Gorbies pay for action pics taken of them from shore. I expect they would pay a premium for vids of them taken from above. Just sayin’. 
But since he did video her when she assaulted her, her assault of him was justified. because . . . well, just 'cause.
I have long held the idea that the human brain will often be willing to give up it’s life just to prove it is right.
A personal example:
Intersection of Admiral Place & Mingo Rd in East Tulsa. It has been there as long as I can remember.
I was flying down Mingo South bound & entering traffic has the Yield sign. I was in My WarWagon, a beat up yellow 1960 Ram Charger with one white front fender & a big very ugly & intimidating brush guard in flat black.
When I got close, but I knew I could slow and slip in behind her, the traffic I saw coming was on a perfect collision course. The female driver could see that also but I do not know if she had a vision problem or a spatial orientation problem but she quit looking to see what this crazy fast monster of a vehicle was gonna do and looked away & did not once look back. I was that close. She seemed willing to die because she was in the ‘right’ and was going to do nothing to avoid the nasty wreck just about to happen.
I of course slowed, went in behind her, did not try to push her any faster etc.
I was wondering how she had lived this long.
I see this behavior all the time,
I am in the right,
That is illegal so he can’t do that, (not just about gun free zones)
In more places than seems reasonable.
IMO, when you ignore the actuality & stand on principle, please be sure you are willing to Accept the cost of doing so.
When a person opens the door to violence, then is not the time to complain about what walks through it.
This thread reminds me of that type of danger I can get from my own brain.
Sometimes I tell my brain to shut up so I can continue to remain alive. :smack:
YMMV
In this instance, the only person opening the door to violence was the person who assaulted someone else. Why would anyone think otherwise?
And hence the difficulty of trying to gauge ‘right and wrong’ on something as nebulous as an individual’s personal opinion.
The law is clear cut, and easy to follow.
**Gus **reading your story, it seems you are saying “Someone else had the right of way, and I was well aware that I had to yield, but I had a big Dodge and I am surprised that it didn’t scare her.” Is that correct?
And I have to admit the statement “When a person opens the door to violence, then is not the time to complain about what walks through it.” to me is rather shameful. It smacks of blaming a victim.
Both this phrase and your example would not surprise me if uttered by a bully, frankly.
As I said, this is baseline decent human being stuff. If you don’t care about meeting basic standards of being a decent human being, well, knock yourself out.
Some folks really, really object to being photographed without their express permission. Of course, after you get the camera shoved up your ass, you can prosecute and/or sue. You still got the camera shoved up your ass, though.
In a lot of ways I think people are just talking past each other at this point.
It is very unlikely anyone who does not want to be photographed will, in fact, be photographed without their permission.
However if in fact you are photographed by someone* in a legal setting*, making violence on the photographer is wrong, without exception. And attempting to justify such action is unreasonable.
The line between “I don’t want to be photographed and I will be very upset if I am” and batshit crazy is not readily accessible by the photographer, nor should it be.
I cannot conceive how anyone can justify the idea that taking a photograph is a reason to commit assault. It just doesn’t compute.
Buy smallish cameras with rounded contours, then.
What is legal is the baseline standard of being a decent human being. Anything more is you imposing your will on me; why should I submit to your whims? (Answer: I shouldn’t & don’t.)
Yep, and they will still have months or even years in jail to endure. Ya know why? Because they are the ones who did something wrong.
…
This quote is from way back in the thread, but I was wondering … is it still true that you object to people operating handheld cameras on the beach in general? And don’t try to turn this into a kid pointing cameras at crotches and masturbating onto beach blankets. A hypothetical teenager is walking around the beach casually taking pictures and not harassing anyone in particular. Do you have a problem with this?
Yeah, I was taking pictures at a museum (in areas where it was allowed), and I’m sure I got some people in there, including kids. Was I an asshole for doing so?
It’s an editorial photo for the New York Times. It is a BIG no-no to edit the content of photos in any way. Besides, I’ve seen the original and the surrounding frames. Looks the same, with slightly less contrast. And I’m not sure what you’re seeing. They’re slightly different shapes because of the angle of light. A bended object can make a straight shadow, depending on the angle of light and the bend in the object. Look at all the shadows and you’ll see shapes slightly different than what you see in the objects casting them.
Huh. I can’t make my brain make those two parts “line up.” I can’t see any other discrepancies, though, and I certainly believe that he wouldn’t have edited a NYT photo. It must just be a weird arm position.
Ok, maybe this can help. Hold your right arm straight out at your side. Bend your right elbow into a right angle. When viewed from above, it will have a deep bend. Currently, your arm should be parallel to the groung. Now rotate your forearm up 45 degrees, while keeping the back part of your arm parallel to the ground. So you’re kind of in a “Queen’s Wave” sort of position. Now, from above there will still be a noticeable bend in your arm. Now take your light source and put it at 45 degrees to cast a shadow. What does the shadow look like? It will be a straight shadow, so something along the same idea is happening here. What I see is the the left arm is bent in an upward direction along the body, towards the axis of the light, to have the straighter shadow, and the right arm is bent downward, as the shadow exaggerates the bend that you see from above (note how the shadow of the right arms makes it look like its dislocated.)
Second statement first.
No I do not blame the victim. How you got there baffles me.
You walk up and hit my wife in the stomach for no reason out of the blue. She tears your arm off & beats you with it & you exclaim, “I did not think what I did would cause such a reaction.”
You opened the door, and she walked in. How is that blaming the victim. If that is shameful, then I feel sorry for you.
First: I was showing that the brain in the car did not know if I would slow or not and refused to look. That brain was willing to die just to be in the right. It is not about what I did, it is about being willing to die to because you are in the right.
As a soldier, I chose to die if I had to for the smart & stupid alike. I can chose to die for you but I’ll be damned if I will die because of you. If I see someone doing something wrong but is going to kill me anyway, I do not refuse to acknowledge it, I get the hell out of the way. Later I might read to you out of the book but to do that I need to be alive. IMO, brains that refuse to believe that someone would break the law & kill or get them killed & so they just pretend it is not going to happen, I have no clue how they manage to drive on the open road & live.
It was not about what I did, it it was just a way I thought you could understand.
Here, this is the same thing: Just because I am in the right does not protect me from someone in the wrong even a little bit.
What is so hard about this? Oh yeah, I forgot the rules at the SDMB that one is to assume the worst possible interpretation of a statement, never even think there can be another, so your pillar will appear higher than any others. :::: sheesh ::::
Okay, somehow legally taking photos equals punching your wife for no reason. The discussion is about legally taking photos, and people’s reactions to legally taking photos. I contend legally taking photos does not warrant a violent response under any circumstances. From you I hear that taking a legal photograph opens the door to violence.
In the driving example I read where the person with the right of way continued to drive appropriately because she has the right of way, regardless of your musings as to whether you might hit her. Did you come close? I read your description of the event as that you did not, and that you acted legally, in which case the other driver’s lack of reaction was appropriate. Or are you saying you did swerve close to see if you would get a reaction, and observing none now hold the other driver in contempt?
Either way I’m not seeing your point as to why any action you have taken in that event was moral or correct. I get that you are trying to say “You can be right but you’ll still be dead.” I am suggesting your example was very poor.
If you are merely trying to say “Don’t do stuff that might piss someone off to the point that you might get attacked” then I suggest that is the way of a coward, and I suspect as a veteran you might not subscribe to that ideal.
I am reacting to the words you wrote, and I did not say ‘you are a bully’, I suggested they were words I believe I could hear from a bully. I hoped you might reflect on the reasons I wrote what I did. It does not appear to be the case.
Absolutely. There is a (more or less) clear line that trespasses legality, and a very blurry line that separates what we call common courtesy.
Imagine that you are in a mostly empty beach and somebody, with practically the whole beach at their disposal, just places their towel two feet from you.
Do you have a right to attack them? Of course not. That’d be insane. I haven’t said otherwise.
Would it be wrong of you to feel upset about it? No. To me it would be perfectly reasonable to think they are being discourteous.
I cannot separate the crotch part because you are quoting what was intended as a series of posts that escalated a hypothetical. If the claim is that there’s no way recording with a camera can be upsetting at all in any situation in a public space, the question was, would you still defend that claim when taken to an extreme?
So yeah, there s a difference between what the kid was doing, taking a general shot of a crowded beach, and some dude taking bikini pics. It’s not the same thing. There is a different level of interaction. When I said I wouldn’t be fine with people taking pictures at the beach it does sound like I meant to attack someone, and I apologize for being misleading. I meant that I would be slightly bothered by it. I wouldn’t find it 100% neutral.