[QUOTE=Bricker]
Oh. :smack:
Embarrassed to admit I never got this point until just now.
OK, I concede there’s no way to prove that assertion. I have a conviction that it’s true… but I can’t show that those that are giving her a pass now would have condemned her tactics if her pictures were labelled “Democrat Election Challenge Strategy,” and the like. I have no proof, and no evidence except the general behavior on this board.
[/QUOTE]
So you have indeed become a bigot.
[QUOTE=Ensign Edison]
So you have indeed become a bigot.
[/QUOTE]
I wouldn’t go that far-he’s just a fucking troll.
Bless his heart, he means well.
[QUOTE=Guinastasia]
I wouldn’t go that far-he’s just a fucking troll.
[/QUOTE]
For corn sakes! Everyone does shit like that. None of us is intelligent enough to deal with the world on a strictly rational basis, so we take shortcuts. Much of the time those shortcuts work admirably. Sometimes they lead us into grievous error. It’s a very positive trait to at least occasionally be able to recognize when those errors occur. Bricker looks to have started to do so here.
Aw, luci, you shouldn’t be so mean to a poor guy with such a severe case of craniorectal impaction.
[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]
Was that a rhetorical question?
And I accept your three cites (although Jackmannii’s strikes me as disagreeing with what he/she sees as hyperbole, not that the artist’s actions weren’t cruel). HowieReynolds’s was the one I spotted myself, btw. Now let’s have a look at those posters who didn’t give it a pass;
[/quote]
My list of cites was not complete – how many are needed?
Add mhendo’s post – the first cite I gave you - and you have at least seven posters expressing the view I mentioned.
I stand by “numerous”.
[QUOTE=Ensign Edison]
So you have indeed become a bigot.
[/QUOTE]
No. “One who regards or treats the members of a racial or ethnic group with hatred and intolerance.”
I disagree that I exhibited any treatment at all towards a group. I’m talking about individual posters here, people whose records have established themselves with me.
I also disagree that I exhibited hatred or intolerance.
[QUOTE=Guinastasia]
I wouldn’t go that far-he’s just a fucking troll.
[/QUOTE]
Bite my ass, whorebag.
[QUOTE=Bricker]
I stand by “numerous”.
[/QUOTE]
Stand by whatever you want, the simple fact is in the OP you played your sissy little “poor poor conservative me” crap, and then, after numerous responses, you said
"Wow.
Apparently she does get a pass here. No harm done, eh?"
As Revenant Threshold pointed out, a healthy majority of the people here did not give a pass to her, and those that did “give her a pass” may not have done so simply because of her politics.
You had your preconceived notion that the SDMB would give her a pass because they were so anti-Bush, and you stuck by that notion, no matter what really happened or the evidence to the contrary. While that kind of mental gymnastics may get you far in the Republican party, it makes you look like an idiot here.
[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]
And I accept your three cites (although Jackmannii’s strikes me as disagreeing with what he/she sees as hyperbole]
[/quote]
Yes, it was the OP’s over-the-top tone and demand that everyone jump in with UNIVERSAL CONDEMNATION of this hideous practice.
I’m still working on comprehending the nature of the cruelty involved. If a parent tells their toddler “Enough candy for now” and takes away the lollipop (and the kid bawls), that’s good parenting. But if the photographer removes the lollipop with the ulterior motive of creating a political statement and the kid cries, that’s
UNCONSCIONABLE WICKED CRUELTY!!!
I’m sure I’ll fully understand in time.
I just remembered an anecdote in Charlie Chaplin’s autobiography. They were shooting a movie which featured the child star Jackie Coogan (I think it was The Kid). There was a scene which required Coogan to cry for full heart-rending impact, but he was in a good mood and joking around. So they brought in his father, who resolved to make him cry by resorting to various threats i.e. we’ll send you to the workhouse if you don’t cooperate etc. Coogan duly started crying and the scene was shot successfully. Chaplin was a bit alarmed and went over afterwards to comfort the boy, who looked up through his tears and said “I know, Daddy was only fooling.”
Who knows, this may have had some lurid permanent psychological impact. How else to explain this poor child growing up to be Uncle Fester? 
[QUOTE=Hamlet]
Stand by whatever you want, the simple fact is in the OP you played your sissy little “poor poor conservative me” crap, and then, after numerous responses, you said
"Wow.
Apparently she does get a pass here. No harm done, eh?"
As Revenant Threshold pointed out, a healthy majority of the people here did not give a pass to her, and those that did “give her a pass” may not have done so simply because of her politics.
You had your preconceived notion that the SDMB would give her a pass because they were so anti-Bush, and you stuck by that notion, no matter what really happened or the evidence to the contrary. While that kind of mental gymnastics may get you far in the Republican party, it makes you look like an idiot here.
[/QUOTE]
I agree only that there’s no actual proof here that the passes given here were because she was anti-Bush. But a fair number of people DID give her a pass, to my dismay.
And the sequence this thread has taken doesn’t tend to discourage my view of things. Almost immediately, several people tried to deny that the series had anything to do with Bush, in the face of obvious evidence to the contrary. I got harsher, more vituperative words hurled at me for daring to post this thread than were directed at her for deliberately making toddlers cry.
I said “numerous” - that’s not a majority; that’s simply “a lot.” In my view, seven posters (and perhaps more; I stopped counting) saying “no big deal” to these acts is a lot. It’s numerous.
Now, I agree that the missing link is the proof that they said this only because the
woman was anti-Bush. There is no proof. But the problem with “proof” is – apart from an admission – it’s awfully hard to come by. We might get it by posting a fake story, same facts but being anti-liberal. But this is a bannable offense.
Still, you’re right to suggest that I need more than mere speculation before making an accusation.
So I withdraw any charge that the passes given were motivated by anti-Bush animus.
I wish the “Bush stole Ohio” crowd were also willing to drop their accusations made without proof, and perhaps this would be a good reference point for that.
[QUOTE=Bricker]
[QUOTE=mhendo]
But this still skates blithely past the main point you keep hammering on in this thread, which is the alleged connection between my attitude to making babies cry, on the one hand, and my dislike for George Bush, on the other.
How many times must i say that the two are unrelated before you’ll concede that this might be true? You said that, in your OP, you were"taking swipe at the people here who would forgive or minimize [the photography collection] because of its political tenor," and you keep insisting that our subsequent arguments have proven you correct.
[/QUOTE]
Oh. :smack:
Embarrassed to admit I never got this point until just now.
OK, I concede there’s no way to prove that assertion. I have a conviction that it’s true… but I can’t show that those that are giving her a pass now would have condemned her tactics if her pictures were labelled “Democrat Election Challenge Strategy,” and the like. I have no proof, and no evidence except the general behavior on this board.
[/QUOTE]
I, too, call bullshit on the claim that Bricker “never got this point until just now”. It was clearly the very basis of the OP, and the refreshingly frank “I have no proof, and no evidence” a concession of the trollery that recent changes to Pit rules permit me to insinuate has been perpretrated herein.
Having said that, I’ll be linking to this one in the next Greatest Train Wrecks poll thread.
[QUOTE=Bricker]
No. “One who regards or treats the members of a racial or ethnic group with hatred and intolerance.”
I disagree that I exhibited any treatment at all towards a group. I’m talking about individual posters here, people whose records have established themselves with me.
I also disagree that I exhibited hatred or intolerance.
[/QUOTE]
So you are only withdrawing your comment on the basis of it being less than scientific, not because it’s a disgusting and indecent thing to accuse your fellow human beings of solely on the basis of your partisan bigotry?
[QUOTE=Bricker]
I wish the “Bush stole Ohio” crowd were also willing to drop their accusations made without proof, and perhaps this would be a good reference point for that.
[/QUOTE]
I wish we could have dropped the accusations of Iraqi WMD’s and Saddam supporting Al-Qaeda without proof, before we invaded.
Ha! Two can play the farcical, partisan bashing game.
I really is quite depressing how fractured you lot are when it comes to this kind of bollocks.
I realise that posters here may be a bit more politicised that the normal Joe on the street but if this 6+ pages of absolute shite is anything to go by, your country, politically speaking, is in a fucking mess.
[QUOTE=yojimbo]
I really is quite depressing how fractured you lot are when it comes to this kind of bollocks.
I realise that posters here may be a bit more politicised that the normal Joe on the street but if this 6+ pages of absolute shite is anything to go by, your country, politically speaking, is in a fucking mess.
[/QUOTE]
Your prolonging the thread merely to add yet another in an endless series of xenophobic gotchas, is an indicator of how incredibly dull it must be in your country. :wally
[QUOTE=Bricker]
I agree only that there’s no actual proof here that the passes given here were because she was anti-Bush…So I withdraw any charge that the passes given were motivated by anti-Bush animus.
[/quote]
I was wrong; the pig CAN sing. Not well nor without a pile of caveats, but it’s recognizably musical.
Meh. In the greater scheme of things taking candy from a baby–temporarily–to get a shot doesn’t really get my dander up. I don’t recall if you are a father. I’d guess not from your reaction to this because, if you were and especially if you had raised multiple children, you’d know there’s no challenge is starting kids crying. If one of those kids were mine my only negative reaction to the photographer starting the kid up would be, “But I just got him to STOP!”
[QUOTE=Jackmannii]
Your prolonging the thread merely to add yet another in an endless series of xenophobic gotchas, is an indicator of how incredibly dull it must be in your country. :wally
[/QUOTE]
Endless series by me? My, you are insecure aren’t you.
As to the dullness of Irish politics or the country as a whole. I refer you that old Chinese curse. May you live in interesting times. It’s certainly interesting over there I’ll give you that.
Given the long Irish tradition of settling their religious and political differences amicably, I guess Yojo can play “You Americans” with a straight face.
[QUOTE=Bricker]
Now, I agree that the missing link is the proof that they said this only because the woman was anti-Bush. There is no proof. But the problem with “proof” is – apart from an admission – it’s awfully hard to come by. We might get it by posting a fake story, same facts but being anti-liberal. But this is a bannable offense.
[/quote]
Never mind proof. You’re so far away from proof that Pluto looks adjacent by comparison.
You don’t even have any evidence—not the slightest shred—that there’s any connection between people’s attitudes to this woman’s photographic strategy and their attitudes to George Bush.
Of course, you’ve been arguing that your assertion is based on previous experience with posters on these Boards. Well, based on exactly the same logic, i’m going to argue that the only reason that you condemned this woman was that her political message was anti-Bush. That’s the only reason you started the thread in the first place. If her crying children were being used to denounce abortion or Fidel Castro, you wouldn’t have made a sound.
Isn’t it great how this works?
[QUOTE=Bricker]
Still, you’re right to suggest that I need more than mere speculation before making an accusation.
So I withdraw any charge that the passes given were motivated by anti-Bush animus.
[/quote]
After six pages in which this was the constant focus of your argument, i assume you’re also ready to accept that withdrawing this charge effectively makes your whole thread completely pointless?
You might argue that your point about the issue of making children cry still stands by itself, but it doesn’t. By poisoning the well in your OP, and continuing to harp on our alleged political motivations, you connected the two issues so intimately that it’s now become impossible for this to be just a discussion (reasoned or otherwise) over how children are treated in the pursuit of art and entertainment. It’s a shame, because i think reasonable people can disagree on that issue, and it might have made a good thread.
But in this case, once you toss the bathwater, the baby is inevitably going to go with it. And that’s worse than taking away a lollipop.
[QUOTE=Bricker]
I wish the “Bush stole Ohio” crowd were also willing to drop their accusations made without proof, and perhaps this would be a good reference point for that.
[/QUOTE]
Those accusations may have been made without what you consider to be sufficient proof, but they were not made without evidence. Which separates them fundamentally from your accusations in this thread.
