Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.debian.user > #162344 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Fernando Arenas <arenas.f@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-12-31 12:40 +0100 |
| Last post | 2016-01-07 07:20 +0100 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 64 — 31 participants |
Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.user
sexist content in the package openclipart2-png Fernando Arenas <arenas.f@gmail.com> - 2015-12-31 12:40 +0100
Re: sexist content in the package openclipart2-png Jerome BENOIT <sphericaltriangle@rezozer.net> - 2015-12-31 13:20 +0100
Re: sexist content in the package openclipart2-png deloptes <deloptes@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-31 13:30 +0100
Re: sexist content in the package openclipart2-png Martin Read <zen75502@zen.co.uk> - 2015-12-31 14:20 +0100
Re: sexist content in the package openclipart2-png Renaud (Ron) OLGIATI <renaud@olgiati-in-paraguay.org> - 2015-12-31 13:40 +0100
Re: sexist content in the package openclipart2-png Ric Moore <wayward4now@gmail.com> - 2015-12-31 15:30 +0100
Re: sexist content in the package openclipart2-png "Thomas Schmitt" <scdbackup@gmx.net> - 2015-12-31 14:20 +0100
Re: sexist content in the package openclipart2-png David Baron <d_baron@012.net.il> - 2015-12-31 14:30 +0100
Re: sexist content in the package openclipart2-png Joel Rees <joel.rees@gmail.com> - 2016-01-05 02:30 +0100
Re: sexist content in the package openclipart2-png Joel Rees <joel.rees@gmail.com> - 2016-01-05 03:50 +0100
Re: sexist content in the package openclipart2-png Javier Barroso <javibarroso@gmail.com> - 2015-12-31 17:20 +0100
Re: sexist content in the package openclipart2-png John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2015-12-31 17:40 +0100
Re: sexist content in the package openclipart2-png "John L. Ries" <jries@salford-systems.com> - 2015-12-31 20:30 +0100
RE: sexist content in the package openclipart2-png Arno Schuring <aelschuring@hotmail.com> - 2016-01-06 19:40 +0100
Re: sexist content in the package openclipart2-png Gary Dale <garydale@torfree.net> - 2015-12-31 21:20 +0100
Re: sexist content in the package openclipart2-png Gary Dale <garydale@torfree.net> - 2015-12-31 21:40 +0100
Re: sexist content in the package openclipart2-png Joel Rees <joel.rees@gmail.com> - 2016-01-01 10:50 +0100
Re: sexist content in the package openclipart2-png Ric Moore <wayward4now@gmail.com> - 2016-01-01 17:30 +0100
Re: sexist content in the package openclipart2-png peter@berghold.net - 2016-01-01 17:40 +0100
Re: sexist content in the package openclipart2-png John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2016-01-01 17:50 +0100
Re: sexist content in the package openclipart2-png Mart van de Wege <mvdwege@gmail.com> - 2016-01-03 19:40 +0100
Re: sexist content in the package openclipart2-png Terence <terence.john@gmail.com> - 2016-01-01 18:00 +0100
Re: sexist content in the package openclipart2-png deloptes <deloptes@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-01 22:30 +0100
Re: sexist content in the package openclipart2-png John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2016-01-01 23:10 +0100
Re: sexist content in the package openclipart2-png Charlie <ariestao@ipstarmail.com.au> - 2016-01-02 00:10 +0100
Re: sexist content in the package openclipart2-png Ric Moore <wayward4now@gmail.com> - 2016-01-02 04:30 +0100
Re: sexist content in the package openclipart2-png Ric Moore <wayward4now@gmail.com> - 2016-01-01 18:50 +0100
Re: sexist content in the package openclipart2-png Martin Read <zen75502@zen.co.uk> - 2016-01-01 19:10 +0100
Re: sexist content in the package openclipart2-png Lee Winter <lee.j.i.winter@gmail.com> - 2016-01-01 20:10 +0100
Re: sexist content in the package openclipart2-png Richard Hector <richard@walnut.gen.nz> - 2016-01-02 09:00 +0100
Re: sexist content in the package openclipart2-png <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2016-01-02 09:20 +0100
Re: sexist content in the package openclipart2-png Chris Bannister <cbannister@slingshot.co.nz> - 2016-01-02 18:10 +0100
Re: sexist content in the package openclipart2-png John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2016-01-02 18:20 +0100
Re: sexist content in the package openclipart2-png Renaud (Ron) OLGIATI <renaud@olgiati-in-paraguay.org> - 2016-01-02 19:00 +0100
Re: sexist content in the package openclipart2-png Tony van der Hoff <tony@vanderhoff.org> - 2016-01-03 11:40 +0100
Re: sexist content in the package openclipart2-png "Thomas Schmitt" <scdbackup@gmx.net> - 2016-01-01 18:50 +0100
Re: sexist content in the package openclipart2-png Joel Rees <joel.rees@gmail.com> - 2016-01-05 02:30 +0100
Re: sexist content in the package openclipart2-png Anders Andersson <pipatron@gmail.com> - 2016-01-05 14:00 +0100
Re: sexist content in the package openclipart2-png Joel Rees <joel.rees@gmail.com> - 2016-01-06 01:30 +0100
Re: sexist content in the package openclipart2-png deloptes <deloptes@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-06 09:40 +0100
Re: sexist content in the package openclipart2-png Renaud (Ron) OLGIATI <renaud@olgiati-in-paraguay.org> - 2016-01-06 10:20 +0100
Re: sexist content in the package openclipart2-png Joel Rees <joel.rees@gmail.com> - 2016-01-06 16:40 +0100
Re: sexist content in the package openclipart2-png Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org> - 2016-01-06 10:50 +0100
Re: sexist content in the package openclipart2-png Mart van de Wege <mvdwege@gmail.com> - 2016-01-06 11:30 +0100
Re: sexist content in the package openclipart2-png Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org> - 2016-01-06 13:00 +0100
Re: sexist content in the package openclipart2-png Martin Read <zen75502@zen.co.uk> - 2016-01-06 13:10 +0100
Re: sexist content in the package openclipart2-png jdd <jdd@dodin.org> - 2016-01-06 13:30 +0100
Re: sexist content in the package openclipart2-png John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2016-01-06 14:40 +0100
Re: sexist content in the package openclipart2-png Ric Moore <wayward4now@gmail.com> - 2016-01-06 16:50 +0100
Re: sexist content in the package openclipart2-png Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-01-06 17:50 +0100
Re: sexist content in the package openclipart2-png Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2016-01-06 21:20 +0100
Re: sexist content in the package openclipart2-png deloptes <deloptes@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-06 16:00 +0100
Re: sexist content in the package openclipart2-png Martin Read <zen75502@zen.co.uk> - 2016-01-06 16:10 +0100
Re: sexist content in the package openclipart2-png Renaud (Ron) OLGIATI <renaud@olgiati-in-paraguay.org> - 2016-01-06 16:30 +0100
Re: sexist content in the package openclipart2-png Charlie Kravetz <cjk@teamcharliesangels.com> - 2016-01-06 17:40 +0100
Re: sexist content in the package openclipart2-png jdd <jdd@dodin.org> - 2016-01-06 18:20 +0100
Re: sexist content in the package openclipart2-png deloptes <deloptes@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-06 20:00 +0100
Re: sexist content in the package openclipart2-png Chris Bannister <cbannister@slingshot.co.nz> - 2016-01-07 14:50 +0100
Re: sexist content in the package openclipart2-png John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2016-01-07 15:10 +0100
Re: sexist content in the package openclipart2-png Chris Bannister <cbannister@slingshot.co.nz> - 2016-01-07 15:30 +0100
Re: sexist content in the package openclipart2-png Brad Rogers <brad@fineby.me.uk> - 2016-01-05 18:00 +0100
Re: sexist content in the package openclipart2-png Joel Rees <joel.rees@gmail.com> - 2016-01-06 01:30 +0100
Re: sexist content in the package openclipart2-png Matt Ventura <mattventura@mattventura.net> - 2016-01-07 00:50 +0100
Re: sexist content in the package openclipart2-png deloptes <deloptes@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-07 07:20 +0100
Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 Next page →
| From | Mart van de Wege <mvdwege@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-03 19:40 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <qMVJn-zf-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #162436 |
John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> writes:
> peter write:
>> I'm confused what specifically is meriting censorship?
>
> Political incorrectness.
So when do we see your bugreport asking to merge fortunes-off into
fortunes?
Mart
--
"We will need a longer wall when the revolution comes."
--- AJS, quoting an uncertain source.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Terence <terence.john@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-01 18:00 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <qMbdv-4Vr-5@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #162435 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
Peter, You shouldn't be confused: there will always be people of limited intelligence and understanding who will find offence in any statement, picture, opinion or attitude that does not conform to their severely restricted mind-set. There is nothing to be found on the internet that transcends the barbarity of certain groups that rape , murder, mutilate and gloat over their actions, and post their obscene videos to the world, to compare with the images that are complained about here. Perhaps certain people need a reality check, and professional reorientation help to rejoin the real world. Wishing you a happy new year, but doubting it will be, given the human obstacles to progress, Saki On 1 January 2016 at 16:23, <peter@berghold.net> wrote: > I'm confused what specifically is meriting censorship? > > Sent from my android device. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Ric Moore <wayward4now@gmail.com> > To: debian-user@lists.debian.org > Sent: Fri, 01 Jan 2016 11:21 > Subject: Re: sexist content in the package openclipart2-png > > On 01/01/2016 04:47 AM, Joel Rees wrote: > I looked at the first twenty or so > > images in the list, and I agree that the general point of view is very > > much one that treats people as objects. I would not want my children > > finding those when looking for clipart. > > > > In my opinion, a complaint is justified here. Those should be sorted > > out into a separate package, at minimum. > > I looked at the first 100 and found nothing meriting censorship. Ric > > > -- > My father, Victor Moore (Vic) used to say: > "There are two Great Sins in the world... > ..the Sin of Ignorance, and the Sin of Stupidity. > Only the former may be overcome." R.I.P. Dad. > http://linuxcounter.net/user/44256.html > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | deloptes <deloptes@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-01 22:30 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <qMfqO-7Gp-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #162437 |
Terence wrote: > Peter, > > You shouldn't be confused: there will always be people of limited > intelligence and understanding who will find offence in any statement, > picture, opinion or attitude that does not conform to their severely > restricted mind-set. > > There is nothing to be found on the internet that transcends the barbarity > of certain groups that rape , murder, mutilate and gloat over their > actions, and post their obscene videos to the world, to compare with the > images that are complained about here. > > Perhaps certain people need a reality check, and professional > reorientation help to rejoin the real world. > > Wishing you a happy new year, but doubting it will be, given the human > obstacles to progress, > > Saki > I completely agree with you Terence. The best way to protect our children is to give them education and understanding for what is going on in the world, so that they are able to make healthy (good) choices. Most of the parents fail there and blame this one or that one and try to create an artificial world around their children. There is too much political correctness and too less of a good example (at least here in Europe), so that children often do not know what is good and what is bad. I do not want our women to wear hijab, because someone could be affected when they show their neck, or chin. Following the OPs request we would end up there sooner or later. I also do not want that pornographic content is shown to anybody, but ... advertisements go to the limit too often and it hangs everywhere. Did someone count how much advertisement is seen by a child. How is the OP dealing with it? The only solution in my opinion is to explain and give a good example to the children for what is good and what is bad. Once they know it, they do not forget. Happy New Year to all of you! regards
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-01 23:10 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <qMg3w-8bz-21@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #162446 |
deloptes writes: > I do not want our women to wear hijab, because someone could be > affected when they show their neck, or chin. Following the OPs request > we would end up there sooner or later. Of course, the OP would probably want women to be forbidden to wear ha jib... -- John Hasler jhasler@newsguy.com Elmwood, WI USA
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charlie <ariestao@ipstarmail.com.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-02 00:10 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <qMgZA-jl-9@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #162446 |
On Fri, 01 Jan 2016 22:22:13 +0100 deloptes sent: > The only solution in my opinion is to explain and give a good example > to the children for what is good and what is bad. Once they know it, > they do not forget. How often do the children see the worst sexism and other iniquities in their home, where they are not recognised by the perpetrators? Charlie -- Registered Linux User:- 329524 *********************************************** Every generation laughs at the old fashions, but religiously follows the new. ....Henry David Thoreau *********************************************** Debian GNU/Linux - Magic indeed. -----------------------------------------------------
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ric Moore <wayward4now@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-02 04:30 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <qMl3b-2OF-5@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #162450 |
On 01/01/2016 05:51 PM, Charlie wrote: > On Fri, 01 Jan 2016 22:22:13 +0100 deloptes sent: > >> The only solution in my opinion is to explain and give a good example >> to the children for what is good and what is bad. Once they know it, >> they do not forget. > > How often do the children see the worst sexism and other iniquities in > their home, where they are not recognised by the perpetrators? The DOJ stats claim about 90% of all offenses to children are committed by parents, family or friends of family. -- My father, Victor Moore (Vic) used to say: "There are two Great Sins in the world... ..the Sin of Ignorance, and the Sin of Stupidity. Only the former may be overcome." R.I.P. Dad. http://linuxcounter.net/user/44256.html
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ric Moore <wayward4now@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-01 18:50 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <qMbZT-5ud-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #162435 |
On 01/01/2016 11:23 AM, peter@berghold.net wrote: > I'm confused what specifically is meriting censorship? I'm not seeing any full frontal nudity. Ric -- My father, Victor Moore (Vic) used to say: "There are two Great Sins in the world... ..the Sin of Ignorance, and the Sin of Stupidity. Only the former may be overcome." R.I.P. Dad. http://linuxcounter.net/user/44256.html
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Martin Read <zen75502@zen.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-01 19:10 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <qMcjg-5Qz-25@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #162438 |
On 01/01/16 17:47, Ric Moore wrote: > On 01/01/2016 11:23 AM, peter@berghold.net wrote: >> I'm confused what specifically is meriting censorship? > > I'm not seeing any full frontal nudity. Ric An image can feature full frontal nudity without being an exercise in sexual objectification, and equally can be an exercise in sexual objectification without featuring full frontal nudity. A reasonable person could certainly conclude that quite a few of the images specifically called out by the original poster in this thread fall into the latter category.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lee Winter <lee.j.i.winter@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-01 20:10 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <qMdfj-6qd-7@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #162440 |
On Fri, Jan 1, 2016 at 1:05 PM, Martin Read <zen75502@zen.co.uk> wrote: > On 01/01/16 17:47, Ric Moore wrote: >> >> On 01/01/2016 11:23 AM, peter@berghold.net wrote: >>> >>> I'm confused what specifically is meriting censorship? >> >> >> I'm not seeing any full frontal nudity. Ric > > > An image can feature full frontal nudity without being an exercise in sexual > objectification, and equally can be an exercise in sexual objectification > without featuring full frontal nudity. > > A reasonable person could certainly conclude that quite a few of the images > specifically called out by the original poster in this thread > fall into the latter category. Actually that is incorrect. All such conclusions rest on the interpretation of the graphic, and interpretation is guided or even controlled by the biases of the observer. So objectification, like beauty, lies in the eyes of the beholder. So people who detect objectification in an arrangement of pixels should be forbidden from interpreting imagery. Such a policy is NOT censorship -- it is more an exercise of preventive medicine. One might as well object to the data downloaded on the basis that the bits involved were recycled rather than fresh. Prohibit images composed of stale bits! Not. Lee Winter Nashua, New Hampshire United States of America
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Hector <richard@walnut.gen.nz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-02 09:00 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <qMpgt-5kv-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #162440 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 On 02/01/16 07:05, Martin Read wrote: > On 01/01/16 17:47, Ric Moore wrote: >> On 01/01/2016 11:23 AM, peter@berghold.net wrote: >>> I'm confused what specifically is meriting censorship? >> >> I'm not seeing any full frontal nudity. Ric > > An image can feature full frontal nudity without being an exercise > in sexual objectification, and equally can be an exercise in > sexual objectification without featuring full frontal nudity. > > A reasonable person could certainly conclude that quite a few of > the images specifically called out by the original poster in this > thread fall into the latter category. > I tend to agree. I assumed there was something in Debian's core documents (social contract etc) about this, but couldn't find it. I did find something about how everyone will be willingly accepted, but that could be applied either way ... I'm also aware that the respondents to this thread so far appear to be (apologies if I'm mistaken) male; I'm not sure whether the women of the list have deliberately withheld comment? Richard -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJWh4G4AAoJELSi8I/scBaNFpEH/iaNAEEELk6X6dGtuybe3Vyc gHfOuDTcptQv2DuubShbh8RgOwElOjiGL0UllnJpUM0NupiyPzhR/dmwgqgtS1ja jzrp8piedZLRCkhghCGlDTDNkIbZS12AzK4codPZcLxtnqiF2L4AhYzIswNdQtil xzNxa1g4wOgEVRAl9OJrBzqOKGKQOAIkzCP/fWtWt3urxHfQZld18BC3SY/BVKEk LK7xnGDvwu+/A1UN2HylpGsxD1fJnrdIBISxVXEt5oQYh0biaCtLXcD+lB7YX7OS qYQ1cGhtOuIg+kFhCPZCfIptSp01pukB60V7/XD/KEzSLL+AtxsCHFl74ZBEYPw= =vrt4 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | <tomas@tuxteam.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-02 09:20 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <qMpzQ-5Go-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #162454 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Sat, Jan 02, 2016 at 08:52:24PM +1300, Richard Hector wrote: [...] > I'm also aware that the respondents to this thread so far appear to be > (apologies if I'm mistaken) male; I'm not sure whether the women of > the list have deliberately withheld comment? This is unfortunate. But given the tone of half of the thread here, I was myself hesitant to even participate. I mean: one can agree with the OP or disagree -- but the amount of unnecessary sarcasm on display here can be... a bit off-putting. There have been many very reasonable posts, though. regards - -- tomás -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAlaHficACgkQBcgs9XrR2kZswgCfe0B74w8vP1Y0IeleQYYNvwtt GG8AniVUqP/W7EOqR6X9YEmH9c67JC9I =YARh -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chris Bannister <cbannister@slingshot.co.nz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-02 18:10 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <qMxQK-2qa-23@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #162456 |
On Sat, Jan 02, 2016 at 08:37:12AM +0100, tomas@tuxteam.de wrote: > On Sat, Jan 02, 2016 at 08:52:24PM +1300, Richard Hector wrote: > > I'm also aware that the respondents to this thread so far appear to be > > (apologies if I'm mistaken) male; I'm not sure whether the women of > > the list have deliberately withheld comment? > > This is unfortunate. But given the tone of half of the thread here, I > was myself hesitant to even participate. I mean: one can agree with > the OP or disagree -- but the amount of unnecessary sarcasm on display > here can be... a bit off-putting. Is sarcasm ever necessary? (BTW, I don't recall reading any.) -- "If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing." --- Malcolm X
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-02 18:20 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <qMy0p-2tx-11@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #162480 |
Chris Bannister writes: > Is sarcasm ever necessary? (BTW, I don't recall reading any.) I posted some. And yes, it is sometimes justified. -- John Hasler jhasler@newsguy.com Elmwood, WI USA
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Renaud (Ron) OLGIATI <renaud@olgiati-in-paraguay.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-02 19:00 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <qMyD8-2In-15@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #162482 |
> Chris Bannister writes:
> > Is sarcasm ever necessary? (BTW, I don't recall reading any.)
>
> I posted some. And yes, it is sometimes justified.
He must have missed my reply, where I profusely thanked the original poster for the useful pointer he had given us ;-3)
Cheers,
Ron.
--
Does the name Pavlov ring a bell?
-- http://www.olgiati-in-paraguay.org --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tony van der Hoff <tony@vanderhoff.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-03 11:40 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <qMOeS-49X-21@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #162454 |
On 02/01/16 08:52, Richard Hector wrote: > > I'm also aware that the respondents to this thread so far appear to be > (apologies if I'm mistaken) male; I'm not sure whether the women of > the list have deliberately withheld comment? > Well, I suspect that the more level-headed members of this list (and I would most certainly include the females) have all withheld comment. -- Tony van der Hoff | mailto:tony@vanderhoff.org Ariège, France |
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Thomas Schmitt" <scdbackup@gmx.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-01 18:50 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <qMbZU-5ud-9@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #162435 |
Hi, peter@berghold.net wrote: > I'm confused what specifically is meriting censorship? Article 5 Grundgesetz (that's our local constitition) says: "No censorship happens." Therefore it is forbidden to say that censorship happens. Have a nice day :) Thomas
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Joel Rees <joel.rees@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-05 02:30 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <qNoBI-390-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #162434 |
On Sat, Jan 2, 2016 at 1:20 AM, Ric Moore <wayward4now@gmail.com> wrote: > On 01/01/2016 04:47 AM, Joel Rees wrote: >> The comment on facebook aside, I looked at the first twenty or so >> images in the list, and I agree that the general point of view is very >> much one that treats people as objects. I would not want my children >> finding those when looking for clipart. >> >> In my opinion, a complaint is justified here. Those should be sorted >> out into a separate package, at minimum. > > I looked at the first 100 and found nothing meriting censorship. Ric There were only 95 in the list the OP gave. FWIW. I let you badger me into looking at the rest of them, and, I'll acknowledge that some of the images in the list the OP gave are not really offensive, particularly if taken alone. Others? You and I seem to have different ideas about what we want children to find when they reach up on the family/school bookshelf. Censorship? I'm not suggesting burning bits here -- just moving some of the clipart out into a separate package so that a child looking for a general image of a woman won't bump into a male sexual fantasy cartoon image of a woman giving him or her the come-on in moderately graphic detail. On a positive note, if you know where to avoid looking, the openclipart packages have a lot of useful artwork, both for direct use and for ideas to build on. Does need some more work on organization to make what one is looking for easier to find. -- Joel Rees
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Anders Andersson <pipatron@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-05 14:00 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <qNzns-2S7-5@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #162624 |
On Tue, Jan 5, 2016 at 2:21 AM, Joel Rees <joel.rees@gmail.com> wrote: > Others? You and I seem to have different ideas about what we want > children to find when they reach up on the family/school bookshelf. Please leave your children's upbringing out of our operating system. I'm not sure why you would have Debian's packages printed and on display in your bookshelf without scrutiny. As a parent, you know that it's your responsibility to limit their access to whatever your culture might find offensive, if you don't wish them to be exposed to that. On the school bookshelf I expect to find a good encyclopedia containing a lot more interesting images than what is available in the clip-art package, and if not, they can always turn to Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breast comes to mind). Hopefully no one will have to determine if a package is "child-safe" before accepting it into Debian. That would be a big can of worms to open.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Joel Rees <joel.rees@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-06 01:30 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <qNK9c-1YP-7@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #162647 |
On Tue, Jan 5, 2016 at 9:53 PM, Anders Andersson <pipatron@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Jan 5, 2016 at 2:21 AM, Joel Rees <joel.rees@gmail.com> wrote: >> Others? You and I seem to have different ideas about what we want >> children to find when they reach up on the family/school bookshelf. > > Please leave your children's upbringing out of our operating system. > I'm not sure why you would have Debian's packages printed and on > display in your bookshelf without scrutiny. As a parent, you know that > it's your responsibility to limit their access to whatever your > culture might find offensive, if you don't wish them to be exposed to > that. On the school bookshelf I expect to find a good encyclopedia > containing a lot more interesting images than what is available in the > clip-art package, and if not, they can always turn to Wikipedia > (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breast comes to mind). > > Hopefully no one will have to determine if a package is "child-safe" > before accepting it into Debian. That would be a big can of worms to > open. > Rather than argue with you here, I'll ask you to read my response to Brad. -- Joel Rees Be careful when you look at conspiracy. Arm yourself with knowledge of yourself, as well: http://reiisi.blogspot.jp/2011/10/conspiracy-theories.html
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | deloptes <deloptes@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-06 09:40 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <qNRNn-763-5@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #162677 |
Joel Rees wrote: > On Tue, Jan 5, 2016 at 9:53 PM, Anders Andersson <pipatron@gmail.com> > wrote: >> On Tue, Jan 5, 2016 at 2:21 AM, Joel Rees <joel.rees@gmail.com> wrote: >>> Others? You and I seem to have different ideas about what we want >>> children to find when they reach up on the family/school bookshelf. >> >> Please leave your children's upbringing out of our operating system. >> I'm not sure why you would have Debian's packages printed and on >> display in your bookshelf without scrutiny. As a parent, you know that >> it's your responsibility to limit their access to whatever your >> culture might find offensive, if you don't wish them to be exposed to >> that. On the school bookshelf I expect to find a good encyclopedia >> containing a lot more interesting images than what is available in the >> clip-art package, and if not, they can always turn to Wikipedia >> (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breast comes to mind). >> >> Hopefully no one will have to determine if a package is "child-safe" >> before accepting it into Debian. That would be a big can of worms to >> open. >> > > Rather than argue with you here, I'll ask you to read my response to Brad. I would suggest all of you stop this discussion. It points to no where. Some of the images might be disturbing, but real life is much more. You can not hide all of it, unless you live in artificial world. A good example here is the Netherlands or Switzerland (and recently some states in the US) and drug policy. While all countries around prohibit the use of some drugs. The government in the Netherlands and Switzerland (not sure about US) support education programs. Start educating is what I want to say, start educating your children, and building up self protection. Believe me this is the only way you can protect them. regards
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.user
csiph-web