I didn't assume you knew nothing about Hitler's atrocities. I assumed you weren't taught (in HS) about how Mein Kampf was a root cause of those atrocities since you said it wasn't covered in your history classes. It's literally a book that changed the course of history and whose impacts we still feel today, yet your HS (teacher?) felt it appropriate to skip spending any time on it.
Yep we didn't cover mein kampf but we did cover in detail hitler and his inner circle in pretty good detail...we were fortunate enough to have 3 different holocaust survivors speak about their experiences...to a one they all said there was persecution along racial lines before anyone knew of hitler...he stoked the flames...and in all honesty after hearing what they went through and having to live with a number on their body...I have no use for experiencing Hitler's propaganda book...
It is my example so yes, I get to determine if it is complete or not. The phuck is wrong with you?
So like Jimi said, your personal feelings on what information should be censored or not is the way we are all supposed to live.
So like others have said, you are attracted to small kids and you think we should all see them like you do, sexually.
You keep making statements and then say I made them. That is a lie. You are a liar.
No, I was pretty clear with the way I voiced my opinions and the words I used. You are choosing to use other words and claim I made statements I did not make.
Oh all right... No, I did not say those things.
Why don't you just get on with it you jackasss. Stop trying to bait me and just say what the phuck you want to say. Damn you are like a child.
Except I never claimed or said it should be controlled. That is your spin. What you say is not my view ergo I have one view, my view and you can eat some diicks. Jackasss.
I think you're missing the point. I understand it confusing because somehow this information is being censored without actually being censored - maybe God decides to interfere with freewill on this one occasion (although then God would be the censor). Maybe somehow all journalist simultaneously agree to not include this information without any sort of meeting of the minds... Look at it like this, pretend you time warped back to medieval times and people didn't have social media accounts and ***** people were closeted, so the information was less available - he had some dresses in his closet; they belong to the wife or GF.
Clearly that isn't complete information. There may be a reason we would want to know their shoe size. I'm not sure what drama has to do with it. I don't find "a white supremist" ran over some protesters to be more "dramatic" than "white dude 2x over the legal limit" ran some people over. However, I do see some pretty large differences in those stories based on a more complete picture of who the criminal was.
That is my point... one of my points. The story changes in your mind the more information and details you have. You form different opinions, bias can kick in and so on. This taints the ability of an accused person to defend themselves in court. Media is EVERYWHERE and if a potential juror has their mind made up before the trial because they had an over abundance of details then how can there be a fair trial? Those details could already be biased when the media gives them to you. We already know the media is heavily biased.
You never said anything (to me) about jury bias. You said it creates division and if does it's way down on the list IMHO.
One of my post in response mentioned jury bias.
