Subject:
|
Re: The position of authority (was: Handgun Death Rate)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 20 Jul 2001 12:47:49 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
993 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Jason J. Railton writes:
> 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?
Who mentioned a "campaign"?
> 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).
I think you are wrong. I think the movie could be viewed as parody of the
kind of situation which we see in the movies which feed gun culture. I think
the target audience of the two may be similar. Do you doubt that?
> 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.
... and they would be free to do so if they could. However, I think the
numbers are in line with those quoted here this week... but I have not
checked this.
> 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.
do not think the movie solely blames the NRA. Further, the gun culture
which exists today in the USA is a relatively recent affair (as I understand
it). In recent times, guns in the USA have been reduced to the level of
consumer goods. Do you think the gun lobby in the USA consists of
gun-owning-joe-public, or do you think it is large corporations funding
political organisations?
> And aren't there
> defamotary laws against the use of someone's likeness in this way?
I happen to enjoy political satire.
> So, what's the point you're bringing to the debate?
I think you should look at the flash movie again within the context of the
message i posted it in reply to.
Scott A
> Jason J Railton
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
19 Messages in This Thread:
   
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
