I might be misinterpretaing here, but it's not "images of nudes" that's at issue here, but the process of involving nude children in creating images of nudes. Clearly (hopefully), there's a hugely significant difference. So, to come to the point, cigarettes have been scientifically proven to be harmful because at some point a suspicion was raised that prompted studies. Prior to that cigarettes were the natural lifestyle choice, and also "cool". In other words, cigarettes were great - period! Isn't it funny how some things can go from being great to deplorable (my view) without any intrinsic change, and how we so often look back embarrasingly and think: Doh! That should have been obvious (or at least suspicious to the extent of not simply passively adopting a "Well we don't know it's harmful, so let's just assume it's not." attitude!
As usual you overlook an important distinction. Almost without exception all of the things in your "expanded" list carry no reasonably perceived risk (yes, I know, we've debated the idea of "reasonably perceived" before, to no avail (not so far as I'm concerned, anyhow)). I very much doubt that even you, if you're to be honest, would adamantly deny that it's reasonably possible that some psychological, if not physical, harm could come to some children from posing nude in the name of art. Continuing, again, if you were to be honest I'm sure you could form a rational argument as to why and how that potential risk exists. Please, however, offer your rational argument in support of a ban of blue T-shirts, Spongebob movies and sheets of bond paper (I deliberately omit body powder and fish oil as it seems conceivable to me that being inhaled and consumed respectively they could actually pose a risk. I suspect, however, that evidence exists in respect of both products showing that neither is harmful if handled/consumed sensibly).
It's a shame that you can't see why TraneWreck's response is ironically both reasonable and mature!
Hopefully, your consideration of the in-principle difference from a perceived risk perspective between children posing nude in the name of art and blue T-shirts, for example, will enable you to answer this for yourself.
Enough said, I think.
It is banning, both patently and rightly. But it's certainly not without thinking, except on your part, it seems.
If only you could see the wood.
Obviously (to me) you were getting the wrong impression. TraneWreck's response makes perfect sense to me, but if he elects to re-write it in words of one syllable for your benefit, well that's his prerogative.
Red herring. Patent differences between child nude modelling and child pornography are irrelevant to the question as to whether child nude modelling is harmful in the same way that showing that cigar smoke is harmful has no bearing on the characteristics of cigarette smoke.
If only you read what people write. TraneWreck has made it absolutely clear that a key differentiator is orchestrating the nudity as opposed to simply capturing an image that has occured "naturally". Let's try this: You know what a snuff movie is, I assume. Do you think somebody should be arrested for making one? Do you think a bystander should be arrested for filming an armed robbery on their mobile phone where innocent people are killed? See the difference now?
Well, at least you seem to appreciate one side of the equation, if not argument.
again with the veiled insults. Honestly, your method of dodging questions and the real issues raised by people's post by using insults the poster and trying to discredit them as a distraction is so old and tired and obvious. Do you work for yellow newspaper or something?
You think what somebody actually does with a sheet of paper bearing an image determines its qualification as art or not?! I can see you're one of those people who gets excited over a random pile of bricks just because you come across it in an art gallery!