Winners only.

[Jimi77]

You're assuming I know nothing about the leap towards atrocities by hitler...everything I listed led the German people to place where they we were open minded about what Hitler had to say...his actions more than demonstrate what he was about...you get a nation destroyed by that treaty...and when they defaulted in I think in '22 had foreign troops come into the industrial centers taking goods as payment...he was a flamboyant speaker who said just enough of what the country was thinking and national pride to be able to mix in his beliefs...it's amazing what a ruined nation will fall for...

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.

 

[spokey9]

It's in your answer to my very direct question:

View attachment 49462

You don't need to read it even if it is part of the lesson plan, discussion, and testing, because you know "why he rose the to power".

Nowhere did I refuse to do schoolwork like you claim

 

[YourNameHere]

 

[spokey9]

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...

 

[ThxOne]

Ohhhh YOU said the information was complete.
YOU are the overseer who determines what information is complete enough to make a news report.
Got it. No censorship, just Thxone deciding what is or is not appropriate information to be included in a news report.

You think it's "fluff" to know if the shooter was captured or is on the loose.
You think it's "fluff" to know if the shooter is male or female.
You think it's "fluff" to know the shooter's skin color if they are on the loose.
How about whether the dead are children or school administration? Just more "fluff"?

Wow, you REALLY know how to dig yourself into holes that you just can't get out of.

It is my example so yes, I get to determine if it is complete or not. The phuck is wrong with you?

 

[RobGMN]

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.

What other decisions do you think you should make for society? What other controls do you fry we should all be subjected to?

 

[ThxOne]

So like Jimi said, your personal feelings on what information should be censored or not is the way we are all supposed to live.

What other decisions do you think you should make for society? What other controls do you fry we should all be subjected to?

So like others have said, you are attracted to small kids and you think we should all see them like you do, sexually.

What other things are you sexually attracted too? Animals? Plant life?

 

[ThxOne]

Lie about WHAT exactly? You keep claiming I lie, and then can't provide anything to back up your claim.
That would make YOU the liar.

You keep making statements and then say I made them. That is a lie. You are a liar.

YOU declared that the sexual identity of a criminal should not be shared with the public via the media unless the media obtains the information through some demonstrated basis of "need".
YOU used the example of getting it through a FOIA request.

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.

Where is the
comprehension" issue that you think I have? Did you or did you NOT say those things?
Answer the question.

Oh all right... No, I did not say those things.
I said "I don't think knowing the alleged criminal or suspects sexual identity is relevant"
What you claim I said...
"You declared that the sexual identity of a criminal SHOULD NOT BE SHARED with the public via the media UNLESS the media obtains the information through some demonstrated basis of "need""
1. I don't talk like that.
2. I said alleged criminal or suspects - I don't pass judgment on them.
3. You can't comprehend what I say if you can't even repeat what I say.

Speaking of questions: If you think the media should not be able to get that kind of info without a special request, do you think a jail roster should be publicly available?
If so, WHAT demographics do think should be allowed on the roster?

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.

You see, you refuse to answer the question because it shreds your ridiculous notion that certain demographics about a shooter should be controlled and guarded by some entity, while you also believe that same information is "public".
You hold two completely contradictory views at the same time and have expressed so, and you have no way to reconcile the inconsistent thinking.

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.

 

[Jimi77]

Lie about WHAT exactly? You keep claiming I lie, and then can't provide anything to back up your claim.
That would make YOU the liar.

YOU declared that the sexual identity of a criminal should not be shared with the public via the media unless the media obtains the information through some demonstrated basis of "need".
YOU used the example of getting it through a FOIA request.

Where is the
comprehension" issue that you think I have? Did you or did you NOT say those things?
Answer the question.

Speaking of questions: If you think the media should not be able to get that kind of info without a special request, do you think a jail roster should be publicly available?
If so, WHAT demographics do think should be allowed on the roster?

You see, you refuse to answer the question because it shreds your ridiculous notion that certain demographics about a shooter should be controlled and guarded by some entity, while you also believe that same information is "public".
You hold two completely contradictory views at the same time and have expressed so, and you have no way to reconcile the inconsistent thinking.

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 Trans people were closeted, so the information was less available - he had some dresses in his closet; they belong to the wife or GF.

Or look at it like Socialism or Libertarianism - you have to use your imagination because neither work in reality, they "work" because so-and-so said so. Just pretend the information is unattainable, rather than censored. I know that doesn't quiet jive with what Thx said, since he mentioned the information being withheld (but not censored) because we don't have a "need to know." So pretend you time warped back the medieval times AND that Thx didn't mention withholding the information on a "need to know" basis and the censorship issue goes away.... and pretend there was widely distributed print media in the medieval ages.

 

[Jimi77]

It's only censorship because you want it to be. It's not though. All you are saying is the news is not enough unless it's giving you details that don't help you do anything. The more dramatic the news the more you like it.

A person armed with a gun shot up a school today killing 6 people. That is complete information. You think it's censorship if they don't include the person's sexual preference. Do you need to know their shoe size, color underwear?

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.

 

[Jimi77]

It is my example so yes, I get to determine if it is complete or not. The phuck is wrong with you?

 

[ThxOne]

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.

 

[Jimi77]

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.

So now we must withhold all but the most basic details so juries don't get tainted? I think the jury system will be fine as is and people are already biased regardless of the media. Should we also withhold information to eliminate voting biases?

 

[Coolhand20th]

Guys Hitler was saying as young as 8 or 9 that he was going to do what he did. Interviews with his classmates back in the late '60s and early '70s say this. And it isn't just one of his classmates, it was all of them. Mein Kampf was just a way to get his views out to the masses as speaking in beer halls wasn't doing that before he was arrested for the attempted coup. I've read Mein Kampf not because it is a good book (sickening/disgusting book tbh) but because of one of my double majors in college was History. It was required reading and we had to do a report on it. Trust me it was not easy to read especially with having a cousin who was part of Mussolini's cabinet as a under secretary. I had relatives that "mysteriously" appeared in Argentina in summer/winter of 1945 and spring 1946. I know what they are and what they believed in. Not proud of them or their views.

But we must learn from the past to make sure we don't make the same mistakes in the future.

 

[ThxOne]

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.

So now we must withhold all but the most basic details so juries don't get tainted? I think the jury system will be fine as is and people are already biased regardless of the media. Should we also withhold information to eliminate voting biases?

One of my post in response mentioned jury bias.

I'm not saying nor have I said we NEED to withhold anything. I'm just expounding on my view of the media and it's willingness to give an over abundance of details for ratings and views. It is all about money after all.