dallashistory

Guys,

Guy Cannon and I are currently in a disagreement that many of you may have noticed on Facebook.

He "published" the result of his Abortion Poll, even though the result was a posting on his friends home pages of a graphic photo showing a butchered, bloody baby. I complained (and also reported the photo to Facebook) that this posting is not appropriate on a "family friendly" site. My kids were in the room at the computer when I first noticed it.

Since then I have been involved in an exchange with Guy and one of his friends, who have been lecturing me on the horrors of Abortion, and that the image shows how really ugly it is.

I agree with them on the Abortion angle itself, and that it is horrible.

However, I object to the image simply showing up on his friend's Home page, where it can be seen by anyone.

It is true that I can "hide" anything from Guy, and I have done that to keep the image off of my home page.

Guy informs me that it is his right to publish it, and that I can delete it if it offends. However, my point is that such deletion might be too late, and he should not publish such images on a family friendly location.

In the past, if I have ever put something up that is at or above a PG rating, I have been very careful to remove it as soon as I have realized that it was posted, and tried to avoid such postings in the future. However, Guy refuses to remove it, and insists that it should be out there.

Doesn't really matter to me anymore, as Guy's postings are now filtered out of my Home page. However, if any of you are friends with Guy, it is on your home page as well. (Looks like only Teresa and Holly are the only friends we have in common - who are on this board.)

Just curious about any feedback. Am I missing something?

I don't know Guy, don't post on Facebook, and have rather complex views about what is or is not appropriate to post, so I probably shouldn't be saying anything. But, I do have some thoughts about using graphic images to make a point. For example, the Military has just reversed a ban on publicizing Fatal War Photos.

Military Reverses Ban on Publicizing Fatal War Photos

http://news.yahoo.com/s/cq/20091020/pl_ ... ics3226425
Quote:
The U.S. military command in eastern Afghanistan has rescinded a ban on the publication of photos depicting slain U.S. military personnel, a Pentagon spokesman said Tuesday.

The month-old ban had triggered concerns among lawmakers as well as from several media organizations.

"I am relieved that this short-lived attempt to control the media and the public's right to know has come to an end," Louise M. Slaughter, D-N.Y., chairwoman of the House Rules Committee, said in a written response to a query. "Prior restraint on photography is not a good policy for the Pentagon. It's always been my belief that the American people should see the hard reality of our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan."
End quote.

To me, the issues of posting pictures of slain U.S. soldiers is similar to posting pictures of aborted fetuses. My views on this issue aren't about protecting children. I think it's up to every parent to decide what their children should see. My views are about posting this sort of potentially offensive picture online to be viewed by adults just for the purpose of making a point about policy.

I think it is the responsibility of anyone publishing material online to be somewhat considerate up to a point of the possible effect of the post on any potential (adult) viewer. In the case of posting pictures of slain soldiers that could be the friends or family a slain soldier. In the case of abortion, I guess it could be someone who had an abortion, or knew of one. I haven't seen the pictures (of slain U.S. soldiers or aborted fetuses), but I'm sure they are awful. That's the poster's purpose, to shock, to horrify, to disgust, to change decisions. War is awful. I haven't been, but I know that. Abortion is a medical procedure. In both cases, there is death, including the death of innocents, the death of minors in the case of many soldiers. It's awful. It's part of the program. War and abortion result in death. Death is ugly, repulsive. Whether it's seen, or not, it isn't pretty. Part of life is death. Everyone dies. Often in ugly ways. Get used to it. But, no need to foist it on friends. No need to be impolite about it. Anyone who doesn't already know how awful death can be can seek the pictures out for themselves. Just my opinion. Nothing to get warped over.

Thanks, Adam.

I am usually very thick skinned, but I was just in the mood to vent a little yesterday. Below is what I posted as a comment on his photo:

I also feel strongly, but would not use this technique to similar things I feel strongly about. Such as:

Post real Hangings as a deterrent to crime.... Read More

Post Rape scenes as a deterrent to rape.

Post graphic violence as a deterrent to murder.

Post graphic auto accidents to teach Bicycle safety.

Elise complained that teens are being taught by society that Abortion is OK. But she also complained that as a parent she should have the right to control what her kids are shown, and that Abortion being "nice" is not one of the things she feels her kids should be shown. By posting such graphics where my kids can see it, you are effectively showing them something without MY permission, and taking away my parent's rights.

So....your postings no longer show up on my home page (at least until this image drops below the date threshhold).

Again, not a problem, but my children were in here when the image first showed up. To me THAT is the problem.

Jerry, I agree with your Opinion on this Jerry, Facebook is not the place to post images like that......Guess you can ignore them or keep giving them your thoughts on the subject.........Bill Strouse

I also think that they should have posted the results as a link to an off-site webpage, with the warning that a graphic image is present. They could share a summary of the results of the poll with the link; then give readers the option to click on the link and read the results and view the image in the process.

I have serious, serious problems with using graphic images to bring about a political means; even when the case is an honorable one, or a cause that I agree with. I think the rational of shocking people by viewing such images also desensitizes them at the same time, and feeds our ever growing "culture of death." It will take yet more graphic images to shock them the next time; and lessens the appreciation of the sanctity of life, not increases it.

I still remember the trama I felt in the seventh grade, when they brought a Holocaust survivor to speak to our class. If my memory is correct, they also displayed graphic images from the concentration camps. It truely tramatized me, which was the desired effect in a way; but I think it was going overboard, and not neccessary. Add to that having us view the movie version of Edgar Allen Poe's The Pit and Pendulum -- it gave me nightmares for weeks. Along with everything else happening in my life at the time, it wasn't a very pleasant time.

BTW, I think the same could be said for the 911 videos. While I think that it is important that people not forget what happened, and why we decided to engage in the wars we are in in the first place; showing the videos over and over will only desensitize folks. There are other ways to tell about the incident without restorting to a constant shocking the senses; such as relating personal stories about the victims, and those they left behind to carry on.

Jerry,

Guy is a very sweet and kind person; a wonderful friend, whose recollections of Richardson during the early to mid-1960s have been treasures to me. Also, he lost his adult son about a year ago ~ most difficult.

But I understand how you feel concerning the general posting of graphic imagery on Facebook. My daughter is often hovering around my computer monitor and I have to take care as well. Users should have a choice (no pun intended) about what shows up on their Facebook walls. While my own views on abortion have been expressed before and I don't feel that the public should be kept in the dark about what truly takes place, a social networking website such as that one -- as it is formatted now -- is probably not the best place to convey certain messages.

I missed your exchange with Guy, and the photos he posted. I've tried to be more discriminating about what I share in an open way on Facebook myself. Hope you two can find a platform of peace.

survivingworldsteam wrote:I still remember the trama I felt in the seventh grade, when they brought a Holocaust survivor to speak to our class. If my memory is correct, they also displayed graphic images from the concentration camps. It truely tramatized me, which was the desired effect in a way; but I think it was going overboard, and not neccessary.

When we had a World War 2 exhibit at the Hall of State (let's see....) 6 years ago, the South Texas room had a lot of materials and photographs from the Holocaust Museum, which was being remodeled/relocated at the time. I consequently warned everyone at the front door that had children to "preview" that room before bringing the children in.

I just don't think that images such as these should be simply posted where they can be seen, even if we do have the ability to delete them AFTER THEY SHOW UP. (And THAT is the point.)

I am sure that Guy is a nice person, and strongly believes that these images should be seen by teens and adults, because they accurately depict the horror that is Abortion. As far as adults and teens, I agree with him. But Facebook is not the place for them, as many users have children hovering close to the computer.

But.... I am not angry with Guy. I have told him that I have had to hide his postings, and suggest he be more careful in the future. He told me it was his right to publish that photo. We disagree. (But I think are still 'friends'.)

There was a friend-shared video recently on Facebook which was recommended watching for teens and others who text while driving. The photo on the video box featured a beautiful, blonde young woman ... who appeared to have been killed in an auto accident. I looked no further; didn't view the piece, and am thankful that I had a choice in the matter. This short film may have used actors -- I'm not certain -- but was reminiscent of the documentary horror shows that were foist upon us in Driver's Ed during the 1970s. There was no texting then, but there was alcohol and carelessness and the temptation to beat trains to a railroad crossing. The films were aimed at shaking good judgment and responsibility into us. We shook, so perhaps they had an effect. Most of us who quaked in our seats in that portable classroom at RHS are still alive ... and we drive. Yet, the film was only a small piece of the puzzle of what goes into creating responsibility behind the wheel.

Jerry, I took a quick look at the image from the abortion poll which Guy posted. I agree -- it is best not shared in that way, so openly -- but Facebook users are moving from a period when most of what was suggested to be 'published' was, to saying 'no thanks' more often. I was pretty passive in the beginning myself and shared whatever came my way. Folks recently signed on or newly active likely need some time to discern and absorb it all.

May not do any good, but I did "report" the image to Facebook, as I don't think the Poll people should be posting it as their 'Publish' option. I wonder if you get the same photo if you answer "Yes" to the Poll?

I am an Insurance agent, and could readily post all sorts of "scare" stories and photos, but do not think anyone should do that.

What upset me the most about Guy, was that his friend was complaining how her "kids" were being told that Abortion was safe and nice, and she was upset that they were bypassing her rights as a parent. But at the same time, she was supporting posting that photo where our children can see them, therefore bypassing OUR rights as parents. (But she doesn't see the double standard. Nor did Guy.)

I think it's hard to perceive a double standard when strong beliefs and passions are involved. Too, the physical realities of abortion have been cloaked by the powers that be. People who are pro-life often have a knee-jerk reaction to this double standard ... attempting to bring the hidden to light.

I know this is a serious topic, but on a lighter note ... I find myself sharing less and less on Facebook. My own fault, I guess, as I have 'friends' ranging in vocation from hermit-monks to go-go dancers (do we have them anymore? Oh, dear ... so retro!); with beliefs spread across the continuum from fundamentalist Christianity to Asatru. I don't wish to offend anyone, so bascially remain silent and responsive to others' postings.

One of my bff's on Facebook is a Sister of Saint Paul. She is about as hip as one can get ... seeing the world and its humor from a prismed perspective rather than in black and white. She has reminded me not to pigeon-hole people. And so has an Orthodox monk from Greece ~ he showed up yesterday in news-feed in his black cassock and klobuk (of course!) while spotlighting his high standing in Mafia Wars. It was a strange contrast! lol

At the same time, I do miss being able to pass along some very ticklin' (PG-plus rated) jokes which other chummies share. Guess there is a way to filter all the wall stuff; just need to take the time to go in and figure out how to do it.

Here's the alternative to people posting whatever they want - excessive government regulation.

http://www.reuters.com/article/regulato ... 3320091022

Welcome back, Clyde

... and hope you all had a grand vacation

Clyde Howard wrote:I (and anyone around my computer) are safe from offensively graphic (if the image is the one I think it is and have seen elsewhere) on Facebook - i avoid that particular site as I fond it grossly offensive simply by its existence and will not support it in any fashion whatever. it serves as a WONDERFUL source of prey for stalkers and rapists and sexual abusers of children - whether the site wants to admit or believe it or not.

I note that both pro-choicers and anti-abortionists tend to be very hard-line, utterly uncaring of others, and IMO should be identified and and shipped to some suitable island (one-way trip -attempt to leave and the guards kill you) where they can do the Gingham Dog/Calico Cat thing on one another.

Quote:
where they can do the Gingham Dog/Calico Cat thing on one another.
End quote.

LOL I hadn't heard that one before.