doctormcmeekle said: SupaFunkyOrgangrinderSexy said: I'm sure you found the images you were looking for You want the link, don't you? Maybe the one with humpin nuns but I don't want the one with the furry critters 2010: Healing the Wounds of the Past.... http://prince.org/msg/8/325740 | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
SupaFunkyOrgangrinderSexy said: doctormcmeekle said: You want the link, don't you? Maybe the one with humpin nuns but I don't want the one with the furry critters But the nuns have furry critters..... .....oh, never mind! | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Anxiety said: ok, seriously...
if i could, justin, i'd personally be like that dude in the blue fly suit in the MSN ads who follows families around to work and school and physically puts his hands over their eyes and shields them from things they shouldn't see. i'm not saying that to be a smart-aleck. it's clear that you're a very sensitive soul and that when you're confronted with disturbing images, you not only have a very difficult time processing it, but you feel a need to completely erase from existence the possibility of anyone else having to endure the same experience you had. and, you know, that's sweet. seriously. but it's not congruous with the way the world works. and as it exists now, the internet is an intangible or "virtual" reflection of the world. sometimes you'll walk out your door and see a horribly grizzly car accident on your street corner. that can't be moderated. it happens. it's life. sometimes you'll google "fuzzy kittens and unicorns" and the results might be gore and dwarf porn. who can predict these things? they happen. and sad to say, no matter how much you try to push for the world to regulate the amount of bad and unjust things that exist, you'll never ever clean house completely. and, ya know, you have to worry about your own little sphere of existence. what kind of filters does your internet provider offer that might keep these kinds of images off your computer screen in the future? when you look up images on google, do you use the google safe filter? and perhaps more crucially, when you see that little flash of ickiness pop up on the screen, you are always empowered to simply look away and click that little red X on the upper right hand corner of your screen. i know the temptation to look is powerful, but with some discipline and the realization that the consequence is something you can't really digest, you'll be surprised at how quickly that discipline will become habit. sorry you saw something horrible. sorry you can't make it all go away. but you can keep it out of your world to some extent if you really want to. VERY WELL SAID! I think we all can attest to seeing things we wished we hadn't. I have made rules with myself regarding these things. Things I shouldn't see and things I do see but don't want to. What's important is how you process it and what becomes of that process. Both what was suggested and what was actually done are VERY GOOD things. Though, personally that kind of stuff should not be too easy to find...if you ask me. I feel ashamed now for wanting to know the word...um I don't need to know that word now. Christian Zombie Vampires | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
superspaceboy said: Both what was suggested and what was actually done are VERY GOOD things. Though, personally that kind of stuff should not be too easy to find...if you ask me. You know, I *do* believe that certain images shouldn't be "easy to find" - I agree with that. Don't misconstrue my comments to mean that I think horrible images should be front and center simply because, "hey, the world can be ugly sometimes". That's not my point at all. But we can take the most authoritarian actions we can and censor and ban and report stuff left, right and forward, but at some point, personal responsibility MUST come into play. even if we depend on some "higher authority" to control what we see in life, there's no filter that protects our every waking moment, and there's certainly nothing that can filter us from our own morbid negative fascinations...well, i take that back. i suppose we could filter ourSELVES. no? consider pete townshend's situation last year, in which he was arrested for looking at child pornography online as part of a study he was doing on child abuse. personally, i believe townshend was legitimately working on this story and not just baking up an excuse. so much of his work and the content of so many of his interviews over the decades have dealt a lot with child abuse and molestation. yet he was arrested for having the audacity to look at something in his own home. if this is acceptable, then should the same action be acceptable for binaryjustin? (personally of course *I* don't think so - in EITHER example - but my question is: how are these different situations?) | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |