DaveC:
JamesR, that's the way quotes work. As you have pointed out to me, if anyone wants to reread the entire discussion it's there for review. Quotes are to emphasize the point being addressed.
Sure, you can selectively respond to some points while ignoring others. I merely highlighted the fact that you chose to avoid addressing the question of whether, as a matter of public policy, there is any positive that might come out of widely publicising this kind of material - a point you continue to refuse to address. Why is it that you refuse to address this? It is reasonable to assume it is because you can't come up with anything, as I suggested previously. So, instead you dig in your heels and whine about how you don't have to answer such questions. That's your choice, and you make it freely, but don't think I don't see what you're doing and that I won't point it out to other readers of the thread.
I did answer it. I said it's none of your business.
I am a member of the public, as are you. What is good or bad as a matter of public interest is certainly my business. I have a vested interest as a member of a society. Your faux outrage that I dare to ask you the question is cover for the fact that you can't answer it.
Wishing to exercise one's right to view world events does not need to be defended.
This is a new right, in my experience. Whence comes this right to view world events in all their grisly detail? Please enlighten me.
JamesR don't follow Bella and Tiassa down this road. Gaslighting and well-poisoning is not conducive to good faith discussion.
I think you're coming on a bit strong there. I have nowhere implied that you're crazy or deluded. Nor have I questioned your motives or your character. I have merely stated a fact: you are unable or unwilling, in this thread, to point to any public good that would be served by widely publicising a killer's personal video of his crimes or his rambling attempts to excuse himself for his crimes.
Previously, I asked if you could do better. Here's another opportunity. Take it or leave it. Your choice.
And this is where you step over the line. This is a microcosmic example of the larger problem.
You, et al, are implicitly accusing others (eg. Bw/S) of watching it for the thrill of death.
I did not mention Beer w/ Straw. To be clear, I am not at all implying that she sought out this video because she wanted to get a thrill from watching innocent people being murdered. I don't know what her motives were. She can tell us if she wants to.
On the other hand, I am certainly saying that there are people out there who might seek out the video for precisely that reason. Moreover, there are others who might seek it out as validation of their own white-supremacist and/or terrorist motives, or for other socially harmful reasons.
But people searching for it deliberately is not explicitly what we're talking about here. We're discussing whether it should be widely publicised, such as on social media (Facebook, Twitter etc.) and on mainstream news services (network news sites, etc.)
You have no business questioning Bw/S's motives - going so far as to assign your own motives - such that she has to defend them.
Ooh. Bold type.
Point to any place in this thread where I have questioned Beer w/Straw's motives or assigned my own motives to her, if you can.
It might well be, if your false accusation applied to me. What will you do now, then?
That is not your call to make.
Once again, I see you chopped up my sentence to quote only one part of it. Again, you chopped it to avoid addressing an issue you want to continue to avoid. Here's the full sentence from which you extracted the last 7 words:
"If you can't come up with a reason why the general public needs to see graphic footage of a mass shooting, taken by the killer himself, then my suggestion is that the public doesn't need to see it."
As to your reply, it most certainly is my call to make, as a member of the public who is affected by the public policy issue we are discussing. You get your say too, of course, but you have no grounds on which to prevent me from voicing my suggestion. Shame on you!
Do not manipulate my stance the way Bells and Tiassa do.
Pointing out that you have refused to answer a question I put to you is not manipulating your stance. It is merely stating a fact.
You have not established why I must answer that question at all.
Your argument is of the form "since I, JamesR am of the opinion that it doesn't serve the public good, I am therefore of the opinion that nobody should get to see it unless they give me, JamesR a good reason."
No. I am not obliged to give you a good reason for watching something.
My argument is of the form "Since there are indicators to suggest that the wide dissemination of such material demonstrably does
not serve the public good - such as matters discussed by me in post #95 of this thread (above) - I am of the opinion that unless somebody can suggest something that might sway the public interest pendulum in the other direction, it is better that such material is not made widely available."
In other words, my opinion is certainly my opinion, but it is based on evidence. In contrast, your position - so far - is based on "I don't have to answer your impertinent questions! You can't make me! I have an absolute right to view whatever I want whenever I want, and to hell with the greater good!" I invite readers to compare and contrast.
When you focus so much on community, you risk the freedoms of individuals. And individual freedom is where it all starts. More to the point: it's where loss of freedom starts.
It's hardly a surprise to hear that from you. Clearly, our respective values and priorities differ in this regard. I am a believer in the social contract. When human beings come together to form societies, they agree to give up certain individual freedoms to benefit the good of the collective. You perhaps would call this a socialist idea and, being a certain type of American (obviously, not all Americans think alike), you perhaps equate that idea with evil Communists who want to take your guns away, or similar. It would be a very long discussion to get into this difference of opinion, and one that is off-topic for this thread. Here, I merely point to the fact that your behaviour is following a script that I pointed out in my previous post.
Loss of personal rights by appealing to some hypothetical public good is how erosion occurs.
Here, I have not appealed to any hypothetical good. I have pointed to an evidence-backed public good, as rationale for limiting the wide dissemination of the kind of material we are discussing. If you think it's hypothetical, I invite you to investigate for yourself and get back to me with your findings.
Eventually, the police state determines what's good for all. Go back and read "Animal Farm".
Animal Farm is about the corruption at the heart of Soviet Communism. My suggesting that perhaps you don't need to see a video of a mass shooting isn't quite the same as Stalin sending you to Siberia.
