Winners only.

[Jimi77 5,000+ posts]

No I didn't. I ask why we need to know the shooters sexual identity. So you're not going to answer the questions huh?

You're certainly implying that somebody needs filter the media. Are you suggesting it's just going to stop someday without some organization stepping in?

Do we "need to know" that the guy that shot up the black church was a Nazi, no. I'll do you one better just keep the entire story out of the media altogether so the left doesn't get all riled up over gun control. They should have kept "the right" from reporting on all these drag queen shows - their was on need to know, just incensed the conservative culture warriors. And why are they reporting on the war in the Ukraine - doesn't affect my day to day life.

 

[Buck 5,000+ posts]

 

[ThxOne Premium Member]

"It's just not important for the general public to know. If it is really that important that you just NEED to know then you should be able to get that information through a FOIA request."

You literally said if someone wants the info, they would have to get it through an FOIA.
That would mean the info is kept under lock and key by the gov't, to be released only when someone requests the info, even though the information should be public in the first place (5 U.S.C. § 552).

Maybe you did it unwittingly, but asking why anyone should see info without an FOIA is an express statement that you think the government should control the information shared by the media and by the people.
Unless the information is classified in some way or would violate a person's rights by public dissemination, there is no reason for our government to keep it under lock and key.

This is America, and that is one of the freedoms we get to have, whether people like it or not.

Again, no I didn't. Could/should be able to get it through a foia request.

What you are doing is arguing over a matter of it being convenient for you. You're being a clown. Don't ask any questions, just accept the way the media gives you the information they allow you to have. Don't do any leg work and request all the information... Which is public by the way.

One of the last freedoms? Nobody is talking about taking them away, you're being dramatic. The only freedom you could be talking about is the freedom to be lazy and just accept the narrative you are given.

 

[Eggs 5,000+ posts]

View attachment 49429

ESG, DEI, CEI social credit score implemented by WEF klaus schwab and global banking system

 

[Buck 5,000+ posts]

ESG, DEI, CEI social credit score implemented by WEF klaus schwab and global banking system

Klaus Schwab wants you to cut your junk off

 

[RobGMN 5,000+ posts]

Again, no I didn't. Could/should be able to get it through a foia request.

What you are doing is arguing over a matter of it being convenient for you. You're being a clown. Don't ask any questions, just accept the way the media gives you the information they allow you to have. Don't do any leg work and request all the information... Which is public by the way.

One of the last freedoms? Nobody is talking about taking them away, you're being dramatic. The only freedom you could be talking about is the freedom to be lazy and just accept the narrative you are given.

If the information can only be obtained through FOIA request, that means it is being locked down and controlled by the government.
Maybe you don't realize the implications, but If you think information should only be obtained through a FOIA request, then you are by default advocating for government control of information above and beyond info that is classified or protecting privacy.

You can't say that information should be withheld and controlled by the government, yet simultaneously claim the info is not withheld and controlled. The two are mutually exclusive.

And, i never said it is one of "the last freedoms". These are my exact words in regards to the gov't not controlling information: "This is America, and that is one of the freedoms we get to have, whether people like it or not."
It's the whole point of the Freedom Of Information Act: It's not supposed to be withheld or controlled by the government.

 

[Eggs 5,000+ posts]

Klaus Schwab wants you to cut your junk off

Tube steak > Beef steak

 

[ThxOne Premium Member]

If the information can only be obtained through FOIA request, that means it is being locked down and controlled by the government.
Maybe you don't realize the implications, but If you think information should only be obtained through a FOIA request, then you are by default advocating for government control of information above and beyond info that is classified or protecting privacy.

You can't say that information should be withheld and controlled by the government, yet simultaneously claim the info is not withheld and controlled. The two are mutually exclusive.

And, i never said it is one of "the last freedoms". These are my exact words in regards to the gov't not controlling information: "This is America, and that is one of the freedoms we get to have, whether people like it or not."
It's the whole point of the Freedom Of Information Act: It's not supposed to be withheld or controlled by the government.

If I am wearing red underwear but I don't tell you that doesn't mean the information is on lockdown. You could just ask my woman. You two are getting way to defensive over nothing.

 

[RobGMN 5,000+ posts]

If I am wearing red underwear but I don't tell you that doesn't mean the information is on lockdown. You could just ask my woman. You two are getting way to defensive over nothing.

This is how conversation works.

Your underwear is your personal business, and you are not a government entity.
When someone commits a crime, their personal business becomes public business. Especially if they have shared their info publicly, via social media, mass media, printed and posted manifesto, whatever.

If that makes criminals unhappy, too bad; then they shouldn't commit a crime. If it makes non-criminals unhappy, too bad; this is America and it's the way things work unless the laws get changed.
The people who don't like it certainly have the right to fight for the laws to be changed, but that doesn't mean those laws get ignored in the meantime.

 

[ThxOne Premium Member]

This is how conversation works.

Your underwear is your personal business, and you are not a government entity.
When someone commits a crime, their personal business becomes public business. Especially if they have shared their info publicly, via social media, mass media, printed and posted manifesto, whatever.

If that makes criminals unhappy, too bad; then they shouldn't commit a crime. If it makes non-criminals unhappy, too bad; this is America and it's the way things work unless the laws get changed.
The people who don't like it certainly have the right to fight for the laws to be changed, but that doesn't mean those laws get ignored in the meantime.

FOIA request are of public information. Nobody is trying to keep information from anyone. So again, I don't know why you two are crying.

Still, how does knowing a shooters sexual identity help either of you in any way?

 

[Jimi77 5,000+ posts]

FOIA request are of public information. Nobody is trying to keep information from anyone. So again, I don't know why you two are crying.

Still, how does knowing a shooters sexual identity help either of you in any way?

What do you mean nobody is trying to keep information from anyone? You just proposed that "identities" be kept out of the public eye.

How does knowing a shooter's sexual identity help me? Depends on what you mean by help. Also depends on the complete set of facts. I know alot of people like drawing conclusions based "half the facts," but I think the more facts available, the more likely one is to reach a "proper" conclusion. So in the case of the Charlottesville attack, "white supremist runs over a bunch of people," the white supremist part is of no use. "White Supremist runs over a bunch of at a Unite the Right" rally has a totally different meaning - did he have a beef with somebody, was there another criminal motive (ie drug deal gone bad), etc. White Supremist runs over a bunch of counter protesters at a Unite the Right rally and now we're getting a more accurate of picture of what happened, why it happened, etc. See how more facts give us a more complete picture of what happened?

"Whacko attacks Church School" is a different story than "Trans Whacko attacks Church School associated with his/her religious consoler." If my goal is to be closer to completely informed vs vaguely informed about the story I'm reading, I would say the Trans part is considerable import in that story.

 

[spokey9 5,000+ posts]

I'm all for keeping their names off tv and social media...no reason to make trash famous and encourage more trash to try being famous...

 

[Buck 5,000+ posts]

 

[ThxOne Premium Member]

What do you mean nobody is trying to keep information from anyone? You just proposed that "identities" be kept out of the public eye.

How does knowing a shooter's sexual identity help me? Depends on what you mean by help. Also depends on the complete set of facts. I know alot of people like drawing conclusions based "half the facts," but I think the more facts available, the more likely one is to reach a "proper" conclusion. So in the case of the Charlottesville attack, "white supremist runs over a bunch of people," the white supremist part is of no use. "White Supremist runs over a bunch of at a Unite the Right" rally has a totally different meaning - did he have a beef with somebody, was there another criminal motive (ie drug deal gone bad), etc. White Supremist runs over a bunch of counter protesters at a Unite the Right rally and now we're getting a more accurate of picture of what happened, why it happened, etc. See how more facts give us a more complete picture of what happened?

"Whacko attacks Church School" is a different story than "Trans Whacko attacks Church School associated with his/her religious consoler." If my goal is to be closer to completely informed vs vaguely informed about the story I'm reading, I would say the Trans part is considerable import in that story.

Again, no I didn't propose anything. I made statements which apparently is an invite for you and Rob to start assuming and drifting off on your own tangents.

So basically you are nosy. You "need" to know information that can do nothing for you except satisfy your nosy nature. All the news is doing is creating an audience. Generating revenue.

They could just as easily say "A suspect shot up a school today" But no, people like you need the excitement of "A trans person shot up a school today and looks to be sexually motivated. This person most likely voted for Trump. Please stay tuned".

 

[Jimi77 5,000+ posts]

Again, no I didn't propose anything. I made statements which apparently is an invite for you and Rob to start assuming and drifting off on your own tangents.

So basically you are nosy. You "need" to know information that can do nothing for you except satisfy your nosy nature. All the news is doing is creating an audience. Generating revenue.

They could just as easily say "A suspect shot up a school today" But no, people like you need the excitement of "A trans person shot up a school today and looks to be sexually motivated. This person most likely voted for Trump. Please stay tuned".

So you weren't suggesting we keep their names out of the media when suggested we keep their names out of the media. Okay. I get really excited when trans person shoots a place, it's even more exciting if they're winger or conspiracy theorist.

 

[ThxOne Premium Member]

So you weren't suggesting we keep their names out of the media when suggested we keep their names out of the media. Okay. I get really excited when trans person shoots a place, it's even more exciting if they're winger or conspiracy theorist.

Hard to believe that a person just has an opinion about something huh.

 

[Jimi77 5,000+ posts]

I'm all for keeping their names off tv and social media...no reason to make trash famous and encourage more trash to try being famous...

That ship has sailed. The name would be back on social media as quickly as they could scrub it, not to mention the 1st amendment...

 

[ThxOne Premium Member]

That ship has sailed. The name would be back on social media as quickly as they could scrub it, not to mention the 1st amendment...

I still want to hear the real reason you need to know the details and background of the alleged criminals. You are not a LEO, an investigator, a Judge, a prosecuting attorney. So how does the information benefit you?

 

[SlugButter]

View attachment 49429

 

[Jimi77 5,000+ posts]

I still want to hear the real reason you need to know the details and background of the alleged criminals. You are not a LEO, an investigator, a Judge, a prosecuting attorney. So how does the information benefit you?

Actually, I did work at DHS. Background tells us a lot about the crime. The FBI dedicates considerable resources into dissecting the minute of criminal backgrounds. Do I have a need to know since I'm not directly involved in the case, no. By that standard all sorts of information should be withheld from the public. Why did we need to know about a drag queen burlesque show on the other side of the country, where everybody was a willing participant? What benefit does that provide anyone? I could compile quite a list of stuff that is of marginal benefit. Hell why do they need to report the weather? Either it's already happened and unless it's a hurricane or blizzard it doesn't really affect me, yet every night on every news channel there is 10 minutes of weather.