|
knifemissile,
I don't appreciate your commentary on my reasoning abilities. you are upset, and you explained your reasoning why, but I value your opinion and I continue to engage you in a civil manner without impugning your intelligence or your reasoning skills. I would appreciate the same courtesy be extend to me from you.
perhaps we have a difference of opinion; or perhaps you should ease off me for a minute and try to understand what I'm getting at instead of advocating for you position so strongly you shut down rational discourse. I'm aware of the dynamic of the politics section of this forum, and at least some of the reasons underpinning your absence from there. why would you want to reproduce that over here in general discussion?
Journalists have a professional code of ethics. it's obtainable. all professional groups have codes of ethics, and none of them that I know of short of the legal and medical profession are regulatory in nature. my point to you is that if you assume the role of a documentarian, and you did, which is different from the casual photographer (that is if you engage in a claim that you not only have a right but an obligation to capture certain images), then at the very least you should comport yourself in a manner consistent with other people in the profession. at the very least, you impung the profession you are claiming to represent by your unethical behavior. now you could use examples of tabloid press, but that doesn't help your case in my opinion. rather, achieving the opposite given that at least some of the basis of the lack of respect the general public has toward tabloid press is it doesn't adhere to professional standards of ethics.
using your "cheesy" example: it's certainly true that you wouldn't need a license to feed yourself. but we're not talking about taking pictures of oneself now are we? at the very least, we ought to produce appropriate analogies if one is to claim their relevence in the disucssion at issue. if you held a public bbq in the park, you would at the very least adhere to the safety guidelines the licensing process detailed--I hope. Do you not owe the people you're feeding, morally and ethically speaking--not necessarily legally--that basic courtesy?
Neither charlatan nor myself suggested that taking pictures of people was being an ass. that's totally unfair to either of us and we tried repeatedly to make that clear. all we suggested was that your mode of conduct can be moderated WHILE you are doing what you wish to do. I never suggested that anyone's rights superceded any one else's, rights and assumptions of obligations tend to collide, precisely why I pointed out that such a discussion would essentially go nowhere. I simply suggested to you to not get into a tiff with me about what your rights vs. parents' rights actually are--because such a discussion is fruitless on a number of levels. 1) we would have to suss out all the relevant case law and local statutes and 2) it's totally irrelevant to how parents are going to act anyway
I didn't tell you to appease parents, but I did recommend rationally speaking to someone and explaining that you harbor no ill will and would like to continue, and if they object, hey no problem, move your kid. I specifically stated that I wasn't referring to your behavior as acting like an ass, so seriously dude, get off your kick. as a fellow photographer, I suggested you consult the profession's ethical code for guidance (which have to do with behaving ethically, and not legally) and warned you that your attitude toward others is going to backfire given the climate right now. stand your ground, demand your rights to take pictures of children when their parents don't want you to, and watch the legislative bodies respond by passing statutes limiting your ability to do so. if that makes you feel vindicated, that's your right, as well, since you seem so keen on justifying your behavior despite its negative ramifications with rights claims.
I already gave you some specific instances that might explain why parents would suspect you without attributing their behavior to irrational fear. you can choose to believe them or not. I don't know the specific details of the original incident nor do I know your particular circumstances. but I can tell you how you appear to me in this thread, where I and at least one other person responded to you in a rational and calm manner, and in my opinion you do not come off very well at all. I didn't say you were acting like an ass to that woman, but I do feel like you are toward me and it makes me wonder just how that interaction transpired between her and you.
I'm really not used to Canadians being so forceful so you've taken me quite aback and to be perfectly frank with you it doesn't reflect nicely on the opinion I beforenow held of you. whether that is of any importance to you is something you alone can judge. I believe I've presented my case clearly, politely, and now repeatedly and if your intention was to run an equally valid but different point of view out of the discussion then you've succeeded. have a good one, knifemissile, and maybe a cold one wouldn't be inappropriate.
__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann
"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman
|