Let me guess.
You'll respond to DaveC, but not me.
Correct?
You'll respond to DaveC, but not me.
Correct?
Christchurch video...
- Thread starter Beer w/Straw
- Start date
RainbowSingularity
Valued Senior Member
so it is not illegal to publish underage porn in all western countries ?
is that because the legal adults declare they feel victimized by having to view it ?
or ...
because there is a breach of rights of the underage person being recorded and published ?
?
at risk of spinning off topic
there is a clear difference between moral equity and moral equivalence.
moral equity is the act of attempting to define 2 things to be morally equal.
moral equivalence is the assigned conceptualized(opinionated statement of perceived fact) fact of 2 things being of the same morality.
your moral position asserts that the chief censor has no legal authority and that there is no law of censorship to media.
thus by declaring that all censorship of all things is immoral that you choose to ignore its legality.
censorship also covers proprietary rights to content including and not limited to
copywrite's
patents
personal and business, private and public.
Last edited:
So, do you know you're wanting to change the narrative here, or you're not being dishonest but actually that stupid?
And just for the sake of being off topic. I don't live in the U.S. (or the state of Oregon if that matters) but I'm pretty sure this is highly illegal in other countries. Also, keep in mind the guy is filming.
C'mon you piece of shit.
You've talked enough smack that I deserve to get pissed off.
You've talked enough smack that I deserve to get pissed off.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
This thread is not about porn; it is about a mass shooting.
Please stay on topic. You are making a mess of the thread.
RainbowSingularity
Valued Senior Member
you are wrong dave
this thread is about people asserting their opinion to remove the rights of homicide victims by seeking to to access unlicensed legally banned objectionable copywrite breached videos of illegal acts without the approval or license of the people in the video
i suggest that if you cant find some common ground of common law then you may wish to do some study.
no different to stealing a companys secret patent designs and saying you have a right to them.
the act to seek the footage is the act of intentional theft.
people intended to seek out illegal content.
your plea to elitist privilege to profit by inserting moral equity for media is your own strawman.
if people had of said to others
"there is a video of underage sex" ..."here come and watch it" ... or "have you seen the video of underage sex?"
just because people attune to the empathic more common normalcy of greed via not wanting to have their personal sex life made fun of by it being published and critiqued, does not invalidate the moral compass by the intention to know what is illegal and what is not.
you are soo outside your intellectual & moral depth you have lost your sense of control & now scrambling to try and appeal to an audience.
your moral reasoning is that if you walked away and accidentally left your life savings sitting on a table, it would be perfectly morally acceptable for me to take it and keep it and never give it to you.
your moral assertion is that no theft took place because you left it on the table.
morally i am extremely different to you.
along with a few other people posting in this thread.
i propose and seek to enable protection of fellow citizens rights & the rights of victims
you do not
and there i shall stop the interaction with you.
Hold on there. Just about everything you said as wrong.
It is not removing anyone's rights. That material does not have to be "licensed." It is not illegal to show it. It has not been banned in the US, UK or Australia. It is not a copyright violation, since the creator wanted it seen. It is not like patent infringement. It has nothing to do with elitism.
I agree that we should not show it or share it. But that will happen because moral people will do so VOLUNTARILY - not because it is illegal to do so.
RainbowSingularity
Valued Senior Member
you are wrong
you are trying to assert that morality has only any value post the litigious nature of law.
when in reality morality precedes law and overs sees it as a will of legal purpose.
what you are now saying is that as long as the person filming the underage sex is happy and agreeable, there is no crime in seeking to view the content, and there is no victimization or breach of rights of the underage people in the video.
copywrite laws & patent laws as vehicles of commercial law are expressly focused on this premise of concept of victimization/ownership of the right being the primary content of the act.
just like me walking in to a business and filming it without permission and then publishing it.
just because i choose to, does not make the video content or the act legal.
it does not waive the rights of people inside the business to not be filmed or have their images published or to be murdered and videoed while being murdered or while having sex
without consent...
you are quite wrong !
you seem to be attempting to bury the morality of consent
morally you and i differ(slightly) in a manner that most people are incapable of comprehending.
i am pro the age of consent
i am pro legal age for consent for contract law
i am pro licensing laws
i am pro censorship of types of material
i am pro independent state of rights
i am pro copywrite laws
i am pro privacy laws
you are clearly arguing that there should be no rights for the victims
you are clearly arguing for the rights of the bully to incur the damage and have a right to do so
then asserting the victims have no rights of pre-determination of the law in express terms.
true libertarianism vs true conservatism
rather than the American bastard of moral genocide
i am more the conservatist in that land, property, privacy should have rights attached to them as a value to the individual.
though lean toward defining that more on the side of the human than the corporate socialism Vs fascism
i am more the socialist than the fascist unlike normalized laymens default american culture perceptions.
notice no one has jumped in to argue against the legality of informed consent while the very notion of "informed consent" is a pre determined right enacted by the state on behalf of the citizen.
note about common human nature
most people assign moral ambiguity as a point of indecision to allow themselves room to extort personal gain.
or as a point to morally absolve themselves of past behaviors.
start reading on "revenge" as a moral normalcy of group expectations.
however, not for the faint of heart.
since there is no one offering any actual argument to why the rights of the victims should be abandoned i will leave it there for now.
Last edited:
Or, is anyone wanting to equate what rabbit has to a logical argument
Do you have me on ignore cause you didn't address me, or you just chose not to?
:EDIT:
You don't even know what the fuck you're talking about.
Why don't you just shut up.
I'm waiting.
Let's see moron.
Do you have me on ignore cause you didn't address me, or you just chose not to?
:EDIT:
You don't even know what the fuck you're talking about.
Why don't you just shut up.
I'm waiting.
Last edited:
You can respond to me and you'll be granted a special response.
But you're too scared.
:EDIT:
I don't give a fuck what you say to others, you offended me.
Are you a coward?
But you're too scared.
:EDIT:
I don't give a fuck what you say to others, you offended me.
Are you a coward?
Last edited:
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Good. Then address that, not the straw man you've created.
Nope. Not saying that. Re-read my post.
Didn't say any of that. You are nuts.
Bells
Staff member
Having read through his posts in this thread, I fail to see how you could come up with that conclusion.
That footage, while prohibited in New Zealand, for obvious reasons (to the one, they do not wish to give the shooter more notoriety and to the other, there is a trial incoming, allowing that video to flood the jury pool would not be a good idea), has been pulled from various online sources, not just to protect the victims, but because we see enough violence and hatred.. Do we really want to see it that up close? Is this how we want future mass shootings to go? Live streamed and giving viewers a front row seat?
New Zealand is coping with this as best they could. The video itself is not banned elsewhere. Sources have merely pulled it down.
Pointing out the reality of this is not showing support for damaging victims, nor is it arguing against the rights of the victims.
Your comparing it to child pornography and arguing from that standpoint.. You are literally creating a strawman. Please stop.
DaveC:
There's a difference between restricting the availability of something like this and completely censoring it. The question is not: "should we allow nobody to view the killer's video of his heinous crime?" but rather something more like "Should we do publicity for the killer by encouraging the wide dissemination of the killer's video, for example through mainstream news channels?"
Secondly, media outlets ought to have a moral (and probably legal) duty regarding the material they choose to disseminate. They must balance public goods that are often in competition, such as the public interest in being informed about current events vs the potential harms that might foreseeably arise from widely publicising particular events.
When it comes to a decision as to whether to distribute a killer's home-made video of mass murder (in accordance with his intent in making the video in the first place), the media ought to consider who is receiving the message and what effects that message might have on them. Shall we start a list? Let's see. The killer is aware that his video, his image and his name (often along with a detailed biography and speculation about his motives etc.) is going out to the world, giving him precisely the notoriety he wants as part of his crime. Families and friends and relatives of the victims of the crime are also aware of the publicity and attention given to the killer and his ravings, and risk being further traumatised. Then we turn to the general public. Some vulnerable people will be traumatised just by the brutal and graphic nature of the material itself. Other people may become desensitised to this kind of violence and view it like a video game or a fantasy film. Worst of all, some people might be motivated to commit copy-cat crimes, if for no other reason than to gain similar notoriety to the killer.
When it comes to the question of distributing and publicising the killer's "manifesto", again the question arises as to the value of doing the killer's propagandising for him. Do we really need more wide publicity for extremist white supremacist rhetoric, such as is used as an excuse for mass murder?
The point is: there's a reckoning to be done in balancing competing public interests here. To simply parade up and down shouting "freedom of speech!", as if that is the most important issue in play, is to turn a blind eye to all the other stuff that comes with the free speech being advocated.
The lines have also blurred between the professional media and social media, to the extent where a lot of people seem to consider anything that appears in their Facebook feed as legitimate news.
Another problem is purposeful bias in how certain news organisations choose to report (or not) "the news", but that is another whole can of worms.
I don't think so. Which freedoms are you worried about losing, in particular? And is it not possible that in losing one kind of "freedom" we might gain freedom of a different kind? See below.
A few points here. First, notice how you talking about the lunatic not getting "more attention than necessary". So, the obvious first question is: just how much attention is your average lunatic mass killer entitled to? What do you mean by "necessary"? What do you think is "necessary" in the publicisation of mass killers? And, more importantly, why is that necessary? Perhaps you can tell me why you think it is necessary for you to see the killer's live-streamed video of his crime. Perhaps you can tell me why is it necessary for you to read his manifesto. Just how "necessary" is it for you - as a member of the general public - to have access to those things?
There's a difference between restricting the availability of something like this and completely censoring it. The question is not: "should we allow nobody to view the killer's video of his heinous crime?" but rather something more like "Should we do publicity for the killer by encouraging the wide dissemination of the killer's video, for example through mainstream news channels?"
Secondly, media outlets ought to have a moral (and probably legal) duty regarding the material they choose to disseminate. They must balance public goods that are often in competition, such as the public interest in being informed about current events vs the potential harms that might foreseeably arise from widely publicising particular events.
When it comes to a decision as to whether to distribute a killer's home-made video of mass murder (in accordance with his intent in making the video in the first place), the media ought to consider who is receiving the message and what effects that message might have on them. Shall we start a list? Let's see. The killer is aware that his video, his image and his name (often along with a detailed biography and speculation about his motives etc.) is going out to the world, giving him precisely the notoriety he wants as part of his crime. Families and friends and relatives of the victims of the crime are also aware of the publicity and attention given to the killer and his ravings, and risk being further traumatised. Then we turn to the general public. Some vulnerable people will be traumatised just by the brutal and graphic nature of the material itself. Other people may become desensitised to this kind of violence and view it like a video game or a fantasy film. Worst of all, some people might be motivated to commit copy-cat crimes, if for no other reason than to gain similar notoriety to the killer.
When it comes to the question of distributing and publicising the killer's "manifesto", again the question arises as to the value of doing the killer's propagandising for him. Do we really need more wide publicity for extremist white supremacist rhetoric, such as is used as an excuse for mass murder?
The point is: there's a reckoning to be done in balancing competing public interests here. To simply parade up and down shouting "freedom of speech!", as if that is the most important issue in play, is to turn a blind eye to all the other stuff that comes with the free speech being advocated.
The media has always curated the news. If anything, the pendulum has swung away from careful curation, not towards censorship. These days the "publish first or perish" attitude is more common than it used to be. "News" goes out that hasn't been properly fact-checked for accuracy. Opinion more and more is regarded as "news". "Fake news" is picked up and republished more often than it used to be, and there's more of it being generated as well. Some media outlets have tossed out a lot of journalistic ethics (if they had it in the first place) and prioritised click bait to generate income instead (never mind about getting it right or the "news" having any real value to the public).
The lines have also blurred between the professional media and social media, to the extent where a lot of people seem to consider anything that appears in their Facebook feed as legitimate news.
Another problem is purposeful bias in how certain news organisations choose to report (or not) "the news", but that is another whole can of worms.
Just an image. (The second from the top is not a link to the full video as was explained in the link itself) I have not seen the others and even though it is eclipsed by seeds the uploader (roflcopter) is, I believe, dissenting misinformation. In a nut shell, not having access to information is willfully succumbing to propaganda.
[image deleted by moderator, as it shows an illegal downloads site]
[image deleted by moderator, as it shows an illegal downloads site]
Last edited by a moderator:
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
We assume that. It sounds good. Is it true?
Is censoring the news actually a deterrent to mass shooters?
I doubt it.
RainbowSingularity
Valued Senior Member
RainbowSingularity
Valued Senior Member
excellent point
please show me the moral strawman
you have not shown the moral strawman that you claim that i am making.
please show me the different morality that defines the different moral equity between
knowingly choosing to access underage porn
you say this is known by everyone that is not ok
knowingly choosing to access terrorist mass murder propaganda movies
this you say is morally ok
show me the moral strawman that you and dave claim i i making please.
personally i think both you and dave are incapable of discussing this level of intellectual psychology.
but i do hope i am wrong.
i hope you or dave can prove me wrong.
you need to define your moral incongruity between
one being morally ok
and the other
being morally NOT ok
please explain
Last edited:
RainbowSingularity
Valued Senior Member
moral debate...