Christchurch video...

[DaveC426913]

please show me the moral strawman
you have not shown the moral strawman that you claim that i am making.

Oh come on, RS. It has been brought to your attention multiple times. You are feigning obtuseness.

This thread is about the Christchurch shooting, not about porn.
If they were equivalent, you would not need to invoke the porn straw man to make your point.

 

[RainbowSingularity]

Oh come on, RS. It has been brought to your attention multiple times. You are feigning obtuseness.

This thread is about the Christchurch shooting, not about porn.
If they were equivalent, you would not need to invoke the porn straw man to make your point.

the "porn" is the legal moral definition of "informed consent" as a moral equity vehicle for cultural practice and common law.

common social moral myths as opposed to common moral social practice are completely different(as i am sure you know).
however, putting things down to a legal frame work when asserting the previous posters declaration to demand rights when those rights have no moral equity in the face of implied lack of morality...
seems all too much like an argument by angry ignorant 8 year old children.

the thread header is a moral debate concept
the question demand of the poster was thier demand for rights to be above the rights of the shooting victims

no one has posted any debate to support the rights of the video viewers and seekers above those of the shooting victims.

instead they have danced around trying to use dog-whistle moral calls to appeal to try and avoid discussing their moral examples.
which .. is the entire premise of the law and the thread starter.
all be it in free thoughts.

rights to not be censored
rights to censor
rights to not be murdered
etc etc...

per-programed crowd reaction appreciation dog-whistle moral label shouting...

how do you define your own moral judgement if you cant argue for it ?
how do you justify laws for society when you cant argue the morality of them ?

 

[Beer w/Straw]

r u questioning my morality?

 

[DaveC426913]

the "porn" is the legal moral definition of "informed consent" as a moral equity vehicle for cultural practice and common law.

So, straw man dismantled, make an argument about the video. Finally, after six pages.

 

[RainbowSingularity]

So, straw man dismantled, make an argument about the video. Finally, after six pages.

extremist propoganda talk ?

make an argument about the video

?

where have you debated morals ?

subtle attempt at appeals to an audience to twist the subject ?

is the thread header about morality ?

Beheadings and cornflakes?

rights to not be censored
rights to censor
rights to not be murdered
etc etc...

rights ?
whos rights ?
the victims rights ?

which victims rights are you saying are invalid ?

what morals of invalidating victims rights are you using ?

your emotional reactive appeals to audience do not go unnoticed.
i find it annoying, regardless of me knowing this is you telling me that you are lost for ways to express your feelings & have come to the end of where you have considered morality and intellectual philosophy.

instead you make appeals to an audience(the same as others have) while gesturing at dogwhistle conformity to moral concepts

then you abandon morality for the victims of the mass shootings.
the same as others have whom have posted in this thread.

surely it doesn't seem like much to ask considering their ability to simply define their moral example.

where is it ?

 

[DaveC426913]

extremist propoganda talk ?

What are you smoking?

subtle attempt at appeals to an audience to twist the subject ?

That's right, RS.
I'm "twisting the subject" back to the thread topic.
I'm "appealing to the audience" of people trying to discuss the thread topic.

You've trolled this thread into the dirt. Well done.

 

[RainbowSingularity]

I'm "appealing to the audience" of people trying to discuss the thread topic.

Beheadings and cornflakes?

which is not about morality ?

more subject twisting ?

who is trolling ?

 

[James R]

We assume that. It sounds good. Is it true?

Tell me why you think that the guy decided to live-stream his crime to the world.
Tell me why you think he decided to distribute a "manifesto" widely just before he committed his crime - a manifesto in which he attempts both to make excuses for his actions and also to spread white supremacist propaganda.

Is censoring the news actually a deterrent to mass shooters?

You're asking the wrong question. You should be asking: does heaping attention on mass shooters, their names, their personalities, their self-glorification, and their attempts at self-justification and self-publicity encourage other would-be mass shooters?

What do you think?

I draw your attention, for example, to the references in this shooter's manifesto to numerous "heroes" of his - i.e. previous widely-publicised mass shooters. What if the guy had never heard of those people or if he had never been exposed to their "manifestos"? Do you think that could have made a difference, perhaps?

---

More generally, I find it interesting that this is your only response to what I wrote to you above. Don't you have any answers to the questions I put to you there?

 

[DaveC426913]

Tell me why you think that the guy decided to live-stream his crime to the world.
Tell me why you think he decided to distribute a "manifesto" widely just before he committed his crime - a manifesto in which he attempts both to make excuses for his actions and also to spread white supremacist propaganda.

The fact that he expects to gain publicity does not mean that stopping publication will actually act as a deterrent!
It doesn't matter any more what happens to this guy regarding publicity, what matters is whether we are effective in deterring the next guy.

Is it an effective strategy? That's the question on the table here.

You're asking the wrong question. You should be asking: does heaping attention on mass shooters, their names, their personalities, their self-glorification, and their attempts at self-justification and self-publicity encourage other would-be mass shooters?

Either way, there's no point in taking an action unless it's effective.
Is it effective?

What you're promoting is rain dancing. To-wit: "It didn't rain this month. I'd better do the rain dance - because it's perfectly logical that rain dancing brings rain."

This is unlike you to support a knee-jerk reaction without the facts.

 

[spidergoat]

not watching it is in a sense willfully turning a blind eye to racism. Ignoring the political realities of the world we live in.

Total nonsense. Since the video was intended as white supremacist propaganda, watching it is the opposite of opposing racism. I can read the news to know what happened. And I can oppose racism without personal immersion in bigotry. I will leave that odious task to journalists.

 

[sweetpea]

moral debate...

LOL
If you notice the parts of Beer's post I chose to quote in my post #2:

Wake up that day, still groggy, having a coffee and look at news on the internet.... ....A pet peeve I have is people trying to limit my access to information.Hence, I find it, download it and watch it

My quip was about Beer's stomach at that time in the morning, watching someone being shot in the head whilst eating breakfast.

Beheadings and cornflakes?

Nothing in the context of morals there. So, you have quoted me out of context in your other posts.

You wouldn't happen to be a sock of Tiassa would you?
You have something in common, you both seem to take things off topic with wordy prattle.
Do you have to stop yourself adding footnotes to your posts?

 

[Beer w/Straw]

Total nonsense. Since the video was intended as white supremacist propaganda, watching it is the opposite of opposing racism. I can read the news to know what happened. And I can oppose racism without personal immersion in bigotry. I will leave that odious task to journalists.

Let's see.

The total point of psychoanalysis is to dare repressed memories into consciousness. And here-by you willfully admit to wanting to be neurotic? It's out there and you chose to be ignorant.

 

[spidergoat]

Let's see.

The total point of psychoanalysis is to dare repressed memories into consciousness. And here-by you willfully admit to wanting to be neurotic? It's out there and you chose to be ignorant.

So either I indulge in murder trolling as a willing participant or I'm ignorant? What the fuck is wrong with you? The scandal is that social networks failed to protect us from Nazi predators and their media, and continue to make money from these scum.

 

[Beer w/Straw]

What the fuck is wrong with you?

No, you're willfully ignorant.

That's WTF is wrong with you.

 

[DaveC426913]

Oh come on people. It's a free society. You can't mandate what people are allowed to see.
Nobody's making anybody watch anything.

It's one thing to say you feel strongly about this stuff not being published widely, but you have no business slagging members here for exercising their own rights.

Dial it back.

 

[spidergoat]

No, you're willfully ignorant.

That's WTF is wrong with you.

Murder porn is not informative, except maybe to law enforcement. I'm as anti-Nazi as anyone could hope to wish.

You can't mandate what people are allowed to see.

You most certainly can prevent people from seeing some things, although tech companies failed at that. There should be fines.

 

[Beer w/Straw]

Murder porn

Are you insinuating something?

You most certainly can prevent people from seeing some things, although tech companies failed at that. There should be fines.

My image got deleted. But you're willfully ignorant anyway.

 

[spidergoat]

The recording and dissemination of the video is an act of terrorism. I can't oppose terrorism without promoting terrorism? I can't oppose the murder of Muslims until I know exactly what they said in their last moments, begging for their lives perhaps, and watching how their blood flows across the floor?

I'm willfully ignorant of the exact visual representation of the video, since I'm not a morbid racist fuck, but that has nothing to do with being ignorant of the issues.

 

[Beer w/Straw]

The recording and dissemination of the video is an act of terrorism. I can't oppose terrorism without promoting terrorism? I can't oppose the murder of Muslims until I know exactly what they said in their last moments, begging for their lives perhaps, and watching how their blood flows across the floor?

I'm willfully ignorant of the exact visual representation of the video, since I'm not a morbid racist fuck, but that has nothing to do with being ignorant of the issues.

Many innuendos here.

Are you just an old geezer who is decidedly stupid cause the world is too much for you?

 

[Bells]

Either way, there's no point in taking an action unless it's effective.
Is it effective?

Yes. It is.

The Christchurch terrorist did everything he could to make his mass killing spree as public as possible. By posting he was going to do, by sending his manifesto to various people, be they politicians and media outlets. He live streamed his terror.

He was not doing it to not become famous.

You ask, however, whether New Zealand's actions are effective?

Research shows that yes, it is effective. Denying these killers fame and recognition, is actually quite effective as a deterrent.

https://www.livescience.com/60595-stop-naming-mass-shooters-say-scientists.html

https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/20...-shooting-media-coverage-perpetrator-parkland

Let me put it to you this way. When ISIS beheaded Westerners and beamed it online. Western media refrained from showing it. They may show the start of it, but they would cut out the part where the beheading actually occurs.

Notice that no one demands the media show this footage?

Partly because we do not want to give ISIS more notoriety. But also because we recognise that we would be witnessing the horrific death of a person. A fellow human being.

Just as we have never demanded or suggested that the media restricting access to videos of other mass shootings was a form of censorship. Or when police cease footage of such horrific crimes, captured on security cameras or even people's phones.

So I find it curious, that people object to the New Zealand government's actions at present. They are literally doing what scientists have recommended - ie - do not elevate the killer's public profile.