Quote:
|
Originally Posted by smooth
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.
|
I apologize for this. It was not meant as an attack. While responding, I had read that portion, realized how little sense it made and pointed it out to you in an ineffective attempt to get you to question yourself. In retrospect, it was probably as effective as pointing out your spelling mistakes. It was likely just something you had quickly thought up while typing out the rest of your response...
Quote:
|
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?
|
I think I do understand what you are saying and I'm disagreeing with you and telling you why. Just so there's no misunderstanding, you think that anyone who takes public pictures that include people are responsible for reassuring the people that they (the photographer) are no danger. Is this correct?
If it is, perhaps we can just start there...
Quote:
|
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.
|
I used the example of taboids
and the newspaper (which you failed to mention) to exemplify the point that journalistic professionals don't appear to follow any sort of ethics that I can see, so I might not want to act "professionally."
Regardless, I'm not part of the press, I'm simply a private citizen and I comport myself as such. Anything else would just be pretentious on my part, including any claims that I represent any profession...
Quote:
|
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?
|
Yes, the are many ways to interpret my "cheesy" example... Which makes it cheesy... Hence, why I told you it was cheesy... So that you wouldn't take it too seriously. My interpretation was that the photos would be for personal use, much like the food you cook yourself.
Quote:
|
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
|
Well, when Charlatan says "the thing is, if someone doesn't want you to do it, don't be an ass and keep doing it," and you say "Charlatan's point was to be respectful of your 'subjects' wishes and the current social climate surrounding perceived danger to children, and not be an ass," it suggests that you're saying "that taking pictures of people was being an ass." Obviously, there's a lot of context around all that but you and Charlatans posts do sound like you think that people who take public pictures, despite parental objections, is being an ass, rather than parents objectioning to public pictures are being asses, which I think is far more accurate considering you're doing nothing wrong and their concerns are baseless.
I had forgotten about your request to remove the focus of legal rights to the discussion while I was describing why you were one-sided and I wasn't,
as much (it would be hard for me to deny that I'm picking a side). What I had meant to do was just to point out how it came up...
Quote:
|
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.
|
Well, having to explain that I harbour no ill will, even rationally,
is appeasing parents, so... Yes, you were telling me to appease parents.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that escalating a parental encounter to a violent confrontation is a useful thing. However, I do want to impart onto parents that their fears are unreasonable, even if it is done calmy (in fact, that would be prefereble).
When a parent approaches you with concern and you reassure them with words like "oh, don't worry. I'm not one of
them," you're reinforcing their fears of "them," as if they were something
to be feared. They are not. They are figments of our imagination and the short end of a bell curve of an extremely large population...
As an aside, what parents that would support restrictive legislation won't understand is that when they restrict my rights they are restricting their own, for my rights are their rights and the rights of their children. So, when they try to make life hard for me, they're going to make life hard for their children as well. Way to "protect" your children you parental idiots...
Quote:
|
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.
|
Hmm, how do I address this?
Firstly, could you point out the "specific examples" of parental suspicions not brought about by irrational fear? The closest I could find were the third paragraph of post
28 and the fourth paragraph of post
36, neither of which seem to be examples of suspicion, specific or otherwise.
Secondly, I think you will find my demeanor to change from thread to thread (although I'd be interested to see if people agree with my assessment of myself!), so imagine how it may differ from a web forum to a personal encounter! While I have a
thread that suggests there's no anonymity on this forum, there is relative anonymity in that you don't know who I am outside of it. For better or worse (either side is debatable), this allows for a change in how we approach communication. Someone who is extremely shy in person may be loud and obnoxious here. I also think my attitude here is atypical of me but you can, of course, judge for youself. I make some really good posts...
Quote:
|
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.
|
Well, you're probably not used to Canadians being accused of kidnapping, either! Out of curiosity, did you have an opinion of me before this thread?