HOME | DD

NeuralNeutrality In reply to ??? [2012-05-24 16:46:55 +0000 UTC]

>Not turn it into a holy war
>Photo shot in Israel
I see what you did there.

But making a provocative piece then saying "Let's not get offended over my piece" is like writing a book and asking half of your readers to read it from front to back then pretend it never existed, people must speak their opinions just as you do otherwise we get nowhere.

That's what provocative pieces do- they provoke (for better or for worse.)

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

erezmarom In reply to NeuralNeutrality [2012-05-24 19:56:28 +0000 UTC]

I have no problem with the fact that it's provocative. There's a difference between a respectful comment or criticism and a holy war.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

hipknowtizer87 In reply to ??? [2012-05-24 16:26:45 +0000 UTC]

This is awesome!

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

dzokozb In reply to ??? [2012-05-24 16:21:21 +0000 UTC]

great picture, i like the colors and lights... very good composition... good job!!

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

AviiCeruleanSkies In reply to ??? [2012-05-24 16:21:00 +0000 UTC]

Fantastic!!! This is an extraordinary shot!!! A well deserved DD thank you for giving me something to think about

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Cheri-Krush In reply to Asfodelo [2012-05-24 17:10:07 +0000 UTC]

I like your comment a lot

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Asfodelo In reply to Cheri-Krush [2012-05-26 02:26:42 +0000 UTC]

Thank you, Maliha

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

vepurusg In reply to Phae8 [2012-05-25 03:40:48 +0000 UTC]

I know what you mean- the women in the picture, imprisoned their whole lives by dogma. They'll never know true love, never have a real family, etc. because they were misled, deceived, and trapped in that life.

It is a very sad subject matter. Not very hopeful.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

vepurusg In reply to DragonFly214 [2012-05-24 15:58:13 +0000 UTC]

Please, come on, respect the artist's request.

"I'm well aware that the title is provocative, yet I see it as a statement on a subject important to me personally. Let's just not turn it into a holy war or anything of the sort."

He's not mocking, he's criticizing. He wasn't trying to offend you, he's just encouraging people to think. If somebody encouraging you to think about some thing offends you, that in itself should be something for you to think about (unless that offends you too )

Furthermore, don't criticize people for criticizing.
See here, about avoiding hypocrisy: [link]

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Gubble In reply to vepurusg [2012-05-24 18:57:25 +0000 UTC]

Well, if you tell him/her not to criticize the artist for criticizing, aren't you yourself disrespecting the above's person opinion in some way?...
If the artist provokes, reactions are normal and as long as they are not offending and disrespectful which I can't see in he above's person's comment, everyone has the right to voice one's opinion. The artis of this piece has so but naturally those who look at his work have, too.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

vepurusg In reply to Gubble [2012-05-25 03:13:01 +0000 UTC]

"Well, if you tell him/her not to criticize the artist for criticizing..."

I'm telling him/her not to be a hypocrite. There's a distinction.

I respect honest criticism, I do not respect hypocrisy- and I will criticize hypocrisy when I see it.

Please see my deviation on the subject for clarification:
[link]

Feel free to criticize others; just don't be a raging hypocrite in the process.


"aren't you yourself disrespecting the above's person opinion in some way?..."

I have absolutely no respect for that person's hypocrisy. And I have no problem with the concept of disrespecting ideas that do not deserve respect.

I only respect intellectually honest and consistent ideas.


"If the artist provokes, reactions are normal and as long as they are not offending and disrespectful which I can't see in he above's person's comment,"

I have no problem with offensive or disrespectful comments in principle- something which is offensive can be consistent and honest- criticism can come in many forms, people use language differently, and what is or is not offensive is not a simple matter of intent.

The comment I was responding to, though? It's more than just offensive on the most fundamental level (despite its pretenses), it's hypocritical and both intellectually and morally bankrupt in the extreme. It's the inconsistency and dishonesty I have a problem with more than anything else here (although the absurd notions being implied are certainly worthy of criticism too).

I have a right to criticize the comment for being so hypocritical.


"everyone has the right to voice one's opinion."

Yes, and I have the right to criticize them for being hypocrites.

When we criticize, we need to focus on the issues at hand, rather than criticizing people for being intolerant or subjectively hurtful (because by doing so, we are being intolerant and hurtful ourselves- and hypocritical).

Such as, if she were more consistent she might have said:

"Derp derp, Ur world view is backwardz, god is good, evilution is evil!!!111one That's why it's spelled with "evil" in it duuuh "

It would have been an idiotic reply, deserving criticism in its own right, but it would have been consistent, rather than hypocritical.


Don't criticize people for criticizing.
When I criticize people for that, I'm not criticizing the act of criticism itself, but the hypocrisy being employed.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Gubble In reply to vepurusg [2012-05-26 18:04:28 +0000 UTC]

You have of course the right to criticize her and I don't want to prevent you from that. I have the right to say my opinion, too though. You see, the game goes on and on like this which is totally right.
Yet I can't agree in the slightest about the top comment being hypocratic because in my very personal view it does not match the act of "critizing others and doing the same thing themselves" which is the common definition of hypocricy for me.
In my opinion she/he (commentor) just voiced her opinion that she considers the photograph disrespectful because it evokes the impression that religion is regression which also sort of implies the same thing on those who are religious. It is impossible to say though that this is the general case, regarding several billions of religious people who live their views in the most diverse ways.
This is, to me, by no means hypocratic.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

vepurusg In reply to Gubble [2012-05-27 10:12:06 +0000 UTC]

Let's examine it:

The artist: "...statement on a subject important to me personally."

The critic: "Faith is very personal"

So, we have people for whom faith is "personal", and we also know the artists' statement (and the belief it reflects) is very personally important. Hmm...


So, what does the critic proceed to say about the artist's statement (and implicitly about his belief)? Hurtful, Disrespectful, and Mocking.

That's not a nice thing to say about something that's important to somebody, is it?

Wait, what was the critic criticizing him for... oh, yeah: it was saying something that might be interpreted as not entirely nice about something that's important to other people.

Please clarify for me how this is not hypocritical.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Gubble In reply to vepurusg [2012-05-27 12:08:53 +0000 UTC]

Well, you can turn the same thing around. If the artist himself asks for lenience because it is personal to him, isn't he himself a hypocrite if he "mocks" another person's belief at the same time?

It is exchange of opinion, no more, no less and both parties shall do so without being told to be quiet.
If one might not criticize, where would we be? Humanity needs discours but this also means that criticism can be criticized because criticism is basically just another opinion. The thing is not, that the artist may not share his view but that others may share their view on his work, as well.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

vepurusg In reply to Gubble [2012-05-27 12:43:11 +0000 UTC]

I appreciate that you can see the hypocrisy I was mentioning now. Sincerely, thank you. You wouldn't believe how many people won't see things when they've been spelled out.

"If the artist himself asks for lenience because it is personal to him, isn't he himself a hypocrite if he "mocks" another person's belief at the same time?"

Maybe. So maybe she should have criticized him for some kind of hypocrisy instead of what she did say... but that's only maybe.

He would only plausibly be a hypocrite if they also asked for such lenience/no holy war on their own respective personal pages, and he ignored that and so harshly criticized their beliefs in the comments on their deviations, but condemned people who started arguments on his. That might be a little hypocritical (or at least a double standard).

From what I can see, this is largely a matter of a 'You're welcome to make your own deviations to criticize me elsewhere, but please don't turn my comments into a holy war- this is my page- and I'll respect your desire not to have arguments you don't want on your pages'

I'm guessing that he was very quiet and respectful when he was in the church itself.

I'm considered a rabid atheist (whether it's accurate or not, due to my criticism of religion), but even I am more respectful when I set foot in a church- it's their property. Even if they yell at me and condemn me, I should be more careful not to step on any toes as a guest there (after all, they can kick me out). And if people come knocking on my door trying to convert me to Jebus? Well, they had better be pretty respectful, even while I'm harshly critical of them- it's my house, and I'm granting them an audience; if they lose their tempers at all, they will find a slammed door.

I welcome Christians, or any other, to come to my page or comment on my deviations- and I will hear them out too- but they have to be respectful about it (regardless of any condescension or disrespect on my part) because it's my page and I can ban them from it (and in particular, they should read my descriptions, where I also usually make notes about the kinds of comments I don't want there).


"Humanity needs discours but this also means that criticism can be criticized because criticism is basically just another opinion."

I agree. But sometimes that criticism is hypocritical- and then you'll find me, criticizing the hypocritical criticism of the criticism.

I'm not saying people can't be hypocrites- they're physically capable of it- but they can't hope for immunity from being called out on it either. I would say that I think people generally *shouldn't* be hypocrites, and that it is usually wrong of them to engage in hypocrisy. Of course, plenty of people do wrong, and I'm only in the position to criticize them for it; the law is the law, and it's legal to do all sorts of unpleasant things in the world, including be a hypocrite (if but some day we could pass laws against hypocrisy! Politics might be functionally outlawed the next morning as a consequence).

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Gubble In reply to vepurusg [2012-05-27 13:04:41 +0000 UTC]

Well, I guess we won't settle for a common point.
I don't consider the commentator's reply hypocritical but justified, just as the artist's work is justified and neither do I agree that works may not be criticized in their comments if the latters don't use inappropriate manners (which is not the case imo). A "holy war" would look different to me, with aggression and threatening and insulting. You seem to see those points in the commentator's comment, I don't. This is basically the essence of this discours, we share different views on it and imo there is no "right" or "wrong" position. It's personal perception.
I don't think that something that deals with evaluating something so subjective and not measurable such as opinions and emotions can be judged objectively and "scientifically", as you'd say that water is chemically built from hydrogen and oxigen. Judging opinion always includes the personal experiences of the one who evaluates and takes place on the level of secundary thruth, there is no numerical value. Hence I decline classifying something concrete as measurably and objectively hypocritical.
With this said, you consider it hypocritical and I don't. This is ok.
To me this discussion ends here. Have a nice day.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

vepurusg In reply to Gubble [2012-05-27 14:52:36 +0000 UTC]

"I appreciate that you can see the hypocrisy I was mentioning now. Sincerely, thank you. You wouldn't believe how many people won't see things when they've been spelled out.

Oh... ah, never mind that last comment then

If you don't agree with applying reason and logic to everything fairly and equally (instead of giving "opinions" unfair exemption), naturally there isn't a way to agree here. Only in the context of reason and logic can two different people truly come to the same understanding- anything else is a road to war and division of humanity.

Hope you change your tune some day.

Have a nice day too.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Gubble In reply to vepurusg [2012-05-27 16:41:59 +0000 UTC]

Don't you think you are a bit overbearing by judging me like this without even knowing who I am? :/
And by attempting to put your view on me ("Hope you change your tune some day.") as the only one correct?

I appreciate logic and reason very dearly, which is why I decline to see things in only one way. It is daring and nearsighted in my humble opinion to say there is only one possibility for something to "be" and scientifically inaccurate, too, imo,since human-beings' truth is a product of projections on their environment. Which leaves humanity with more than seven billion thruthes at the current date. I don't say that there is no consense at all but I think that humans can just draw near to what is truth but never really grab it as the entire material existence is so complex that the human brain is not capable to understand it.
I think many scientists share the opinion that we even understand very little of what is. But since this might lead a human being into a desolate state, as a solid world view is probably necessary human-kind has the (very natural) trait to complete it for itself mentally. That results in the feeling of actually knowing a lot. This is ok though. I'm not judging it as something negative. Yet I think one should try to imagine where we actually stand and that we might be higher evolved than animals but that we still are little compared to all the physics and mechanisms, too, which still challenge scientists everyday.
Just my opinion though.
Saying this from the psychological point of view which is a science that explores the human mind with logic and reason very so.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

vepurusg In reply to Gubble [2012-05-29 11:02:32 +0000 UTC]

"Don't you think you are a bit overbearing by judging me like this without even knowing who I am? :/"

No. I'm judging your actions (the words you expressed), which presumed to give special exemption to what you call "opinions" from reason and logic.

I explained my stance very clearly, and you offered no coherent counter-argument, only to claim whatever I've proven wrong is magically immune to reason and logic for some reason and gets to continue being right despite evidence to the contrary.



"And by attempting to put your view on me ("Hope you change your tune some day.") as the only one correct?"

No, because it is the only correct one. Things that are illogical are necessarily false by nature.

There is a difference between real opinions and facts.

Real opinions are things like "chocolate is delicious" Not everybody agrees, because delicious is not a real quality of existence; it is relative. The opinion that chocolate is or is not delicious doesn't need any special exemption from logic, because it is not a factual statement.

A fact would be: "Sally thinks chocolate is delicious" or "Joe thinks chocolate is disgusting"

Those are facts- and they can be true or false.

Facts are not relative. Either the moon is made of cheese, or it isn't. Either the Earth is flat, or it isn't.

When somebody has an incorrect view of the world, it's not simply his or her "opinion", it's still a fact, and he or she is just wrong.



"I appreciate logic and reason very dearly, which is why I decline to see things in only one way."

That's not logic and reason- what you're doing is called factual relativism, which is illogical and unreasonable. It's a popular position of ignorance and intellectual mediocrity. That's the opposite of appreciating logic and reason.

This is what you're effectively advocating: [link]

It's a position which is neither intellectually nor morally sound.


"I don't say that there is no consense at all but I think that humans can just draw near to what is truth but never really grab it as the entire material existence is so complex that the human brain is not capable to understand it."

That's extremely insulting and defeatist; and flat out dogmatically wrong. Learn a little bit, just the tiniest bit, of science and how the scientific method works (and the difference between precision and accuracy, which are not the same thing), and you'll realize why you are so wrong.


"I think many scientists share the opinion that we even understand very little of what is."

Bullshit. Intelligent scientists are of precisely the opposite view- in awe of all that we have learned, and how science reveals true reality, and on the edge of their seats for the conclusions of our efforts as we close in on the Unified Field theorem and solve the last remaining puzzles.

This is an exciting time to be alive because of how much we do know, and how little is left.

Do you have even a basic understanding of relativity or quantum physics, or what either of those mean?

We're discovering limits here- real, hard, extremes that represent the bounds of reality.


"That results in the feeling of actually knowing a lot. This is ok though."

No, it isn't- not when they fill in the "blanks" with unmovable dogma. There are perfectly good answers for things we know now, but that fideists prefer to ignore and leave to outdated superstition instead. That's not OK, it's ignorant and it's immoral.

"Saying this from the psychological point of view which is a science that explores the human mind with logic and reason very so."

None of what you said resembles legitimate psychology, or has anything to do with legitimate logic and reason.


You have a lot to learn- how about starting with learning what we DO know instead of claiming in ignorance that we don't know it, just because you haven't taken the time to learn and understand it?

If you are open minded at all, open your mind to the possibility that you might be wrong, and that we do know quite a bit about the universe that you simply aren't aware of because you haven't bothered to study it.


Otherwise, with the kind of ignorance you're expressing now you might as well say:

'Nobody know what pi is! Stop criticizing people who use i to calculate the area of a circle, because you're wrong too!'

And if you can't figure out why that's a problem:

We know pi to over five trillion places. There's a difference between inaccurate and imprecise- even five trillion places is ever so slightly imprecise, and we know it. It's not inaccurate unless we assume more places than we know, because those aren't significant figures. i is inaccurate- it assumes a figure that is simply, inherently, false by its very nature- pi is not i, and to say otherwise is wrong.

Like I said, I hope you change your tune and open your mind some day to our knowledge of the amazing and wonderful nature of true reality that surrounds us.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

SchattenLotus In reply to ??? [2012-05-24 12:25:20 +0000 UTC]

H'mm... there is a Sageness which says that One shall say nothing, if he/she cannot say something positive... ...

But i guess i do it simple: Interesting Shot. :3

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

chelseywatson In reply to ??? [2012-05-24 12:09:05 +0000 UTC]

simply breathtaking

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

claremanson In reply to ??? [2012-05-24 12:03:05 +0000 UTC]

brilliant!

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

AliceSacco In reply to ??? [2012-05-24 10:47:27 +0000 UTC]

It's better the fact that it's not staged. I kike mostly the composition, it's a thing i care a lot.
(and nit all religious people will flame you )

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

dar-a In reply to ??? [2012-05-24 10:35:52 +0000 UTC]

I see no offence here at all. The poses if the people just look similar to inverted evolution line, nothing more!
btw, the moment you captured surely is interesting and certainly deserves a dd. congrats!

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

bioc In reply to ??? [2012-05-24 10:31:00 +0000 UTC]

Excellent shot! A well deserved DD!

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

AtheistNation In reply to ??? [2012-05-24 10:23:06 +0000 UTC]

Love it

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

ziotom78 In reply to ??? [2012-05-24 10:17:02 +0000 UTC]

Really beautiful colors and composition. I expecially love the way the dark colors of the dresses combine with the wall in the background. Tthe title is indeed provocative, but it is tasteless and shows no meaning apart from the provocation itself. You seem to have talent and should not need to rely on such easy tricks to attract attention.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

erezmarom In reply to ziotom78 [2012-05-24 12:15:54 +0000 UTC]

It's not a trick at all! The title is an extremely important part of this work, at least that's hwo I see it.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

20Tourniquet02 In reply to ??? [2012-05-24 10:12:31 +0000 UTC]

Increadible shot!
Well done!
All I want to ask is one thing!
"Did they notice you taking this photo?"

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

erezmarom In reply to 20Tourniquet02 [2012-05-24 12:16:34 +0000 UTC]

I can't remember, but I think they did at some point. I have a few shots with another nun giving me an angry face...

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

20Tourniquet02 In reply to erezmarom [2012-05-24 12:28:53 +0000 UTC]

You're lucky they can't do anything to you, because they're supposed to be "praying for other people's faults"!

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

HiveLordLusa In reply to ??? [2012-05-24 09:59:44 +0000 UTC]

Wow. Amazing timing.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

bibarry In reply to ??? [2012-05-24 09:41:53 +0000 UTC]

Congrats on the DD!
Very provocative title, be prepared for religious people flaming you.
I find this concept very intresteng, because I think the more you are religious the less libral you are and less open minded so it's kind of evolution in reverse.
I never really told you before since you seem to get a lot of comments but I really look up to you as a young israeli nature photographer too

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

erezmarom In reply to bibarry [2012-05-24 09:51:04 +0000 UTC]

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

ixDenial In reply to ??? [2012-05-24 08:15:18 +0000 UTC]

I'm sure you'll get slapped 500 times if they see it, You're one hella of a prick, so rude... but it works, i guess.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

AmayaElls In reply to ??? [2012-05-24 08:13:05 +0000 UTC]

I'm almost sorry you got a DD, this is a beautiful picture which does deserve one. However the attention will mean you will probably receive a lot of flame. Good work, and good luck in surviving the flames.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

erezmarom In reply to AmayaElls [2012-05-24 08:26:19 +0000 UTC]

Well, this kind of title is meant to provoke thought and debate, and attract comments of all kinds. I'm ready

👍: 0 ⏩: 1