Er… what else do YOU believe I should be upset about, but am not?
Bricker, are you a regular reader of popphoto.com? If not, how did you come across this article?
Daniel
I hope this doesn’t hurt my reputation here… but I’m a regular Guardian reader. This article is what started it for me.
Aww, didums start a Pit thwead and it didn’t go too well?
I can summarize. I have expressed concern about you. I’m worried that you are starting to actually think of people this way, that you actually believe that some of your fellow human beings would condone hurting a baby because it might further their political cause. I think either you think of the Pit as kind of a game, where you can imply outrageous things like that and get away with it, or (possibly as a result of spending too much time on the Dope) you have lost all perspective and are now becoming, as a result of your partisanship, irrational and hateful toward your fellow man. I want to know if you really want to be the guy who says “You liberals would pinch a baby for your cause”? Is that who you really are, or is this just a fun little distraction for you?
As for admissions of error, you’re hardly a model citizen there, are you, Bricker?
Can you explain what about my statement led you to the mistaken conclusion that was intended as a “confession of error”? That’s a very strange thing to say.
Interesting–thanks! I think I agree with the final quote:
Daniel
I’ve repeatedly tried to steer this discussion towards consideration of actual suffering instead of the hysteria over the fact that “bad people made teh babies cry,” and I’m relieved that someone has finally noticed. I was getting crabby about it.
So, poverty, lack of health care, poor schools, crime, physical and sexual abuse, and malnutrition make a lot of lists. In terms of suffering, that is. These are more inherintly political than the captions on the photographs by the artists.
You should know that for toddlers crying is a conditioned response – they use it to get something. Crying in this case was clearly a case where the children wanted something, and were not suffering. It was forgotten an hour later. Note, unlike the older cases mentioned, they were not threatened, nor were pets or other loved ones.
I do make one assumption, based on reading between the lines – the successful commercial artist photographed child models, and the children of (presumably also successful) friends. I am presuming (and suggesting by the use of the word “spoiled” above), that these are the children of affluent people who will, in the end, get the candy or toy they want, and generally have those things in their daily lives. Obviously a child plucked up from the direst poverty, promised something yummy, denied it, photographed, and put back on the street, would be a different story. If I had any reason to believe that such was the case, I might feel differently.
But of course they are affluent children, and hence the outrage. Republicans, though generally insensitive to the plight of children living in poverty, have always been quite sensitive to the plight of the upper class.
It appears to me as though it was clearly premature of you to say that.
And no, you weren’t relying on your psychic powers. You weren’t predicting. You weren’t expecting. The wording of your post makes it clear you were basing your opinion on what had already been said in the thread - by “numerous people”.
What I believe happened is this; you started your thread believing many people would give the artist a pass on making children cry, because it was anti-Bush. When you returned, you saw the very few (three, with ten posters saying she was in the wrong, plus many other posters not stating their view) posts agreeing with your pre-determined notion, took that as confirmation that you were correct, and lauched into your “Wow, I guess she gets a pass here, huh?” speech.
What does this mean? Nothing, really. It’s not an important issue. Nothing changes because of your views. What it does mean personally, though, is that you appear very willing to see things as you want to see them, even when the evidence to support you isn’t there. Your analogy is flawed; it’s not a case of searching a car with no probable cause, it’s a case of arresting and sentencing the driver having found a pack of ciggarettes in the search. A way over the top reaction based on your preconcieved notions.
Poor Shodan-bot is confused. “What is my prime directive?” I suspect that at some point, Shodan-bot collided with the Tan-Ru, or with Karl Rove. I’m not sure. I wish we could beam it out into the nether reaches of the net before it self-destructs.
Shodan-bot, that thread was expressly not about Bush saying “shit.” In fact, I suggested that Bush saying “shit” was not a big deal. That thread was about Bush giving an impromptu shoulder massage to a leader of a world power at a significant international meeting. (By the way, you have your comrade Scylla to thank for the 9 pages that the thing grew to be.)
I did, however, express my opinion that if our big plan to stop the violence between Israel and Hezbollah was to get “someone to tell Syria to tell Hezbollah to stop this shit,” we’re screwed, and that putting voice to this big plan demonstrated that Bush was a fucking moron.
Also, I am not Jackson Roykirk. You are in error. Your programming is flawed.
No, Yossarian, it’s more like Meerkat Manor. 
You really are a sad little turd, aren’t you?
I don’t give a shit if you or Bricker or anyone else pits her for her anti-Bush views. I may decide to argue with you on the issue, i may not.
But, in connecting our response to her strategy of making children cry, on the one hand, and our attitudes to Bush, on the other, you’re treading a well worn and completely discredited path, one that the OP himself, for all his obfuscation and self-righteousness, has abandoned.
I realize that being a day late a dollar short is par for the course with you, but you might want to leave these debates to people who actually understand the issues. I’m sure Bricker will be able to explain it to you, if you ask him nicely
I don’t remember even Reeder making any kind “I’ll pit Republicans for what I predict they’ll think/argue in the future” threads. At least he picked actual things that happened (as incredibly lame as they were sometimes), IIRC. This one may be lamer than even the lamest Reeder pit thread.
By the way, i’ve stated a couple of times in this thread my belief that, once the political stuff is taken away, the issue of how children are treated for the sake of art might be a useful discussion. I also truly believe that it’s an issue on which reasonable people can disagree.
If you’re a reasonable person, and would like to weigh in on the issue without the baggage of party politics or personal grievances, i invite you to my new thread in IMHO.
Worked real well for the kids who died with Vic Morrow. My point was what is in the SAG rules and general practice are sometimes far different. Plus, the kids in question are working for a photographer, for which there is no union, and no protection worth mentioning. Making kids cry is more a function of the photographer’s methods, not her politics.
Babies get auditioned basically by having their moms (or dads) leave. If they suffer separation anxiety, they’re out. (Which is why my daughter never made it as a baby model.)
BTW, I’d be just as unconcerned about this if a Pubbie did it.
The Jackies were made to cry over a long period of time, using much nastier methods. Nothing like this.
Yes, he has. Nearly as many times as he’s been accused of never admitting that he’s wrong – which is a large number.
I can recall two occasions with some specificity. Cites available on request.
But I don’t think he’s wrong here.
What LHoD and Hentor said.
Do you actually read the stuff you cite in support of what you say?
I suppose it doesn’t really matter. Whether you claim a cite supports you when you know it doesn’t, or whether you make that claim having not even read the cite, it’s completely dishonest either way.
What is it that you don’t think he is wrong about? That libruls are slimey because they LIKE to make kids cry if it is done to make fun of Bush?
:rolleyes:
This is Kafkaesque, Bricker Pits us for something we haven’t done yet. Didn’t Tom Cruz make a movie about this? It was silly too.
Could you specify exactly what assertion he has made that you think is correct? A quote from one of his posts and re-statement of that position in your own words would clear it up perfectly.
Enjoy,
Steven