When debate descends to the level of posting gore

kickycan wrote:

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.

we can read about it. My imagination can create the scene well enough on it's very own, thankyouverymuch.

0 Replies

Are you opposed to emotion entirely? I agreed it has no place in debate, and I don't believe emotion has any place in debate either--it is a distraction from facts (I'm sure you'll turn that statement against me Smile

). But I doubt your opinion is that emotion has no value. Citing negative effects of emotion, or of labelling emotion as education, does nothing to show that emotion is entirely bad, or that it cannot be educational. I would have as much success showing you a picture of a blue building and trying to convince you that all buildings are blue. I agree with you that emotion can be bad, and that calling emotion education can be bad. I also believe that some buildings are blue.... but certainly not the majority.

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

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

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

Lol - evidence? I don't think I have said anything to justify that - I have said that I think it is good to look at the reality - I would argue that that is for both sides - assuming there are only two.

But actually, I was more interested in where you would draw the line.

I am uncertain of where I do.

0 Replies

Some people object due to deference for the dead--and a disgust for a dead body to be used by anyone for any manipulative purpose.

0 Replies

A picture is worth a thousand words.
Nuff said.

0 Replies

SCoates wrote:

Are you opposed to emotion entirely? I agreed it has no place in debate, and I don't believe emotion has any place in debate either--

I am neither against emotion nor do I think debate should be devoid of it. Emotion is powerful.

My objection to the insipid gore-in-leiu-of-articulation is that it's insipid use of such a cheap power.

Quote:

But I doubt your opinion is that emotion has no value.

You made up this position all by yourself, so feel free to doubt it. As it's not mine you will have to do so on your own.

Quote:

Citing negative effects of emotion, or of labelling emotion as education, does nothing to show that emotion is entirely bad, or that it cannot be educational.

I never said otherwise, in fact I said that rape can be "educational". I accepted your cheapening of the word and commented on the way it rendered it meaningless and that it can't invoke the positive aspects of "education".

Anything can be called "educational". But that just makes it a meaningless word. The use of the images here are a meaningless ploy that play well to the converts who are itching for a cheap emotional thrill to substantiate their pre-existing notions.

0 Replies

suzy wrote:

A picture is worth a thousand words.
Nuff said.

"Say that using only pictures".

0 Replies

craven

I disagree, and strongly. I didn't look at those pictures, other than for a brief one second survey to see what the link was to, so there's no thrill in any sense of that word involved in my response.

As to your assumption that their only value is in support of established position, no, that's not right either. I saw, a couple of months past, a video of one of Sadaam's agents torturing a man. It was an ugly and terrible thing to see, but I'm glad I saw it. It was a reality I hadn't understood deeply enough.

Likewise the consequences of war and bombing and bullets. We are distant, far too distant, from the facts of the matter, and those facts are, in part, physical and horrible.

I'll argue this further if necessary, but I think you've got this wrong.

0 Replies

dlowan wrote:

Craven de Kere wrote:
dlowan wrote:
Hmmm - so how much gore is accurate reporting - and when does it become whatever it is when it is not?

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

Lol - evidence? I don't think I have said anything to justify that - I have said that I think it is good to look at the reality - I would argue that that is for both sides - assuming there are only two.

But actually, I was more interested in where you would draw the line.

I am uncertain of where I do.

Deb, it's your defense of such idiocy that really peeved me. I don't really plan to discuss this with you in the interest of civility. suffice it to say that I thought it a level of emotional whoredom that was far below your intellect.

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

suzy wrote:
A picture is worth a thousand words.
Nuff said.

"Say that using only pictures".

Lol - I disagree with the saw - but I could easily say it in pictures!

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

I'll argue this further if necessary, but I think you've got this wrong.

No need blatham. For the interest of civility I don't plan to discuss it with you either.

I will however say that your post is exactly as I imagined it.

0 Replies

That is hardly civility you demonstrate craven. Do you get a blue ribbon for your correct imagining?

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

dlowan wrote:
Craven de Kere wrote:
dlowan wrote:
Hmmm - so how much gore is accurate reporting - and when does it become whatever it is when it is not?

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

Lol - evidence? I don't think I have said anything to justify that - I have said that I think it is good to look at the reality - I would argue that that is for both sides - assuming there are only two.

But actually, I was more interested in where you would draw the line.

I am uncertain of where I do.

Deb, it's your defense of such idiocy that really peeved me. I don't really plan to discuss this with you in the interest of civility. suffice it to say that I thought it a level of emotional whoredom that was far below your intellect.

Hmm - I wondered that.

I think, speaking of emotion, that your language is rather over-emotional - and, since you have already been uncivil in that use, I see no reason to avoid the debate for that reason.

Have at me, by all means.

I have already expressed doubts about my own position - I am by no means set in concrete on this - and I can quite see the arguments on the other side.

But I will not be able to respond until after work, if you do choose to debate it.

0 Replies

Fair enough, it's not particularly civil to say I don't wish to discuss it with you two, so I amend my earlier statement to say that in the interest of avoiding protracted incivility I do not wish to.

0 Replies

craven

You've got something sharp up in a place where sharp things ought not to be. I'm sorry for that, but it's yours, and I'll let you own it.

0 Replies

The argument that it brings home the "reality" falls flat.

Raping someone is a very effective way of illustrating the "reality" of rape to them. It does not mean it is justified despite the "education".

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

craven

You've got something sharp up in a place where sharp things ought not to be. I'm sorry for that, but it's yours, and I'll let you own it.

Yes, your partisan support for insipid debate does irk me, it does not, however, surprise me.

0 Replies

Thank you.

Bad analogy. Whomever posted the pictures didn't shoot us.

A better analogy would be the program in my province where folks convicted of impaired driving must watch some police footage of accident scenes. I've not seen them, but I understand they are unpleasant. I cannot, I admit, speak to any studies of their value, re recidivism, but I'll try to find some.

But how else can this reality be communicated? Or do you think it already truly understood by folks speeding along the interstate?

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

The argument that it brings home the "reality" falls flat.

Raping someone is a very effective way of illustrating the "reality" of rape to them. It does not mean it is justified despite the "education".

Not impressive. Tell me something you find acceptable, and I'm sure I can take it to a gross extreme as well as you can.

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

The argument that it brings home the "reality" falls flat.

Raping someone is a very effective way of illustrating the "reality" of rape to them. It does not mean it is justified despite the "education".

I don't think this is the same thing. Nobody is killing anybody to show them the reality of being killed. It is a picture. And some people are more visual than others. I agree that to many people, it has no bearing on their opinion on a subject, but for some, it could actually make a difference in how they think about something.

0 Replies

When debate descends to the level of posting gore

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know