Offensive pictorials

[GIjade]

I find them offensive too, I don't want to look at poor dead animals

So, so you think they should be held to the same standard as the other magazines that some consider offensive? Like keeping them in the back of the display?

 

[GIjade]

Freedom of Speech, OP. That's all there is to it. Most of Western society are free to print what ever they want, even seemingly offensive materials. I've seen some pretty spooky ones when I lived in America- something about necrophiliacs and how totally okay it is. I wonder if it is a troll magazine, but boy, what a trip that was! My only advice is to just turn your head away and find another magazine to read. You can't control the general population.

Yeah, well, once I've seen it it's hard to "unsee" it. Seeing magazines like those I posted, showing the proud hunter who just killed a living being is as offensive to me as coming across a magazine called "Murder" which showing dead murdered people on the cover. You see, they wouldn't allow something like that. Even on the news they don't show the dead. That, I'm assuming, is because they have some respect for human life. I can't figure out why animal life is any different.

 

[Norrsken]

Yeah, well, once I've seen it it's hard to "unsee" it. Seeing magazines like those I posted, showing the proud hunter who just killed a living being is as offensive to me as coming across a magazine called "Murder" which showing dead murdered people on the cover. You see, they wouldn't allow something like that. Even on the news they don't show the dead. That, I'm assuming, is because they have some respect for human life. I can't figure out why animal life is any different.

Are you a vegan or a vegetarian?

 

[GIjade]

Are you a vegan or a vegetarian?

Vegetarian.

 

[Norrsken]

Vegetarian.

I understand clearly now. I am sorry that you have to see those kinds of magazines in the store, and I do have a list of things that I find personally offensive and morally objectifying as well. Is it a particular store that you go to that keep showing those types of magazines? Perhaps you would benefit in trying out those new online magazines, I know iPhone does something like that, and everything will become digital someday, so why not? That way, you control what kinds of content you would like to look at and read.

 

[Qlip]

I think it's far better, especially if you are morally offended, to not have such things hidden. Not seeing something isn't the same as something not existing, in fact, relegating problematical things to dark closets allows them to breed and grow, like the sex industry, drug trade, poverty, inequality, etc. Also I think it's good practice for people to get used to actually having to tolerate things.

 

[GIjade]

I understand clearly now. I am sorry that you have to see those kinds of magazines in the store, and I do have a list of things that I find personally offensive and morally objectifying as well. Is it a particular store that you go to that keep showing those types of magazines? Perhaps you would benefit in trying out those new online magazines, I know iPhone does something like that, and everything will become digital someday, so why not? That way, you control what kinds of content you would like to look at and read.

Most grocery stores and drug stores display those hunting magazines; there's not a particular store, only a more frequented store. But the online thing sounds appealing. Thanks.

 

[GIjade]

I think it's far better, especially if you are morally offended, to not have such things hidden. Not seeing something isn't the same as something not existing, in fact, relegating problematical things to dark closets allows them to breed and grow, like the sex industry, drug trade, poverty, inequality, etc. Also I think it's good practice for people to get used to actually having to tolerate things.

Of course not seeing something isn't the same as something not existing. I understand what you're saying, but hunting isn't something that would ever be relegated to a dark closet. It's an all-American sport - one that sickens me. As far as tolerance. I don't, and never will have, any tolerance at all for people who kill animals.

 

[Qlip]

Of course not seeing something isn't the same as something not existing. I understand what you're saying, but hunting isn't something that would ever be relegated to a dark closet. It's an all-American sport - one that sickens me. As far as tolerance. I don't, and never will have, any tolerance at all for people who kill animals.

You must tolerate them to a degree. I assume you tolerate people who are responsible for the deaths of animals, those who eat meat, wear leather goods, etc.

 

[ChocolateMoose123]

Yeah, well, once I've seen it it's hard to "unsee" it. Seeing magazines like those I posted, showing the proud hunter who just killed a living being is as offensive to me as coming across a magazine called "Murder" which showing dead murdered people on the cover. You see, they wouldn't allow something like that. Even on the news they don't show the dead. That, I'm assuming, is because they have some respect for human life. I can't figure out why animal life is any different.

The news does show the dead on occasion. They will usually have some warning as to the next clip being "graphic" but death is shown.

Each of us has something that affects us negatively or brings us to a bad head space. However, I do not think this complete avoidance or censorship of those things are inherently healthy to us as human beings. It is not how we handle the positive in life that makes us strong individuals but how we handle what negatively influences us that does. A sword does not become forged at room temperature. It has to withstand heat. Humans are pretty similar.

I understand you equate animal life to human life. Many people do, but a majority of the world does not. This is a fact of life. Unfortunately, you being in a minority position, shoulder much of the responsibility toward how you handle seeing these images. If the majority viewpoint changes on this issue you may be in luck as the tides will turn and censorship will occur because the action is condemned socially but I don't see that happening.

This is the difference between tolerance and acceptance. You have to tolerate this because people live their lives differently than you and with different values but you do not have to accept it.

It is no different than someone opposing gay marriage because they disagree with it on a personal level. They don't have to agree with it but since it is the law of the land, they do have to tolerate it.

 

[GIjade]

You must tolerate them to a degree. I assume you tolerate people who are responsible for the deaths of animals, those who eat meat, wear leather goods, etc.

Well, yeah, I do. I tolerate a lot of things I don't like, which is why I've written in prior posts about how difficult it is to live in a world that you can barely tolerate but can't do anything about.

 

[GIjade]

The news does show the dead on occasion. They will usually have some warning as to the next clip being "graphic" but death is shown.

Each of us has something that affects us negatively or brings us to a bad head space. However, I do not think this complete avoidance or censorship of those things are inherently healthy to us as human beings. It is not how we handle the positive in life that makes us strong individuals but how we handle what negatively influences us that does. A sword does not become forged at room temperature. It has to withstand heat. Humans are pretty similar.

I understand you equate animal life to human life. Many people do, but a majority of the world does not. This is a fact of life. Unfortunately, you being in a minority position, shoulder much of the responsibility toward how you handle seeing these images. If the majority viewpoint changes on this issue you may be in luck as the tides will turn and censorship will occur because the action is condemned socially but I don't see that happening.

This is the difference between tolerance and acceptance. You have to tolerate this because people live their lives differently than you and with different values but you do not have to accept it.

It is no different than someone opposing gay marriage because they disagree with it on a personal level. They don't have to agree with it but since it is the law of the land, they do have to tolerate it.

I agree with what you've posted. I do tolerate those things that seem to be intolerable to me, but it makes life difficult. Anyway, you're very wise and somehow I feel a connection to you.

 

[ChocolateMoose123]

I agree with what you've posted. I do tolerate those things that seem to be intolerable to me, but it makes life difficult. Anyway, you're very wise and somehow I feel a connection to you.

I am extremely flattered by that and probably undeserving of it but appreciate it, nonetheless.

 

[Thalassa]

[MENTION=6877]Marmotini[/MENTION] - So, I looked into it, found information about the book on Amazon. I can't think of any adult woman sexualizing pictures of young boys. Yes, youth is beautiful to gaze upon. But not in that way. I don't really understand why she wrote the book, depicting boys that way, unless shes into child molestation.

Well technically the ages of the boys would make her an ephebophile, or hebophile - so she's actually not a pedophile, although she casually and incorrectly referred to herself as a "pederast" in the 1970s, because in her thirties she had several love affairs with men in their twenties, would these days at worst make her a "Cougar"...but I'm under the impression she had genuine feelings for the men, and realistically it's not that shocking of an age difference as it was 40 years ago (and was extremely common in the reverse of course at the time, my dad was about a decade older than my mother. ..see Marilyn Monroes string of marriages, and the song "To Sir With Love.")

I think the book isn't pornography but erotic art, and references classic works of art, and already existing photos of Kurt Cobain and Elvis Presley in their youth.

She's a character. ..she was always proud of her "man like" expression of her sexuality, and something about her suggests to me that she adores Oscar Wilde. ..so her motive was more or less to claim that "women can do this too" and not just for men...so I'm not sure if it was really truly erotica or just a political statement. It's listed as Art History.

I'm just curious where you stood on the matter, if it's reversed.

 

[Thalassa]

Well, there are no "female masturbation" magazines. Again, it's men who seem to need that sort of thing. I don't know who you're referring to in your last sentence, but I'll look into it.

This is incorrect. You should probably look things like this up before stating such a dated opinion. . .this would have probably been true in 1960.

 

[Thalassa]

Of course not seeing something isn't the same as something not existing. I understand what you're saying, but hunting isn't something that would ever be relegated to a dark closet. It's an all-American sport - one that sickens me. As far as tolerance. I don't, and never will have, any tolerance at all for people who kill animals.

Then you should probably stop drinking milk unless it is goat milk and stop eating eggs unless you have your own chickens, because the milk industry still produce male veal calves, and the egg industry slaughters male chicks.

I'm vegan for environmental and health reasons, but the longer I go without animal products the more I'm disgusted by all of it. I could never eat meat again under any circumstances.

 

[Thalassa]

The news does show the dead on occasion. They will usually have some warning as to the next clip being "graphic" but death is shown.

Each of us has something that affects us negatively or brings us to a bad head space. However, I do not think this complete avoidance or censorship of those things are inherently healthy to us as human beings. It is not how we handle the positive in life that makes us strong individuals but how we handle what negatively influences us that does. A sword does not become forged at room temperature. It has to withstand heat. Humans are pretty similar.

I understand you equate animal life to human life. Many people do, but a majority of the world does not. This is a fact of life. Unfortunately, you being in a minority position, shoulder much of the responsibility toward how you handle seeing these images. If the majority viewpoint changes on this issue you may be in luck as the tides will turn and censorship will occur because the action is condemned socially but I don't see that happening.

This is the difference between tolerance and acceptance. You have to tolerate this because people live their lives differently than you and with different values but you do not have to accept it.

It is no different than someone opposing gay marriage because they disagree with it on a personal level. They don't have to agree with it but since it is the law of the land, they do have to tolerate it.

It will be socially condemned within 100 years. I'm quite certain of that. It may be enforced in some places within 50.

I'm not just pulling that out of my ass - anyone who is paying attention to environmental science and the United Nations knows how easily vegetarianism could be enforced quite sooner than 50 years in some locations.

Cattle and hog farming are the second greatest environmental threat after fossil fuels. It's only a matter of time.

Because this is linked to human rights - due to global warming and global starvation - in a very real way, it's a no brainer, you don't have to be an extremist to embrace that logic in the context of a humane moral framework.

100 years ago women didn't have the right to vote, let alone race issues, and LGBT issues, and let's not forget gun control. If people imagine things can't change that rapidly - I actually predict this will be even more rapid, out of pragmatism and overpopulation, as well as a dying earth.

Human rights in the near future will be global, not national.

Great minds go back as far as Leonardo dI Vinci, Tolstoy and Einstein, and it's caught on more with average people who are paying attention.

There are scientists who argue that cultural obsession with meat, is nothing more than culture. Humans are physiologically similar to pigs, who can technically survive on garbage, but it isn't their optimal diet. Same with humans and meat - it's not only now unnecessary in most parts of the developed world, it's actually harmful.

 

[Poki]

All i care about are things that push others to hurt others for stupid reasons. Thats the only thing i find offensive.

 

[GIjade]

All i care about are things that push others to hurt others for stupid reasons. Thats the only thing i find offensive.

What do you consider stupid reasons.

 

[GIjade]

This is incorrect. You should probably look things like this up before stating such a dated opinion. . .this would have probably been true in 1960.

I have no desire to look these things up. But I can tell you that if it's not widely known, there are probably very few of them