Re: Photo Tampering Throughout History
Andrew Irwin <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.music.dadl.ot |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On 15 February 2011 06:27, Peter T. Chattaway <petert-LOVM4QxV+tDq6eQxt3vRmLDks+cytr/[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, 14 Feb 2011, Mike Findlay wrote: > >> > > Was she my daughter? >> > >> > Was Emma Watson? :) >> >> Did they enhance her bust? > > Irrelevant. The question of "is she underage, or is she not underage" is > not affected by what anyone may or may not have done to her bust. > Well given that the law is different in many countries as to what is "underage" (in NZ it is below 16) the question I ask is.. Is there therefore an overarching moral imperative that gives us guidance on the photoshopping of girls? I can't think of any biblical statement at the moment (I'm at work and it's 6:40am...) other than not allowing a "hint of sexual immorality" which is a bit of a cover all (define sexual immorality). ----------------------- Andrew Irwin -- dadl-ot mailing list http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot