8 ms·
Why would you not print naked adults?
by hosteur 4y ago
Why would you not print naked adults?
- mulmen 4y agoPuritans. 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.
- tehbeard 4y agoAs much as the evangelicals of America screw with the rest of the world in their quest for purity, the better answer seems to be: How do you know those nudes are taken consensually? And what's your liability for developing ("reproducing") them?
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- anon_123g987 4y agoWhy would you assume a crime by default? The presumption of innocence is only a slogan in the US, just like the above mentioned secularity. Look what happened with the guy in this post. You can't even take a photo of your own kid.
- tehbeard 4y agoThe discussion was around prints of naked adults and why stores might have policies to not develop those. I offered an alternative reason based on the legal landscape rather than a cultural one. > 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.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- 4gotunameagain 4y agoI'm an atheist, and I intensely disagree with the sexualisation of everything in our society dressed as a new sexual revolution, and see it as a direct effect of capitalism. What say you
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- pxmpxm 4y agoI think you'll have to expand a bit on that. 1)Government makes companies liable for hosted third party content 2)Companies set up workflows to detect said content 3)??? 4)Blame capitalism
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- therealdrag0 4y ago1. People like sexy things 2. Companies make or facilitate sexy things 3. Blame capitalism.
- kbelder 4y agoOr thank capitalism.
- felix318 4y agoThe other day I read something about how society must “prevent the oversexualization of children” and that got me thinking, who will protect the oversexualization of society itself? The answer was obvious to me.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- bart_spoon 4y agoYou say that as if there is no other reason to ban alcohol than religious belief, and not like alcohol being one of the most negative societal influences in the areas of human health, crime, public safety, and poverty. Just because humans are so cripplingly addicted to alcohol that banning was untenable doesn’t mean it was a bad idea.
- pas 4y agothere are many reasons to reduce harm. 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.
- beebeepka 4y agoYou are blaming alcohol for people's actions. That's disgusting and horrifying. I wonder what makes you say that. Religious?
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- mulmen 4y agoProhibition didn’t work. Everyone who wanted to kept drinking. Religious guilt is an ineffective motivator of change. Source: human history. It’s time to move on.
- yyyk 4y ago>Religious guilt is an ineffective motivator of change. >Source: human history. The alcohol consumption statistics of certain ME states strongly disprove your thesis.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- OOPMan 4y agoAh yes, a bunch of rather totalitarian societies as the model to strive for, great jumping off point.
- dgfitz 4y ago> America’s greatest battle is with our dark religious past. Apparently you’ve never been to Baltimore. There is no dark religious past haunting that city, just corrupt politicians.
- mulmen 4y agoIs it your claim that one medium sized city somehow has a bigger problem than the nation it exists within? Baltimore has 10,000,000 people. The United States is larger by a factor of thirty three.
- shawabawa3 4y agoI thought for a second I was crazy not knowing that Baltimore was the largest city in the US Baltimore has a population of 600k not 10m, you're off by a factor of 13
- mulmen 4y agoYeah no idea where I got that Number. Maryland isn’t even 10m people. But that makes Baltimore being Americas biggest problem even more unbelievable.
- greendestiny_re 4y agoWhy don't you petition the government for a redress of grievances and oust them? It's an unlimited right guaranteed by the First Amendment that can remove tyrants without causing harm.
- hedora 4y agoSo, according to the first amendment I can just taze the supreme court, and roll back citizens united, and reinstate roe v wade? 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.
- tryauuum 4y agoeh, I feel like alcohol bans were fashionable in the past. USSR did it, Finland did it...
- derac 4y agoBeing forced to look at people's amateur porn at your job is pretty lame.
- boomboomsubban 4y agoI agree, but presumably it's already necessary to determine if it's a picture of a naked adult.
- bell-cot 4y agoIf the local amateur porn producers know that 1 Hour Photo won't print their pictures, then 1 Hour Photo's employees are going to be stuck looking at far less amateur porn.
- netrus 4y agoSure, but the rule not to print naked adults might be useful and necessary to enforce a rule of "don't bring your amateur porn to this shop, please". Which I think is a reasonable request. Some might not be bothered, but the analogy to sending dick-pics comes to mind.
- hosteur 4y agoSo don’t work at a place that prints peoples private photos?
- petee 4y agoOne example would be protecting employees from someone just bringing in photos of themselves with the sole intent of exposing themselves to the employee, as they have a captive audience.
- octoberfranklin 4y agoThis policy does nothing to impede a person with that intent. The employee still looked at the photo. In fact, the policy was why they examined the photo carefully.
- mulmen 4y ago
- petee 4y agoNo, ive never heard of film :| Briefly glimpsing a negative, and being forced to make an enlargment and checking the print quality, are two different things. And obviously you can't prohibit viewing a negative you haven't seen yet...thus prohibiting the printing.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- unsupp0rted 4y agoThis premise was in a Seinfeld episode: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Package_(Seinfeld) 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.
- mulmen 4y ago