This is the kind of shit that I just can't stand, and is why I gave up Journalism as a Major. 
quote:
From the book of Azizza, chapter 3, verse 16:
Oh wait. No I don'tThis is the kind of shit that I just can't stand, and is why I gave up Journalism as a Major.
Yeah, because all people in the media are corrupt, yep.
There are millions of journalists out there. Some are corrupt.
That happens in every single profession. There will always be corruption -- it seems like an easy road to get ahead. Do I feel this is right? No way in hell. These people should lose their jobs. Do I feel that this means the whole world of journalism is always wrong? Not at all. It really isn't a major thing to see corruption in any profession -- this corruption just has more of an impact and is more visible. Falaanla Marr fucked around with this message on 08-20-2006 at 12:40 PM.
quote:
Over the mountain, in between the ups and downs, I ran into Falaanla Marr who doth quote:
Yeah, because all people in the media are corrupt, yep.There are millions of journalists out there. Some are corrupt.
The majority of mainstream journalists unashamedly advocate a hardline leftist agenda. Rathergate anyone? I'd say that counts as corruption.
Journalism schools teach that the journalist is an architecht of social change and that truth is secondary to this goal. Maradon! fucked around with this message on 08-20-2006 at 12:56 PM.
They exist to make profit by selling papers and/or ad space. Sakkra fucked around with this message on 08-20-2006 at 01:03 PM.
quote:
We were all impressed when Maradon! wrote:
The majority of mainstream journalists unashamedly advocate a hardline leftist agenda. Rathergate anyone? I'd say that counts as corruption.Journalism schools teach that the journalist is an architecht of social change and that truth is secondary to this goal.
Thank you Maradon, im so happy someone else sees the truth.
quote:
Maradon! had this to say about pies:
Journalism schools teach that the journalist is an architecht of social change and that truth is secondary to this goal.
Back this up as a widespread phenomenon and some an off-hand remark from some professor at a dinner party please. The fact that yes, journalists attempt to convince people of their views, does not count, I want to see some backing for the implication that it is common practice in US schools of journalism to encourage students to lie in the course of engineering social change.
Also yes to someone who considers George Soros of all people a hard-line Marxist I guess mainstream journalism qualifies as 'hard-line leftism'.
Oh and fuck every single manager in any company, anywhere because of Kenneth Lay and DeBeers. If the fact that some photographers try to cheat their way to recognition implicates the whole of journalism, surely there must be sufficient fraud being committed by various companies to damn the whole of free enterprise itself.
Those pictures were not made out of ideological agenda, they were most likely fixed by the photographers for financial reasons. Getting only one memorable shot in a warzone like this can be a key to huge success, and thus there is massive temptation going on to spice up images a bit. It has nothing to do with ideology. Mod fucked around with this message on 08-20-2006 at 03:55 PM.
I wish they would all die in a fire.
quote:
Led had this to say about John Romero:
Journalists doing their damndest to make anything military related look evil, zomg, this is new.I wish they would all die in a fire.
The situation in Lebanon is not an utter catastrophe in which thousands of innocents have lost their lives or have been reduced to fleeing with the clothes on their backs. I'd like to see how you are going to categorize it as anything other than evil. A terrible accident perhaps? Mod fucked around with this message on 08-20-2006 at 03:58 PM.
Sean fucked around with this message on 08-20-2006 at 04:05 PM.
It's not something people hear about.
quote:
Verily, Mod doth proclaim:
The situation in Lebanon is not an utter catastrophe in which thousands of innocents have lost their lives or have been reduced to fleeing with the clothes on their backs. I'd like to see how you are going to categorize it as anything other than evil. A terrible accident perhaps?
These things happen in war. There is no way to keep civillian death and destitution from occuring when a country is at war, whether they are the aggressor or the defender. Unfortunately for the Lebanon civillians, they happen to live in a place that a hostile force chose to carry out their missions against Israel. When Israel retaliated, they dropped leaflets and so on to warn the civillians against the impending strikes so they could evacuate.
When Hezbollah attacked Israel, they did not do this.
And I hate to break it to you, but once an entity is identified as giving aide to the opposing force during a conflict, then they become a military target. If a civillian gives shelter to the Hezbollah troops, then that civillian's dwelling becomes a military target, just like a factory who supplies food, weapons, parts, etc, becomes a military target.
quote:
Azakias had this to say about Knight Rider:
These things happen in war. There is no way to keep civillian death and destitution from occuring when a country is at war, whether they are the aggressor or the defender. Unfortunately for the Lebanon civillians, they happen to live in a place that a hostile force chose to carry out their missions against Israel. When Israel retaliated, they dropped leaflets and so on to warn the civillians against the impending strikes so they could evacuate.When Hezbollah attacked Israel, they did not do this.
I made no statement comparing Hisbollah and Israel.
Yes these things happen during war, which is why waging war is incredibly hard to call anything but an evil act in the vast majority of cases.
You're operating from the unspoken assumption that war being an everyday thing is anything but a catastrophic state of affairs, but if you apply any moral standard to which you would hold individuals, or non-state groups of individuals to states, you can barely ever justify war. A non-sovereign group of people deciding to take actions which result in massive civillian death while pursuing their "interests" would instantly be branded a terrorist group. The sheer frequency of war tends to dull people towards the level of transgression which even the most humanely led war possible within current technical possibility represents.
quote:
Naimah had this to say about Robocop:
So what should we do instead of war?
Accept global diversity and hold hands under rainbows and sunshine, obviously. Skaw fucked around with this message on 08-20-2006 at 09:09 PM.
quote:
Naimah had this to say about Tron:
So what should we do instead of war?
Nuke them all.
However, all we need is one immoral person to force the rest of us into the neccesary evil.
quote:
Verily, Elvish Crack Piper doth proclaim:
Mod, in a perfect world we wouldn't need to do this.However, all we need is one immoral person to force the rest of us into the neccesary evil.
There's a difference between goodness and a lesser evil. I admit that in some situations war can be a lesser evil, but it cannot be, in any form in which it has been ever waged throughout history, be good.
quote:
This insanity brought to you by Mod:
There's a difference between goodness and a lesser evil. I admit that in some situations war can be a lesser evil, but it cannot be, in any form in which it has been ever waged throughout history, be good.
Good and evil are purely subjective terms.
quote:
Sakkra had this to say about the Spice Girls:
Good and evil are purely subjective terms.
Human suffering being bad tends to be a somewhat consistent value. However the contention is valid, if you're operating from a standpoint from which human life is not valuable war is probably a fun pasttime. I'm the last guy to be closed to forms of moral relativism, but when it comes to some guy being blown into bits because he happened to be born in the wrong place, it's hard to find a consistent system of values which is not somewhere in the ballpark of Nazism in which this is anything less than terrible.
quote:
Everyone wondered WTF when Mod wrote:
Human suffering being bad tends to be a somewhat consistent value. However the contention is valid, if you're operating from a standpoint from which human life is not valuable war is probably a fun pasttime. I'm the last guy to be closed to forms of moral relativism, but when it comes to some guy being blown into bits because he happened to be born in the wrong place, it's hard to find a consistent system of values which is not somewhere in the ballpark of Nazism in which this is anything less than terrible.
On the contrary, I do not see all human suffering as being bad, nor do most schools of thought. The punitive nature of most legal systems is proof of this.
quote:
Sean got all f'ed up on Angel Dust and wrote:
Maradon's still pissed that Murrow ruined his fun.
It was fucking funny.
It's not something people hear about.
quote:
Mod's unholy Backstreet Boys obsession manifested in:
There's a difference between goodness and a lesser evil. I admit that in some situations war can be a lesser evil, but it cannot be, in any form in which it has been ever waged throughout history, be good.
So is it your contention then that rather than fighting the Civil War, the U.S. government should have let the states of the Confederacy go their own way and accept the continuation of the institution of slavery? That even as evil as slavery is, war to end it and set people free shouldn't be fought? Doesn't that qualify as a "good" war?
quote:
The logic train ran off the tracks when Callalron said:
So is it your contention then that rather than fighting the Civil War, the U.S. government should have let the states of the Confederacy go their own way and accept the continuation of the institution of slavery? That even as evil as slavery is, war to end it and set people free shouldn't be fought? Doesn't that qualify as a "good" war?
I was under the impression that the whle "the civil war was about slavery" thing was just something they told elementary school kids to make it sound like a good thing without having to go into much detail and that in the later years of school the more immediate causes were revealed.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure ending slavery wasn't much more than an afterthought Kegwen fucked around with this message on 08-21-2006 at 06:44 PM.
quote:
This one time, at Kegwen camp:
I was under the impression that the whle "the civil war was about slavery" thing was just something they told elementary school kids to make it sound like a good thing without having to go into much detail and that in the later years of school the more immediate causes were revealed.Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure ending slavery wasn't much more than an afterthought
There was alot of things that led to it, but slavery was a major part of it. Mostly the south didn't want to give it up because it was going to destroy their entire social and economic structures.
On the other hand, it is totally disingenuous for the South to claim the war was about state's rights too. Especially when you consider the fact that the Confederate Constitution is practically a word-for-word lift of the U.S. Constitution, with the major and notable exception of the fact that the right to hold slaves is specifically mentioned and protected. So apparently they were more than willing to live under the U.S. Constitution, just not under a Republican administration that they felt would take away their slaves.
quote:
Kegwen wrote, obviously thinking too hard:
I was under the impression that the whle "the civil war was about slavery" thing was just something they told elementary school kids to make it sound like a good thing without having to go into much detail and that in the later years of school the more immediate causes were revealed.Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure ending slavery wasn't much more than an afterthought
A great deal of it was fought over economics. The south's major economy was agriculture.
Can you guess who worked in the fields?
"Don't want to sound like a fanboy, but I am with you. I'll buy it for sure, it's just a matter of for how long I will be playing it..."
- Silvast, Battle.net forums
quote:
Callalron stopped beating up furries long enough to write:
So is it your contention then that rather than fighting the Civil War, the U.S. government should have let the states of the Confederacy go their own way and accept the continuation of the institution of slavery? That even as evil as slavery is, war to end it and set people free shouldn't be fought? Doesn't that qualify as a "good" war?
I wasn't a 'good' war, it was a terrible war which killed a whole boatload of people, it was probably less bad than the South continuing to enslave people for generations though.
save the grape soda though that shits nasty
quote:
So quoth Mod:
I wasn't a 'good' war, it was a terrible war which killed a whole boatload of people, it was probably less bad than the South continuing to enslave people for generations though.
So you don't think good and righteous are the same?
quote:
Naimah's fortune cookie read:
So you don't think good and righteous are the same?
I don't think it was righteous either, I think it was a terrible deed that was done to prevent an even worse outcome, i.e., shipwreck victims killing and eating a badly wounded person in order to survive. There isn't really anything righteous about that, the fact that it had to happen is a tragedy.
Yes, the civil war was the lesser of two evils, another way to look at it is to put the point where evil and good meet at the "Slavery Continues" and to the left of that is good, which is where the civil war fall (and mad amounts of friend chicken and watermelon.)
quote:
Nobody really understood why Cadga 2.0 wrote:
... juicey melons .....
Nothing is ever wrong with juicey melons, the world could use more of them
