Controversial photo. Not for those with weak constitutions.
Collapse
X
-
Call social services, that's child abuse.
Seriously though, before that boy becomes too addicted to the smell of two-cycle exaust you two need to build a six hour canoe. [img]smile.gif[/img]
[ 04-19-2004, 09:09 PM: Message edited by: Jack Heinlen ] -
Shocking- M<br /><a href=\"http://www.sailingwithsarah.com\" target=\"_blank\">www.sailingwithsarah.com</a>Comment
-
Oh I fear we have lost poor John He has went over to the other side.
ChadThere are three ways to do things: The right way, the wrong way and my way.
Three Little Birds Love is My ReligionComment
-
There was a discussion on the BBC radio this morning between two eminent philosophers about whether the showing of emotionally charged images was ethical and should be permitted, or not.
One would have banned them outright, the other reluctantly felt that this infringed too much on invividual liberty, but both agreed that looking at such pictures is morally harmful, and should be avoided.IMAGINES VEL NON FUERINTComment
-
Ah, it's spring! Time to get back to work on my design for a small noise-seeking torpedo. I think I can tune the homing circuitry to that precise jetski whine, and then KABOOM! Maybe I can get West Marine to carry them . . ."For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations,
for nature cannot be fooled."
Richard FeynmanComment
-
I am fascinated by that, ACB. So what these moral philosophers are saying is that the only moral course in the world is to close your eyes to the unpleasant? Stick your head in the sand? Is it permissable to know where your meat comes from, to view a slaughterhouse? Is is permissable to know unpleasant truths, such as the fact that the pope, or your wife, ****s, or that your politicians are corrupt, or that famous actors and athletes are generally as flawed as the rest of us? How far does this philosophy of denial go?Comment
-
Comment
Comment