OT: Child Labor Porn

[Sarah Ehrett's Lesbian Love Interest]

I suppose it's alright, chances are everyone in these pictures is dead.

The idea that some (job creators) enjoy looking at these children is disturbing. There are those who see nothing wrong with these images of children suffering under reprehensible conditions; my granddaddy did it, my father did it, and I did it.

http://www.cbsnews.com/2300-201_162-10013924-4.html

[the left hander]

Yes, it is disturbing and i am glad CBS is pointing it out. Lets all be
consistent in all of this and point out that worse than this is being
committed in late term abortions and i dont see the big drive to make
that an issue(except for maybe in the conservative circles)

I just dont get how we can go on a campaign showing the evils of the
work force on children and then completely disregard the blatant murder
of babies by criminal doctors(like Gosnell in Philadelphia and many,
many others)

[J.D. Baldwin]

In the previous article, Sarah Ehrett's Lesbian Love Interest

<wilm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I suppose it's alright, chances are everyone in these pictures is
> dead.
>
> The idea that some (job creators) enjoy looking at these children
> is disturbing. There are those who see nothing wrong with these
> images of children suffering under reprehensible conditions; my
> granddaddy did it, my father did it, and I did it.

I flipped through them pretty fast, so I guess I missed it. Could you
point out which picture portrayed the "reprehensible conditions" or
for that matter any "children suffering"? One boy was quoted as
saying he worked in the mill until the authorities came and dragged
him away to school. Now *that* is suffering.
--
_+_ From the catapult of |If anyone objects to any statement I make, I am
_|70|___:)=}- J.D. Baldwin |quite prepared not only to retract it, but also
\ / bal...@panix.com|to deny under oath that I ever made it.-T. Lehrer
***~~~~----------------------------------------------------------------------

[Sarah Ehrett's Lesbian Love Interest]

On Saturday, May 18, 2013 4:10:37 AM UTC-7, J.D. Baldwin wrote:
> In the previous article, Sarah Ehrett's Lesbian Love Interest
>
> <wilm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I suppose it's alright, chances are everyone in these pictures is
>
> > dead.
>
> >
>
> > The idea that some (job creators) enjoy looking at these children
>
> > is disturbing. There are those who see nothing wrong with these
>
> > images of children suffering under reprehensible conditions; my
>
> > granddaddy did it, my father did it, and I did it.
>
>
>
> I flipped through them pretty fast, so I guess I missed it. Could you
>
> point out which picture portrayed the "reprehensible conditions" or
>
> for that matter any "children suffering"? One boy was quoted as
>
> saying he worked in the mill until the authorities came and dragged
>
> him away to school. Now *that* is suffering.
>

You have no problem with child labor? I'm not going to be able to change your mind.

But consider, children are not able to enter into contracts. The exchange of labor for money is a contract, a contract that a child is not fully able to negotiate to his advantage.

Children laboring teaches that the immediate reward for labor is preferable to the rewards that come in the distant future after education.

Children's minds are not developed enough to work around machinery. They may know to avoid contact with moving parts, but they have not developed the discipline to avoid danger hours a day, days a week.

"One boy was quoted as
saying he worked in the mill until the authorities came and dragged
him away to school. Now *that* is suffering."

Education is suffering? The mill closes and the child has no marketable skills, he can't read or write. He can't understand the issues that will shape his future, and when he votes he'll not understand the issues, so he won't be a good citizen. His parents' poverty will be his and his children's.

If you think there is any socially redeemable value in having people profit from the labor of children, you are obscene.

[Sarah Ehrett]

On Sat, 18 May 2013 11:10:37 +0000 (UTC),
INVALID...@example.com.invalid (J.D. Baldwin) wrote:

>
>In the previous article, Sarah Ehrett's Lesbian Love Interest
><wilm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I suppose it's alright, chances are everyone in these pictures is
>> dead.
>>
>> The idea that some (job creators) enjoy looking at these children
>> is disturbing. There are those who see nothing wrong with these
>> images of children suffering under reprehensible conditions; my
>> granddaddy did it, my father did it, and I did it.
>
>I flipped through them pretty fast, so I guess I missed it. Could you
>point out which picture portrayed the "reprehensible conditions" or
>for that matter any "children suffering"? One boy was quoted as
>saying he worked in the mill until the authorities came and dragged
>him away to school. Now *that* is suffering.

I thought the same thing JD. I didn't see children who looked like they
were suffering. Most of these children also looked clean and well dressed,
considering the times and circumstances.

[Sarah Ehrett]

On Sat, 18 May 2013 08:45:55 -0700 (PDT), "Stinky Smelly Arse"
<wilm...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Saturday, May 18, 2013 4:10:37 AM UTC-7, J.D. Baldwin wrote:
>> In the previous article, Sarah Ehrett's Lesbian Love Interest
>>
>> <wilm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > I suppose it's alright, chances are everyone in these pictures is
>>
>> > dead.
>>
>> >
>>
>> > The idea that some (job creators) enjoy looking at these children
>>
>> > is disturbing. There are those who see nothing wrong with these
>>
>> > images of children suffering under reprehensible conditions; my
>>
>> > granddaddy did it, my father did it, and I did it.
>>
>>
>>
>> I flipped through them pretty fast, so I guess I missed it. Could you
>>
>> point out which picture portrayed the "reprehensible conditions" or
>>
>> for that matter any "children suffering"? One boy was quoted as
>>
>> saying he worked in the mill until the authorities came and dragged
>>
>> him away to school. Now *that* is suffering.
>>
>
> You have no problem with child labor? I'm not going to be able to change your mind.

Your comment, " these images of children suffering under reprehensible
conditions" isn't supported by the images.

I too would like you to point out any image of "reprehensible conditions"
or "children suffering".

[~M~]

"Sarah Ehrett's Lesbian Love Interest" wrote in message
news:8e0adfa1-0def-4ab1...@googlegroups.com...

>I suppose it's alright, chances are everyone in these pictures is dead.
>
> The idea that some (job creators) enjoy looking at these children is
> disturbing. There are those who see nothing wrong with these images of
> children >suffering under reprehensible conditions; my granddaddy did it,
> my father did it, and I did it.

Yes, they immigrated from countries where conditions made these look good,
to build a future where you could sit on your fat ass, collect welfare, and
bitch about the people who support you now.



--
"Yes, they talk about the dirt streets of Cuba and the old cars and whatever
else they see as poverty - while others such as myself see it as paradise"
- Tommy Joe, 4/14/2012

[MWB]

You wouldn't have made the cut if you grew up in Aroostook County, MAINE.



EAT MAINE POTATOES

Mark

[J.D. Baldwin]

In the previous article, Sarah Ehrett's Lesbian Love Interest
<wilm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> You have no problem with child labor? I'm not going to be able to
> change your mind.

Yes, of course, that is exactly what I said. Because I failed to see
cruelty and suffering in photos that did not depict or even hint at
cruelty or suffering, obviously I am okay with chattel slavery and
seventy-hour work weeks in filthy and dangerous conditions for every
six-year-old below the poverty line. That was *clearly* implied by my
post.

> But consider, children are not able to enter into contracts.

Who the hell told you *that*? Children enter into contracts every
minute of every day. There is nothing whatsoever in law, culture or
morality against the notion.

> The exchange of labor for money is a contract, a contract that a
> child is not fully able to negotiate to his advantage.

I am unable rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of mind that
could cause a literate adult to write a sentence like that.

> "One boy was quoted as saying he worked in the mill until the
> authorities came and dragged him away to school. Now *that* is
> suffering."
>
> Education is suffering?

Where the hell did I even *use* the word "education"? I was talking
about *school*. If you think "school" and "education" are close
synonyms ... well, see above, under "mind, confusion of."

[leno...@yahoo.com]

On Sunday, May 19, 2013 2:36:45 PM UTC-4, J.D. Baldwin wrote:

> Where the hell did I even *use* the word "education"? I was talking
>
> about *school*. If you think "school" and "education" are close
>
> synonyms ... well, see above, under "mind, confusion of."

Please explain why you assume the school in question would be worse than no school at all, when it comes to education. Or that it would necessarily be like what Mark Twain described decades earlier in "The Gilded Age" (little more than rote learning of "incomprehensible rubbish," with lots of hitting - which, according to Michael Patrick Hearn's annotations in "The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn," is likely why ANYONE, not just Huck Finn, would have hated school in 1840s America).

I do have a hunch, though, that since kids are kids, and they haven't always had the foresight to realize the need for education, that many of the American kids a century ago or more who held signs saying "we want to go to school" didn't really want to go, even to a school where they WOULDN'T get hit or treated badly - they just wanted to play all day and stop risking life and limb in the factories, but they grudgingly pretended to want to go to school, thinking it the lesser evil. Just one more reason why kids aren't allowed to vote.

Lenona.

[Sarah Ehrett's Lesbian Love Interest]

There are those who see this as a shameful chapter in American history, there are those who see nothing wrong with it, and there are those (job creator types) who see this as titillating material.

Like I said, there is nothing I can do to change your minds. I see it as a Rorschach test that reveals where you're coming from.

[David Carson]

On Sun, 19 May 2013 16:29:45 -0700 (PDT), "Sarah Ehrett's Lesbian Love
Interest" <wilm...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Like I said, there is nothing I can do to change your minds. I see it as a Rorschach test that reveals where you're coming from.

Are you sure? I think that in Rorschach tests, the people who use words
like "suffering", "reprehensible", "shameful", "disturbing", and "porn" to
describe images others view a lot more neutrally are typically the ones
the head doctors want to keep their eyes on.

[Bill Schenley]

>  I suppose it's alright, chances are everyone in these pictures is dead.
>
> The idea that some (job creators) enjoy looking at these children is disturbing.
> There are those who see nothing wrong with these images of children suffering
> under reprehensible conditions; my granddaddy did it, my father did it, and I did it.

I know you're just trolling this newsgroup, because apparently, every
fucking retarded troll on Usenet has to make a run at alt.obituaries,
but I'll play along for the moment ... Gimme' a number ... There are
forty photographs at the link you provided, each one is numbered.
Which ones, by the number, depict "images of children suffering under
reprehensible conditions?"

> http://www.cbsnews.com/2300-201_162-10013924-4.html

Who would have ever thought Roy Lieberman had sister who was also
"born with the defect ... "

[Sarah Ehrett's Lesbian Love Interest]

You insult me and you expect me to answer your questions? Seems Roy has a twin brother from a different mother.

Look at the first picture I linked to, #4. Two children. Unable to speak English, and little chance to ever to do so. I knew adults who grew up in the USA and never learned to speak English or read or write any language. Their future is what you see pictured, a life of dirty work dependent on the owner's whim as whether or not to keep him employed.

The caption also says the children worked around the machines. As I have stated, children do not have the capacity to work around machines. Every day evidence is today we don't allow children to drive cars, and those teenagers who do drive their insurance is very high because of the added risk.

The children's job title is "doffs". What that is, is the child crawls around under looms picking up lint, fuzz and scrapes. They don't turn the machine off while the child does this, he does this as the machine runs at full throttle while performs his duties. The child was at risk from injury from the machines, but also from the disease, brown lung, from the breathing of the dusty air.

The child loses his childhood. He loses his chance for education. He loses his health. Maybe he loses a limb. He is discarded when he is no longer needed. All for a few pennies. The good part is the 'job creator' gets rich, so I guess it all works out in the end, huh?

When you look at these pictures you may not see images of "children suffering under reprehensible conditions". That may be because you are ignorant of what you are seeing, or it may be because you have been made numb to the suffering of others, or you see it as natural the strong have dominion over the weak.

[David Carson]

On Mon, 20 May 2013 09:43:45 -0700 (PDT), "Sarah Ehrett's Lesbian Love
Interest" <wilm...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Look at the first picture I linked to, #4. Two children. Unable to speak English, and little chance to ever to do so. I knew adults who grew up in the USA and never learned to speak English or read or write any language. Their future is what you see pictured, a life of dirty work dependent on the owner's whim as whether or not to keep him employed.
>
> The caption also says the children worked around the machines. As I have stated, children do not have the capacity to work around machines. Every day evidence is today we don't allow children to drive cars, and those teenagers who do drive their insurance is very high because of the added risk.
>
> The children's job title is "doffs". What that is, is the child crawls around under looms picking up lint, fuzz and scrapes. They don't turn the machine off while the child does this, he does this as the machine runs at full throttle while performs his duties. The child was at risk from injury from the machines, but also from the disease, brown lung, from the breathing of the dusty air.
>
> The child loses his childhood. He loses his chance for education. He loses his health. Maybe he loses a limb. He is discarded when he is no longer needed. All for a few pennies. The good part is the 'job creator' gets rich, so I guess it all works out in the end, huh?
>
> When you look at these pictures you may not see images of "children suffering under reprehensible conditions". That may be because you are ignorant of what you are seeing, or it may be because you have been made numb to the suffering of others, or you see it as natural the strong have dominion over the weak.

Or maybe it's the pictures. If what you wrote is what they were meant to
portray, they do a bad job of it.

[Sarah Ehrett's Lesbian Love Interest]

On Tuesday, May 21, 2013 6:45:26 AM UTC-7, David Carson wrote:

>
>
> Or maybe it's the pictures. If what you wrote is what they were meant to
>
> portray, they do a bad job of it.

Insidious--

1.
intended to entrap or beguile: an insidious plan.

2.
stealthily treacherous or deceitful: an insidious enemy.

3.
operating or proceeding in an inconspicuous or seemingly harmless way but actually with grave effect: an insidious disease.