Author Topic: A Case for Innocence  (Read 5048 times)

A Case for Innocence
« on: May 18, 2016, 11:43:11 PM »
It occurred to me that the underlying issue of the Calvin Klein upskirt ad is loss of innocence. There are some people who seem to have been waiting for an event to give them a reason to protest the loss of innocence. I may be incorrect about this segues, but I still want to look at the subject.

What is innocence and why are some without it? It occurred to me that the concept of innocence might be misrepresented and placed in an unfavorable light simply by definition. So, I entered words for Google to define, and chose the definitions I thought most apropos. Of course, I looked up “innocence” 1st.

Quote
innocence

lack of guile or corruption; purity.

Quote
purity

freedom from immorality, especially of a sexual nature.

synonyms: virtue, morality, goodness, righteousness, saintliness, piety, honor, honesty, integrity, decency, ethicality, impeccability

I conclude that being free of guile and corruption will render a person good. There is the problem of “innocence” being the definition of “naïveté”.

Quote
naïveté

lack of experience, wisdom, or judgment.

innocence or unsophistication.

It is obviously not wise to be naïve. However, it is not naïve to be free of guile and corruption.

Offline Hydra009

Re: A Case for Innocence
« Reply #1 on: May 19, 2016, 01:18:27 AM »
Pretend the last time I saw an ad was 2006 and am unfamiliar with this particular public outcry.

What exactly is this immorality/corruption that a person is supposed to avoid?

Re: A Case for Innocence
« Reply #2 on: May 19, 2016, 01:45:14 AM »
Pretend the last time I saw an ad was 2006 and am unfamiliar with this particular public outcry.
It's not important.
What exactly is this immorality/corruption that a person is supposed to avoid?
You should check Amazon for guile and corruption manuals.

Re: A Case for Innocence
« Reply #3 on: May 19, 2016, 02:53:14 AM »
It occurred to me that the underlying issue of the Calvin Klein upskirt ad is loss of innocence. There are some people who seem to have been waiting for an event to give them a reason to protest the loss of innocence. I may be incorrect about this segues, but I still want to look at the subject.

What is innocence and why are some without it? It occurred to me that the concept of innocence might be misrepresented and placed in an unfavorable light simply by definition. So, I entered words for Google to define, and chose the definitions I thought most apropos. Of course, I looked up “innocence” 1st.

I conclude that being free of guile and corruption will render a person good. There is the problem of “innocence” being the definition of “naïveté”.

It is obviously not wise to be naïve. However, it is not naïve to be free of guile and corruption.
It's all nonsense. No one can get through a day w/o lying about something. We make ourselves feel better by categorizing most of our lies as "white lies." Nonetheless, we are being dishonest.
Fact is, hypocrisy is the true currency of human society. This has always been so, and I suspect that it will always be so.
Accusations are hurled at this group or at that group - fact is, we're all guilty of something.
Children are NOT innocent. As the least powerful members of society, they are the most in need of lies, cheating, and ruses in general. You may have been naive as a child, my pet, but were you were not honest - be honest about it, pookhums. If you weren't trying to get over on your teachers, you were trying to get over on mom and dad, then later your bosses at your lousy part time job.
I'll repeat myself: the World is a Used Car lot, and we all keep the shiny parts turned out and the dents tucked in.
We're all full of shit - and anyone who says he is not - is really loaded.
I'm so sick of the bull. I'm tired of the "I'm honest" come on. No one's honest. You can't survive by being honest. Somewhere, some time, you've at least got to bend the truth a bit, and you know it.
What's the big deal? It's like being embarrassed at the porn shop when you bump into your neighbor there. Why be embarrassed? Your neighbor's as "guilty" as you are, and the two of you should have a nice chat and maybe swap parts of your collections!

OMNIA DEPENDET ...

Offline SGOS

Re: A Case for Innocence
« Reply #4 on: May 19, 2016, 08:45:46 AM »
It occurred to me that the underlying issue of the Calvin Klein upskirt ad is loss of innocence.

Well of course it is, but I think your missing the point, that is assuming I'm reading the add correctly.  The add is a subliminal appeal to the loss of innocence, because the loss of innocence in this case, is that it's fun, exciting, and sexy to call attention to your panties, and supposedly only Calvin Klein can provide the right equipment to do that for you.

Re: A Case for Innocence
« Reply #5 on: May 19, 2016, 11:25:22 AM »
It's all nonsense.
After I posted this, I thought you might show up to rant about it. Thank you for coming.

Offline doorknob

Re: A Case for Innocence
« Reply #6 on: May 19, 2016, 11:37:51 AM »
Innocence is another word for stupid.

Re: A Case for Innocence
« Reply #7 on: May 19, 2016, 12:04:07 PM »
Innocence is another word for stupid.
Quote
stu·pid
ˈst(y)o͞opəd/
adjective
adjective: stupid; comparative adjective: stupider; superlative adjective: stupidest

    1.
    lacking intelligence or common sense.
    "I was stupid enough to think she was perfect"
    synonyms:   unintelligent, ignorant, dense, foolish, dull-witted, slow, simpleminded, vacuous, vapid, idiotic, imbecilic, imbecile, obtuse, doltish; informalthick, dim, dimwitted, slow-witted, dumb, dopey, dozy, moronic, cretinous, pea-brained, halfwitted, soft in the head, brain-dead, boneheaded, thickheaded, wooden-headed, muttonheaded, daft
    "they're rather stupid"
    foolish, silly, unintelligent, idiotic, scatterbrained, nonsensical, senseless, harebrained, unthinking, ill-advised, ill-considered, unwise, injudicious;
    inane, absurd, ludicrous, ridiculous, laughable, risible, fatuous, asinine, mad, insane, lunatic;
    informalcrazy, dopey, cracked, half-baked, dimwitted, cockeyed, lamebrained, nutty, batty, cuckoo, loony, loopy

I'm not seeing it. I'm not seeing "naïveté" either. Although, "stupid" does come close to defining "naïveté".

Offline aitm

Re: A Case for Innocence
« Reply #8 on: May 19, 2016, 12:07:52 PM »
Would have helped if you provided a link to whatever your on about.
A humans desire to live is exceeded only by their willingness to die for another. Even god cannot equal this magnificent sacrifice. No god has the right to judge them.-first tenant of the Panotheust

Re: A Case for Innocence
« Reply #9 on: May 19, 2016, 12:08:37 PM »
Well of course it is, but I think your missing the point, that is assuming I'm reading the add correctly.  The add is a subliminal appeal to the loss of innocence, because the loss of innocence in this case, is that it's fun, exciting, and sexy to call attention to your panties, and supposedly only Calvin Klein can provide the right equipment to do that for you.
Sure. I was determining why a legal age girl showing her underwear was causing such an uproar. People who were waiting to rant about "loss of innocence" said, "That's close enough. Rant on!"

Re: A Case for Innocence
« Reply #10 on: May 19, 2016, 12:17:03 PM »
Would have helped if you provided a link to whatever your on about.
'Twas merely the impetus.

I may be incorrect about this segues, but I still want to look at the subject.
The subject is clearly defined in the post. If you're curious and using Firefox, highlight "Calvin Klein upskirt ad", left click on it, then right click Search Google for "Calvin Klein upskirt ad" in the context menu.

Offline SGOS

Re: A Case for Innocence
« Reply #11 on: May 19, 2016, 12:43:31 PM »
The subject is clearly defined in the post. If you're curious and using Firefox, highlight "Calvin Klein upskirt ad", left click on it, then right click Search Google for "Calvin Klein upskirt ad" in the context menu.

I'd already seen the add.  It was linked at the top of my yahoo home page a couple of days ago, and of course, I couldn't resist clicking on it, but I decided to review it once more in the interest of adding more to enlightening discussion <ahem>, so I followed your suggested google route, and I found this in the first google link to the analysis of the add, which itself linked to further reading on the subject:

http://www.vogue.co.uk/news/2015/01/07/justin-bieber-calvin-klein-campaign-lara-stone

This was disappointing to say the least, because I really can't further comment intelligently without first knowing what Justin Bieber has to say about this dark and controversial situation, which could  have guided me towards a clarification of my own thoughts and feelings.  Well OK.  I thought I could at least get another look at her panties from a better camera angle.  But all I got was probably the same thing you got, a totally blank page.

Re: A Case for Innocence
« Reply #12 on: May 19, 2016, 02:10:35 PM »

The "What are you listening to?" thread bogs down my 9 year old Dell.

Offline SGOS

Re: A Case for Innocence
« Reply #13 on: May 19, 2016, 02:30:15 PM »
I guess I had that coming.

Re: A Case for Innocence
« Reply #14 on: May 19, 2016, 02:56:37 PM »
This is, of course, much ado about nothing.  If the skirt were off, then it would be simply a rather large bikini--and they would have thought her quite modest then.  Especially for a model.  It is only a matter of a point-of-view, nothing more. 
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent,
Is he able but not willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able or willing?
Then why call him god?