Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Not sure what to think...Follow

#1 Dec 24 2013 at 7:29 PM Rating: Decent
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
15,256 posts
A friend of mine from high school just miscarried. A few days before Christmas. Sad event, and all that. But today she posted a bunch of pictures of the baby on Facebook. I found it a bit creepy, seeing a handful of pictures of a dead baby. Black lips, etc.

Can't say I've experienced miscarriages often, but out of the handful of times it's happened to friends and family around me, this is the first time someone's posted or shown me pictures of the baby afterward.
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#2 Dec 24 2013 at 8:14 PM Rating: Excellent
******
27,272 posts
Eh, whatever helps her cope.
____________________________
Theophany wrote:
YOU'RE AN ELITIST @#%^ AETHIEN, NO WONDER YOU HAVE NO FRIENDS AND PEOPLE HATE YOU.
someproteinguy wrote:
Aethien you take more terrible pictures than a Japanese tourist.
Astarin wrote:
One day, Maz, you'll learn not to click on anything Aeth links.
#3 Dec 24 2013 at 11:02 PM Rating: Excellent
That sucks for her, my mother went through a few (like 4?) so it is a drag.
However, the pics..that is a bit much. She just exposed people to a subject that many might not have wanted.
____________________________
Sandinmygun | |Tsukaremashi*a | Dihydrogen Monoxide (it kills)
#4 Dec 25 2013 at 2:46 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Eh, whatever helps her cope.

Pretty much my opinion. Whatever momentary discomfort someone else had for seeing the photo probably pales to her own grief. Even if I'm inclined to agree with "not a great idea", I doubt the grieving mother is in a "makes great decisions" state of mind right now.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#5 Dec 25 2013 at 3:29 PM Rating: Excellent
Needs More Smut
Avatar
******
20,541 posts
It's important for the grief process that she have those pictures. Thousands of women who miscarried in the '40s-70s had the fetus whisked away and buried without them ever getting to see it, which caused a lot of psychological issues later on. The pictures, even if a bit morbid and gross, are proof that she was a mother even if the baby didn't make it to term.

Now, if she brought the fetus home and made the kids sleep with it in the house ala Rick Santorum, it's a whole 'nother level of creepy.

How religious is she? A Christian preacher once told a grieving couple who miscarried that it meant their baby's purpose to God was so important that it could not be corrupted by a single breath on Earth. The couple later said it was the kindest thing anyone said to them during the whole thing.
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck. Once again a top bard on the server: Dardaubla 90 on 1/6/2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest on Lamia - Member of The Swarm and leader of Grammarian Tea House chat LS
#6 Dec 26 2013 at 10:14 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
**
612 posts
Sandinmygum the Stupendous wrote:
That sucks for her, my mother went through a few (like 4?) so it is a drag.
However, the pics..that is a bit much. She just exposed people to a subject that many might not have wanted.


I kinda agree with the unwanted exposure that people arent looking to view. But on the other hand I am very sorry for thier loss and i hope thier pics help them cope.
____________________________
EQ acct
Rukkuss 71 Iksar SK 1.5 Epic
Mokkas 70 Halfling Druid 1.0 Epic
Turfidor 66 Barbarian Shaman 1.0 Epic
Simplid 70 chanter(boxed)
Trembledon(70 ranger)/Rumblesx(68 monk) combo
Thugak 58 warrior
Bertoxx server
#7 Dec 26 2013 at 8:40 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
5,673 posts
Same thing happened to our friend just a few weeks ago, posted pics on FB and everything just as you described. It really sucks. I don't know what to say to them. She is getting her tubes tied she says now.

Edit:

This same couple had a 3 year old child who fell off a bunk bed and died from a head injury on the way to the hospital. There really is just no end to the misery for them.

Edited, Dec 27th 2013 5:42am by Kuwoobie
____________________________
my Tumblr
Pixelmon Server Info
FFXI-AH Profile
#8 Dec 26 2013 at 11:26 PM Rating: Good
Kuwoobie wrote:
Same thing happened to our friend just a few weeks ago, posted pics on FB and everything just as you described. It really sucks. I don't know what to say to them. She is getting her tubes tied she says now.

Edit:

This same couple had a 3 year old child who fell off a bunk bed and died from a head injury on the way to the hospital. There really is just no end to the misery for them.

Edited, Dec 27th 2013 5:42am by Kuwoobie


Holy **** ballz both parts of this sucks.
____________________________
Sandinmygun | |Tsukaremashi*a | Dihydrogen Monoxide (it kills)
#9 Dec 27 2013 at 12:47 AM Rating: Good
******
44,512 posts
Depends whether it's just pictures in the hospital or if the pictures were taken out and about in town taking glamour shots.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#10 Dec 27 2013 at 11:03 AM Rating: Excellent
Everyone's Oiran
Avatar
*****
15,923 posts
Back in the 1800s when photographs were very rare and child mortality was high, families often didn't own any photograph of a child before it died. So it was a custom to take a portrait of a dead child as a keepsake. The child would be made up, dressed up and posed as if s/he was still alive, sometimes with other family members posed with the child to make a family portrait. It was the only way to make sure that grieving parents and siblings never forgot the face of the lost child.
____________________________
<3

http://www.reddit.com/r/Forum4/
#11 Dec 27 2013 at 2:28 PM Rating: Good
******
44,512 posts
At that point might as well just consider taxidermy.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#12 Dec 27 2013 at 5:01 PM Rating: Good
******
27,272 posts
Aripyanfar wrote:
Back in the 1800s when photographs were very rare and child mortality was high, families often didn't own any photograph of a child before it died. So it was a custom to take a portrait of a dead child as a keepsake. The child would be made up, dressed up and posed as if s/he was still alive, sometimes with other family members posed with the child to make a family portrait. It was the only way to make sure that grieving parents and siblings never forgot the face of the lost child.
Not just children, pretty much anyone who died. It was one of the first ways for photographers to make a living.
____________________________
Theophany wrote:
YOU'RE AN ELITIST @#%^ AETHIEN, NO WONDER YOU HAVE NO FRIENDS AND PEOPLE HATE YOU.
someproteinguy wrote:
Aethien you take more terrible pictures than a Japanese tourist.
Astarin wrote:
One day, Maz, you'll learn not to click on anything Aeth links.
#13 Dec 30 2013 at 12:16 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
Avatar
****
4,325 posts
I have a cousin that lost her baby a week before he was born. She is constantly posting pictures of him which a lot of the family disapprove of. Its hard to say anything though because it is a bad situation.

I know I sound terrible but I really think she took advantage of people when this happened. Everybody got together to help pay for the funeral expenses of the baby because her and her husband at the time didn't have a lot of money and funerals are expensive. After that she spent several hundred dollars on this tattoo that is on her wrist. It is a hand print of the baby and she says its a constant reminder of what happened. It just looks like a big glob of ink unless you pretty much put your face right up to it.

Well every year several people in the family take a cruise. My father is retired and he watchs for deals pretty much every day and they plan for these things almost a year in advance. After everything had happened it was about two weeks from this cruise and she talked my grandmother, who is on a fixed income, into giving her enough money to go on a cruise with the family. Her husband had to work so she brought her 3 year old son along which cost extra. Once on the cruise she basically made everyone in the family miserable and constantly pawned her 3 year old onto everyone while she had her alone time.

I can't imagine what it would be like to lose a child that close to being born. We have a 4 month old baby and I am very grateful that he is healthy. Anytime I mention it I am instantly scolded for being heartless but after everyone helped donate 1000's of dollars to her to bury her baby I think it was pretty rotten to burn 100's of dollars on a tattoo and then beg her grandma for close to $2000 so her and her son could go on a expensive vacation.
____________________________
Hi
#14 Dec 30 2013 at 1:08 PM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,320 posts
fronglo wrote:
Everybody got together to help pay for the funeral expenses of the baby because her and her husband at the time didn't have a lot of money and funerals are expensive.
I know it's glaringly obvious, yet still....

Funeral expenses are nothing compared with giving birth and raising a child.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#15 Dec 30 2013 at 2:44 PM Rating: Excellent
***
2,010 posts
Personally it's a little much for me. I understand that having those photos is important to the mother for the healing process, but I don't think that it's necessary to spring something like that on your facebook timeline. It would have been far more tasteful to post about her tragedy, and then if someone asked to see the photos handle it privately.

I'm sorry for her pain. I hope that she can get through it quickly and get back to a better state of mind.

As an aside, I think that people share far too much on Fakebook.
#16 Jan 01 2014 at 9:01 AM Rating: Good
Ghost in the Machine
Avatar
******
36,218 posts
Jophiel wrote:
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Eh, whatever helps her cope.

Pretty much my opinion. Whatever momentary discomfort someone else had for seeing the photo probably pales to her own grief. Even if I'm inclined to agree with "not a great idea", I doubt the grieving mother is in a "makes great decisions" state of mind right now.


Eh, I'm all for people not having lasting psychological trauma and all, but projecting your grief onto others through morbid imagery is not cool. Seeing photos of a dead baby could potentially trigger trauma in others, at which point the "momentary discomfort" sort of goes out the window.
____________________________
Please "talk up" if your comprehension white-shifts. I will use simple-happy language-words to help you understand.
#17 Jan 01 2014 at 5:50 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Elinda wrote:
Funeral expenses are nothing compared with giving birth and raising a child.

Well, in the era where people were professionally photographing stillborns, "giving birth" was done in your home perhaps with a midwife and the cost of raising a child was spread over the next 14-odd years.

Edit: I totally missed that you were discussing a modern situation and never read Fronglo's post.
Mazra wrote:
Seeing photos of a dead baby could potentially trigger trauma in others

Seeing photos of a tree could "potentially trigger trauma" as long as we're just making up hypothetical situations.

Edited, Jan 1st 2014 5:53pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#18 Jan 01 2014 at 6:22 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
15,256 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Mazra wrote:
Seeing photos of a dead baby could potentially trigger trauma in others
Seeing photos of a tree could "potentially trigger trauma" as long as we're just making up hypothetical situations.


We aren't talking about an image you'd see when you'd open your front door though. We are talking a picture of a real dead person, ashen skin, black lips, etc. You don't really see those images unless you are seeking them out. Someone posts them to Facebook and flags them as important and suddenly they are popping all over your home page until you hide that person.

It seems to be OK when it comes to dead babies, but I can't imagine someone posting a picture of a grown kid, parent, etc, all dead and lifeless.
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#19 Jan 01 2014 at 6:29 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
TirithRR wrote:
We aren't talking about an image you'd see when you'd open your front door though.

No, what we're doing is making up situations where a pretend person gets pretend trauma and suffers pretend lasting effects from seeing a photo.

Get back to me when it happens for real. You said you "found it a little creepy". That's fair and that's what I was talking about, momentary discomfort. Trying to make a call on it on the basis of "But someone somewhere might have trauma!" as Mazra was doing isn't the same thing.

Edit: For what it's worth, I have no desire to see someone's stillborn infant either. But if it's something I think is going to happen enough that it's going to seriously bother me, the solution is obvious: de-friend the person, block their feed, etc. More likely, I can accept that it's probably a much larger deal for them than it is for me and move on pretty quickly. I assume this is the case for the vast, vast majority of people and making up edge cases where someone is going to be "traumatized" enough to even bother at hinting at an equivalence with the grief of the mother seems silly to me.

Edited, Jan 1st 2014 7:01pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#20 Jan 01 2014 at 7:23 PM Rating: Good
******
27,272 posts
It would be nice if you could mark photos like that so that they don't show a preview in other people's feed though.
____________________________
Theophany wrote:
YOU'RE AN ELITIST @#%^ AETHIEN, NO WONDER YOU HAVE NO FRIENDS AND PEOPLE HATE YOU.
someproteinguy wrote:
Aethien you take more terrible pictures than a Japanese tourist.
Astarin wrote:
One day, Maz, you'll learn not to click on anything Aeth links.
#21 Jan 02 2014 at 4:32 PM Rating: Good
Sage
***
1,322 posts
I miscarried at 4mo and posted a picture of my first sonogram on Myspace. I know a sonogram isn't the same thing as an actual lifeless infant but I do understand the mothers need to memorialize her child. As for Mazra's post about trauma of others, I think it is valid. If I were to see that on my Facebook feed, it would bring back memories of my lost child, something I am still coping with to this day seeing as how that was my first and only pregnancy and I am quickly approaching my 30's. I see both sides of the argument.
____________________________
Tyrrant wrote:
Sure you are, as subtle as a hand grenade :)



I am a ninja pirate!


#22 Jan 02 2014 at 4:51 PM Rating: Good
Ghost in the Machine
Avatar
******
36,218 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Mazra wrote:
Seeing photos of a dead baby could potentially trigger trauma in others

Seeing photos of a tree could "potentially trigger trauma" as long as we're just making up hypothetical situations.
Jophiel wrote:
No, what we're doing is making up situations where a pretend person gets pretend trauma and suffers pretend lasting effects from seeing a photo.


Smiley: dubious The actual event is hypothetical, since it may or may not have happened, but the possibility of it occurring is not. It's pretty common knowledge that being exposed to images of dead babies can re-trigger trauma. I mean, did you not know this? Seeing photos of a tree could indeed re-trigger trauma if the viewer had previously experienced a tree related trauma, for instance a car crash involving trees.

Jophiel wrote:
Get back to me when it happens for real. You said you "found it a little creepy". That's fair and that's what I was talking about, momentary discomfort. Trying to make a call on it on the basis of "But someone somewhere might have trauma!" as Mazra was doing isn't the same thing.


Here's an article by the National Institute of Mental Health that says stillbirth etc. can trigger PTSD.
Article wrote:
Not everyone with PTSD has been through a dangerous event. Some people get PTSD after a friend or family member experiences danger or is harmed. The sudden, unexpected death of a loved one can also cause PTSD.


And here's an article in The New England Journal of Medicine that claims images can re-trigger PTSD.
Article wrote:
In addition, many persons with prior exposure to traumatic events may have a recrudescence of PTSD symptoms triggered by news of catastrophic events and their distressing effects.


Like I said in my first post, I'm all for people coping with their grief, but exposing others to it is, in my opinion, not okay. Of course, she doesn't know, because she's completely absorbed in her grief, which I understand, but some things should not be shared with everyone on your Facebook friends list.

Edit: Cleaned up the post a bit. And I need to not make posts past midnight. So many edits.

Edited, Jan 3rd 2014 12:26am by Mazra
____________________________
Please "talk up" if your comprehension white-shifts. I will use simple-happy language-words to help you understand.
#23 Jan 02 2014 at 6:54 PM Rating: Good
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Edit: It occurs to me that I don't actually care enough about this to debate it.

Edited, Jan 2nd 2014 7:39pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#24 Jan 02 2014 at 8:45 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,966 posts
At the risk of swooping into this, I think the point is that its her facebook page and she's free to put whatever the **** she wants on it. And other folks are free to unfriend her, or do whatever it is they need to do to block whatever pictures she's put up on her page from offending them. It's kinda self correcting IMO.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#25 Jan 02 2014 at 9:28 PM Rating: Good
Ghost in the Machine
Avatar
******
36,218 posts
gbaji wrote:
At the risk of swooping into this, I think the point is that its her facebook page and she's free to put whatever the **** she wants on it. And other folks are free to unfriend her, or do whatever it is they need to do to block whatever pictures she's put up on her page from offending them. It's kinda self correcting IMO.


It's not her page, and blocking her is a reactive solution.

I get that it's exposure therapy to her, but that's usually something you do with your therapist, not something you force upon your entire Facebook friends list. What if a kid sees them? What if a previously traumatized friend sees them? Maybe someone served in the military, went to war, saw dead babies, repressed the memories, and now they're all coming back. Maybe someone suffered a miscarriage a while back, and watching pictures of someone else's dead child triggers a trauma.

Like I said, I'm sorry for her and her loss, but forcefully exposing people - friends no less - to powerful pictures of a dead child is not okay. She obviously wants to share her grief, but that's what therapists are for (some priests are even trained to assist in this kind of thing, if a therapist costs too much or you're the religious type).

My private sphere is just way too small for this to be appropriate in any way.

Edited, Jan 3rd 2014 4:32am by Mazra
____________________________
Please "talk up" if your comprehension white-shifts. I will use simple-happy language-words to help you understand.
#26 Jan 02 2014 at 10:08 PM Rating: Good
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Mazra wrote:
It's not her page, and blocking her is a reactive solution.

It is her feed and by leaving it active you're agreeing to be exposed to whatever she puts on there.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#27 Jan 02 2014 at 10:19 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
12,018 posts
I'm just mildly impressed with how many people still use facebook.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#28 Jan 03 2014 at 7:47 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,320 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
I'm just mildly impressed with how many people still use facebook.

Still?

Have people started moving to something else?
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#29 Jan 03 2014 at 7:52 AM Rating: Good
Needs More Smut
Avatar
******
20,541 posts
Snapchat is the latest and greatest among teens.
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck. Once again a top bard on the server: Dardaubla 90 on 1/6/2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest on Lamia - Member of The Swarm and leader of Grammarian Tea House chat LS
#30 Jan 03 2014 at 8:35 AM Rating: Excellent
******
44,512 posts
I saw a commercial for Myspace. I kind of laughed.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#31 Jan 03 2014 at 8:37 AM Rating: Excellent
Teens parents use facebook hence it is not cool.

People seem to be trending away from all in one solutions to more focused solutions.
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#32 Jan 03 2014 at 9:13 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
My 14 year old uses Facebook and has 100+ "friends" among his high school contemporaries. It seems to be doing well enough.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#33 Jan 03 2014 at 9:28 AM Rating: Excellent
You probably need to post more non sequitur comments about household chores in reply to his posts.

Edited, Jan 3rd 2014 9:28am by Xsarus
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#34 Jan 03 2014 at 9:48 AM Rating: Good
******
44,512 posts
Or just nonsequiturs in general.

I once had an ant farm. Those bastards didn't grow ****.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#35 Jan 03 2014 at 10:03 AM Rating: Excellent
When I was a kid, I'd lie in my twin size bed and wonder where my brother was.

Edited, Jan 3rd 2014 10:04am by Xsarus
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#36 Jan 03 2014 at 4:11 PM Rating: Excellent
Ghost in the Machine
Avatar
******
36,218 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Mazra wrote:
It's not her page, and blocking her is a reactive solution.

It is her feed and by leaving it active you're agreeing to be exposed to whatever she puts on there.


You're agreeing to be exposed to whatever content she puts on there, yes, but only content that is allowed by Facebook. As it turns out, Facebook does not allow pictures of dead babies.

Bottom line is: It's not okay to expose others to this kind of content without their consent. It's not okay according to Facebook, who owns the site, and it's not okay according to mental health professionals. She could have easily gotten the consent of the viewers by hiding the pictures behind a link with a warning attached to it.

I understand that there are mitigating circumstances on her behalf, but I can't agree with this kind of violation of the rules. The rules are there for a reason, as heartless as it may sound, because we want to avoid people from being traumatized. It feels redundant, but I'll say it again: I feel for her, I really do. I hope she finds a way to overcome her grief and that she's blessed with many more children in the future. I just don't agree with her decision to handle her grief by exposing all her friends on Facebook to dramatic images of her miscarried baby. She risks doing more harm than good.

That being said, I wouldn't want Facebook to suspend her account or anything. The harm has already been done, and it would again do more harm than good to block her from her social network.

Edit: And I think I'm done with this subject. I've made my opinion clear, as have you (you being everyone who disagreed), and it's clear that none of us are going to change our opinions on the matter, so further discussion would only lead to frustration and whatnot. I wish I'd had an ant farm when I was a kid. Or a king size bed. Sadly, I had neither.

Edited, Jan 3rd 2014 11:16pm by Mazra
____________________________
Please "talk up" if your comprehension white-shifts. I will use simple-happy language-words to help you understand.
#37 Jan 03 2014 at 4:23 PM Rating: Good
Supreme Lionator
*****
14,174 posts
No-one cares, Mazra. I aggressively do not give a ****. If you ever mention this again, I will kill myself. And I'll send Jophiel a picture of a dead baby.

Just shut your god-damned mouth, holy ****.
____________________________
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
#38 Jan 03 2014 at 5:14 PM Rating: Good
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Mazra wrote:
You're agreeing to be exposed to whatever content she puts on there, yes, but only content that is allowed by Facebook. As it turns out, Facebook does not allow pictures of dead babies.

You forgot the follow-up:

Quote:
"Upon investigation, we concluded the photo does not violate our guidelines and was removed in error," Facebook said in a written statement. "Facebook is a place where almost a billion people share more than 300 million photos a day. Our dedicated Users Operations Team reviews millions of pieces of this content a day to help keep Facebook safe for all ages. Our policies are enforced by a team of reviewers in several offices across the globe. This team looks at hundreds of thousands of reports every week, and as you might expect, occasionally, we make a mistake and remove a piece of content we shouldn't have. We extend our deepest condolences to the family and we sincerely apologize for any inconvenience."

(bolding mine)

There's no violation of the rules so nothing you need to "agree to".
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#39 Jan 05 2014 at 8:36 AM Rating: Good
Ghost in the Machine
Avatar
******
36,218 posts
I stand corrected then, although they do not mention why they were removed in the first place, except that it was in error (something must have triggered it, though). The article mentions that the pictures were quite... uh... neat? Decent? Well-made?

Quote:
The photos are hardly offensive. Unless someone knew for sure, it's near impossible to tell baby Grayson wasn't alive in the images. The pictures show loving family around a boy who was the latest addition to their lives....if only for a few hours.


I've seen the pictures and I agree. The pictures mentioned in the OP sounded pretty grotesque in comparison.

Kavekk wrote:
No-one cares, Mazra. I aggressively do not give a sh*t. If you ever mention this again, I will kill myself. And I'll send Jophiel a picture of a dead baby.

Just shut your god-damned mouth, holy sh*t.


So... you don't care, but you do care? Smiley: confused

Smiley: flowers

Anyway, I'll stop now.
____________________________
Please "talk up" if your comprehension white-shifts. I will use simple-happy language-words to help you understand.
#40 Jan 05 2014 at 9:08 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I assume some offended person reported the photo and some Facebook photo judge-drone removed it because they felt as you do, regardless of policy.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#41 Jan 05 2014 at 9:41 AM Rating: Decent
Supreme Lionator
*****
14,174 posts
Mazra wrote:
So... you don't care, but you do care? Smiley: confused


That's the situation.

Time to send Jophiel that letter and then take some hemlock.
____________________________
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
#42 Jan 05 2014 at 4:53 PM Rating: Good
Ghost in the Machine
Avatar
******
36,218 posts
Jophiel wrote:
I assume some offended person reported the photo and some Facebook photo judge-drone removed it because they felt as you do, regardless of policy.


It's worth mentioning that I do not have a problem with pictures of deceased people, as long as the pictures are not distasteful. The pictures of the other baby were pretty good, considering. You can't really tell he's dead, unless you look really close.

Since I don't have access to the pictures mentioned in the OP, I went by Tirith's description. "Ashen skin" and "black lips" is not what I'd consider a tasteful photo of a deceased baby. I've seen ashen skin and black lips before, and I would not want to couple that imagery to a small baby.

Kavekk, you still with us, or did you figure out how to not click on threads you don't care about?

Edited, Jan 5th 2014 11:54pm by Mazra
____________________________
Please "talk up" if your comprehension white-shifts. I will use simple-happy language-words to help you understand.
#43 Jan 06 2014 at 1:47 PM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,320 posts
Mazra wrote:

Since I don't have access to the pictures mentioned in the OP, I went by Tirith's description. "Ashen skin" and "black lips" is not what I'd consider a tasteful photo of a deceased baby.

Taste is personal.

Black lips and ashen skin, while they make one suspect the subject is indeed deceased, imo are not gory. I think the pictures the anti-abortionists use with the dismembered baby parts are kind of disturbing.

Besides FB encourages you to get those photos that you want to save forever into your timeline. Can you even 'add' a photo to your FB account without the event being posted to everyone?
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#44 Jan 07 2014 at 9:38 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
12,071 posts
Mazra wrote:
Kavekk, you still with us, or did you figure out how to not click on threads you don't care about?


It's not that he cares about what we think, or anything, i-i-idiot.

Something about being bad.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 39 All times are in CST
Bijou, Anonymous Guests (38)