A3123

Interesting, I wonder how many of you posters have actually watched the video link, and if so, how could you have gotten past the two minute mark and not seen it as an overtly sexual erotic depiction of nude children?

Perrie Juran wrote: A3123 wrote: That an artist could paint a nude child from their imagination is just as disturbing as the rest of this thread. And again, you still have not answered the question, "Why is it wrong, or as you stated in this post, "disturbing?" It saddens me, although it does not surprise me, that an answer has to be stated to the question, "Why is it wrong or disturbing to view or depict naked children." (Other than as medical aids or fields of that nature). What is my answer? If I were to truly take the time to write the volumes of words to which that answer would require, I fear that it would be a complete waste of time, for those whom need it explained to them will never understand and those that do understand would never need it explained to them. The depiction of nude children, whether alive or dead, whether real or imagined, is wrong simply because it is.

That an artist could paint a nude child from their imagination is just as disturbing as the rest of this thread.

Kwakkelde Kwak wrote: If you are unable to see the metaphorical pure innocence and vulnerability in the picture of a naked child, you should simply stay away from any forum thread about art. Or visual art altogether. Now if someone had their own naked child photographed or painted and put the image on the internet or in a museum or any public place for that matter while the child was still alive, I would be creeped out myself. But a 17th century fictional child (even if a real child might have modeled for it)? The innocence and vulnerability of a naked child should not be portrayed as art. Whether the child is from the 17th or the 21st century makes no difference. A child is a child regardless of which era they were born in.

Kenbro Utu wrote: A3123 wrote: There is no acceptable reason to display an image of a naked child. The medical community would disagree with you. Such images are used for teaching/documentation all the time. So there is at least one acceptable reason. Good one.

Perrie Juran wrote: A3123 wrote: Perrie Juran wrote: A3123 wrote: A naked child is a naked child. Calling it art does not change the fact that you are viewing, approving, and defending the display of a naked child. Absolutely. But the real question is what is wrong, sinful, evil, lewd, immoral, corrupt, vile, fowl.......the list of synonyms I could post here is huge......about a picture of a naked child? Absolutely nothing. If someone gets sexually aroused looking at a naked child the problem is in their mind. There are people who get sexually aroused by sheep. By your logic we should ban all images of sheep. The image of a naked child is no more porn than the image of a sheep. Whether or not a viewer is aroused sexually or not by the image of a naked child does not in any way determine whether or not images of naked children should be acceptable. There is no acceptable reason to display an image of a naked child. "There is no acceptable reason to display an image of a naked child. " /me shakes my head in disbelief. Seriously, by what semblance of any logic do you conclude this? And then by what logic is it ok to portray an adult body? Unless you are applying a strict Levitical (mis) interpretation of not having ANY graven image, in which case your Avatar would be a graven image and a sin. A naked child is not the same as a naked adult. I have no concern whatsoever with any Levitical scripture.

Perrie Juran wrote: A3123 wrote: A naked child is a naked child. Calling it art does not change the fact that you are viewing, approving, and defending the display of a naked child. Absolutely. But the real question is what is wrong, sinful, evil, lewd, immoral, corrupt, vile, fowl.......the list of synonyms I could post here is huge......about a picture of a naked child? Absolutely nothing. If someone gets sexually aroused looking at a naked child the problem is in their mind. There are people who get sexually aroused by sheep. By your logic we should ban all images of sheep. The image of a naked child is no more porn than the image of a sheep. Whether or not a viewer is aroused sexually or not by the image of a naked child does not in any way determine whether or not images of naked children should be acceptable. There is no acceptable reason to display an image of a naked child.

Pamela Galli wrote: It is hard to believe that there are actually people in this world who are so twisted as to think the sight of a naked child is something dirty and ugly, when I can think of nothing more utterly beautiful and charming -- which, of course, is why they were so often the subject of the world's greatest artists' paintings. Wow, you must spend a lot of your time in Second Life.

A naked child is a naked child. Calling it art does not change the fact that you are viewing, approving, and defending the display of a naked child.

Wow, child pornography much?

You know tearing and enjoyment for him go hand in hand.

I wasn't being sarcastic, but you knew that, didn't you? I like how you pretend to be for someone but then tear them down other places. Well, as long as he is happy I suppose it is ok, in fact, he must be quite gay about it.

The fact that one is a gay atheist does not have to be a secret. In fact, if one is a gay atheist I doubt it would take the NSA to find out.

Try clearing both fields, name and password, make sure caps is off, then try again. I apologize if I sounded rude to you.

Yes.