Your attention, please. As a result of the above posts, the Department of Homeland Security has raised the Sanctimony Alert Level to Vermilion. This augments, but does not supersede earlier Yellow Alerts for liberals being cruel to babies and conservatives kicking puppies.
Santorum levels remain high, and the general public is advised to limit outdoor activities for the duration.
Thank you.
Just when you thought this thread couldn’t get dumber… :rolleyes: But I can play this game, too!
[PeeWee] I know YOU are, but what am I? [/PeeWee]
(looking at the Scientology thread for the first time in days)
No, I guess that one is still dumber.
What’s the big yank? Take something from a small child and snap his/her picture to capture the reaction. Does anyone think the child will be scarred for life? How different is this than the fabled story of Yousuf Karsh getting Churchill to glower at the camera by snatching away his cigar?
well obviously 'cause in the former case, it’s babies - who cannot be caused to be discomforted in any way unless absolutely necessary (for their personal health, well being for example or for nation building). won’t you please think of the children
And you’re minimizing the trauma to Churchill? Look what he became as a result!
I’m sorry, dropzone, but I don’t view the SDMB as place to serve as a definitive catalog of each thought or feeling I ever have. I don’t know why you believe that I harbor no concern for children that die every year from preventable causes, but I certainly do. I volunteer for an organization that is active in seeking to prevent child abuse and to shelter women and children on the run from abusive partners. I wouldn’t spend my time or my money on such a cause if the issue never crossed my mind.
But I don’t catalog my thoughts - or my efforts - here, either. It baffles me how you might conclude that I have no concern for such things.
I could get behind this as a caveat. I would further qualify it though because I believe Bricker had no intent to debate honestly with a significant subset of the expected respondents(those he calls the “usual suspects”). Honest distress at what was being done to children in the name of making a political point was almost certainly present, but I believe, and Bricker has admitted, a secondary goal of goading his political opponents. Shrink the “cares about the issue” factor a little bit and increase the “goading political opponents” factor a little bit and voila! you’ve turned Bricker into december.
Enjoy,
Steven
Can you refresh my recollection of just where I ‘admitted’ I was goading my political opponents?
Well, you were hoping that you were a member of a different species from me, but I wasn’t aware that Homo ridiculous was a different species.
But seriously, get a freaking grip. That was really, significantly dumb.
How many threads have been started in the Pit over the last several years about some stupid-ass thing Bush did, or somebody cutting you off on the fucking freeway, or your fucking puppy peed in the punchbowl or something?
How many of those threads were started while ten million children were dying, or whatever the hell you are going off about?
How many of those threads did you charge into screaming about how we need to be ashamed because it is so TRIVIAL, and CHILDREN ARE DYING, and blah blah?
And isn’t it a remarkable coincidence that the only fucking one that motivated you to pull this bullshit rant out of your ass was one where someone was Pitted for doing something stupid to rag on Bush?
All the rest of the stupid, lame rants - including the one I linked to earlier - all apparently fine with you, and you don’t froth yourself into a hemmorhage screaming about how you don’t respect them. But one fucking thread bashing an anti-Bush moron for making kids cry, and you get all bent out of shape.
Your outrage is a teeny bit too selective to be of much concern. Go post to every other Bush-bashing thread about how trivial it is, and then get back to me.
Regards,
Shodan
Enjoy,
Steven
Let me be the first to say that I would pinch a baby if it would meaningfully hurt the Bush Administration. Why? Because (a) pinching a baby is really not that big a deal (although a bigger deal than giving and then taking a lolly), and (b) because I honestly believe the Bush Administration is an absolute disaster for America.
Would I KILL a baby to stop the Iraq war, thereby saving many, many other babies’ lives? Well, who knows, and it’s a good thing we do not actually have a subculture of eccentric and all-powerful time-travelling billionaires who, for kicks, travel around and present people with high-school-ethics-class-style dilemmas like either of the above.
Anyhow, on the topic of the OP, I think Bricker is both right and wrong. He’s technically right in that there are almost certainly a few people who base their objection-to or acceptance-of the photographer’s technique based solely on the political nature (or lack thereof) of her work. But he’s wrong in that it’s just not a big deal.
Allow me to explain: The question of whether it’s OK to temporarily make a baby cry in order to take a photo of it is an interesting one. It’s a close issue. It’s not cut and dried. Reasonable poeple can disagree. Reasonable people DO disagree. Right here, in this very thread (at least, when they’re not being accused of being sociopaths). Therefore, there are going to be lots of honest and well meaning and reasonable people who, when asked the “is making a baby cry for x OK” question, will find themselves uncertain. The issue will be finely-balanced for them. Thus, it is quite plausible that, however well meaning they are, however much they might be attempting to analyze the issue purely objectively and not let politics come into it; they might well have their answer tipped one way or the other by the context of the photographs, the politics therein, etc. I mean, that’s how people’s brains work. Things influence things. No one, but NO ONE, is totally objective, and totally able to wall off the context of an issue. Everyone does it, at least sometimes. Some people do it a lot. Some people only do it a little. What’s your point?
What is certainly NOT true is Shodan’s repeated implication that there is a cabal of “usual suspects” making up some large (although he never specifies HOW large, nor does he usually name names) proportion of the liberal posters of the SDMB who will constantly and reflexively allow their politics to influence their ethical judgments about any issue large or small. And Bricker has usually been above that kind of well-poisoning implication, which is why I thought the OP was a shame, and why I was glad to see him withdraw his accusation.
I will repeat something I’ve said before… there are a FEW posters on the SDMB who are rabidly hilariously manically anti-Bush. And there are a LOT of posters on the SDMB who are anti-Bush. And I think the SDMBers who are pro-Bush, who (understandably) find it frustrating to be outnumbered and piled-on, tend to unintentionally conflate those two facts, and start act as if there are a LOT of posters who are rabidly hilariously manically anti-Bush.
Finally, on the topic of the 2004 election, I agree that someone who claims with absolute certainty that the election was stolen needs to cough up some proof or shut up. But there’s a big difference between saying “Bush stole the election! Bush stole the election!” and saying “I find a lot of things troubling, and would like to get some better answers about what precisely happened, and come up with solutions that will give us better oversight in the future”. Did someone deliberately apportion voting apparatus and funding in Ohio so that the districts with the longest wait times, and thus presumably the most people who showed up at the polls and then left due to the wait time, were the more pro-democratic districts? And if so, was that action technically illegal? Should it be? What if it happened purely accidentally, but could still be statistically demonstrated to have happened? Did it happen at all? I don’t have answers to those questions, but I sure as hell know that the right response to them is NOT “do you have 100% ironclad proof that Karl Rove stole the election? no? then SHUT UP”.
Since you haven’t heard heard of it, it doesn’t exist. You are a complete idiot! :rolleyes:
My species at least has a brain-- yours hasn’t shown an evidence of one yet.
Of course it’s true, as witnessed by this thread and your own post.
And I don’t have to name names. They usually show up to prove my point without much delay.
Regards,
Shodan
Perhaps this will refresh your memory.
But no (well, not much) dark sarcasm in the Pit threads; people are usually more, erm, direct with their feelings in this forum.
Okay, I’ll limit the time period to the last six years and the evidence to your posts on this board. (recalling) Nope, you’re happier to take shots at people you think are being partisan than at any real injustices.
Me, I have an excuse for not having a lot of posts tilting at the evils of the world because because I am a confessed idiot and there are so many people here better spoken than I that my posts would be of the “me too!” variety, which are even beneath my admittedly low standards, but John, you’re the smart one of your crew and I hope you can grow beyond partisan me-tooing.
Say, aren’t you the same Shodan who made some absurd claims in posts 301 and 316 in this thread, then never bothered responding to various posters’ rebuttals?
Maybe you should clean up after yourself before making new messes on the living room floor.
Jesus Haploid Christ, Shodan! I just got my new irony meter delivered this morning- why’d you have to go and break this one, too?
Using your irony meter near the Internet voids the warranty. I keep tellin ya and tellin ya…
Daniel
