Then stop reading them. In fact, I order you to henceforth stay away from my threads. That will solve your problem nicely. You’re not allowed to read any more of my threads, OK?
Bye, then!
I should say wrt to the comparisons with that december thread that I think there’s a big, glaring difference. Bricker, when writing this OP, honestly believed that people who would otherwise condemn the photographer would give her a pass because of the anti-Bush subject matter, and was unhappy about that. So, while the OP was lazy, pitted people for things they hadn’t done yet (and didn’t actually end up doing), and Bricker danced about a lot before abandoning the more offensive of the OP’s insinuations, the OP was essentially honest. If december ever posted an honest OP with political content, I missed it.
And now Bricker is being unfairly
Attacked, and not treated squarely
But for making kids cry
And Bush-bashing thereby
This chick is lambasted (but barely).
Presumption’s presumptuous, Bricker.
Alas – your political kicker
Took an issue debateable,
Morphed it to hatable
Groundless ad hominem (snicker).
An eight page thread that
Should have been one or two max.
We all shed a tear.
To Pit or not to Pit:
That was the question
Whether 'twas nobler in Rick’s mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of presumptive Bush-bash
Or by supposing end them?
please stop. all of you. thanks, ever so/
No caps, free verse, and an abrupt ending. A tribute to ee cummings?
sure.
as long as it stops.
Now, here’s where I disagree with you, Bricker. You are accepting your opponents’ mischaracterization of your OP.
You shouldn’t admit this. Because you do have such evidence. It’s circumstantial, I agree. Further, one must draw inferences to reach this conclusion. And mabe the evidence is not sufficient to prove your conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt. But I believe you do have the evidence to support your conclusion, at least by a preponderance of the evidence.[sup]1[/sup]
In a minute, I’ll lay out the logic behind what I say. (Please bear with me. This willl take a while, and I’m well aware that I’ll lose Guin[sup]2[/sup], Red, Elucidator, and Gigo (as well as Jinx if he wanders by). Oh well. I’ll just have to live with that.[sup]3[/sup] But there are a lot of smart people here. So for Bricker, LeftHand[sup]4[/sup] and the rest of the majority, here goes:)
-
I did not read your (Bricker’s) OP as claiming that the only possible reason that people would say that making babies cry is okay is anti-Bush fervor.
-
Instead, I read your OP as saying that the reason (or alternatively, a reason) that posters would support making babies cry in this instance is their strong anti-Bush beliefs.
In other words, I suggest that you believe that all of the posters who would support photographer baby mistreatment (“PBM”) because PBM facilitates the creation of a lame, trite and stupid series of anti-Bush photos would also support PBM if it cured world hunger, eliminated the nation debt, established a system of free health care, or ended the war in Iraq. I further suggest that you had this belief when you originally posted. (I bet even you would support PBM for these reasons.[sup]5[/sup])
Or said yet another way, I suggest that you and everyone here who is not a sociopath would agree that there are some things that are so important and socially useful, that short-term and minor PBM is worthwhile.
So you never believed, nor did you say, that the only reason that people here would be okay with PBM was if it resulted in scoring anti-Bush points.
- On the other hand, only a sociopath (one who was also an idiot)[sup]6[/sup] would torment a child for no reason, or a trivial reason. I suspect that you would agree with this, as well.
(Most people might agree that a $20 million film is enough of a reason. Some might even say that creating a series of meaningful, artistic photos is enough. I suspect few would claim that Mom’s backyard snapshots qualify. So reasonable minds might differ. Good reason, okay. Stupid or no reason, not okay.)
-
So for everyone but Blanche, we have to believe that there’s some significant, pretty important good that will be achieved before we’re okay with PBM.
-
You assumed, probably correctly, that no significant number of people would be okay with PBM if all that resulted was a trite, lame and stupid set of photos that attempted to make no point at all. Who would? See points ## 3-4.
-
But these photos attempted to make an anti-Bush point. A stupid point, but the attempt was being made.
-
You believed that the unthinking anti-Bush mania that’s so prevalent here would blind the True Believers from seeing that (poorly) making a political point was not a sufficient reason for PBM and that, accordingly, people would support PBM in this case.
-
These photos were trite, lame and stupid, and failed to make any meaningful political point.
-
Yet, people here supported the photographer’s actions.
-
Indeed, people reacted with outrage to your suggestion that the photographer did anything worthy of condemnation. Pages and pages of outrage. Not only didn’t people agree with you, they didn’t just say “meh” and move on. They didn’t have a passing thought that “this Bricker seems be a bit more concerned about mild PBM than the situation warrants” and pass to the next post. No. A sizeable group went batshit insane and commenced to burn the heretic.
-
In general, people don’t wish to admit, either to themselves or the outside world, that they are fanatics who form beliefs for irrational reasons. Instead, they fashion logical-sounding reasons for their irrational behavior. So even if people claim that they are okay with what the photographer did for independant reasons, that doesn’t necessarily mean that this actually the case.
-
I believe that the conclusion that best fits thes facts is that people gave the photographer “a pass” because the subject was anti-Bush, even though they claim (or even believe) that their support/acceptance of the photographs derives from Bush-neutral reasons.
[sup]0[/sup] Please. Just stop with the personal attacks just because someone doesn’t follow your anti-Bush religion. I don’t support him either, nor did I vote for him last time. I think he’s a bad President. But, somehow, that doesn’t blind me to logic. Somehow, I don’t get this knee-jerk reaction that everyone who disagrees is a evil heretic, that must be loudly attacked, insulted and driven away.
[sup]1[/sup] Maybe our apparent different approach in evaluating the strength of the evidence derives from a differerence in our respective professional backgrounds.
[sup]2[/sup] Oddly enough, I believe that the time that you and I disagreed most strongly on the SDMB, I was backing a comment made by Guin. Hell, I don’t understand it either. Maybe her smarter twin was visiting that day. See here: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=279949&page=11&pp=50&highlight=Bricker (posts 546-608)
[sup]3[/sup] I urge you to just ignore the morons. Who’s got the time to respond individually to each bit of nonsense? Yeah, that runs the risk of making them think they’re correct. That I don’t care about, and nor should you. Call it your good deed for the week – you made an idiot feel good. More of a problem is the possibility that a third party might believe the nonsense. So how about my suggestion in this thread? (response 105) http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=6196889&highlight=Bricker#post6196889
[sup]4[/sup] This note also responds to LeftHandofDorkness’s comment on my prior post.
[sup]5[/sup] Okay, maybe not the free healthcare part.
[sup]6[/sup]Such people exist ( see Blanche’s response in this thread (# 300)), but I trust that they are the exception.
Like David Foster Wallace, except for not being funny.
Two of your points led to a contradiction, Random.
If point 8 is accepted as true, then any acceptance of what the artist did cannot be because of it’s anti-Bush nature; because they failed to make any meaningful political point.
If the pictures were successful in making their point, or showed cleverness in their design, then you might be able to say a lack of opposition was down to anti-Bush sentiments by posters here. But since that meaningful point wasn’t made - and the medium was stupid - it’s really quite unlikely that a lack of condemnation means anti-Bush sentiment.
For each reference above to LeftHandofDorkness, add a reference to Mtgman, as well.
Thanks for the effort in reading my long post. But I don’t understand what you are driving at here. Can you rephrase?
Shit. Inadvertent smilie in my long post. I hate when I do that.
I’m logging off. Time to drive home.
I thought I might have to rephrase that; I looked at it again and thought it seemed pretty badly put. Apologies.
Ok, I’ll use an analogy. Let’s assume a situation in which an artist makes a good point.
Artist: “I have made this art - it makes <good point> about hot dogs being a nasty food. I had to injure some actual dogs to make my point, though.”
Posters: “Meh. I’m not bothered by that. She did no wrong, in my book.”
Other Posters: “Aha! You’re just saying that because you’re vegetarian! If it had been a good point for them being a tasty food, you wouldn’t complain!”
Posters: “No, it isn’t. We just don’t think hurting dogs slightly is that bad.”
In this situation, the Other Posters might have a point. Obviously the actual posts will have to be looked at, but if indeed the Posters are vegetarian it seems reasonable that they’re correct in pointing out a bias.
However, consider at the same situation with a bad point ( I won’t post the whole thing again, just replace “good point” with “bad point”. What’s changed? Well, because the Artist has made a bad (or no) point, the Posters don’t have the same motivation to agree with it. If the Artist says hot dogs are a bad food because they’re tubes in shape, why would the vegetarian Posters have the motivation to support it? It’s a poor argument, and it doesn’t represent them or (if associated with them) put them in a good light. If anything, the Posters would be motivated to actually condemn the Artist for portraying them and their arguments badly.
Certainly there’s a possibility that posters in general may support an obviously wrong argument because of the nature of the political statement; nice as it is to think we’re above that, most (if not all) of us really aren’t. 
But supporting a totally foolish or poor argument so strongly is usually only the act of the rabid extreme nutjobs, of which (despite accusations to the contrary) there aren’t all that many of.
3a) Making a toddler cry for a few moments by briefly depriving him/her of candy isn’t “tormenting” and in fact IS NO BIG DEAL.
Given that, your entire arguments fails utterly. Try again, and next time try not to imply that I’m a sociopath. I don’t much appreciate it.
…and we’re right back where we started. I realise it will take quite some time, but maybe you should read the thread before commenting next time.
Nobody has done this. People have failed to achieve outrage. People have suggested that eliciting tears from a baby is not a big deal. Nobody has said, “I support the artist in her efforts to make babies cry.”
There are a number of research paradigms that result in mild distress to babies and toddlers. The purpose of these efforts is to better understand normal development, early indicators of fear, attachment, and so on. I think the purpose of these activities is worth the cost of causing mild distress for a baby.
I don’t think it’s worth some dubious art, with or without the political motivation.
Your logic is suspect and flawed, no matter how many numbered steps you include.
No, I’m accepting that the evidence that exists to draw the conclusions I have drawn is weaker than it needs to be in this forum.
Now, don’t get me wrong - I know that plenty of folks here trot out stronger accusations on weaker evidence. But I’m trying not to be one of that crowd. If I can point at the people that cavil about the Ohio election being stolen, and demand their evidence, I have to take a similar stance when I’m the one suggesting a conclusion.
I cannot tell you how much I appreciate your calm summary and argument.