TOTALLY GEEKED!

Lady Gaga Snerd · Guru

Whats your opinion on this?

Lady Gaga Snerd · Guru

Sorry i am on my phone.

chef · Guru

Ridiculous. There's no reason he should have to remove the photo of his stillborn brother.

huskerbb · Guru

chef wrote:
Ridiculous. There's no reason he should have to remove the photo of his stillborn brother.

He should have never taken that photo. It's macabre and his parents are looney.

When grandma dies do you all take a photo around her casket and say that is now the family photo?

Idiotic.

chef · Guru

How is it macabre?

huskerbb · Guru

chef wrote:
How is it macabre?

The baby is dead.

Do all your family pictures include dead people?

huskerbb · Guru

Is this your family photo album?

dangerousminds.net/comments/dead_creepy_family_portraits_with_deceased_relatives

Nobody Just Nobody · Rib-it! Rrrib-it!

Um including dead people in the family photo is the new "in" thing. People photo shop them in now. This fad too shall pass.

huskerbb · Guru

Nobody Just Nobody wrote:
Um including dead people in the family photo is the new "in" thing. People photo shop them in now. This fad too shall pass.

But you don't photo shop in pictures of the dead body--you photoshop pictures of them when they were alive.

It's not a "new" thing, either--look at the link I posted. It actually used to be quite common to photograph dead people--but, photographs were rare back then. A kid who was three or four might not have even had their picture taken, yet.

lilyofcourse · My spirit animal is a pink flamingo.

Actually, it's a fairly common practice in the south.

Pictures of the dead are common.

And why shouldn't a picture be made of a stillborn?

Oh, that's right. Better to just pretend it didn't happen. Cause if you don't have a picture, no way you'll ever think about that baby.

I wish I had a picture of my baby.

huskerbb · Guru

lilyofcourse wrote:
Actually, it's a fairly common practice in the south.

Pictures of the dead are common.

And why shouldn't a picture be made of a stillborn?

Oh, that's right. Better to just pretend it didn't happen. Cause if you don't have a picture, no way you'll ever think about that baby.

I wish I had a picture of my baby.

I don't care if they have a picture of their baby--but it's not appropriate for a classroom project.

My mom lost three children. Two just after birth (although they were alive when they were born), and one at age 23.

All the while we were growing up, mom said she had 5 kids--not 7 and lost two. After my brother died, she says she had 5 and lost one.

Nobody Just Nobody · Rib-it! Rrrib-it!

huskerbb wrote:
Nobody Just Nobody wrote:
Um including dead people in the family photo is the new "in" thing. People photo shop them in now. This fad too shall pass.
But you don't photo shop in pictures of the dead body--you photoshop pictures of them when they were alive.

It's not a "new" thing, either--look at the link I posted. It actually used to be quite common to photograph dead people--but, photographs were rare back then. A kid who was three or four might not have even had their picture taken, yet.

Photo shopping dead people into a picture is weird. Enjoy the pictures they had made when they were alive.

flan327 · Itty bitty's Grammy

lilyofcourse wrote:
Actually, it's a fairly common practice in the south.

Pictures of the dead are common.

And why shouldn't a picture be made of a stillborn?

Oh, that's right. Better to just pretend it didn't happen. Cause if you don't have a picture, no way you'll ever think about that baby.

I wish I had a picture of my baby.

I don't...but I KNOW IT HAPPENED.

flan

flan327 · Itty bitty's Grammy

huskerbb wrote:
Nobody Just Nobody wrote:
Um including dead people in the family photo is the new "in" thing. People photo shop them in now. This fad too shall pass.
But you don't photo shop in pictures of the dead body--you photoshop pictures of them when they were alive.

It's not a "new" thing, either--look at the link I posted. It actually used to be quite common to photograph dead people--but, photographs were rare back then. A kid who was three or four might not have even had their picture taken, yet.

It dates back hundreds of years, if I'm not mistaken.

flan

chef · Guru

huskerbb wrote:
chef wrote:
How is it macabre?
The baby is dead.

Do all your family pictures include dead people?

Of course not. But you bet that if I had a stillborn, he/she would absolutely be included in at least one family photo. He/she would still be my child and if anyone had a problem with that, that's just too bad.

Nobody Just Nobody · Rib-it! Rrrib-it!

I understand taking pictures of the dead back in the day. I do. But we're not in that time anymore. From the moment of birth till the moment you die there is someone snapping your picture. We no longer have the "need" to take a picture of a dead person. I understand in this circumstance why they took a picture of the dead baby. However, it was not appropriate to be taken to school.

huskerbb · Guru

chef wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
chef wrote:
How is it macabre?
The baby is dead.

Do all your family pictures include dead people?
Of course not. But you bet that if I had a stillborn, he/she would absolutely be included in at least one family photo. He/she would still be my child and if anyone had a problem with that, that's just too bad.

So if your kid dies at age 6 you'd put their dead body in a photo? Yeah, right.

huskerbb · Guru

Nobody Just Nobody wrote:
I understand taking pictures of the dead back in the day. I do. But we're not in that time anymore. From the moment of birth till the moment you die there is someone snapping your picture. We no longer have the "need" to take a picture of a dead person. I understand in this circumstance why they took a picture of the dead baby. However, it was not appropriate to be taken to school.

Exactly.

huskerbb · Guru

flan327 wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Nobody Just Nobody wrote:
Um including dead people in the family photo is the new "in" thing. People photo shop them in now. This fad too shall pass.
But you don't photo shop in pictures of the dead body--you photoshop pictures of them when they were alive.

It's not a "new" thing, either--look at the link I posted. It actually used to be quite common to photograph dead people--but, photographs were rare back then. A kid who was three or four might not have even had their picture taken, yet.
It dates back hundreds of years, if I'm not mistaken.
flan

Can't be "hundreds". Photography has only been around since about the mid 19th century.

Nobody Just Nobody · Rib-it! Rrrib-it!

chef, this kid looks about ten. This picture really doesn't belong in his classroom. I think it's fine the family took it. I don't think it should go to an elementary school.

flan327 · Itty bitty's Grammy

huskerbb wrote:
flan327 wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Nobody Just Nobody wrote:
Um including dead people in the family photo is the new "in" thing. People photo shop them in now. This fad too shall pass.
But you don't photo shop in pictures of the dead body--you photoshop pictures of them when they were alive.

It's not a "new" thing, either--look at the link I posted. It actually used to be quite common to photograph dead people--but, photographs were rare back then. A kid who was three or four might not have even had their picture taken, yet.
It dates back hundreds of years, if I'm not mistaken.
flan
Can't be "hundreds". Photography has only been around since about the mid 19th century.

Sorry, but I've seen lots of dead kid photos on Pinterest.

flan

chef · Guru

huskerbb wrote:
chef wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
chef wrote:
How is it macabre?
The baby is dead.

Do all your family pictures include dead people?
Of course not. But you bet that if I had a stillborn, he/she would absolutely be included in at least one family photo. He/she would still be my child and if anyone had a problem with that, that's just too bad.
So if your kid dies at age 6 you'd put their dead body in a photo? Yeah, right.

Did I say age 6? No. I said stillborn. I would want pics of my stillborn baby seeing as how those would be the only pics I'd ever have of him/her.

And, I wouldn't photoshop anyone into a photo. Not my cup of tea.

huskerbb · Guru

chef wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
chef wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
chef wrote:
How is it macabre?
The baby is dead.

Do all your family pictures include dead people?
Of course not. But you bet that if I had a stillborn, he/she would absolutely be included in at least one family photo. He/she would still be my child and if anyone had a problem with that, that's just too bad.
So if your kid dies at age 6 you'd put their dead body in a photo? Yeah, right.
Did I say age 6? No. I said stillborn. I would want pics of my stillborn baby seeing as how those would be the only pics I'd ever have of him/her.
And, I wouldn't photoshop anyone into a photo. Not my cup of tea.

But why not? They would still be your child, right?

Just because they are the only pics YOU will ever have of him or her does not mean that anyone else gives a crap or wants to see a dead baby.

weltschmerz · Guru

Here's what's interesting.

"WARNING: Article contains images that some readers may find emotionally distressing."

It's a warning to ADULTS, who may find it emotionally distressing. Adults who have the choice of continuing to read or not.
Forcing this content on a captive audience of little kids is very inappropriate.
.

huskerbb · Guru

Nobody Just Nobody wrote:
chef, this kid looks about ten. This picture really doesn't belong in his classroom. I think it's fine the family took it. I don't think it should go to an elementary school.

Exactly. No one wants to see pictures of a dead baby. That baby isn't special to them. It's macabre.

huskerbb · Guru

weltschmerz wrote:
Here's what's interesting.

"WARNING: Article contains images that some readers may find emotionally distressing."

It's a warning to ADULTS, who may find it emotionally distressing. Adults who have the choice of continuing to read or not.
Forcing this content on a captive audience of little kids is very inappropriate.
.

Stop the presses. I actually agree with welts on something.

chef · Guru

Nobody Just Nobody wrote:
chef, this kid looks about ten. This picture really doesn't belong in his classroom. I think it's fine the family took it. I don't think it should go to an elementary school.

I think the article said he was in first grade.

The project was about him. That includes his stillborn brother. I feel that the school's response is telling the child that his stillborn brother doesn't matter just because he's dead.

This reminds me of the project another student had about role models in her life. She chose Jesus and got shut down by the school. I said the school was wrong on that one too.

huskerbb · Guru

chef wrote:
Nobody Just Nobody wrote:
chef, this kid looks about ten. This picture really doesn't belong in his classroom. I think it's fine the family took it. I don't think it should go to an elementary school.
I think the article said he was in first grade.
The project was about him. That includes his stillborn brother. I feel that the school's response is telling the child that his stillborn brother doesn't matter just because he's dead.
This reminds me of the project another student had about role models in her life. She chose Jesus and got shut down by the school. I said the school was wrong on that one too.

Not remotely the same thing. She wasn't showing a video of the crucifixion.

Nobody Just Nobody · Rib-it! Rrrib-it!

huskerbb wrote:
Nobody Just Nobody wrote:
chef, this kid looks about ten. This picture really doesn't belong in his classroom. I think it's fine the family took it. I don't think it should go to an elementary school.
Exactly. No one wants to see pictures of a dead baby. That baby isn't special to them. It's macabre.

Holy chit on a shingle! I agree with husker!

flan327 · Itty bitty's Grammy

I...I...I...can't breathe...

flan

chef · Guru

huskerbb wrote:
chef wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
chef wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
chef wrote:
How is it macabre?
The baby is dead.

Do all your family pictures include dead people?
Of course not. But you bet that if I had a stillborn, he/she would absolutely be included in at least one family photo. He/she would still be my child and if anyone had a problem with that, that's just too bad.
So if your kid dies at age 6 you'd put their dead body in a photo? Yeah, right.
Did I say age 6? No. I said stillborn. I would want pics of my stillborn baby seeing as how those would be the only pics I'd ever have of him/her.
And, I wouldn't photoshop anyone into a photo. Not my cup of tea.
But why not? They would still be your child, right?
Just because they are the only pics YOU will ever have of him or her does not mean that anyone else gives a crap or wants to see a dead baby.

Why not? Because I don't take pics of dead people. I'd rather remember them while they were alive. The difference with a stillborn is that I would have never had the chance to take pics of them alive aside from ultrasounds.

The same could be said of any photo re anyone else not giving a crap. Personal photos only mean something to the people involved.

chef · Guru

huskerbb wrote:
chef wrote:
Nobody Just Nobody wrote:
chef, this kid looks about ten. This picture really doesn't belong in his classroom. I think it's fine the family took it. I don't think it should go to an elementary school.
I think the article said he was in first grade.
The project was about him. That includes his stillborn brother. I feel that the school's response is telling the child that his stillborn brother doesn't matter just because he's dead.
This reminds me of the project another student had about role models in her life. She chose Jesus and got shut down by the school. I said the school was wrong on that one too.
Not remotely the same thing. She wasn't showing a video of the crucifixion.

It's the same thing because the project had a personal theme in each case.

chef · Guru

Nobody Just Nobody wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Nobody Just Nobody wrote:
chef, this kid looks about ten. This picture really doesn't belong in his classroom. I think it's fine the family took it. I don't think it should go to an elementary school.
Exactly. No one wants to see pictures of a dead baby. That baby isn't special to them. It's macabre.
Holy chit on a shingle! I agree with husker!

LOL! I've agreed with Husker plenty. Just not on this one.

And, Husker, if the photos shared had to be special to everyone in the class, no photos would get shared.

huskerbb · Guru

chef wrote:
Nobody Just Nobody wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Nobody Just Nobody wrote:
chef, this kid looks about ten. This picture really doesn't belong in his classroom. I think it's fine the family took it. I don't think it should go to an elementary school.
Exactly. No one wants to see pictures of a dead baby. That baby isn't special to them. It's macabre.
Holy chit on a shingle! I agree with husker!
LOL! I've agreed with Husker plenty. Just not on this one.
And, Husker, if the photos shared had to be special to everyone in the class, no photos would get shared.

But people don't want to see pictures of dead babies. It's disturbing and a class of kid should not have to view that. Heck, the teacher shouldn't, either.

The photos don't all have to be special to everyone--but if it's a dead baby, it is ONLY special to the parents.

Nobody Just Nobody · Rib-it! Rrrib-it!

I would be pissed as all get out if my first grader came home and said he saw pictures of a dead baby in school.

Nobody Just Nobody · Rib-it! Rrrib-it!

The photos don't have to be special to everyone. But mam maw has had a life. And stories. "I went to the zoo with Mam maw." blah blah blah. How do you work in "This is my dead brother. I never got a chance to meet him because he died before he was born."

weltschmerz · Guru

huskerbb wrote:
weltschmerz wrote:
Here's what's interesting.

"WARNING: Article contains images that some readers may find emotionally distressing."

It's a warning to ADULTS, who may find it emotionally distressing. Adults who have the choice of continuing to read or not.
Forcing this content on a captive audience of little kids is very inappropriate.
.
Stop the presses. I actually agree with welts on something.

Glass of champagne, sir?

huskerbb · Guru

weltschmerz wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
weltschmerz wrote:
Here's what's interesting.

"WARNING: Article contains images that some readers may find emotionally distressing."

It's a warning to ADULTS, who may find it emotionally distressing. Adults who have the choice of continuing to read or not.
Forcing this content on a captive audience of little kids is very inappropriate.
.
Stop the presses. I actually agree with welts on something.
Glass of champagne, sir?

no

WYSIWYG · Guru

What bothers me about this is the boy is smiling in the the "in hospital" pictures. This is just too weird for me.

Normal people don't smile in pictures like that, even kids. That boy is deeply disturbed.

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

huskerbb wrote:
chef wrote:
How is it macabre?
The baby is dead.

Do all your family pictures include dead people?

LOL. Historically, taking pictures of the dead was completely normal.

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

I just looked at the pictures - they don't bother me.

Lady Gaga Snerd · Guru

flan327 wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
flan327 wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Nobody Just Nobody wrote:
Um including dead people in the family photo is the new "in" thing. People photo shop them in now. This fad too shall pass.
But you don't photo shop in pictures of the dead body--you photoshop pictures of them when they were alive.

It's not a "new" thing, either--look at the link I posted. It actually used to be quite common to photograph dead people--but, photographs were rare back then. A kid who was three or four might not have even had their picture taken, yet.
It dates back hundreds of years, if I'm not mistaken.
flan
Can't be "hundreds". Photography has only been around since about the mid 19th century.
Sorry, but I've seen lots of dead kid photos on Pinterest.
flan

You have? Are you searching for that or something? Can't say that has ever popped up on my Pinterest.

Lady Gaga Snerd · Guru

WYSIWYG wrote:
What bothers me about this is the boy is smiling in the the "in hospital" pictures. This is just too weird for me.

Normal people don't smile in pictures like that, even kids. That boy is deeply disturbed.

Wow. That's really unfair. He's a kid. You smile in pictures. That is what kids do. He doesn't know how he is supposed to act in this particular situation.

Lady Gaga Snerd · Guru

weltschmerz wrote:
Here's what's interesting.

"WARNING: Article contains images that some readers may find emotionally distressing."

It's a warning to ADULTS, who may find it emotionally distressing. Adults who have the choice of continuing to read or not.
Forcing this content on a captive audience of little kids is very inappropriate.
.

OMG! I AGREE with Welts! These are 7 yr old kids. And, yes, that is personal to him and their lives. But, that doesn't mean they can run roughshod over the sensibilities of the rest of the class. It is inappropriate. I can understand that the parents wanted to take a photo to remember their child and that tragic day of their lives. But, that doesn't mean the photos should become fodder for public consumption. That is a very private, personal moment. We cheapen our lives by sharing every intimate detail of them to everybody and their brother. No, it's not appropriate. I would support the teacher making that decision to not include it.

Personally, I think casket photos are just weird and bizarre. No, i would not want a casket photo of my mom or dad in their coffins. That isn't how i choose to remember them. However, if other people wish to do so, then that is their prerogative, but that doesn't mean others wish to share in that. And, a still birth, i think taking a photo as a remembrance may be very helpful to the parents in the grieving process. But, that is in no way an issue that should be thrust on 7 yr olds at school.

flan327 · Itty bitty's Grammy

Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:
flan327 wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
flan327 wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Nobody Just Nobody wrote:
Um including dead people in the family photo is the new "in" thing. People photo shop them in now. This fad too shall pass.
But you don't photo shop in pictures of the dead body--you photoshop pictures of them when they were alive.

It's not a "new" thing, either--look at the link I posted. It actually used to be quite common to photograph dead people--but, photographs were rare back then. A kid who was three or four might not have even had their picture taken, yet.
It dates back hundreds of years, if I'm not mistaken.
flan
Can't be "hundreds". Photography has only been around since about the mid 19th century.
Sorry, but I've seen lots of dead kid photos on Pinterest.
flan
You have? Are you searching for that or something? Can't say that has ever popped up on my Pinterest.

They usually pop up when I'm browsing the "History" section.

flan

Lady Gaga Snerd · Guru

OK. But, just because something is on Pinterest doesn't make it appropriate for 7 yr olds.

lilyofcourse · My spirit animal is a pink flamingo.

It's part of life.

Lady Gaga Snerd · Guru

lilyofcourse wrote:
It's part of life.

Lots of things are part of life Lilly. But, we used to have some sense as a society about protecting children and their sensibilities and modesty and so forth.

huskerbb · Guru

Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:
WYSIWYG wrote:
What bothers me about this is the boy is smiling in the the "in hospital" pictures. This is just too weird for me.

Normal people don't smile in pictures like that, even kids. That boy is deeply disturbed.
Wow. That's really unfair. He's a kid. You smile in pictures. That is what kids do. He doesn't know how he is supposed to act in this particular situation.

This. It goes back to the whole conversation we had about when kids understand death. I just dont think he really does.

huskerbb · Guru

Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:
lilyofcourse wrote:
It's part of life.

Lots of things are part of life Lilly. But, we used to have some sense as a society about protecting children and their sensibilities and modesty and so forth.

Sure, so are bowel movements but we still put doors on restrooms.