3 ms·

What's so unsettling about that? Sure, I understand they did this to cause a bit of a stir, but it's just people carrying around dolls in a dystopian setting.

What's so unsettling about that? Sure, I understand they did this to cause a bit of a stir, but it's just people carrying around dolls in a dystopian setting. And even if there were actual babies in there, the most unsettling part is the danger of the person carrying the baby slipping in the mud and falling on top of the baby.

thepasswordis 4y ago
I don't think I can explain to you why this is unsettling in the same way I can't explain why abusing animals is bad, stealing is bad, or anything else is "bad". If we don't already have a shared system of morals which says "abuse of children is bad", then it seems unlikely I'm going to convince you that depictions of child abuse are bad. To me, this is "bad" because I subscribe to a belief system that thinks abusing children is bad. Balenciaga, in their marketing, has used images which imply the abuse of children. Therefore: this is bad.
- WastingMyTime89 4y ago
  Well done on implying someone not agreeing with you on the moral value of carrying dolls in a fashion show is actually them not caring about child abuse and having a poor moral system. Please at least try to argue in good faith. It’s the first time I think I should flag a comment looking polite at face value.
  - thepasswordis 4y ago
    >Well done on implying someone not agreeing with you on the moral value of carrying dolls in a fashion show This is not fair. The original post was about the inappropriate use of children in a marketing campaign. Balenciaga claims they didn't know the nature of the photoshoot. The video I linked provides context demonstrating that balenciaga continued the same theme in their fashion show. "Why is this fashion show bad" "because it is part of a larged set of behaviors which include and encourage child abuse". You can disagree with me, but don't misstate what I am saying.
    - s0ph0n 4y ago
      Your slippery slope logical fallacies has no merit. There were no children being abused in the Balenciaga video you posted. >These seem to be adults dressed as literal demons This would imply you believe in demons, which are things that do not exist in the real world. You might believe they exist due to your moral upbringing but just because you were brainwashed (abused) as a child, doesnt mean every one is a child abuser. Lotta Volkova artwork is definitely sordid but so is a lot of art. You dont have to like it or even look. If anyone abuses a child, partner or elder, they should be held accountable. Let me know when there's a wiki list full child abuse incidents involving Drag shows while most godfearing people ignore institutional abuse and rape in the Church https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_sexual_abuse_cases https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_sexual_abuse_c...
      - donkeyd 4y ago
        > Lotta Volkova artwork is definitely sordid but so is a lot of art. You don't have to like it or even look. Exactly. I feel like art and its purpose have been lost in recent years. Art is supposed to make people think or feel. Paintings of beheadings in museums don't make people think about beheading people, nor do they make people happy. They make people think about the atrociousness of history and hopefully about not wanting to repeat it. My (non religious) dad recently argued that music that implies rape or child abuse shouldn't be broadcast on the radio, because it's wrong. I asked whether any movie showing violence, abuse and rape should also not be played on TV or in cinema. I also explained that both are art forms and aren't depictions of things the singers or actors want to do in real life, per se (we all know there are exceptions). He argued this, however, because he heard the argument from some radio DJs. It'll be a sad day when we ban everything we don't like to see or hear, because that's when we forget those things exist and stop doing anything against it.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- p0pcult 4y ago
  But this is pointedly not child abuse. You're talking about inanimate objects. Can one abuse a urinal? (Apologies to marcel duchamp!)
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

thepasswordis 4y ago

I don't think I can explain to you why this is unsettling in the same way I can't explain why abusing animals is bad, stealing is bad, or anything else is "bad". If we don't already have a shared system of morals which says "abuse of children is bad", then it seems unlikely I'm going to convince you that depictions of child abuse are bad. To me, this is "bad" because I subscribe to a belief system that thinks abusing children is bad. Balenciaga, in their marketing, has used images which imply the abuse of children. Therefore: this is bad.

WastingMyTime89 4y ago
Well done on implying someone not agreeing with you on the moral value of carrying dolls in a fashion show is actually them not caring about child abuse and having a poor moral system. Please at least try to argue in good faith. It’s the first time I think I should flag a comment looking polite at face value.
- thepasswordis 4y ago
  >Well done on implying someone not agreeing with you on the moral value of carrying dolls in a fashion show This is not fair. The original post was about the inappropriate use of children in a marketing campaign. Balenciaga claims they didn't know the nature of the photoshoot. The video I linked provides context demonstrating that balenciaga continued the same theme in their fashion show. "Why is this fashion show bad" "because it is part of a larged set of behaviors which include and encourage child abuse". You can disagree with me, but don't misstate what I am saying.
  - s0ph0n 4y ago
    Your slippery slope logical fallacies has no merit. There were no children being abused in the Balenciaga video you posted. >These seem to be adults dressed as literal demons This would imply you believe in demons, which are things that do not exist in the real world. You might believe they exist due to your moral upbringing but just because you were brainwashed (abused) as a child, doesnt mean every one is a child abuser. Lotta Volkova artwork is definitely sordid but so is a lot of art. You dont have to like it or even look. If anyone abuses a child, partner or elder, they should be held accountable. Let me know when there's a wiki list full child abuse incidents involving Drag shows while most godfearing people ignore institutional abuse and rape in the Church https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_sexual_abuse_cases https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_sexual_abuse_c...
    - donkeyd 4y ago
      > Lotta Volkova artwork is definitely sordid but so is a lot of art. You don't have to like it or even look. Exactly. I feel like art and its purpose have been lost in recent years. Art is supposed to make people think or feel. Paintings of beheadings in museums don't make people think about beheading people, nor do they make people happy. They make people think about the atrociousness of history and hopefully about not wanting to repeat it. My (non religious) dad recently argued that music that implies rape or child abuse shouldn't be broadcast on the radio, because it's wrong. I asked whether any movie showing violence, abuse and rape should also not be played on TV or in cinema. I also explained that both are art forms and aren't depictions of things the singers or actors want to do in real life, per se (we all know there are exceptions). He argued this, however, because he heard the argument from some radio DJs. It'll be a sad day when we ban everything we don't like to see or hear, because that's when we forget those things exist and stop doing anything against it.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
p0pcult 4y ago
But this is pointedly not child abuse. You're talking about inanimate objects. Can one abuse a urinal? (Apologies to marcel duchamp!)

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]