| | | -
 Originally Posted by abstraxion  ... I think I might just put my 10-20mm right in your face and give you the bird. Heh! Welcome to APUG. This is what makes this site great ... :rolleyes:
-
Originally Posted by JBrunner Second of all, violence against someone participating in a perfectly legal activity because you don't like it also goes well against "basic human courtesy". If you don't want your picture taken in public the onus is on you to remove yourself, not kill someone. That sort of thing is the position of truly weak fortitude, and feeble minded in the extreme. I would agree, I stated that I would wish the perpetrator would be brought to justice which shows I would think the action is wrong.
Originally Posted by JBrunner The argument that one knows the assault isn't right in the abstract but wouldn't mind if it happened in reality is a curious form of self delusion. A self enabling situational ethic on parade. I never once said I would not mind it happening, I said I would not feel sorry for the photographer if it did. Those are two completely different things. Please refrain from adding things to what I said.
Allan
-
Originally Posted by firecracker That doesn't even make an analogy in this context. Or it does, then the "drunk" must be the person(s) being their photo(s) taken, NOT the photographer... The analogy is this:
Photographer takes picture of person who makes it clear they do not want it taken. Subject freaks out and attacks photographer. Had photographer respected the wishes of the subject prior to snapping the shutter none of this would have happened. Photographer brought it on themselves.
Person drinks too much alcohol and gets behind the wheel despite being told on billboards, TV and raidio ads, etc not to. Person crashes and injures themselves. Had person not gotten behind the wheel, none of this would have happened. Person brought it on themselves.
I am not trying to show that these things are similar in any context other than situations where I would not feel sorry for the injured party. I have never stated that I want for anyone to be injured or have violence done to them, nor to I condone any act of violence. I am mearly stating that I would not feel sorry for the photographer should something happened to him because he made the choice to not respect people's privacy when it is clearly expressed BEFORE THE SHOT that they do not want to be photographed.
Allan
Last edited by Flea77; 07-02-2009 at 09:19 AM.
-
If you were talking about a photographer vs. a lion, you'd be correct. I'd feel no sympathy for a photographer hopping into a lion or tiger cage at a zoo then being killed. But there is thought and reason that separates us from the animals, as well as laws.
-
 
Anytime I exercise my legal rights and somebody doesn't like it and kills me, I brought it on myself? Are you serious?
Right, and that girl in the mini skirt who was raped, well, she was just begging for it.
Also, I'd parse a complete lack of empathy for a victim of a crime as in fact not minding the crime, but I suppose if that is an important distinction for you in remaining above advocating the endorsement of violence, you can have it. It's a pretty sexy veil, as see through garments often are.
The analogy is flawed. A drunk driver who crashes and hurts himself does it to himself, as you say, and hopefully no one else.
A photographer assaulted for the perceived insult of photography is the victim of violence perpetrated from another human being, who is breaking the law, and assailing the legal rights of photographer. The active participation of the perpetrator of the crime against a person who has committed no crime nor created any danger to the subject removes any prior consideration of "insult". The photographer would not have brought it on himself, it would be wrought upon him by a criminal for a perceived slight. One can not give credence to every persons perception of what does or does not constitute an insult. The world would be paralyzed. I would certainly feel sorry for a person who was murdered for merely taking a picture, even if I didn't like them that much. It's called empathy. Serial killers, hyenas, and misogynists lack it.
Last edited by JBrunner; 07-02-2009 at 10:37 AM.
-
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
-
Yikes! Pulling guns on one another.
Shows how important it is to keep real, stay on the middle ground, be a civilised human.
How can one say that pulling a gun would be even understandable, in support of the believe that we should show basic human courtesy?!
As will be no secret, i do believe that a reaction provoked is a reaction provoked, and that a provoker is not just instrumental, but also bears part of the responsibility for what ensues.
If the result would be a picture with 'artistic merit', the provoker would be the first to claim responsibility. So why not when the result is something he or she dislikes?
But silly, even criminal responses to provocation are just that: silly, or even criminal.
The person provoked is not absolved from all responsibility for what he or she does, just because he or she is provoked.
It all revolves around common decency. On all sides.
-
Originally Posted by JBrunner Anytime I exercise my legal rights and somebody doesn't like it and kills me, I brought it on myself? Are you serious? When that person specifically asks (by word or action) that they do not want you to do what you did, you are at least in part to blame, even though you are legally in the right.
Just think, what if the person you are photographing is in the witness protection program and may be killed if your photograph is posted online? What if the person is escaping an abusive spouse? What if...... who knows! Did you think about anything other than your "need" to get the photo?
Originally Posted by JBrunner Right, and that girl in the mini skirt who was raped, well, she was just begging for it. If she dresses provocatively enough in the right place at the right time, she may indeed have contributed to the instance happening. Does that mean it is her "fault", no.
Originally Posted by JBrunner Also, I'd parse a complete lack of empathy for a victim of a crime as in fact not minding the crime, but I suppose if that is an important distinction for you in remaining above advocating the endorsement of violence, you can have it. It's a pretty sexy veil, as see through garments often are. You may see it as an unimportant distinction, I do not. I do indeed mind the crime, and think the criminal should be punished. That however does not make me feel sorry for the person when they clearly helped to cause the problem to start with.
Originally Posted by JBrunner The analogy is flawed. A drunk driver who crashes and hurts himself does it to himself, as you say, and hopefully no one else.
A photographer assaulted for the perceived insult of photography is the victim of violence perpetrated from another human being, who is breaking the law, and assailing the legal rights of photographer. The active participation of the perpetrator of the crime against a person who has committed no crime nor created any danger to the subject removes any prior consideration of "insult". The photographer would not have brought it on himself, it would be wrought upon him by a criminal for a perceived slight. One can not give credence to every persons perception of what does or does not constitute an insult. The world would be paralyzed. I would certainly feel sorry for a person who was murdered for merely taking a picture, even if I didn't like them that much. It's called empathy. Serial killers, hyenas, and misogynists lack it. One flaw in your logic is that photographing the person is only a "perceived" insult, when in fact the insult could not only be very real to the person, but also deadly under the right circumstances. You say that the photographer has created no danger for the subject, so you know for a fact that the subject is not hiding from an abusive spouse, in the witness protection program, or has no other reason to not want to be photographed? Even if they do not, crimes happen all the time for perceived slights, ignoring that and doing it anyway makes you partially responsible for the outcome.
No you can not give credence to everyone for what they may or may not perceive as an insult, however when specifically asked not to take their picture, you are forewarned right there! Why insult the person, make them mad, and even take the chance that they may do violence?
Allan
-
Originally Posted by Q.G. Yikes! Pulling guns on one another.
Shows how important it is to keep real, stay on the middle ground, be a civilised human.
How can one say that pulling a gun would be even understandable, in support of the believe that we should show basic human courtesy?! Completely agree. Violence should never be an acceptable action, regardless of the situation. Unfortunately we live in a world where people think it solves problems and therefore use it. Sad but true.
Originally Posted by Q.G. As will be no secret, i do believe that a reaction provoked is a reaction provoked, and that a provoker is not just instrumental, but also bears part of the responsibility for what ensues.
If the result would be a picture with 'artistic merit', the provoker would be the first to claim responsibility. So why not when the result is something he or she dislikes? My point exactly!
Originally Posted by Q.G. But silly, even criminal responses to provocation are just that: silly, or even criminal.
The person provoked is not absolved from all responsibility for what he or she does, just because he or she is provoked.
It all revolves around common decency. On all sides. Absolutely correct! Common decency applies just as much to the picture taker as it does the subject. If the subject specifically asks you not to take the picture BEFORE you take it, be descent and respectful, don't take it!
Allan
-
Originally Posted by Flea77 Completely agree. Violence should never be an acceptable action, regardless of the situation. Unfortunately we live in a world where people think it solves problems and therefore use it. Sad but true. You say that as if that makes it understandable after all.
It's not. It's crazy. Insane.
Sad, but true.
-
For the people against taking pictures of others in public, when they don't want their picture taken, how do you feel about photojournalists?
| |
Adv Reply
