|
>> I don't see how being pro-war means we have to like the idea of millions
>> getting emotional 'jollies' out of seeing those images. The pro-war are no
>> doubt unhappy/unsettled/destabilised after seeing those images, but trying to
>> hide them isn't an attempt at putting our heads in the sand. Then why not let individuals (and voluntary groups) make their own
decisions about whether to show them? While the White House didn't stop people
from showing them, there are many subtle and hidden ways governments can bring
pressure to bear (renewing media licenses comes to mind). >> Every been to Rotten.com ? Actually yes. And when I drive my family around, I drive much more
carefully having seen some of the 'accident' shots. I am much more careful at
train stations having seen that nightmarish Japanese picture. I feel more aware
of bad things that can happen as a result of being there. I am not attracted by those things. I went there, I saw, I learned, I moved on. One of my friends has seen two people die in his life - one when he was 4
years old (which he doesn't remember much of), the other when he was 11. A
motorcyclist came around the corner on the wrong side of the road, and crashed
head-on into his parent's car and died about two minutes
later. This friend is one of the safest drivers I know. Was he traumatized by the experience? Probably. Has it been of benefit? Almost
certainly. As a parent (and most of us will be parents at some stage) is it your duty
to protect your children
from such sights, or help them learn from them? As a government (and
all of us live under governments) is it a duty to protect your subjects from
these sights, or let them make their own decisions? >> Pictures like this are exactly what retarded freaks like them love
>> to see. Hell, even normal people would love to see them on some level. I don't
>> like the idea of those deaths to be used for ANY cause. I think these deaths do have a purpose - for people to learn about war, its costs, and it
benefits. War is a dreadful thing. But there are things which are even worse. >> Whilst I have my reasons for supporting the war, Im not ignorant to the fact
>> there is still a lot of politics involved. I don't want their bloody images
>> to be used for votes and support. I agree, but that is part of the cost of war. >> As to your article on Military responsibility, I only partially
>> agree. Military
>> personnel surely can't act innocent about what goes on.. but they arent all to
>> blame for what the larger group commits. I'd not speak harsh words against all
>> Vietnam vets for what SOME did. Let the personnel who commited the acts take
>> the flak. Hmm .. I think you are referring to an article written by 24601, and perhaps s/he
should respond? >> Otherwise what the fuck is the point of being libertarian? What's the point of
>> individual freedom if you're willing to use group blame? Should I blame you for
>> whatever other libertarians have done.. using your excuse of: "Well then you
>> shouldn't have joined the group" ?? >> I've read your blog for a long time and loved it. Intellectually I know you're
>> my superior, but this doesn't stop me disagreeing with you. If you could spare
>> the time, I'd love you to respond to what I've said here. Food for my thought
>> and all that. I don't know whether you are referring to myself or to 24601, but I will allow
myself to be flattered by a back-handed reference to the intellectual elite :-). But I will commend you for having your own opinions in spite of the
opinions of others. The essence of being human is capacity for rational
thought. Anyone who gives that up, and subscribes simply to the expert view, the collective view, or the
-ism or the -ist becomes less than human. Thanks for reading.
| 
