engardeknave

Yeah, I know.

Oh and neo-nazism is a make-believe movement straight out of the masturbatory fantasies of leftist beta cucks desperately seeking social validation.

You're making this more complicated than it needs to be.

I have a lower IQ than you and your girlfriend, so statistically speaking it would probably make sense to let me impregnate her.

I'm in Dallas, and ftr Austin doesn't count as Texas.

I made a final comment here with the assumption that it wouldn't show up for twenty-four hours, but it looks like I'm actually able to post in real time now! So maybe I'll post some other thoughts I have later, now that a conversation is within the realm of possibility.

My understanding is that the kids were very much into participating in photo sessions and got to pick which photos were published. Although it certainly could be argued that children can't make that decision. As a photographer myself, I can't help but marvel over the breathtaking look of large format photography. I think many of these photographs are beautiful and compelling. In fact, I had a strong emotional reaction to the one with the man sitting there sort of cradling the girls. It speaks of the incredible vulnerability we all face in the world, often seemingly in the presence of dark forces. This one seems to have tripped all of my child-nurturing/female-protective instincts at once. There are a few I see that I have mixed feelings about or no feelings at all. A couple (usually involving urine) look like straight up post-modernist tripe. The reaction people have to these photos is what really interests me, though. I was not told by an administrator of the FDR Facebook group that the subject matter is inappropriate, and that the post will have to be deleted. I was immediately banned without warning for attempting to discuss a book that is sold on Amazon. The message is clear: 'You are a pedophile'. And there is no way that would have happened, of course, were I female. Even in the FDR community, men are regarded as sexual predators because they are men. The social cost of even discussing these photographs is so high, that in the short time the thread I posted remained up, the only kind of comment posted was something trivial, along the lines of "oh now I have to format my hard drive!!!111". You know what really bothers me? Some of these photos do creep me out a little, but I can't even tell if this is because they are actually erotisizing children, or if my brain is simply recognizing the imminent danger and prodding me toward the more socially palatable conclusion. It is a situation where I can't even distinguish between my own thoughts and that of the mob, and this is infuriating.

I don't think these links show anything particularly offensive, but other people seem to react very strongly to the photos, so you might not want click these at work. http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1597112542 https://www.google.com/search?q=sally+mann+immediate+family&source=lnms&tbm=isch

About a week ago after listening to an NPR interview with photographer Sally Mann, I made a post in the FDR Facebook group about her work, specifically her book "Immediate Family". There are many potentially disturbing images in this collection, including some of her young children naked. (I linked to a Google image search for "sally mann immediate family" with a warning about content.) I was quickly banned from the group, and I'm assuming my post went down the memory slot as well. Somehow I doubt this would have happened were I female. The book is available on Amazon, where many of the photos are posted, and more can be found via simple google image search. There's nothing illegal about the book. I will say I was very surprised at the reaction, but before posting my thoughts I'd like to hear if anyone else has anything to say about this. Specifically with regard to the value of her photography, and the kind of reaction to it I experienced. [i'd include links to Amazon and/or Google, but I suspect they are causing my posts get spam-filtered.]

Did a quick search and it doesn't look like this has been mentioned here. Below is a good summary of what happened, but there are so many fascinating layers of hypocrisy in this story, it's worth taking a look: https://twitter.com/hashtag/CalgaryExpo?src=hash

The videos are in need of a tint adjustment. It looks like they are being recorded inside of a large vagina recently. The golf ball set seemed more professional in my opinion. And the video is dark too. You might want to get that histogram to the right. I also suggest putting matching temperature lights in the studio. It seems like there's a warmer light off to one side. This produces a weird orange glare off of Stef's head.

I'm sorry, that's just not true. All things being equal, women are paid more than men.

This is horrifying. I had no idea. I think interest would vary greatly depending on your area. But you don't really need a lot of interest to start as what would essentially be a camping trip with a some other parents.

False. You can infer nothing about donation history by someone not having a donor badge. Regardless of the merit of donating to a cause like FDR, status symbols are a means of buying respect and tend to promote circle-jerks. And they are so empty and meaningless on the Internet. 'I posted xxxx times!!!' 'I donated $xxx!' So I suppose what I'm saying here is you don't need a little badge if you have words.

I'm no logic expert but I'm pretty sure you can't derive the conclusion that there is an unmoved mover starting with the premise that all things are moved by a mover. And frankly, I am not grasping how the conclusion is even related to the premises. All I'm getting from this is: 1) all things are moved by other things; 2) the only alternative is an infinite regression of movers, which we are assuming to be impossible; 3) therefore an unmoved mover, ie. god must exist. Which is exactly the same as saying "existence exists, therefore god". Not only does the conclusion not even follow, but there's an assumption that the natural state of the universe is somehow frozen and changeless. This assumed state is why you'd need an unmoved mover, but objects in motion remain in motion until acted upon by some force. (Aristotle and Aquinas get a pass on this error because they lived long before Newton. Tom Woods not so much.) The dependency on total abstractions like "potentiality" and "actualization" seems problematic too. These are not properties of things, but the intellectual projection of our knowledge of properties of the universe. There's no toast-potential hiding in bread. And there's just an interstellar collision of other common self-detonating god-paradoxes strewn on top of all that. Everything from omnipotence and omniscience, to the concept of "outside" applied to space itself (a place outside of places). I know there's more I haven't even begun to unravel.