Moderators: Alyrium Denryle, Edi, K. A. Pital
Yeh well, I'm tired of people who comment about "deteriorating air quality"Stormbringer wrote:If you really want to address that point do it, not launch a flame barrage.
Then make the point rather than flaming.MKSheppard wrote:Yeh well, I'm tired of people who comment about "deteriorating air quality"
blah blah without even having spent a single freaking minute in the area, or
those who think that industries' hazardrious chemical output can be magically
reduced to zero by passing x amount of laws.
Oh, puh-lease. Do you honestly buy the right's rhetoric about standing for freedom from government intrusion? The same people who abruptly change their tune as soon as it comes to the issue of any personal behaviour that offends religious sensibilities?Col. Crackpot wrote:it has nothing to do with Bush, rather the liberal concept of the supreme power of the state over the individual. Remember 'It takes a village to raise a child'? well the village just took the child away from it's parents.
Are you a pedophile? Because you would have to be one, in order to get sexual feelings and impressions from a picture of a kid taking a bath.Axis Kast wrote:I'm not so sure.
If I were a clerk and processed photographs of children being displayed naked consistently - in bathtubs, breastfeeding, or worse, in bed -, I'd have to say I'd have at least questioned my supervisor.
According to the article, there's exactly one picture. And have you seen these pictures? You seem quite confident in passing judgement upon these parents and their family activities from afar. Do you have some access to the pictures that we don't, hence your bold statements of fact about their lewd content?Stormbringer wrote:I think they reacted like they did because there's more than just one picture. It seems like there are quite a few in what they dropped off. And frankly given the poses in the pictures, if that went anywhere but the family scrap book it'd be kiddie porn.
I think that's the point Mike, that pedophiles do get off on naked kids and the clerk was worried about the fact that they family was taking a lot of naked pictures of their kids. A whole lot photos of naked children should raise warning flags.Darth Wong wrote:Are you a pedophile? Because you would have to be one, in order to get sexual feelings and impressions from a picture of a kid taking a bath.Axis Kast wrote:I'm not so sure.
If I were a clerk and processed photographs of children being displayed naked consistently - in bathtubs, breastfeeding, or worse, in bed -, I'd have to say I'd have at least questioned my supervisor.
Hate to break it to you Shep, but Texas-bashing is quite understandable and on-topic in a thread about an insane event which TOOK PLACE IN TEXAS.MKSheppard wrote:THEN SHUT THE FUCK UP ABOUT TEXAS, DICKMUNCHER!
Only if they are engaged in sexual activities. And where did this "whole lot of photos" bit come from? The article said one.Stormbringer wrote:I think that's the point Mike, that pedophiles do get off on naked kids and the clerk was worried about the fact that they family was taking a lot of naked pictures of their kids. A whole lot photos of naked children should raise warning flags.
Based on what? A picture of a kid breast-feeding? Are you saying that every parent who takes a picture of his kid in a bath or getting breast-fed must now face CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION?The officials clearing overreacted in taking the kids but the matter should have been looked into.
If you read the article it was quite a few pictures not just one. It even describes what the pictures were. Their content is such that it should arouse some suspicion.Darth Wong wrote:According to the article, there's exactly one picture. And have you seen these pictures? You seem quite confident in passing judgement upon these parents and their family activities from afar. Do you have some access to the pictures that we don't, hence your bold statements of fact about their lewd content?
No, read down. The articles describes several series of photographs they took which amounted to four rolls.Only if they are engaged in sexual activities. And where did this "whole lot of photos" bit come from? The article said one.
No. But a parent that takes pictures of themselves naked in the tub with them, with the kids naked in bed with them (also naked) should raise question. Especially since it seems to be more than just a few pictures.Based on what? A picture of a kid breast-feeding? Are you saying that every parent who takes a picture of his kid in a bath or getting breast-fed must now face CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION?
Using the camera's timer, they also took three snapshots of themselves, naked in their bed. They arranged their bodies in ways that showed less flesh than most freeway billboards.
A half-dozen others recorded the kids at bath time. Fernandez took several photos of the boys "playing around," naked and innocent, with the oldest flashing a big smile. Mercado, who says she often bathed with the kids, is in several of the shots unclothed from the waist up, holding her arm modestly across her bare chest.
In one--the photo that would threaten to send Mercado and her boyfriend to prison--the infant Rodrigo is suckling her left breast.
Read it a little more carefully....Stormbringer wrote:No, read down. The articles describes several series of photographs they took which amounted to four rolls.Only if they are engaged in sexual activities. And where did this "whole lot of photos" bit come from? The article said one.
No. But a parent that takes pictures of themselves naked in the tub with them, with the kids naked in bed with them (also naked) should raise question. Especially since it seems to be more than just a few pictures.Based on what? A picture of a kid breast-feeding? Are you saying that every parent who takes a picture of his kid in a bath or getting breast-fed must now face CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION?
Yeah. I'm not sure whether they mean all of them or not. They, their, and themselves could cover either. I got the impression they meant all of them since it was right after talking about the family reunion and the kids.Keevan_Colton wrote:Read it a little more carefully....
It said that there were pics of the couple in bed...no kids....and I guess people should bathe clothed.....
They'd have been all over that one instead of the breast feeding thing if it was.....Stormbringer wrote:Yeah. I'm not sure whether they mean all of them or not. They, their, and themselves could cover either. I got the impression they meant all of them since it was right after talking about the family reunion and the kids.Keevan_Colton wrote:Read it a little more carefully....
It said that there were pics of the couple in bed...no kids....and I guess people should bathe clothed.....
Good point.Keevan_Colton wrote:They'd have been all over that one instead of the breast feeding thing if it was.....
The mother was in there naked as well Mike.Darth Wong wrote:I reiterate: only one picture actually showed the children WITH THE PARENTS IN THE SAME SHOT in any state of nakedness, and that was a BREAST-FEEDING PICTURE. The rest is unbelievable prudishness; the day some idiot interprets a picture of a kid in a bathtub as sexually suggestive is the day I've met my first pedophile.
Egads, a parent who takes a bath with her kids! My wife has done that lots of times; are the Prude Police going to come for MY kids next?Stormbringer wrote:The mother was in there naked as well Mike.
Yes, because he's an idiot who thinks that a mother should never take a bath with her kids.And it is overreaction to take the kids away. I've said that from the beginning. But I can understand why the kid brought it to official attention though.
I think it was the fact they were taking pictures of it that alarmed him not the activity itself. Most people don't do things like that.Darth Wong wrote:Egads, a parent who takes a bath with her kids! My wife has done that lots of times; are the Prude Police going to come for MY kids next?Stormbringer wrote:The mother was in there naked as well Mike.Yes, because he's an idiot who thinks that a mother should never take a bath with her kids.And it is overreaction to take the kids away. I've said that from the beginning. But I can understand why the kid brought it to official attention though.
I am beginning to think you believe in the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy...Darth Wong wrote:Oh, puh-lease. Do you honestly buy the right's rhetoric about standing for freedom from government intrusion? The same people who abruptly change their tune as soon as it comes to the issue of any personal behaviour that offends religious sensibilities?Col. Crackpot wrote:it has nothing to do with Bush, rather the liberal concept of the supreme power of the state over the individual. Remember 'It takes a village to raise a child'? well the village just took the child away from it's parents.
The only difference between the left and the right is that they consider different cows to be sacred.
I'm getting worried because I've seen pictures of myself, my cousins (from both sides), my friends and my nephews taking a bath with their parent. Perhaps I should report us all to the authorities... I fail to see what is so extraordinery about this.Stormbringer wrote:I think it was the fact they were taking pictures of it that alarmed him not the activity itself. Most people don't do things like that.Darth Wong wrote:Yes, because he's an idiot who thinks that a mother should never take a bath with her kids.
There's no mistaking the fact that the social Right wants to make anything against their sensibilities suspicious and criminal.Nathan F wrote:I am beginning to think you believe in the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy...
Not to defend the fact that the children were taken away, as they shouldn't have been, but you are wrong:Darth Wong wrote:I reiterate: only one picture actually showed the children WITH THE PARENTS IN THE SAME SHOT in any state of nakedness, and that was a BREAST-FEEDING PICTURE. The rest is unbelievable prudishness; the day some idiot interprets a picture of a kid in a bathtub as sexually suggestive is the day I've met my first pedophile.
