropriate pubescent photography. A more difficult question would have been - what about the same girl posing for a painting? Does the medium itself imply 'art', thereby negating some of our reservations about it? However, this case does not seem to have any 'art' to fall back on as an excuse. Pictures of a sexual nature, taken of a 13yo, are inappropriate in our society.

MS Fowler · #**203** 10-05-2009, 08:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tankdriver

Excluding them from the debate is convenient. If your position is that no kid should ever be photographed without clothes, then those bath pictures count. If your position is that some kids can be photographed nude, but not other kids, then your position makes no sense.

Your argument is so typical of the "zero tolerance" mentality that is so pervasive in our culture today.
There is a difference between baby pictures and teen pictures. If you can't see the difference, then no one can explain ti to you.
You have stooped to the same level as school administrators who suspend grade schoolers for drawing a picture of a gun, or using their thumb abd fore-finger as a gun. Or charging a kinder gartner with sex abuse for hugging a child.
Do we really need lawyers or politicians to define "common sense"?

tankdriver · #**204** 10-05-2009, 09:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmbdiesel

Correct me if I am wrong, but you seem to be arguing for the sake of argument, either that or you are completely lacking the moral and ethical background which normal people use to differentiate between cute pictures of toddlers in the tub and inappropriate pubescent photography. A more difficult question would have been - what about the same girl posing for a painting? Does the medium itself imply 'art', thereby negating some of our reservations about it? However, this case does not seem to have any 'art' to fall back on as an excuse. Pictures of a sexual nature, taken of a 13yo, are inappropriate in our society.

What I'm saying is the nudity of the child does not in and of itself make the picture inappropriate. I'm not talking about this case in particular, as no one has seen the pictures Polanski took.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MS Fowler

Your argument is so typical of the "zero tolerance" mentality that is so pervasive in our culture today.
There is a difference between baby pictures and teen pictures. If you can't see the difference, then no one can explain ti to you.
You have stooped to the same level as school administrators who suspend grade schoolers for drawing a picture of a gun, or using their thumb abd fore-finger as a gun. Or charging a kinder gartner with sex abuse for hugging a child.
Do we really need lawyers or politicians to define "common sense"?

That's the opposite of what I'm saying. But why would it be categorically inappropriate to take nude shots of a 13 year old but not a 5 year old?

aklim · #**205** 10-05-2009, 11:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tankdriver

What I'm saying is the nudity of the child does not in and of itself make the picture inappropriate. I'm not talking about this case in particular, as no one has seen the pictures Polanski took.

Well, seeing what happened after the photo shoot, do you have any doubts as to whether it was porn or not?

t walgamuth · #**206** 10-05-2009, 05:28 PM

The obvious reality to me is that it was not a real photo shoot but RP's idea of foreplay.

The difference between art and porn may sometimes be subtle. I suppose it also might depend on the viewer. If the viewer is a perv then it might be porn. The same photo looked at by a normal person might be art.

tankdriver · #**207** 10-05-2009, 06:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by t walgamuth

The obvious reality to me is that it was not a real photo shoot but RP's idea of foreplay.

The difference between art and porn may sometimes be subtle. I suppose it also might depend on the viewer. If the viewer is a perv then it might be porn. The same photo looked at by a normal person might be art.

Seems likely. I was extrapolating from the particular situation.

t walgamuth · #**208** 10-05-2009, 07:34 PM

Funny memory...when I was in Morrocco many years ago we went to the lovely white sand beach at Agadir. While there, there was a young girl/woman who was obviously fairly developed yet she was playing in the surf topless....and obviously (at least appeared to me) of Arabic decent.

I believe her mother was there in the full robes with face covered, IIRC. It was strange to me since she was from a strict culture but they may have an exact age which a female can no longer be seen topless in public.

It made me uncomfortable.

DieselAddict · #**209** 10-05-2009, 08:37 PM

I wish people were less obsessed with breasts. That Janet Jackson breast incident on TV was quite illustrative of the sexually-repressed yet sex-obsessed culture in this country. Given that, I'm almost surprised the Supreme Court hasn't already outlawed breast feeding. Supposedly it's OK to feed on it but not look at it. Makes sense!

I had to warn my European parents about this obsession when they came to visit me. We went to a beach with hardly anyone there and my parents wanted to change to their swimsuits next to our car. I warned them that in this country they could go to jail for that if anyone spotted them. They thought I was kidding. Sadly I was not.

t walgamuth · #**210** 10-05-2009, 10:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DieselAddict

I wish people were less obsessed with breasts. That Janet Jackson breast incident on TV was quite illustrative of the sexually-repressed yet sex-obsessed culture in this country. Given that, I'm almost surprised the Supreme Court hasn't already outlawed breast feeding. Supposedly it's OK to feed on it but not look at it. Makes sense!

I had to warn my European parents about this obsession when they came to visit me. We went to a beach with hardly anyone there and my parents wanted to change to their swimsuits next to our car. I warned them that in this country they could go to jail for that if anyone spotted them. They thought I was kidding. Sadly I was not.

Good points. Our puritain heritage influenced morals are baffeling to Europeans.