Subject:
|
Re: The position of authority (was: Handgun Death Rate)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 20 Jul 2001 11:23:48 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
195 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Jason J. Railton writes:
> > Erm. 'Fun'? No, that's childish 95% fact-free propaganda...
> Sorry, I did not realise you were policing this "debate". Perhaps you should
> give an outline of the type of response you do want?
No-one's stopping you. You posted it, I said what I thought of it. I don't
think that showing the result of someone else's opinions adds much to the
debate. If you wholeheartedly back that campaign, then what are it's aims
and means? That gives us something to debate.
> I have no problem with anyone posting links to just about any view they
> wish. I still view the link as fun way of communicating an argument, and I
> invite readers to view it again:
> http://www.bradycampaign.org/activism/heston/movie.asp
Thanks for the thought, but I did actually watch it through twice the first
time you posted the link. ;-]
> I think the page communicates a serious message, the method of communication
> has potential to broaden the range of views in the wider debate - I view
> this as a good thing. It forces those in interested in the debate to
> consider the issues. Like so many debates, those taking part in this one
> have opposing intransigent views - but they only represent a tiny percentage
> of the population.
>
> You can act pious if you wish. But rather than instantly dismiss the page as
> “propaganda”, I invite you to tell us what it is about the message you do
> not like.
It may be a serious message, but I think the commercial-media style
presentation trivialises it (and I'm not talking about the quality of flash
movies). The few statistics it does show could (no doubt) be easily put
down or countered by someone with just a little more information to hand.
The idea that America was founded on some 'pure' principal then corrupted by
gun posession can be (and has been) argued against since some scope to bear
arms was made constitutional long before the NRA existed. And aren't there
defamotary laws against the use of someone's likeness in this way?
So, what's the point you're bringing to the debate?
Jason J Railton
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
19 Messages in This Thread:
   
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
