When debate descends to the level of posting gore

Here's my link to gore (warning: images may be disturbing).

I look on it the same way as the photos of the holocaust. I saw just enough to place that image in my mind as a very young person. I got the message and I never looked again. What purpose to wallow in it? Same with the current crap. I knew since I was a kid what photos of gore are like; no need to look at more.

It really does disturb more sensitive people.

But it begs a question: If one did it, can't another? Is one "wronger" than the other?

Just asking.

I can see documenting such things, but storing them the way one does evidence is a far cry from having them shown to people this way.

It's not about sensitivity for me, and neither is it about being 'wrong'. It's a stupid level of debate that some here have taken to.

Stupid vs. stupider. Not much of a competition.

It does nothing to settle in anybody's mind who's right or wrong, that's certain.

Craven, I agree it is a poor debating strategy, for reasons you brought up on another thread. However, I do not disapprove of it entirely. I find it very educational, and actually useful on the those gorudns. I don't find it offensive, but I agree it has no value in debate.

Well, I'm posting more gore:

And, just to be fare, some bush to go along with all the gore:

joefromchicago -- thanks for a laugh in this contentious atmosphere.

Anything can be described as "educational". Even a vapid emotional appeal.

But what exactly did you learn? For example, if I were to post a series of imagery of Saddam's atrocities would you "learn" anything?

I think the people who say it's "important" and "educational" and such say so because of their predisposition to agreement with the underlying implication.

Some here have voiced agreement while in the past having decried such imagery when it's from a diametrically opposed position.

The imagery is just a cheap emotional thrill. If you think it's educational you had to have either been ignorant of such occurances or you are validating your emotional thrill as education (which, as I said earlier is fine. Anything can be called educational, thusly making it either misused or meaningless).

It is the emotion which I find valuable. Whether it be pity, or anger, or anything else.
To approach it from a different angle, when I hear that someone dies it doesn't mean anything to me. I realize it's bad, but I don't think about the extent. When I hear that a thousand people die, it doesn't mean anything to me, it's just a statistic. But if yu picked any one of those people, and told me about their life, and how their daddy called that person his little angel, and how she liked art, and left a boyfriend behind, the last thing she told her mom was she loved her. That sort of thing helps me to better visualize what a death actually means, because of the emotions attached. I find the same value in photographs.
What do you consider the negative results? What is it that makes it offensive?

I hate it. I hate the gory pix on the front page of the papers, on the google news lsitings and I hate it here. Links with a warning are fine, I know I won't look.....

So as I expected, you are calling emotional titillation "education". And like I said, this is your prerogative, a voyeur can claim his exploits are educational. A rapist can as well. This, of course, just cheapens the meaning of the word and the attempt to harness the positive connotation falls flat.



I think it's one of the most insipid levels of discourse possible here on Able2Know. And I see people describing such drek as "educational" as a negative because it's a cheap emotional thrill. People are just seeking validation of their existing positions through the tug at their emotional heart strings and allowing the level of discourse to degrade to a sophomoric level.

Even the innane articles and insults represent more intellectually meritous content than the facile "go for the gore" attempts that pass as education for you.

A link to even more gore (nearly two hours of it):

GORE

Hmmm - so how much gore is accurate reporting - and when does it become whatever it is when it is not?

Little k - I agree with you about the front pages of papers - cos of the traumatised little kids aspect - or someone seeing a loved one unexpectedly.

(Okay, I apologize -- I just couldn't resist).

The only value I can see in it is that some people might not think about the realities of war, and it could possibly make somebody look at it in a different way. It hits home more than words can sometimes. It's like when you are a kid and they show you that film of the drunk drivers with their bodies smashed all over the road.

In your case I think the difference is whether or not you agree with the implied position.