Make Toddlers Cry - It's OK, Since It's For the Anti-Bush Cause!

[GIGObuster]

@Bricker

This, from someone who began his particpation in this thread by insisting that “the idea that her series is just about Bush is silly” and that she did not plan to “bash Bush beforehand or even exclusively like the OP implied.”

And I admitted already I was wrong my dear “ignore a previous reply on purpose so as to make the poster look bad” Troll. (It remains a fact the first image made was not made with the purpose to bash Bush, only thanks to John Mace I saw the complete exhibit)

If my OP was a “monumental straw man” – please identify precisely what about it was a straw man. What argument did I fashion and then refute to substitute for your actual argument?

:dubious:
Oh, I guess you also “missed” **John Mace **'s post on the subject too you troll?

No. There is a difference between posting a topic on which people disagree and trolling. If this were not so, then by definition almost every post in GD would be “trolling”. After all, you post a topic in GD that is expected to engender debate - right? Merely posting a topic that people will disagree with is not trolling, and it’s clear that you don’t understand what trolling is if you disagree with that statement.

Trolling is *somebody who is posting *just to be ** confrontational or to raise hackles. It’s posting without a good-faith belief in the underlying merits of your argument.

It’s NOT simply posting something that people will disagree with.

If it were otherwise… why, then, I disagree with you, which must make your post a troll, eh?

You don’t only disagree, you are also now ignoring replies on purpose, direct evidence of a TROLL.

[Guinastasia]

@Left Hand of Dorkness

This is a terrible definition of trolling, and your summation of his post is similarly terrible. Trolling must be dishonest, or it’s not trolling. And I see no evidence of dishonesty in Bricker’s posts, even though I suspect I see some partisan bias.

Daniel

I’m sorry, but I must disagree-trolls sometimes believe in what they’re posting. Maybe Bricker didn’t consciously INTEND to “troll” or whatever, but his semantic nitpicking and his, “hey Liberals what about THIS!” threads are tiresome, at the very least.

[Bricker]

@Lightnin'

Then why post this thread with the inflammatory title of “Make Toddlers Cry - It’s OK, Since It’s For the Anti-Bush Cause!”? Is it the anti-Bush sentiment which bothers you, or the perceived child abuse?

Asked and answered in the thread above. What bothered me was: (a) the woman’s cruelty towards the toddlers, and (b) the belief that there were anti-Bush people that would give her a pass on the cruelty because her cause was anti-Bush.

Your argument seems to be that some Dems would approve of child abuse in support of their anti-Bush agenda. If, as you state, some Republicans would do the same, why even bring it up? It’s a non-starter to bring in the antiBushistas.

Because THIS was the story in the Guardian. Had this story been about a photographer who made toddlers cry and captioned the pictures, “Dems Arguing That The Election Was Fixed,” then I would have Pitted THAT.

Also, in many other threads you’ve clung to the “Well, there’s no law agin’it” argument- you’ve used it to defend Bush quite often. Well, there’s no law against taking candy from a toddler to make him cry- so why do you have a problem with it?

False dilemma. Must I really explain why?

[GIGObuster]

@Left Hand of Dorkness

This is a terrible definition of trolling, and your summation of his post is similarly terrible. Trolling must be dishonest, or it’s not trolling. And I see no evidence of dishonesty in Bricker’s posts, even though I suspect I see some partisan bias.

Daniel

I was willing to accept even this point, but clearly **Bricker ** now thinks it is ok to be dishonest regarding what one posted… in the same thread. He is just heckling now.

[Squink]

It was supposed to be a light-hearted photo opportunity showing the gentle side of the world’s most powerful man.

Despite being closely vetted by both the U.S. secret service and German intelligence agents, the startled infant voiced a noisy protest as it was handed to George Bush.

Unable to placate the wailing child - despite all his skills of diplomacy - President Bush was forced to hand it back to its waiting mother.

Nice photo though.

[Merijeek]

Neat thread

Bricker pulls a december andt then acts insulted when called on it.

What did december get banned for again?

-Joe

[Bricker]

@Guinastasia

Not always. Like I said, it’s also sometimes making a post to GET A SPECIFIC REACTION. Or, to build up a total strawman and then sit back and smirk and point and laugh.

I linked to the SDMB’s sticky for my definition of “troll.” Where are you getting yours?

Jesus Christ, I feel sorry for your clients, if this is how you acted as a public defender.

For what it’s worth, I was a very sucessful PD.

[Bricker]

@GIGObuster

I was willing to accept even this point, but clearly **Bricker ** now thinks it is ok to be dishonest regarding what one posted… in the same thread. He is just heckling now.

Where was I dishonest about anything?

[Bricker]

@Guinastasia

I’m sorry, but I must disagree-trolls sometimes believe in what they’re posting. Maybe Bricker didn’t consciously INTEND to “troll” or whatever, but his semantic nitpicking and his, “hey Liberals what about THIS!” threads are tiresome, at the very least.

Again - where does your definition of “troll” come from?

Tiresome is not synonmous with trolling. I am willing to believe my posts are tiresome for you – undoubtedly because you lack the basic wit to comprehend them – but that is not what it means to troll.

[Mtgman]

@Random

His essential points, most starting in the OP, and continuing throughout this thread, have been:

1. The theme of the photographic series has been anti-Bush, and deliberately
   titled to make this point clear.

2. The toddlers in the series are crying.

3. The photographer deliberately did things to cause some or most of the toddlers to cry.

4. That is a bad thing to do, although not one of the Great Evils of Our World.

5. Many or most of the posters on this board are anti-Bush in political outlook, some rabidily so.

6. There will be people who fall into the above category who will claim/have claimed that making toddlers cry is acceptable in photography or similar pursuits(in order to obtain the shot or make the desired point in the photo or film.)

7. If premises 1-3 & 5-6 are true, then logic compels a conclusion that the people described in premise 6 believe that it is okay to make toddlers cry in order to make an anti-Bush point.

I believe all of these premises are true. Others disagree: People in this thread have hotly denied ##1 & 3, and have been shown to be dishonest or delusional in doing so. ##2 & 5 seem to be an obvious truths. #6 has been demonstrated in this thread. Accordingly, premises 1-3 & 5-6 are true, which compels the conclusion in #7.

The only premise that seems be honestly debatable is #4.

So the attacks on Bricker’s honesty, credibility, and supposed unwillingness to admit error are inappropriate and offensive.

I join Left Hand of Dorkness in questioning your logic of linking 5, 6 and 7. The inference in the OP which is objectionable is that some significant number of people in the SDMB community think making toddlers cry is ok IFF(logic term for If and Only If) the end result is anti-Bush. Other circumstances where toddlers are made to cry for artistic pursuits these selfsame people would object to. The actual assumption in the OP is that everyone should always object to discomfitting children for causes no more important than art. This disconnect has morphed into #4 in your list of premises. The accusation of hypocrisy, forgiving cruelty IFF the end result is anti-Bush, is what I have not seen proven.

Bricker has named names, and shown a list of people and statements he believes show people as willing to excuse discomfit caused to children BECAUSE said discomfit was turned into an anti-Bush piece of artwork. Those people would all have to fit the mold for #6.

Complicating the mix is the debate over the validity of #4 of course. Many of the posts I have seen Bricker hold up as “proof” that the SDMB community is willing to turn a blind eye to “meanness” in the name of Bush-bashing were from people who have a completely different take on #4.

For any old timer(before Oct 2002), or heck anyone, one who wants a trip down memory lane, check out the first sixteen posts of this thread.

Enjoy,
Steven

[Lightnin]

@Bricker

Asked and answered in the thread above. What bothered me was: (a) the woman’s cruelty towards the toddlers, and (b) the belief that there were anti-Bush people that would give her a pass on the cruelty because her cause was anti-Bush.

a) Fair enough. I personally think there’s a lot of other, more extreme examples of cruelty to children you could’ve brought up. As things go, this one’s fairly lame.
b) Are you willing to admit that there hasn’t been a single example of a Doper who “would give her a pass on the cruelty because her cause was anti-Bush”? Or did you have someone particular in mind? Otherwise, I’m reminded of McCarthy and his list.

@Bricker

Because THIS was the story in the Guardian. Had this story been about a photographer who made toddlers cry and captioned the pictures, “Dems Arguing That The Election Was Fixed,” then I would have Pitted THAT.

Fair enough. Of course, it’s very easy to claim that you’d do that… however, this is the thread you started. And since you trawled for the anti-Bush contingent in the very title of the thread, I can’t help but wonder if you really would’ve accused some Republican Dopers of the same sort of thing you’ve brought up here, or if you are merely saying this to appear oh-so-impartial.

@Bricker

False dilemma. Must I really explain why?

Yes, I’m afraid you must. Many Dopers feel that Bush has done much worse than stealing candy from babies to make them cry, and in the relevant threads you’ve defended Bush on legal terms. What this photographer has done is completely legal- and yet you’ve got a problem with her behavior. You seem a bit… uneven in your stance.

[Jackmannii]

@Bricker

Daniel:

What inference, if any, do you draw from the fervor with which some posters at the beginning of this thread denied there was any anti-Bush theme to the pictures, or that the anti-Bush theme was fabricated after the fact by the photographer to increase interest in the series?

The logical inference to be drawn reflects the same point I made earlier - your OP was sloppy and poorly documented the nature of the photographer’s photo series.

The article to which you linked contains exactly one sentence that directly refers to Bush and two others that indicate distress with the direction the country is going. The rest of the article deals with the supposed artistic power of kids crying and whether it is proper to get them to cry so you can take pictures.

It was only if you figured out that it was possible to click on the photo and get a slide show of other photos, that it became clear that there was a pervasive anti-Administration theme to the series, as opposed to an offhand slam by the photographer in naming one photo “Four More Years”.

A number of posters clearly were not aware of how one could view the other pictures and their titles, and their initial responses were made in an appropriate manner by calling attention to your over the top, baiting tone and questioning why you were convinced the whole exercise was nothing more than an attack on Bush. In addition to making dopey assumptions about how your political opponents would embrace “cruelty” to children in the name of Bush-bashing, you created confusion by posting a poorly written and badly documented OP.

@Bricker

What inference, if any, do you draw from the fervor with which some posters at the beginning of this thread denied there was any anti-Bush theme to the pictures, or that the anti-Bush theme was fabricated after the fact by the photographer to increase interest in the series?

As you are dishonestly covering up your own ineptitude, one may infer that you are a disingenuous little turd.

[GIGObuster]

@Bricker

Where was I dishonest about anything?

Since you are so good on finding and culling quotes that only mildly support your sorry points, it is dishonest to say you did not see **John Mace’s ** post that concluded your OP had scarecrow material. Same goes for my post concluding the OP linked article was not clear either.

[GIGObuster]

And for the dishonesty in the OP, **Jackmannii ** explains it better than I could.

[Guinastasia]

@Bricker

Again - where does your definition of “troll” come from?

Tiresome is not synonmous with trolling. I am willing to believe my posts are tiresome for you – undoubtedly because you lack the basic wit to comprehend them – but that is not what it means to troll.

I never said it was the same thing. I said your threads, even if they’re NOT trolling*, they’re annoying and pointless.

*we’ll just have to disagree-I still say you’re trying to stir up shit, even if you BELIEVE in what you’re posting. Either way, I’m not getting into another of your semantic nitpicks.

[Guinastasia]

@Mtgman

For any old timer(before Oct 2002), or heck anyone, one who wants a trip down memory lane, check out the first sixteen posts of this thread.

Enjoy,
Steven

Sorry for the double post, but I just saw this. Damn, the resemblance is uncanny, isn’t it?
What was december banned for again?

[Gorsnak]

As I recall, he was banned for intentionally falsifying an OP in order to make a relatively unremarkable statement seemingly extremely offensive, by implying that it had been said after the Bali bombing rather than, as in actual fact, before the Bali bombing. Certainly this thread is nothing like that one, though it’s general tenor is remarkably similar to the thread linked by Mtgman, and indeed, is highly reminiscent of december’s usual style.

[elucidator]

@Guinastasia

…What was december banned for again?

Unbearable versification in “limerick” form. The AntiChrist of scansion.

[Walter_Windchill]

The once was a poster, december,
Who, as best we remember,
Was banished forthwit’,
For rhymes without wit’,
And writ in improper iamber.

[Bricker]

@Lightnin'

a) Fair enough. I personally think there’s a lot of other, more extreme examples of cruelty to children you could’ve brought up. As things go, this one’s fairly lame.

Agreed. It’s not evil, or heinous… just mean.

b) Are you willing to admit that there hasn’t been a single example of a Doper who “would give her a pass on the cruelty because her cause was anti-Bush”? Or did you have someone particular in mind? Otherwise, I’m reminded of McCarthy and his list.

Yes, I admit this. And because I believe it’s important to have actual evidence before making an accusation, I withdrew the accusation.

Fair enough. Of course, it’s very easy to claim that you’d do that… however, this is the thread you started. And since you trawled for the anti-Bush contingent in the very title of the thread, I can’t help but wonder if you really would’ve accused some Republican Dopers of the same sort of thing you’ve brought up here, or if you are merely saying this to appear oh-so-impartial.

I know – I could say the same thing about the previous paragraph: that it’s easy for someone to deny that his pass was based on her politics. I can’t help but wonder what would have been the reaction here if this issue arose in the ocntext of a photographer making babies cry and calling the pictures “Sore Loserman, Florida 2000” or something like that.

So I can’t help wonder, also. But since actual evidence is important when asserting a claim, I found the better course was to accept the claims made at face value.

Yes, I’m afraid you must. Many Dopers feel that Bush has done much worse than stealing candy from babies to make them cry, and in the relevant threads you’ve defended Bush on legal terms. What this photographer has done is completely legal- and yet you’ve got a problem with her behavior. You seem a bit… uneven in your stance.

Bush’s actions with respect to the wiretapping (which is the only issue I recall making a strong point about legality; if you’re thinking of another, please tell me) were not per se wrong. There’s nothing immoral about wiretapping if it’s permitted by statute. It’s what the law calls malum prohibitum: wrong only if a law prohibits it. So it’s very fair to inquire whether the behavior is legal: that’s the only objective standard by which to judge it.

I viewed deliberately making toddlers cry and scream as something inherently wrong: what the law might call malo in se, wrong in and of itself. Even if it’s not illegal, we don’t need a law to tell us that the conduct is just wrong. (Now, I acknowledge that others disagree about the conduct, and say it’s NOT wrong; I’m speaking of how I view it).

I wouldn’t even say that her behavior SHOULD be a crime – it’s wrong, and mean, but not the sort of wrongness or meanness that rises to the level of a crime.