It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Is Pizzagate an actual "thing" or is it limited to ATS & a few other sites

page: 17
49
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 22 2016 @ 08:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheFlyOnTheWall
Now answer the question, does art have it's limits to children in various stages of undress. Yes or No ? So yes, let's cut the b#

No.

Now what?



(post by Riffrafter removed for a manners violation)

posted on Nov, 22 2016 @ 08:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheFlyOnTheWall
a reply to: spiritualzombie

What about art of little children in various stages of undress?


Honestly, it depends on the pose and subliminal message. Having been to many nudist clubs, parks and colonies...nudity is nullified...it is natural. Porn is very specific by the subliminal message given in the composition or posing. Nudity is not suggestive in itself. Artistic works showing nudity...au natural...are simply natural art.



posted on Nov, 22 2016 @ 09:11 PM
link   
a reply to: TheFlyOnTheWall

Okay... no. Not based on various stages of undress.



posted on Nov, 22 2016 @ 09:25 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Nov, 22 2016 @ 09:37 PM
link   
a reply to: TheFlyOnTheWall

I'll check that link out but before I do let's settle something. You did not ask me what my taste is. You asked if art has limits- specifically in various stages of undress of children. The first thing I thought of was old paintings depicting naked children running around, cherubs, etc... So many examples in the art world of naked children, that you could find in art museums. Sculptures, paintings... You can apply whatever judgment you want to it, but those are facts. You don't have to like it.

Update: My response to that link is whatever. I don't see anything really wrong with it. Is there relevancy?
edit on 22-11-2016 by spiritualzombie because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 22 2016 @ 09:39 PM
link   
a reply to: TheFlyOnTheWall

All that just to get to Djurdjevic?

For starters it's layers of paint on canvas.

Reminds me of someone saying that a pic posted in the spirit cooking threads made them feel a certain way. That is a personal thing. The bits of color on a piece of stretched cloth are not doing anything.

edit on 22-11-2016 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 22 2016 @ 09:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: spiritualzombie
a reply to: TheFlyOnTheWall

I'll check that link out but before I do let's settle something. You did not ask me what my taste is. You asked if art has limits- specifically in various stages of undress of children. The first thing I thought of was old paintings depicting naked children running around, cherubs, etc... So many examples in the art world of naked children, that you could find in art museums. Sculptures, paintings... You can apply whatever judgment you want to it, but those are facts. You don't have to like it.


I understand but now here comes the bargaining. Right? So, let's settle something there are limits to art after all and I can give you a way out by just saying yes. Then we can move to the next step of this pragmatic debate.



posted on Nov, 22 2016 @ 09:46 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

huh?



posted on Nov, 22 2016 @ 09:52 PM
link   
a reply to: TheFlyOnTheWall

Art is expression and it's subjective. I'm open to the idea of limits, such as art depicting acts of pedophilia... which I would find revolting and yet not sure I could say it's not art. Plenty of art has depicted the sacrifice of children. Not necessarily stuff I'd want on my wall, but can't say it's not art.

I think you are confusing the definition of what makes something art with a moral standard you have that dictates whether you accept or reject art.

Not sure where you're going but please get to it. This is the long disjointed path I mentioned earlier. I don't think we're going to agree at the end of this but I'm trying to keep an open mind.

edit on 22-11-2016 by spiritualzombie because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 22 2016 @ 10:00 PM
link   
a reply to: spiritualzombie

Nah, it's a simple question with a tricky answer. For you. On one hand you can't say there's limits because then you'll have to concede someone with "specific" art is socially unacceptable, which will yield my next point. Then on the other hand, you can't say no, that "specific" art has no limits but you need to in order to not concede the debate. Which, puts you in a rather dichotomous and awkward position of what's considered acceptable. You wouldn't want to be seen as a pedo apologist yet you are compromised to do so. Tough position. Especially when my next point is Tony Podesta likes that little kid art.

Damned catch 22 aint it?



posted on Nov, 22 2016 @ 10:05 PM
link   
a reply to: TheFlyOnTheWall

Paintings are not real.

If you feel offense, or feel anything for that matter, it's because of your interpretation.

It's funny that you focused on the "red bums" when they only appear in 2 of the 19 paintings.

Only 4 of the paintings have anything to do with children in various stages of undress and that is including the naked baby at the end.

I don't see how you came to the conclusion that this set of images pushes any limits.

I do know that they are mentioned a lot in "you know what".



posted on Nov, 22 2016 @ 10:14 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik




Paintings are not real.


Drawing cartoon kiddie porn will land you in jail. The only degree of separation from jail and an exhibit are three letters.




If you feel offense, or feel anything for that matter, it's because of your interpretation.


Sorry, if I walked into someone's house with those paintings on their walls, I would be creeped out. I think that would be the normal reaction. No?



posted on Nov, 22 2016 @ 10:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheFlyOnTheWall
Drawing cartoon kiddie porn will land you in jail. The only degree of separation from jail and an exhibit are three letters.

That isn't what you linked to.

Like I said, there are legal limits, but that is a social construct, not that it makes the placement of dots on a substrate equal to the crime they are attaching the images to.



Sorry, if I walked into someone's house with those paintings on their walls, I would be creeped out. I think that would be the normal reaction. No?

No, it only seems like the normal reaction to you because it is what you would feel.
edit on 22-11-2016 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 22 2016 @ 10:19 PM
link   
a reply to: TheFlyOnTheWall

That doesn't feel like a catch 22 at all really. I don't feel pigeon-holed. The simple answer is still the one I gave you, no, art does not have limits. Tho I am open to the possibility, but I think those limits would be related to the defining aspects of what makes art art...



posted on Nov, 22 2016 @ 10:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: spiritualzombie
a reply to: TheFlyOnTheWall

That doesn't feel like a catch 22 at all really. I don't feel pigeon-holed. The simple answer is still the one I gave you, no, art does not have limits. Tho I am open to the possibility, but I think those limits would be related to the defining aspects of what makes art art...


I think you're only open to the possibility as long as you save face because appealing to emotion would be a fallacy on my part. You have to say no and it's purely for contradictory reasons. Or you like pedo #. Can't cut to the BS anymore than that. Tony Podesta likes this kind of art and that's where I hang my premise. If you like this kind of art too then I wouldn't think of you any different than Podesta. I would like to appeal to emotion and encourage you to admit it's creepy but that would be wrong. Therefore, you don't have any other choice other than to downplay the creepiness factor which doesn't server you any better. The "defining" aspects are a moot point, it's the subjectivity of the buyer.



posted on Nov, 22 2016 @ 10:46 PM
link   
a reply to: TheFlyOnTheWall

That is a false dilemma.

I don't see anything wrong with those paintings and I don't like them either. You can't make me like them but you can't make me feel that there is anything wrong with them.

However you feel about them is your own thing but it isn't an either or deal.



posted on Nov, 22 2016 @ 11:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: TheFlyOnTheWall

That is a false dilemma.

I don't see anything wrong with those paintings and I don't like them either. You can't make me like them but you can't make me feel that there is anything wrong with them.

However you feel about them is your own thing but it isn't an either or deal.


Well the mods removed my post with the link so I guess you've been over-ruled. And me too. I'm out. I've succeeded in what I aimed to do and there isn't any point continuing in a debate on moral relativism when it's about something much more.



posted on Nov, 22 2016 @ 11:12 PM
link   
a reply to: CynConcepts

It sounds like you are saying that you live in a mansion and invited a bunch of CEOs to your estate by hosting a party with the type of food being pizza and hot dogs. Is that right?



posted on Nov, 22 2016 @ 11:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheFlyOnTheWall
Well the mods removed my post with the link so I guess you've been over-ruled. And me too. I'm out. I've succeeded in what I aimed to do and there isn't any point continuing in a debate on moral relativism when it's about something much more.

Branded off-topic not against T&C. Don't know if you can call that a success although I'm not sure what you were trying to do.




top topics



 
49
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join