Taking public information too far?

  • (6 Pages)
  • +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Last »

88 Replies - 7368 Views - Last Post: 15 January 2013 - 12:07 PM

#31 jon.kiparsky  Icon User is online

  • Pancakes!
  • member icon


Reputation: 7641
  • View blog
  • Posts: 12,887
  • Joined: 19-March 11

Re: Taking public information too far?

Posted 27 December 2012 - 01:35 PM

I don't like you, you're mean.
Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

#32 creativecoding  Icon User is offline

  • Hash != Encryption
  • member icon


Reputation: 926
  • View blog
  • Posts: 3,205
  • Joined: 19-January 10

Re: Taking public information too far?

Posted 27 December 2012 - 01:45 PM

@jon.kiparsky

Yeah, there's a bunch of problems with that. I think Al'Jazeera does it quite well.

This post has been edited by creativecoding: 27 December 2012 - 01:46 PM

Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

#33 jon.kiparsky  Icon User is online

  • Pancakes!
  • member icon


Reputation: 7641
  • View blog
  • Posts: 12,887
  • Joined: 19-March 11

Re: Taking public information too far?

Posted 27 December 2012 - 01:49 PM

Sorry, does what well? Not sure I'm following you.
Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

#34 creativecoding  Icon User is offline

  • Hash != Encryption
  • member icon


Reputation: 926
  • View blog
  • Posts: 3,205
  • Joined: 19-January 10

Re: Taking public information too far?

Posted 27 December 2012 - 01:57 PM

Report news unbiased. They just report it straight up, no wordplay and no bending of facts. Of course it's just a pipe dream, like Supersloth pointed out it'd be a group of shitty people managing another group of shitty people.

This post has been edited by creativecoding: 27 December 2012 - 02:02 PM

Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

#35 jon.kiparsky  Icon User is online

  • Pancakes!
  • member icon


Reputation: 7641
  • View blog
  • Posts: 12,887
  • Joined: 19-March 11

Re: Taking public information too far?

Posted 27 December 2012 - 02:06 PM

Quote

Report news unbiased. They just report it straight up, no wordplay and no bending of facts.


Oh. Okay, sure, if you think so, I'm not going to argue. I'm not sure what you'd mean by "unbiased news", honestly. Pretty sure that doesn't make any sense at all.

This post has been edited by jon.kiparsky: 27 December 2012 - 02:25 PM

Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

#36 supersloth  Icon User is offline

  • serial frotteur - RUDEST MEMBER ON D.I.C.
  • member icon


Reputation: 4503
  • View blog
  • Posts: 28,409
  • Joined: 21-March 01

Re: Taking public information too far?

Posted 27 December 2012 - 02:10 PM

LITTLE s
Was This Post Helpful? 1
  • +
  • -

#37 Utael  Icon User is offline

  • D.I.C Head

Reputation: 55
  • View blog
  • Posts: 210
  • Joined: 12-December 11

Re: Taking public information too far?

Posted 27 December 2012 - 04:52 PM

Or hell someone start a company that does fact checks on newspaper articles, similar to the presidential debates. Granted it would scale really well, there are a lot of news organizations across the nation. In the case of my area, the newspaper found out that they were creating a bill to keep them from publicly announcing who owned guns and put that information out before they could be stopped (it was a big fuck you to the local government, not so much a public awareness piece). I agree the information should be readily available but not actively published to any yahoo with a media badge.

It just shows how media organizations are in control of way too much power and aren't subject to the same scrutiny as everyone else. The onion shows that to me, though I know its meant to be humor, they have shown how a "news" outlet can use just a few facts but pile on a ton of BS without any consequences.
Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

#38 farrell2k  Icon User is offline

  • D.I.C Lover
  • member icon

Reputation: 823
  • Posts: 2,533
  • Joined: 29-July 11

Re: Taking public information too far?

Posted 27 December 2012 - 06:15 PM

There are plenty of people who want to avoid guns completely, and appreciate this kind of information. According to the FBI, at any given time I have about a 96% chance of not being assaulted with a gun. The more I expose myself to guns, the lower that number gets, and that's the exact opposite of what I want. I'd never let my child go to a friends house where a gun is present. It's an unnecessary risk.

View PostUtael, on 27 December 2012 - 11:52 PM, said:

Or hell someone start a company that does fact checks on newspaper articles, similar to the presidential debates.


It doesn't really matter. The courts have agreed, on free speech grounds, that news organizations do not have to tell the truth. Fox news is a good example.

This post has been edited by farrell2k: 27 December 2012 - 06:18 PM

Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

#39 Utael  Icon User is offline

  • D.I.C Head

Reputation: 55
  • View blog
  • Posts: 210
  • Joined: 12-December 11

Re: Taking public information too far?

Posted 27 December 2012 - 07:06 PM

Honestly, if my children were around guns, I could care less as long as they are locked in a gun safe, and the ammo is stored in a separate also locked gun safe. I don't own any guns, but I am looking at getting a small pistol for range firing. If people are that afraid that a gun around their kids is going to cause issues they need to look at the public transportation systems, the shopping centers and other places frequently traversed by parents and their kids. You are more likely to get stabbed or assulted with fist (just as deadly and harder to track down than a firearm) than you are to get shot. Tell me which court case said that news organizations are allowed to lie?

Not to mention if the fact checking media source published their findings it would still help becaue they are under the "Free Speech" Umbrella. I can't think of a single Supreme court case where the issue of lying under free speech has been allowed.
Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

#40 farrell2k  Icon User is offline

  • D.I.C Lover
  • member icon

Reputation: 823
  • Posts: 2,533
  • Joined: 29-July 11

Re: Taking public information too far?

Posted 27 December 2012 - 08:25 PM

View PostUtael, on 28 December 2012 - 02:06 AM, said:

Honestly, if my children were around guns, I could care less as long as they are locked in a gun safe, and the ammo is stored in a separate also locked gun safe. I don't own any guns, but I am looking at getting a small pistol for range firing. If people are that afraid that a gun around their kids is going to cause issues they need to look at the public transportation systems, the shopping centers and other places frequently traversed by parents and their kids. You are more likely to get stabbed or assulted with fist (just as deadly and harder to track down than a firearm) than you are to get shot. Tell me which court case said that news organizations are allowed to lie?


Avoiding guns is the best way to avoid gun violence. You cannot be a victim of gun violence without guns. People have just as much of a right to avoid them as you do to embrace them.

Read the link.
Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

#41 jon.kiparsky  Icon User is online

  • Pancakes!
  • member icon


Reputation: 7641
  • View blog
  • Posts: 12,887
  • Joined: 19-March 11

Re: Taking public information too far?

Posted 27 December 2012 - 09:17 PM

View PostUtael, on 27 December 2012 - 09:06 PM, said:

Not to mention if the fact checking media source published their findings it would still help becaue they are under the "Free Speech" Umbrella. I can't think of a single Supreme court case where the issue of lying under free speech has been allowed.


Generally, the issue has not been one of lying, but telling the truth. You're always allowed to lie - it's called "fiction" or "satire" or some other name - but some truths are considered "beyond the pale", and that's been the main battleground for free speech. See, for example, the Pentagon Papers and Wikileaks for two high-profile examples. If you want information on free-speech case law, I'd suggest you start with the ACLU. They've been the best defense of free speech in the US for the last century, and they keep good records.

Getting up on my soapbox for a moment: the freedom of the media to "lie", to "distort", to "mislead" and so forth is precisely what we mean by "freedom of speech". "Freedom of speech" is not the freedom to say what's true, or what's approved by some body appointed to determine what may be published. It's not the freedom to say stuff that I agree with. Pick the person or group that you most vehemently disagree with - the group whose ideas make you retch, the person whose words you'd like to stuff back down their throat and pack them in with your fist. If you do not believe in free speech for that person, for that group, then you cannot make a case for free speech for yourself, or for me, and in fact you do not believe in free speech at all. You only believe in every person's freedom to agree publicly with what you have determined to be acceptable.
Was This Post Helpful? 2
  • +
  • -

#42 Craig328  Icon User is offline

  • I make this look good
  • member icon

Reputation: 1919
  • View blog
  • Posts: 3,461
  • Joined: 13-January 08

Re: Taking public information too far?

Posted 27 December 2012 - 10:51 PM

View Postfarrell2k, on 27 December 2012 - 11:25 PM, said:

Avoiding guns is the best way to avoid gun violence. You cannot be a victim of gun violence without guns. People have just as much of a right to avoid them as you do to embrace them.


I'm curious...do you understand you're equating the actions (or lack thereof) of the victim (the "avoiding" or again, lack thereof) with the consequences of the perpetrator? You seem to suggest that the onus is on the potential victim to lower their risk of being a victim of a crime.

I mean, let's dispense with the patent inanity of a serious effort to "avoid guns". The people who intend to do you harm typically don't announce their intent to do so beforehand or wear helpful t-shirts proclaiming their armed state in conjunction with their plans to do dirt. In such cases, how do you "avoid"? I mean, the sentiment sounds nice and all...but when looked at with any realistic lens it comes off as...well...petulant and kinda stupid. More of a feel good statement than anything actually requiring more than a moment's consideration before dismissing.

But just for sake of argument, let's assume that despite your L337 avoidance sk33lz that someone does cross your personal boundary line with a weapon? Since you've disarmed yourself what will you do? Call the police? Because, you know...they carry guns around all the frickin' time and you've got this "avoid guns" thing going on.
Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

#43 jon.kiparsky  Icon User is online

  • Pancakes!
  • member icon


Reputation: 7641
  • View blog
  • Posts: 12,887
  • Joined: 19-March 11

Re: Taking public information too far?

Posted 27 December 2012 - 11:11 PM

View PostCraig328, on 28 December 2012 - 12:51 AM, said:

I'm curious...do you understand you're equating the actions (or lack thereof) of the victim (the "avoiding" or again, lack thereof) with the consequences of the perpetrator? You seem to suggest that the onus is on the potential victim to lower their risk of being a victim of a crime.
...
But just for sake of argument, let's assume that despite your L337 avoidance sk33lz that someone does cross your personal boundary line with a weapon? Since you've disarmed yourself what will you do? Call the police? Because, you know...they carry guns around all the frickin' time and you've got this "avoid guns" thing going on.


Point of order, Craig - I think it's fair to say that your basic position on guns depends on "the onus is on the potential victim to lower their risk of being a victim of a crime". That's your whole justification for carrying them: they allow you, as a potential victim, to lower your risk of being a victim. Farrell's strategy is to avoid proximity to guns, yours is to be prepared to meet force with greater force, but the goal in both cases is similar. (not exactly the same: Farrell's goal is to avoid gun violence, which can come in the form of accidental, poorly targeted, or mistaken shootings, and is not limited to criminal acts. Your arguments consistently address only the criminal case, so I'm assuming you believe that accidents and other inadvertent shootings simply don't happen or aren't worth avoiding)
Was This Post Helpful? 2
  • +
  • -

#44 farrell2k  Icon User is offline

  • D.I.C Lover
  • member icon

Reputation: 823
  • Posts: 2,533
  • Joined: 29-July 11

Re: Taking public information too far?

Posted 27 December 2012 - 11:26 PM

View PostCraig328, on 28 December 2012 - 05:51 AM, said:

You seem to suggest that the onus is on the potential victim to lower their risk of being a victim of a crime.


It is. It's exactly why we teach drivers to drive defensively.

The entire reason gun owners carry is is to....wait for it....lower their risk of being a victim of a crime. Do you think before you write this stuff?

View PostCraig328, on 28 December 2012 - 05:51 AM, said:

I mean, let's dispense with the patent inanity of a serious effort to "avoid guns".


I avoid shaking hands with people during flu season. You can only get the flu when exposed to it...

View PostCraig328, on 28 December 2012 - 05:51 AM, said:

But just for sake of argument, let's assume that despite your L337 avoidance sk33lz that someone does cross your personal boundary line with a weapon? Since you've disarmed yourself what will you do?


False dichotomy. One need not carry a gun to be armed with a weapon. "Either you have a gun, or you're defenseless" arenot the only two options. You have obviously bought into this nonsensical, NRA manufactured idea that you're not safe unless you have a loaded gun in your hands 24/7. It is people like you with loaded guns and limited critical thinking skills that I do my best to avoid at all costs. I am grateful for that list. Every city should have one.
Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

#45 Utael  Icon User is offline

  • D.I.C Head

Reputation: 55
  • View blog
  • Posts: 210
  • Joined: 12-December 11

Re: Taking public information too far?

Posted 28 December 2012 - 02:34 AM

View Postfarrell2k, on 28 December 2012 - 01:26 AM, said:

I avoid shaking hands with people during flu season. You can only get the flu when exposed to it...


This shows me your thought process. You feel only direct contact with someone could harm you. Did you know you are more likely to get the flu from a door handle than shaking hands with someone? Wherever you learned that you reduce your risk to exposure by "avoiding" things works, I think you need to go back and actually sit down and count the number of times you've ever been in a public space. or hell sitting at home. Your neighbors might have guns, oh and that day you are sitting at your chair by the window and they are cleaning their gun in their house and it goes off shoots through the window and the bullet is now lodged in your skull, you avoided it therefor it can't happen right?

No I'm not saying that by choosing not to go over to peoples houses or be around people that choose to own a firearm doesn't reduce the risk, but I think that the reduction in risk is negligible, I've yet to be proven otherwise.

The only issue with guns is how the media and quite a few brainless zombies target them as the source of the issue. Hell no it couldn't be because of the person behind the gun. And hell no they couldn't manufacture an explosive to kill more people.

C'mon really, how hard is to understand that guns aren't the issue its the morons who don't respect them.
Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

  • (6 Pages)
  • +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Last »