SmartFilter blocking photo.net

[._._z]

<i><blockquote> Yes, you are correct. Some might disagree. In respect and

deferance to both opinions a compromise could be reached without denying access too

or limiting the nudes. </blockquote> </i><p>

 

In deferance [sic] to both opinions, those who are offended by nudity or wish to block

nudes from those using their computers may install blocking software. Pressing for

limitations or restrictions when you can block yourself is only an imposition on the

majority of users here.

[joe_orsak]

.[. Z, understandable position. You have to understand the things I've said before. That being: #1, I'm not against nudity when done tastefully and respectfully. #2. I'm for sectioning off and limiting to adult access (with as much unintrusiveness as posisble) in order to keep PN off of blocking software.

 

I don't want PN blocked. I want the public to be able to get to this site. I think it's an awesome site. I also don't want 8 year olds at the library checking out the TR Penis shot of the week. So, the "compromise" of 2 reasonable positions would be to responsibly consider and work towards means that would allow for both. It is doable and responsible.

 

Thanks for being respectful during the conversation.

 

regards,

[._._z]

The compromise is for people who want to restrict access to sites to do it from their

end. Anything else is asserts parental controls for adults without their assent.

[melissa_eiselein]

I was going to stay out of this one...but I felt compelled to put in my 2 cents worth.

<p><i>"My point wasn't anti-nudity as you attempt to make me out to be but to limit the access to an age group that shouldn't be seeing it any way."</i>

<p>I whole-heartedly agree. As a parent (sons ages 16 & 25) I can tell you that what I would allow them to see (movies, video games, etc) when they were 8 differed from what I allowed them to see when they were 12 and still differed from what I let them view at 16.

<p>Yes, it is the parents responsibility to oversee their children. For some (my youngest) that would include a discussion as to what was allowed and what was not. For others (my oldest) that would mean taking measures to keep him from accessing what I didn't want him to see...such as a software that helps screen Internet sites with nudity. These types of software are a necessity for places like schools that have Internet access. I would have been livid if either of my sons had been allowed to view pornography or even simple nudity through school computers. These days, there are some parents who would sue the school for that type of access--even if they are the same parents posting their own nude shots on amateur porno sites. :-)

<p>I don't believe nude pictures should be banned from Photo.net. With PN's pornography policy, I'm not even sure nudes need a restricted area. But if PN doesn't decide to restrict nudes, I don't think we should gripe when Photo.net is listed on parental-restriction software as a site with nudity...after all, Photo.net does indeed have nudity on the site.

[ann teak]

Greetings, all:

 

This certainly is a complex topic. But tell me please, what do you parents do when your children go running through the park past a nude public sculpture or go on field trips to museums?

 

I had parents, too, once upon a time. It was my VERY religious mom (Christian variety) who took me to museums and took out lots of library books about Egyptian, Greek, Renaissance, and Impressionist art that I was allowed to read, too. Michangelo was my hero by the time I was 8! (Not the no-bathing part, the talent part.)

 

I now hold degrees in Nursing and Interior Design and never once considered a career in the sin-related industries. Please, no proselytizing. It's unbecoming and tedious.

 

Sincerely, Julia

[james_oneill]

<i>"everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart." - Jesus </i>

<b>Joe</b>, I think you make my point for me. Do you beleive that someone who looks at a picture like this<br>

<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/2438921-sm.jpg"><br>

feels lust for the woman in it ? Or do they react more on the basis of beauty ? I always say that someone who gets turned on by a picture like that needs to see a doctor. And I see my self celebrating the beauty of creation - I've said here before that if people want supporting evidence for a benign creator, they can start with our ability to see beauty in the world around us. <p>

 

<i>James, I do not need to let my daughter get hit by a car while playing in the street to teach her that it is unsafe for her to play in the street. </i>

But you don't try to keep her away from all cars (or all streets)either. You teach what's there, its risks and its benefits, right ? Getting hit by cars kills children. I've never seen any evidence that children came to any harm from looking at nakedness. (If they wanted to seek it out that's a sign that there may have been trouble brewing aleady). I have seen evidence that children who don't get proper education end up pregnant etc. <p>

<i>a quote out of context is a dangerous thing</i> but you're happy to snip a few words of mine or the bibles into a post.<p>

I can't see how you verify someone is an adult without taking credit card details from them. Asking them to only tick a box if they are over 18 isn't verification, is it ?

 

"Pot calling the kettle black" is not about misrepresenting people's views, but accusing someone of something which you could be accused of (both pot and Kettle sit in fire) when you say of others <i>"what is really being screamed for is "tolerance of my view and yours as long as yours is the same as mine." </i> is that what you are doing yourself ?

 

I see you can't define nudity and haven't answered whether you'd be happy with Children looking at the fully clothed shots I linked to.

[matthew_s._schwartz]

I clicked on Joe's name so I could get his e-mail address and send him some words of support... and I found this:

 

"This user is deleted from the community."

 

His photos were wonderful. He provided intelligent commentary. Can anyone please explain why he was deleted?

[bobatkins]

I didn't delete his account, so if anyone at photo.net did it was probably Brian. However note that nobody gets deleted as "punishment" for expressing honestly held opinions in a reasonable manner, even if they are contrary to the opinions of others or of photo.net, so don't jump to that conclusion.

 

He may just have chosen to delete himself if he thought that he couldn't live with photo.net's current policy on nudes, or he could have requested that Brian delete his account for him. I don't know.

[constance_cook]

Matthew:

 

Are you one of the "200 friends and family" Joe sent e-mail to asking them to drop in and rate his photos?

 

Conni

[bobatkins]

Now <em>that</em> sounds like system abuse...

[kelly_flanigan1]

Maybe if I ever get off dialup; I will understand this rating stuff. I looked at racy Betty Page photos as a kid; and didnt go goofy. At least too much :)

[matthew_s._schwartz]

Constance, I don't even know the guy. Just wanted to tell him that not everybody endorses the idea of giving children free rein on a site full of nudes.