Why would you not print naked adults?
We “banned” alcohol for 13 years.
America’s greatest battle is with our dark religious past. We claim to be secular but really it’s an aspiration.
How do you know those nudes are taken consensually? And what's your liability for developing ("reproducing") them?
> You can't even take a photo of your own kid.
You missed the part where we're discussing a sub-topic off that story, someone's experience working in a photo store, and the policies in place there.
> Why would you assume a crime by default?
I assume you mean "you" as in a photo store that finds such negatives in a job order, and not me directly?
Because as I said, your liability or even reputation if this isn't from something legal, is not worth the profit made.
What say you
1)Government makes companies liable for hosted third party content
2)Companies set up workflows to detect said content
3)???
4)Blame capitalism
We are talking an adults private photos, not a billboard on the freeway.
there are absolutely no reason to ban it, because that only causes more harm.
somehow many people on Earth have a remarkable resistance to nuance.
Source: human history.
It’s time to move on.
>Source: human history.
The alcohol consumption statistics of certain ME states strongly disprove your thesis.
But it's very hard to find any data (let alone official data) on any of this, because nobody wants to suffer 72 lashes with 0-gague electrical cable at the hands of Iranian police for having admitted to have had a glass of wine or whatever one night.
Alcohol is an aspect of human civilization since per-historic times (as old as farming if not older) and always will be, regardless of what puritan Christians or foaming-at-the-mouth Mullahs might think of it.
Across the board (addiction, alcohol, abuse) any type of "zero-tolerance" "bring the hammer down" policy e.g. a blanket ban on alcohol has always been at best orthogonal and usually antithetical to harm reduction. As someone mentioned in the above comments, nuance is everything in providing support to the vulnerable --- ask any social worker. Religious guilt enjoys no such effectiveness.
(Sorry, two of the citations are in Persian, I couldn't find English sources. Google translate could be a workaround.)
Edit: spelling.
[1] https://www.bbc.com/persian/iran-features-49967036
I’ve lost track of how many people in this thread have blamed Christians. Why? Christian’s do not have a ban on alcohol. Where is this idea coming from, or are we just spreading hate?
Also, in many of the comments in this thread, the word “puritan” is not used.
My comment remains, this comment existed to spread hate, nothing else.
Also what other vices? The word vice generally means bad things so you’re upset that this “group” is giving life guidance? Are you equally as intolerant of a doctor telling people not to drink?
Apparently you’ve never been to Baltimore. There is no dark religious past haunting that city, just corrupt politicians.
Baltimore has 10,000,000 people. The United States is larger by a factor of thirty three.
Baltimore has a population of 600k not 10m, you're off by a factor of 13
That's as batshit crazy as recent assertions that nothing the courts rule can be sexist; after all, women would just run for seats on the supreme court if they cared; they're a majority of the population, after all.
Since the nonsense in the last paragraph actually came from a recent supreme court majority opinion, I'm wondering if you can point to a supreme court ruling backing up your statement.
According to the First Amendment, you have a conceptually unlimited right to write petitions (complaints). Practically, it is limited by the absence of violence during assembly.
There's surprisingly few rulings on the right to petition.
I expect most only complain about corruption because the basics aren’t being delivered, not out of a sense of civic responsibility.
This has so many holes in it you’re making Swiss cheese look rational.
> I expect most only complain about corruption because the basics aren’t being delivered, not out of a sense of civic responsibility.
I expect you have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about.
In fact, the policy was why they examined the photo carefully.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Package_(Seinfeld)
> Sheila, a clerk at the photo store, flirts with George when he picks up his photos, commenting on a mustard stain that appears in one. He photographs everything, even Jerry taking a screwdriver to his stereo, as an excuse to see her again. A lingerie model's picture is accidentally mixed in with George's photos; he assumes it is a photo of Sheila she inserted as a come-on. Kramer convinces George to return the compliment with seductive pictures of himself.
https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/seinfeld-effect
>The Seinfeld Effect is a phenomenon closely related to the Family Guy Effect (the idea that when a meme is referenced on a popular television show, it dies out). The Seinfeld Effect occurs when a TV show references an in-joke belonging to a subculture (in most modern cases, the Internet) and makes it mainstream, causing the show's viewership to mistakenly believe the meme originated with that show.
>The effect is named after the 1989-1998 sitcom Seinfeld's habit of referencing little-known ideas, jokes, and phrases, such as "Festivus," "yada yada yada," or "not that there's anything wrong with that," and making them extremely well-known through the show's populararity to the point that many have the misconception Seinfeld invented these phrases (for the purposes of this article, 1992 is listed as the meme origin date, as that was when the episode "The Contest" popularized the idea of masturbatory celebacy contests). [...]
Seinfeld Is Unfunny Trope:
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SeinfeldIsUnfunn...
>There are certain shows that you can safely assume most people have seen. These shows were considered fantastic when they first aired. Now, however, these shows have a Hype Backlash curse on them. Whenever we watch them, we'll cry, "That is so old" or "That is so overdone".
>The sad irony? It wasn't old or overdone when they did it, because they were the first ones to do it. But the things it created were so brilliant and popular, they became woven into the fabric of that show's genre. They ended up being taken for granted, copied and endlessly repeated. Although they often began by saying something new, they in turn became the new status quo. It's basically the inverse of a Grandfather Clause taken to a trope level: rather than being able to get away with something that is seen as overdone or out of style simply because it was the one that started it, people will unfairly disregard it because it got lost amidst its sea of imitations even though it paved the way for all those imitators. That is, a work retroactively becomes a Cliché Storm. [...]