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.

 

Sick Society sexualizes a ten year old girl

page: 13
15
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 7 2011 @ 11:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by SirClem
reply to post by dalan.
 

Actually, dalan, apprentice of Satan,
people have more rights than what you state.
Let's turn this argument around a bit, just for fun.
You state that I, or he, or we, cannot do anything about the way this girl dresses, but that is false. People can and will react to the way you dress, and the way you act. Sure, they have no right to harm her, no one has that right. (Although it is funny that we do that in the name of "war", but, that is beside the point. Amazing hypocrisy....)
Anyway, people have the right to have empathy for the girl. I am sure you weren't expecting that, but I reserve the right to feel sorry for her, and to feel like she is being sexually exploited.
So, there, we do have some rights after all.


crikey, you used an awefull lot of words there, but you didnt actually say anything.
this story is a non-issue, pedo's dont buy vogue. the only peadofiles who saw these pics got the pics from links from do gooders like yourself.




posted on Aug, 8 2011 @ 12:09 PM
link   
So this conversation went on for four days? five days? and that's just here.

Again, marketing at its best.

Good or bad, the campaign ramped up chatter just like this for days all over the place... can't wait to see what the 3rd quarter sales looked like this month. I bet they are outstanding and I bet the Marketing Director will get a big fat bonus.

For those who don't like this type of advertising, the best way to battle it is to ignore it. By bringing it to the attention of thousands you're actually helping to promote the ad
simple marketing 101. Doesn't matter if it's negative or positive talk, it's still word of mouth.



posted on Aug, 8 2011 @ 04:32 PM
link   
reply to post by SirClem
 



Actually, dalan, apprentice of Satan


Thank you SirClem, apprentice of logic.


people have more rights than what you state.


No, they do not. As I stated, people do have the right to form whatever opinion they want on this issue. They can believe anything, and they can feel whatever emotion happens to surface.

But what people do not have the right to do, is to police other parents. That power is not yours. You can disagree with the choices that another parent makes for their child, but you cannot step in out of some sense of indignation to "protect" the child and parent them yourself. That is a right that no one holds.

Over your own children you have sovereign authority, over the children of another parent, back off. If you do not like the fashion shoot, then boycott Vogue magazine. If you feel that the pictures are inappropriate, then don't allow your own children to participate in such behavior. But if a parent does allow their own children to do a fashion shoot like the pictures you posted, you, and no one else, has the right to do anything to the parents.


You state that I, or he, or we, cannot do anything about the way this girl dresses,


That's because you can't. You can complain about it, you can hold an opinion about it, you can feel whatever you want to feel about it; but you cannot force the child or her parents to stop. They can make as many of these fashion shoots as they please, and no one has the right to step in to stop them.

You have the right to not look at the pictures.



but that is false.


No, its not.


People can and will react to the way you dress, and the way you act.


Good for them. Let people react. If I am not harming them, or their kids then they can't stop me.



Sure, they have no right to harm her, no one has that right.


Certainly.


Anyway, people have the right to have empathy for the girl.


People have the right to feel whatever they want to feel. That's pretty self-evident.


I reserve the right to feel sorry for her, and to feel like she is being sexually exploited.


Oh you certainly do, but you do not have the right to stop her or her parents from doing these fashion shoots.


edit on 8/8/2011 by dalan. because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 8 2011 @ 05:12 PM
link   
reply to post by aero56
 



The actions of this mom and her daughter set the stage for other little girls to do the same.


The one thing that irks me to no end about soccer moms, is their utter lack to use reasoning. Somewhere between making sandwiches and watching their daily soap operas, they forgot to brush-up on their logic.



LINK
Description of Fallacies:

In order to understand what a fallacy is, one must understand what an argument is. Very briefly, an argument consists of one or more premises and one conclusion. A premise is a statement (a sentence that is either true or false) that is offered in support of the claim being made, which is the conclusion (which is also a sentence that is either true or false).




LINK
There are two main types of arguments: deductive and inductive. A deductive argument is an argument such that the premises provide (or appear to provide) complete support for the conclusion. An inductive argument is an argument such that the premises provide (or appear to provide) some degree of support (but less than complete support) for the conclusion. If the premises actually provide the required degree of support for the conclusion, then the argument is a good one. A good deductive argument is known as a valid argument and is such that if all its premises are true, then its conclusion must be true. If all the argument is valid and actually has all true premises, then it is known as a sound argument. If it is invalid or has one or more false premises, it will be unsound. A good inductive argument is known as a strong (or "cogent") inductive argument. It is such that if the premises are true, the conclusion is likely to be true.




LINK
A fallacy is, very generally, an error in reasoning. This differs from a factual error, which is simply being wrong about the facts. To be more specific, a fallacy is an "argument" in which the premises given for the conclusion do not provide the needed degree of support. A deductive fallacy is a deductive argument that is invalid (it is such that it could have all true premises and still have a false conclusion). An inductive fallacy is less formal than a deductive fallacy. They are simply "arguments" which appear to be inductive arguments, but the premises do not provided enough support for the conclusion. In such cases, even if the premises were true, the conclusion would not be more likely to be true.


And here's the part that is really important:



LINK
Fallacy: Slippery Slope

The Slippery Slope is a fallacy in which a person asserts that some event must inevitably follow from another without any argument for the inevitability of the event in question. In most cases, there are a series of steps or gradations between one event and the one in question and no reason is given as to why the intervening steps or gradations will simply be bypassed. This "argument" has the following form:

Event X has occurred (or will or might occur).
Therefore event Y will inevitably happen.

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because there is no reason to believe that one event must inevitably follow from another without an argument for such a claim. This is especially clear in cases in which there is a significant number of steps or gradations between one event and another.


Let's take a look at your Event X:


The actions of this mom and her daughter set the stage...


And now, your Event Y:


...for other little girls to do the same.


If I were to sum up my argument against your two premises, it would simply have to be: no, it didn't.

Your claim is absurdly false. They did not "set the stage" as you so eloquently put it. You are basically suggesting that human beings are so utterly retarded they are incapable of original ideas. Not to mention the fact that you are assuming "little girls" will flock to studios like brain-dead zombies so, they too, can perform a similar fashion shoot.

Even if they did, so what? Do you have your own children? Do you dislike the pictures the OP posted? If you answered "yes" to both questions, then let me show you what you do:

Tell your children they are not allowed to engage in such "immoral" behavior. If they go against your wishes....discipline them. TA-DA!

I JUST, SINGLE-HANDEDLY, SOLVED ALL OF YOUR PROBLEMS FOR YOU. WOOOOOW!

The trouble is, when it comes to another person's children: you have zero control!

And that is what this is really about; control. You have the right to feel, or think, whatever you want regarding the fashion shoot. You have the right not to look at the pictures. You have the right to not allow your own children to participate in such a fashion shoot. But where children that are not yours are concerned, you have ZERO rights, and can't do squat about it.

You do not have the right to stop photo shoots like this one from happening, and you do not have the right to stop other parents from putting their own children into these fashion shoots.

The only power that you do hold, is the power over yourself and your own children, if you do have any.


She is now a public figure and what she does is our business.


No, its not.

All human beings were endowed with the right to privacy. Even the pictures in the photo shoot are not your business, they are her business; and you can simply choose not to look at them. Herrrrr Derrrrrr.

And her private life is especially not your business.

But I can see how you would believe that it is. You've probably watched Entertainment Hollywood one too many times, and now the concept of harassment has no meaning to you.

In a nutshell:

Stop acting like an annoying soccer mom, and only worry about yourself and your own family.



posted on Aug, 9 2011 @ 07:58 AM
link   
reply to post by dalan.
 


Wow, do you feel better now that you have vented? Wow.



posted on Aug, 9 2011 @ 08:03 AM
link   
reply to post by SirClem
 


Allow me to add to that. I teach in a middle school, 5th through 8th grade. Some of the 5th grade girls, age 10, and so developed it is scary. And, they wear tight fitting, low cut tops. Some of the male teachers have stated that it is a distraction, one they don't like to have around, but it's there.



posted on Aug, 9 2011 @ 08:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Stormwind
 


Nothing "secret" about natural human feelings and attractions. Society is what sets the age limits for what is legal and what isn't. Today's 10 year old girls are much more developed, more physically mature than most people realize; especially where I teach!!



posted on Aug, 9 2011 @ 08:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by aero56
reply to post by SirClem
 


Allow me to add to that. I teach in a middle school, 5th through 8th grade. Some of the 5th grade girls, age 10, and so developed it is scary. And, they wear tight fitting, low cut tops. Some of the male teachers have stated that it is a distraction, one they don't like to have around, but it's there.


So you are actually admitting that they have a problem with it, because they get aroused by them?

Wowzers.

So these kids should cover up more, in order to prevent the male teachers from having sexual thoughts about these 10 year olds?

This is getting freakier and freakier.



posted on Aug, 9 2011 @ 08:21 AM
link   
Guys, feed your daughters with meat filled with hormones(added by farmers/breeders) and then make more such threads.
Be consequent.
I agree with aero56. early developed kids, pseudo-culture of sexualized world, ego of parents(cash usually, made from children, resaon masked as "career"), sick food made in ill process, no real authorities(pop singers as authorities,etc.etc.).
welcome to XXI century.
edit on 9-8-2011 by potential_problem because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 9 2011 @ 10:46 AM
link   
reply to post by dalan.
 


As a licensed professional, I am obligated by law to step in and report child abuse if I witness it, and to remove the child from immediate harm.



posted on Aug, 9 2011 @ 10:48 AM
link   
reply to post by dalan.
 


Listen buddy, I never said I had a right to do anything about it. Quit putting your ideas in my head.



posted on Aug, 9 2011 @ 10:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by neonitus

Originally posted by SirClem
reply to post by dalan.
 

Actually, dalan, apprentice of Satan,
people have more rights than what you state.
Let's turn this argument around a bit, just for fun.
You state that I, or he, or we, cannot do anything about the way this girl dresses, but that is false. People can and will react to the way you dress, and the way you act. Sure, they have no right to harm her, no one has that right. (Although it is funny that we do that in the name of "war", but, that is beside the point. Amazing hypocrisy....)
Anyway, people have the right to have empathy for the girl. I am sure you weren't expecting that, but I reserve the right to feel sorry for her, and to feel like she is being sexually exploited.
So, there, we do have some rights after all.


crikey, you used an awefull lot of words there, but you didnt actually say anything.
this story is a non-issue, pedo's dont buy vogue. the only peadofiles who saw these pics got the pics from links from do gooders like yourself.


You know this, how?



posted on Aug, 9 2011 @ 10:52 AM
link   
reply to post by CaptainInstaban
 


You are putting words in my mouth. I said the male teachers found it to be a distraction. I never said they admitted to being aroused by it.
edit on 9-8-2011 by aero56 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 9 2011 @ 11:05 AM
link   
reply to post by aero56
 


Well, it was a simple deduction from your words.

Why would it be distracting, if it has no sexual cause? What was forcing them to get distracted by it?

You say these young girls are very developed, wear tight clothing, and that the male teachers are distracted by it.

So you are saying they have breasts, that are very noticable, and only the male teachers are distracted by it.

I don´t think you realize how twisted your own words sound.

If there is another way to interprete your post, let me know.
edit on 9-8-2011 by CaptainInstaban because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 9 2011 @ 11:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by aero56
reply to post by dalan.
 


As a licensed professional, I am obligated by law to step in and report child abuse if I witness it, and to remove the child from immediate harm.


Yes, its known as state-sanctioned harassment.

That just means you're a tool.



posted on Aug, 9 2011 @ 11:41 AM
link   
Originally posted by aero56
reply to post by dalan.
 



Listen buddy, I never said I had a right to do anything about it. Quit putting your ideas in my head.


Interdasting...you certainly have the air of a person who acts as if they do.



posted on Aug, 9 2011 @ 02:24 PM
link   
reply to post by dalan.
 


Yes, and an important one at that.



posted on Aug, 9 2011 @ 02:26 PM
link   
reply to post by dalan.
 


I am not a soccer mom, are you speaking to me? I am sorry that truth shakes you up a bit.



posted on Aug, 9 2011 @ 02:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by dalan.

Originally posted by aero56
reply to post by dalan.
 


As a licensed professional, I am obligated by law to step in and report child abuse if I witness it, and to remove the child from immediate harm.


Yes, its known as state-sanctioned harassment.

That just means you're a tool.


So why do you have this quote in your signature?




"That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community against his will is to prevent harm to others. Over himself over his own body and mind the individual is sovereign." -John Stuart Mill


I believe you are a tool. Do you support child abuse, or what?



posted on Aug, 9 2011 @ 02:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by MuscleRocker
Eh this is discusting. Not only that but we also have 8 year old boys dressing up as girls. Seriously? That kid needs to talk to a counsler asap! What's wrong with parents now a days? Its too young for sexuality like that


What is this about 8 year old boys dressing up as girls and what is so "discusting" about that in and of itself? I think I missed those pictures. Are they sexual too or do they just disgust you for the cross dressing aspect?



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join