I have a camera I must be a P**** !

[Holden Caulfield]

Exactly Rob

There seem to be a 'Mob' mentality that pervades amongst some in to population who seem to believe what the media spoon feeds them or what 'everybody else ' thinks.


I gave up along time ago trying to be pleasant with deluded individuals who sidle up to me when taking pictures in public places and say things like 'are you photographing my children'.

My response now is " I can photograph anything I like , if you have a problem then call the police, now hop it '

A recent encounter went a bit like this:-

Ms Dim " are you photographing children"

Me "I can photograph anything I like"

Ms Dim " I am a teacher and its against the law"

Me " which law, name it "

Ms Dim " er... the law "

Me "do you teach law ? "

Ms Dim "No I teach English "

Me " good,well perhaps you would like to acquaint yourself with the law before quoting from ignorance, now hop it"

Click click click .........

 

[madmackem]

Exactly Rob

Me "do you teach law ? "

Ms Dim "No I teach English "

Me " good,well perhaps you would like to acquaint yourself with the law before quoting from ignorance, now hop it"

Click click click .........

Excellent! quick witted quip that

 

[menthel]

Exactly Rob

There seem to be a 'Mob' mentality that pervades amongst some in to population who seem to believe what the media spoon feeds them or what 'everybody else ' thinks.


I gave up along time ago trying to be pleasant with deluded individuals who sidle up to me when taking pictures in public places and say things like 'are you photographing my children'.

My response now is " I can photograph anything I like , if you have a problem then call the police, now hop it '

A recent encounter went a bit like this:-

Ms Dim " are you photographing children"

Me "I can photograph anything I like"

Ms Dim " I am a teacher and its against the law"

Me " which law, name it "

Ms Dim " er... the law "

Me "do you teach law ? "

Ms Dim "No I teach English "

Me " good,well perhaps you would like to acquaint yourself with the law before quoting from ignorance, now hop it"

Click click click .........

Until the mob mentality catches up with you. I think its that kind of reply that is likely to get you lamped by some moron. If you are not directly taking pictures of them, then why not say no? Its probably better to try to educate, however much it is like banging your head against a brick wall!

 

[PsiFox]

Until the mob mentality catches up with you. I think its that kind of reply that is likely to get you lamped by some moron. If you are not directly taking pictures of them, then why not say no? Its probably better to try to educate, however much it is like banging your head against a brick wall!

Although the other might seem to be more "fun"

menthel is quite correct.

 

[Holden Caulfield]

Until the mob mentality catches up with you. I think its that kind of reply that is likely to get you lamped by some moron. If you are not directly taking pictures of them, then why not say no? Its probably better to try to educate, however much it is like banging your head against a brick wall!

And that's the problem, trying to educate a mob or pleb is like trying to light water with a match, imposable.

it's about standing up for our rights and if that means taking a 'poke' from some tabloid reading inbred then that's the price we pay for upholding our democratic rights

I for one will not go in to the night

 

[dfawkes]

You forgot to add that black people make better dancers ( they have natural rhythm you know ) and that all Chinese are brilliant at maths, in your lopsided sociological view of humanity.

Presumably the "balanced" view is that we don't have any inherent and instinctual behaviours, our DNA is all identical and that we are all pre-programmed to a politically correct agenda?

-isms aren't defined by observing that we're all different, they're defined by discrimination based on thoses differences. Big difference.

I think you will find that the only difference between male and female pedophiles is the 'way' that they abuse, a cursory look at recent child protection failures indicates that women can act in appallingly cruel and 'predatory' ways.

Perhaps you misread my post, where I said exactly that - what makes such acts when committed by a woman all the more appalling to most people is that it goes so far against our natural expectations for female behaviour (this feels like the kind of discussion where you have to double qualify everything - so just to be clear I'm not saying that we expect it from men ).

 

[Trig's]

Why is it just in a park?? What about Airshows & wildlife parks etc etc where us parents like to take our kids... I would like to see someone complain about it at these type of places - as surely they wouldn't get as many coming if photography was banned from public places....

Just my thought, but thought it was worth posting... Apologies if it ISN'T relevant to this thread..

 

[dfawkes]

It is relevant Trig's (and I think we've slightly digressed off topic in the last couple of posts). It's the thin end of the wedge; parks, schools, pools today, where tomorrow?

On the plus side, my complaint to the local pool about no photos got me a free pass . But more importantly they've agreed to look at their blanket ban policy, and you can't ask for more than that. Unless they uphold it that is!

 

[Arkady]

Exactly Rob

There seem to be a 'Mob' mentality that pervades amongst some in to population who seem to believe what the media spoon feeds them or what 'everybody else ' thinks.


I gave up along time ago trying to be pleasant with deluded individuals who sidle up to me when taking pictures in public places and say things like 'are you photographing my children'.

My response now is " I can photograph anything I like , if you have a problem then call the police, now hop it '

A recent encounter went a bit like this:-

Ms Dim " are you photographing children"

Me "I can photograph anything I like"

Ms Dim " I am a teacher and its against the law"

Me " which law, name it "

Ms Dim " er... the law "

Me "do you teach law ? "

Ms Dim "No I teach English "

Me " good,well perhaps you would like to acquaint yourself with the law before quoting from ignorance, now hop it"

Click click click .........

I can only admire such restraint...my own responses would be unprintable...

...and possibly punctuated by a generous thud in the 'nethers'...


...and thus aggravating the problem...
I can see it now - having worked myself into a seething, towering pillar of incandescent rage by reading all these threads, someone will approach me quite innocently and say:

"Excuse me..."

...and they'll never get to finish the sentence, having been bludgeoned to a horrid paste by a D3-wielding beserker...

"...but I was only going to ask the time...eeeuuurgh!"

 

[Holden Caulfield]

By their nature, males are the stronger, predatory and therefore more threatening of the species. Females are the more vulnerable, nurturing and therefore less threatening. That's why a bloke taking on the 'opposite' role is seen as 'cute', and women performing terrible acts on children as all the more ghastly. That's not sexism, it's nature and evident throughout the animal kingdom, to which we belong.

Nope, I don't think I misread it, the first line of the paragraph as cited below clearly outlines your argument.

By their nature, males are the stronger, predatory and therefore more threatening of the species.

By this statement you are making a massive generalization which at a very basic level does not explain or acknowledge that human beings have the ability to conceptualize and rationalize the world we live in and make chose driven by intellect not DNA or primordial drives.

I also find it interesting the you fall back on the rather 'lazy' and frankly baffling suggestion that any other view is " balanced" ( sic) and therefore politically correct thus dismissing any empirical validity of any counter argument

presumably the "balanced" view is that we don't have any inherent and instinctual behaviours, our DNA is all identical and that we are all pre-programmed to a politically correct agenda?

Not identical but taught by our environment and how we survive in it , I for one know naff all about football or car engines, nor do I have any predatory instincts so perhaps according to your theory I am not a man?

isms aren't defined by observing that we're all different, they're defined by discrimination based on those differences. Big difference.

Yes we are all individuals however saying that all men " by their nature are predatory" is a huge ism and to be honest insulting. like saying all women by there nature want children because they are biologically equipped for reproduction.

There is credible evidence to show that pedophiles of both sexes during their childhood had been neglected and or abused or both and they did not have a good role model of ether gender ( not sex).

 

[Voyager]

And that's the problem, trying to educate a mob or pleb is like trying to light water with a match, imposable.

it's about standing up for our rights and if that means taking a 'poke' from some tabloid reading inbred then that's the price we pay for upholding our democratic rights

I for one will not go in to the night

Are you sure you are Holden Caulfield and not V?

[YOUTUBE]c6Q0dfrbr10[/YOUTUBE]

Actually my response to the hard of thinking in most of life is not unlike yours. And I have never been 'lamped' either.

 

[Holden Caulfield]

"Excuse me..."

...and they'll never get to finish the sentence, having been bludgeoned to a horrid paste by a D3-wielding beserker...

"...but I was only going to ask the time...eeeuuurgh!"

Arkandy stay away from Natalie_B's park although she may very well be able do defend herself with her business card stating she is not a pedophile

 

[Laudrup]

To anyone who hasn't watched it go look at The Brasseye paedophile special on YouTube

It makes Nonce-Sense

 

[Arkady]

Arkady stay away from Natalie_B's park although she may very well be able do defend herself with her business card stating she is not a pedophile

Laminated...?
Do some nasty damage with one of those...lol

 

[dfawkes]

By this statement you are making a massive generalization which at a very basic level does not explain or acknowledge that human beings have the ability to conceptualize and rationalize the world we live in and make chose driven by intellect not DNA or primordial drives.

Yep, I'm making a generalisation - although note that I'm making a general generalisation ("in general most fit this category") rather than a universal generalisation ("all cases fit this category"). Apologies if you find that insulting - I'm trying to explain myself, not insult you. Note that I didn't for a minute say that you are 'predatory' (and perhaps that word goes too far in trying to make a connection with nature, so I do apologise for the choice of that term).

"In general" I believe that most would support the view that males as the more aggressive gender and Wikipedia, for all its ills, supports that (with references): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aggression#Aggression_and_gender (and interestingly refers to aggression as 'predatory' higher up). "In general" does not preclude that there are those that do not fit into the general category.

You might call it lazy, but I didn't feel the need to research and explain my views on the human thought process and of course I'm intelligent enough to understand that human beings have the ability to conceptualise and rationalise - I thought that was a given, rather than something I had to explain. To deny that we do not have instinct and intuition and that all thought is rational seems to me a strange stance however.

I also find it interesting the you fall back on the rather 'lazy' and frankly baffling suggestion that any other view is " balanced" ( sic) and therefore politically correct thus dismissing any empirical validity of any counter argument

You referred to my view as "lopsided". Applying logic then the opposite (presumably your own) is, by definition "balanced" - the ""s were to indicate that this was your view, rather than an actual fact. My observation was that there are inbuilt differences - you seemed to be suggesting that in so doing I was being -ist (with your hilarious dancer, maths comments) which I would call PC and missing my point.

I'd happily accept a counter argument about my original point which was about the inherent differences between males and females. I'm stating my belief that there are some, and it affects our thoughts towards them (acting on those thoughts becomes the sexist part).

Would you like to state what your, presumably contrary, view is rather than bringing dancing and maths into it?

Not identical but taught by our environment and how we survive in it , I for one know naff all about football or car engines, nor do I have any predatory instincts so perhaps according to your theory I am not a man?

Not sure where football, etc came from but if you considered yourself to be less aggressive (as I consider myself, even if that's not evident in this post ) then you don't fit the "general" profile for a male (in that regard). Does that mean you're not a male? Of course not, "in general males are more aggressive" rather than "all males are aggressive, with no exceptions".

Yes we are all individuals however saying that all men " by their nature are predatory" is a huge ism and to be honest insulting. like saying all women by there nature want children because they are biologically equipped for reproduction.

"In general" <> "all". Re: second sentence, please don't put words in my mouth.

There is credible evidence to show that pedophiles of both sexes during their childhood had been neglected and or abused or both and they did not have a good role model of ether gender ( not sex).

Indeed. I've not said at any point that either males or females are more likely to be offenders, and that's why this discussion has likely gone off topic. Arguably for no reason as Natalie corrected herself that she'd be wary of both males and females, so discussing if she has the right to be more wary of males or females seems somewhat pointless now.

 

[Holden Caulfield]

Yep, I'm making a generalisation - although note that I'm making a general generalisation

I am not sure where this is going "a general generalisation " is not exactly empirically rigorous nor is using Wikipedia to support your arguments.

Lets move on the the next area of contradiction

"In general" <> "all". Re: second sentence, please don't put words in my mouth.

I don't need to as you have done this yourself by stating in the opening of your original argument:-

By their nature, males are the stronger, predatory and therefore more threatening of the species

It is you who have not differentiated, or are you saying that males come in all forms of temperament , therefore negating the opening sentence of your original thesis?

You might call it lazy, but I didn't feel the need to research and explain my views on the human thought process

Perhaps it may have been useful to think of this before posting a ' general generalization !!'

There is no need to appologise, and I am glad you found my comments on dancing and maths amusing ( I thought they were hilarious to be honest)

You ask me to explain my counter argument, and in this I will point you in the direction of some interesting reading,


1st http://www.amazon.com/Alas-Poor-Darwin-Evolutionary-Psychology/dp/0609605135

2nd

The first customer review in the second link was written by myself as an undergraduate ( and my grammar still has not improved)

 

[Trig's]

So Joe, did you ever imagine that your OP would bring such a response..........

 

[dod]

Arkandy stay away from Natalie_B's park although she may very well be able do defend herself with her business card stating she is not a pedophile

Which bit of "no more please" was it you didn't understand?

 

[Trig's]

Which bit of "no more please" was it you didn't understand?

I was wondering about your earlier comments - I originally thought that it may have been about that this thread may have had run its course..

 

[Hacker]

Arkandy stay away from Natalie_B's park although she may very well be able do defend herself with her business card stating she is not a pedophile

You are getting very close to some enforced time off with that type of attitude.

Wind your neck in.

 

[fracster]

You are getting very close to some enforced time off with that type of attitude.

Wind your neck in.

Well said mate, I have resisted the urge to reply to this thread,until this point..

 

[Holden Caulfield]

You are getting very close to some enforced time off with that type of attitude.

Wind your neck in.

Really.

Well I quit.

 

[fracster]

Really.

Well I quit.

.......................:shrug:

 

[Matt]

Really.

Well I quit.

that saved us a bit of work then.

Can we all please remember that POLITE and CONSTRUCTIVE debate is very welcome, but personal insults and pack-mentality maulings are not welcome.

 

[ladysue]

I have just read through this thread. I feel very sad that it has come to the point where parents have encountered problems and harrassment when just taking pictures of their own kids. It must have been awful, embarrassing and maybe scary for both the parent and their child/children.It is such a shame and my sympathy goes to those members.It would only have frightened your kids it you had lost your temper but it is annoying that you had to move on, as if you had done something wrong.

Even, as a woman and grandma I am wary of taking pictures of other people's children because of the paranoia nowadays so dont take photos of kids at sports events, except at my grandkids school where it is accepted, and at a recent premiership match when my grandson was a mascot.

On the subject of times changing and the police I will post a thread in the Out of Focus Forum as it is not strictly relevant to the OP's post.

By the way, however misguided people may think Nattalie's comments were, hers is a commonly held belief nowadays, fuelled by media ( more the Sun and News of the World than the Mail). If she believes there is a threat, because of what she is read, she is right to be concerned.

This is an interesting thread so I hope it stays nice now.

 

[Pieface]

that saved us a bit of work then.

Can we all please remember that POLITE and CONSTRUCTIVE debate is very welcome, but personal insults and pack-mentality maulings are not welcome.

I personally felt insulted by Natalie's comments, and also the sarcastic goodbye smilie should get a word or two?

 

[Matt]

I personally felt insulted by Natalie's comments, and also the sarcastic goodbye smilie should get a word or two?

I would think my post covers everything that needs saying? I dont agree with some of what natalie has said but i also dont like the way attitude of that some of the posters have conveyed. As i said, if it was all kept civil

 

[gingerjon]

POLITE and CONSTRUCTIVE debate is very welcome, but personal insults and pack-mentality maulings are not welcome.

.......................:shrug:

 

[fracster]

Meaning?

The person in question is more than capable of holding his own without your help.I find that some people, who spit thier dummies, to be amusing.

If that is hard for you to understand, then so be it.

 

[dfawkes]

Sorry, I feel that replying is ill advised and arguably a waste of time, but feel compelled to clarify my position following Holden Caulfield's last reply.

I am not sure where this is going "a general generalisation " is not exactly empirically rigorous nor is using Wikipedia to support your arguments.

It's fairly well considered to be poor form to take people's comments out of context and cherry pick what you reply to. Nice hatchet job though.

As I was at pains throughout my post to point out, there are two usages of generalisation - one that says "all things conform to the category" and another that says "most things conform to this category". If I'm allowed another reference (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/generalization) the first is called "universal generalisation" and the second it called "existential generalisation" (or "general generalisation" as I called it hoping you'd get the point ).

So whilst you are correct that I was making a generalisation, I clearly (and thought this would be obvious by now) was not saying that all men (being one myself) behave in a certain way but that "in general" (i.e. many) men behave in a certain way. Clearly this means that there also many that do not conform to that category.

To put it more simply for you, if you took a representative sample of men, the chances are that more would exhibit aggressive behaviour in certain circumstances, and fewer would exhibit pacifity in those same circumstances. They are all still men however!

Hopefully that clears that one up. And I myself acknowledged the failings of Wikipedia but nonetheless it referenced a number of research findings supporting my argument. I'd be happy for you to demonstrate any evidence that supports your (apparent, though you've still not stated it) view that men are less inclined towards exhibiting behaviour, and at least no more so than women. You can even use Wikipedia if you like.


Lets move on the the next area of contradiction



I don't need to as you have done this yourself by stating in the opening of your original argument:-

It is you who have not differentiated, or are you saying that males come in all forms of temperament , therefore negating the opening sentence of your original thesis?

In general = most, not all. Which means more tend towards aggression, fewer less so. There are obviously all tempraments, but they are not evenly distributed, with more tending towards aggression. I'm not sure how I can make my point any clearer.

You ask me to explain my counter argument, and in this I will point you in the direction of some interesting reading,

I would have preferred to have you summarise here rather than refer me to reviews on Amazon (?!) but I didn't get much from your review other than it is "interesting in that it gives a little insight into the palpable cognitive differences that we know exist between the sexes", saying that there are differences between the sexes which I think was pretty much where I started from several posts ago. I'm confused.

In summary, and my final contribution on the subject:

- "many" (note: not all) men are more inclined to aggression than women, something I feel the majority of people would agree with (supported by some studies at worst)
- it's therefore reasonable (but not neccesarily rational) for a woman to feel more threatened by a man than a woman.

I don't think I can make myself much clearer than that. And on that note I'm going to bed, good night!

 

[Photo Plod]

 

[Natalie_B]

Thats great - and so true - m-u-s-t s-w-i-t-c-h- o-f-f l-a-p-t-o-p

 

[Steve2]

I am not a parent but have a wife and i also have a 2 year old great neice who i love to take pics off, so on the next nice day that i get off i will go down the local park with her and her mum, my Nikon 70-200 2.8 and shoot lots of pics and see what happens
I have a head full of replies from this thread that i want to use

now what about video cameras

 

[artyman]

I am not a parent but have a wife and i also have a 2 year old great neice who i love to take pics off, so on the next nice day that i get off i will go down the local park with her and her mum, my Nikon 70-200 2.8 and shoot lots of pics and see what happens
I have a head full of replies from this thread that i want to use

now what about video cameras

Don't forget to wear a mack

 

[Coldeh]

Some people's attitudes to this subject will unfortunately never change, even after one has attempted to educate them.

As an example, I met a young mother recently and was remarking on the consent form for use of images we had been asked to sign, after pointing out (after signing the form anyway) that it was unnecessary and that if one wanted, they could take a picture of anyone in a public place or their own property and publish it anywhere for profit/reward, the young mother proceeded to have a heated exchange of opinion and refused to accept that she was incorrect.

Unfortunately, these people shall be met, fortunately she was otherwise pleasant.

 

[Arkady]

Did Holden just leave the Forum while I was watching Hot Fuzz last night? WTF...?
I actually thought this was going quite well since we got it back on track...

 

[Byker28i]

By the way, however misguided people may think Nattalie's comments were, hers is a commonly held belief nowadays, fuelled by media ( more the Sun and News of the World than the Mail). If she believes there is a threat, because of what she is read, she is right to be concerned.

Which is the point I've been trying to make throughout this. If we don't challenge this stereotyping, this hysteria at every opportunity through reasoned argument, then we've only ourselves to blame.

 

[gingerjon]

If we don't challenge this stereotyping, this hysteria at every opportunity through reasoned argument, then we've only ourselves to blame.

Spot on.

I always start my argument that there should be no issue with public photography that includes children with "As a parent ..." because apparently starting any argument with that line means you win by default.

 

[Arkady]

Spot on.

I always start my argument that there should be no issue with public photography that includes children with "As a parent ..." because apparently starting any argument with that line means you win by default.

Of course, because all parents naturally have the moral high ground and also have a wealth of personal experience to fall back on...lol

Just like all of us without children couldn't possibly have a valid opinion...

 

[gingerjon]

Just like all of us without children couldn't possibly have a valid opinion...

This is true.

Before 2005 my opinions were worthless.

Some may say of course that little has changed since.

But, as a parent, I know that they are wrong.