Ignore button

(22-12-2016 16:13 )munch1917 Wrote:  So you are suggesting that images turn plain and simple 'news' into propaganda?

No I said images are used to illicet a certain responce, this is a fact, a pretty well known fact.

I'll give you an example of the subtle difference.

People may have head of concentration camps, they may have not believed the rumours, a concentration camp is liberated, the evidence filmed or photographed and released. This was confirming that the autrocities were infact true, people were rightly shocked and outrage (even smpathized), but those images were done to confirm the rumours and provide evidence, your journalistic objectivity. Now a journalist may have just been recording the events of the day the child died with said objectivity, but then those images and that story was used in the media not only to illuminate the world to the plight of some asylum seekers but to garner sympathy for their cause; it is at this point it takes a sublte shift from objective news reporting to having an alterior motive; and rightly so in this case.

Quote:Your logic here is so flawed, there is no 'proof' here at all.

5 Asylum seekers families were settled in my very small town alone, this is a result of the problems in their own country. So there is proof.

Quote:Again, warped logic, we are most certainly not friends

I am so very heart broken my friend. As a side, was that intended to hurt me? Do you really think yourself that important?

Quote:But I guess this is not really the thread for this argument to continue, we are digressing seriously off-topic, so feel free to ignore me

If you make comments on my post, i will politely respond to the effort you have made responding thusly.

^^ FWIW, I was actually thinking of the £350 million slogan on the bus thing but I'm sure I could find other examples if I tried.

Implying that people are being manipulated (with all its negative connotations) by images of dead children is in itself an emotive and abrasive argument. You can't expect posters just to swallow your implications without you explaining yourself and mitigating your arguments as you have now.

If I may, a little less scatter-gun approach to your posting might help with you having to justify yourself all the time.

(22-12-2016 18:07 )ShandyHand Wrote:  ^^ FWIW, I was actually thinking of the £350 million slogan on the bus thing but I'm sure I could find other examples if I tried.

Huh? I have never mentioned anyhting about the 350 million slogun we all know that was brexit propaganda.

Quote:Implying that people are being manipulated (with all its negative connotations) by images of dead children is in itself an emotive and abrasive argument. You can't expect posters just to swallow your implications without you explaining yourself and mitigating your arguments as you have now.

I never said manipulated, these are your words. As regarding the propaganda word I used this has been attacked and i have tried to justifiy my use of it.

Quote:If I may, a little less scatter-gun approach to your posting might help with you having to justify yourself all the time.

There is a kernal of truth in this, i do tend to use words others would not; not the exact word seems to be the general consesus, but to me they are accurate and justifyable, you can say horizontally challanged, or you can say fat, both mean the same thing.

(22-12-2016 17:45 )wackawoo Wrote:  You need to realise I have been on this forum since 2006,

You must have spent the first two years talking to yourself, until everyone else arrived in 2008?

^ maybe he had the whole forum on his ignore list for 2 years! lol.

why does it say joined 2015 then

(22-12-2016 18:56 )HannahsPet Wrote:  why does it say joined 2015 then

Propaganda?

(22-12-2016 18:27 )wackawoo Wrote:  

(22-12-2016 18:07 )ShandyHand Wrote:  ^^ FWIW, I was actually thinking of the £350 million slogan on the bus thing but I'm sure I could find other examples if I tried.

Huh? I have never mentioned anyhting about the 350 million slogun we all know that was brexit propaganda.

I have the distinct impression that you supported that figure as fact at the time or at least denigrated the sources that pointed out its fallacy. If that impression is wrong then I apologise.

(22-12-2016 18:27 )wackawoo Wrote:  

Quote:Implying that people are being manipulated (with all its negative connotations) by images of dead children is in itself an emotive and abrasive argument. You can't expect posters just to swallow your implications without you explaining yourself and mitigating your arguments as you have now.

I never said manipulated, these are your words. As regarding the propaganda word I used this has been attacked and i have tried to justifiy my use of it.

But that is the thing, you quite often use weighty words without a full recognition of their implications on the reader. Propaganda is by its nature intended to be manipulative. You were arguing that the showing of the child's body was done specifically for the effect of manipulating the emotions of the viewer. You can't now claim that this wasn't inherent in your words.

Too often you stir people with an ill-conceived or overly hastily sketched concept and then blame them for not understanding you properly when they come back at you. That is going to put certain posters' backs-up.

(22-12-2016 18:27 )wackawoo Wrote:  

Quote:If I may, a little less scatter-gun approach to your posting might help with you having to justify yourself all the time.

There is a kernal of truth in this, i do tend to use words others would not; not the exact word seems to be the general consesus, but to me they are accurate and justifyable, you can say horizontally challanged, or you can say fat, both mean the same thing.

No, I wouldn't say either. Eventually I know when to keep my gob shut!

And because we both are now running the risk of picking up points for next years' Rod Serling forum award for appearances in the Twilight Zone, I will do just that!

What's the score I wonder?

(22-12-2016 18:38 )circles_o_o_o Wrote:  You must have spent the first two years talking to yourself, until everyone else arrived in 2008?

Still am mate.

I know it was a very long time ago.

This was one of the first ones - Registration Date: 07-10-2008, that date is even before some rules were in place. Must have been one of the first on here.

http://www.babeshows.co.uk/member.php?ac...e&uid=1296

I should demand all my reps and thanks should be put on my current account, damn I'd look popular then.