"Scott Hill" <sco### [at] ncgraphicsnet> wrote in message
news:3aa5220c@news.povray.org...
>
>     Agreed and I was more playing Devils Advocate then anything else, but
> Greg's post appeared to imply that the mere presence of a naked women (and
> the rape implication) was enough to turn an image into a tool of evil - I
> just wanted to point out that this is a slightly naive view.
>

Quite - it's even arguable that a titilating image on this subject could be
a legitimate subject, forcing us to acknowledge that we haven't trancended
such brutality.

Post a reply to this message

Scott Hill wrote:

> "Tom Melly" <tom### [at] tomandlucouk> wrote in message
> news:3aa51d0a$1@news.povray.org...
> > "Scott Hill" <sco### [at] ncgraphicsnet> wrote in message
> > news:3aa51b6b@news.povray.org...
> > >

> that
> > > act ?
> > >
> >

OK. Amnesty International could *write* about a political prisoner that was

good, but could be used for evil purposes by a few readers.

Post a reply to this message

You have a foot note mark, but no foot note. What up with that?
______
David McCabe
Unknown Starter of the Thread That Wouldn't Die
mcc### [at] yahoocom
http://homepage.mac.com/davidmccabe/
Jesus loves you!

Post a reply to this message

"Greg M. Johnson" <"gregj;-()56590"@aol.c;-()om> wrote in message
news:3aa6ec15@news.povray.org...
>
> OK. Amnesty International could *write* about a political prisoner that
was
> kept naked in a prison cell. The writing itself was intended for a social
> good, but could be used for evil purposes by a few readers.

Very true - and I hope I haven't implied that a subject, of itself, can be
morally dubious.

Post a reply to this message

"Greg M. Johnson" wrote:

> Warp wrote:
>
> > Francois Labreque <fla### [at] videotronca> wrote:
> > : most sci-fi or
> > : Dungeon & Dragon-type pics have the very nasty tendencies of showing
> > : female characters wearing only chain-mail bikinis and similar apparels
> > : which do not make much sense, in my opinion.
> >
> >   Why not? That's a perfect battle armor. ;)
>
> There was one where the woman was naked in a jail cell, the implication
> being that she was kept around for repeated rape: yes, an evil image.

You know, if I saw a picture of a woman in a jail cell who was naked, my first
thought would not be "there's a woman being kept jailed and nude so she can be
raped". My first thought would be "Look, a naked woman in a jail cell."
Unless, of course, there are other things in this image that skew it more
towards that particular interpretation.... in which case, the fact she was
naked would not be the basis of the interpretation, but the fact that she was
naked in combination with other factors would be.

I mean, maybe she's naked because she's so brilliantly resourceful that her
captors are afraid to let her have even a shred of clothing in case she does
something with it that will allow her to escape. Of course, that still leaves
the question of why she's being kept captive, but there are relatively benign
explanations there, as well.
Possibly she's killed a dozen people. I'd probably want her in jail if she
had.

And then, of course, there's symbolism. Maybe someone did a piece of artwork
depicting a naked woman in a jail cell because they equate being imprisoned
with being otherwise vulnerable -- and naked does often equal vulnerable.

So, see, I don't equate "naked woman in jail" = evil. It may be you are right
about the particular image you allude to. I don't know. It's a pretty terse
verbal description to go on. But the concept itself is not inherently wrong.

This is a fairly complicated issue. I would certainly support asking the IRTC
admins to RSACi rate their site (well, ICRA now, I guess, and I don't like
some of their delineations, but it's widely used), or put in a disclaimer, or
both. I even think that the suggestion that nudity-containing images have
blurred thumbnails was not a terrible one, although that would take work on
someone's part that the admins may not have the time for. But I do not support
banning anything. Some people are offended by nudity. Some people are offended
by blasphemy. I'm offended by banning.

I have, by the way, seen images in various rounds of IRTC I found offensive.
One of them was even on the winners' page (no, it didn't involve nudity, and
no, I'm not going to name it; that's besides the point). I accept that people
have different viewpoints on morality and acceptable depictions and simply try
to ignore that which offends me.

Post a reply to this message

The problem with blured thumbs is that you can't tell that a person is naked
from the thumb nail anyway (at least I can't). If the thumbs where
higher-res, blurring would be great, but as it is, I useally don't get much
more then a color scheme and some major object put of a thumb nail.
______
David McCabe
mcc### [at] yahoocom
http://homepage.mac.com/davidmccabe/
Jesus loves you! 

> I even think that the suggestion that nudity-containing images have
> blurred thumbnails was not a terrible one, although that would take work on
> someone's part that the admins may not have the time for.

Post a reply to this message

I can't believe where this thread has gone. And
I'm saddened by the response in here to simple
nudity.  Go outside and smell some plant genitals.

-- 
Yeah, but ask yourself... why are you really
interested?
http://www.teleport.com/~dearmad

Post a reply to this message

news:3AAAC434.206A9BE7@teleport.com...
> I can't believe where this thread has gone. And
> I'm saddened by the response in here to simple
> nudity.  Go outside and smell some plant genitals.
>
I do agree with you. Talking about the response, take a look at the worship
entries. Ange.jpg is one of my favorites.

Txemi Jendrix
tji### [at] euskalnetnet
http://home.dencity.com/tji

Post a reply to this message

This is a pretty old post but here goes.  All you people have TOO MUCH time
on your hands.  I mean you get to an argument about good, evil and
christianity from a guy not being very happy at an image with a view of a
nipple in it!!! What the hell's up with that??  Why didnt u all just accept
that he was a bit annoyed???  u make me sick

Marc

Post a reply to this message

"george ferguson" <geo### [at] ferguson123freeservecouk> wrote in message
news:3b1bbcbe@news.povray.org...
>                             ...[You all] have TOO MUCH time
> on your hands...    ...an argument about good, evil and
> christianity...                        ...an image with a view of a
> nipple in it!!!                      ...Why didnt u all just accept
> that he was a bit annoyed???
>

    Trust me George, you don't want to go there !

--
Scott Hill.
Software Engineer.
E-Mail        : sco### [at] innocentcom
Pandora's Box : http://www.pandora-software.com

*Everything in this message/post is purely IMHO and no-one-else's*

Post a reply to this message