Enlighten me, is there a disconnect to the point of discussion, or, what individuals want to discuss? Is rainbow's child porn not a straw man? afrabrain didn't make any point. I'm left guessing.
soo... its just about wants ? do your(or other people as you invoke moral and group association[& to stay on the topic rather than have it perceived as a personal expose]) wants have authority over the needs of victims ? personally i think the state should place the victims needs before other peoples wants.
Last Sunday afternoon my flatmate came up to me and showed me around 4 minutes of a video, without any sound, on his phone. He said an ex military mate had sent the link to him and he only showed me 4 minutes because he was running out of credit. From memory a guy was driving along until he did a 3 point turn in an alleyway and then parked with the drivers side of his car (right hand side in NZ) to the gutter. As he started to get out he grabbed his gun, that looked like it had white writing on it, and accidentally fired a burst into the gutter, raising a bit of dust, as he got out. He then went to the back of the car and opened it up, it was a hatchback, and there were other guns in there with white writing on them. One TV news channel posted a still of this scene. He grabbed another 2 guns, one a shotgun, and walked to the front of a building. I won't describe what happened next but I must say that, on reflection, there seemed to be a noticeable lack of blood, broken windows and bullet holes wherever he went inside the building even when he returned and went through the same rooms a second time. For all I know it was a genuine massacre (maybe the soundtrack really did make a difference?) but I will never be able to form a firm opinion on the matter due to a lack of further information. One thing was obvious though, if it was a FPS computer game you would probably be insisting on getting your money back.
There's being informed. And then there is sitting down and watching a video of a terrorist gunning innocent men, women and children down. Watching the event unfold is not providing you with any information you would not already know... Yes and no. I think we should ask ourselves.. Do we really need to see the video? Is it going to provide some sense of enlightenment as to his motives? We know what his motives were. It is not just about giving the perpetrator more attention. It is that bey allowing the footage to be shared, allowing it to remain online and having people watch it, it gives it meaning and purpose to those who follow his hateful ideology. But not only that, it feeds our need for more gore. I mean, why do people need to see it? What is to be gained by watching it? Who gains more from having it online? The horror happened. Not watching it is not putting our heads in the sand. Not watching it ensures we remain horrified by it, by the very thought of it. Because the more we see it, the less the violence bothers us. His actions were game changing in the most horrific way. Will the next one also live stream it? Probably. And do we want to normalise sitting down and watching something like that? No, I don't think we should.
Well, we know why people believe there is a river of blood the moment someone gets shot. FPS games and movies, etc, have led people to this bizarre belief that blood spurts out if someone is shot, or leaks out all over the floor immediately. It does not actually happen that way, unless major blood vessels are struck initially, and even then, it does not happen as it does in FPS games or in movies. That type of bleeding comes afterwards and if there is a lot of blood left on the ground, it means that the person remained alive long enough for their heart to pump that blood out of their body - now imagine the horror of that. There were a lack of broken windows, because he knew how to shoot. There were less bullet holes in walls, etc, because he unfortunately aimed at his victims. And the video would not have been able to capture a lot of it anyway. To question whether it was a genuine massacre or not, because it somehow or other failed to live up to your expectations, perhaps based from FPS games you have played, is a perfect example of why the video should never be allowed to be viewed. 50 people lost their lives and you are essentially umming and aahing about whether that constituted a genuine massacre because a) you did not get to watch the whole thing, b) there was no sound in the bits you saw, c) apparently seeing dozens of people gunned down is the type of information you need to form a better assessment(?) and finally d) comparing it to an FPS and suggesting refunds would be required because it failed to meet your game driven expectation of how people look like when they are shot goes beyond being morbid. Unfortunately, the rules prevent me from telling you what I really think of that one.
The shooter shoots through his windshield and also blows out the passenger side window . The gun, for some reason, also appears to have a flashing light on it which could be mistaken for gunfire, especially if you were watching with no sound. Besides that, what little information you've provided is pretty much what conspiracy theorists would latch onto...
I don't play FPS's, I have never owned a gun and have never felt like I need to buy a gun. All I was doing was providing honest feedback to the OP based on the 4 minutes of video that my flatmate shoved in front of my face and said 'have a look at this'. All I said was that I could not make any judgement either way on the basis of what I had seen.
I have no other information to make any decision and that is why I explicitly MADE NO DECISION. I also don't purposely go searching for 'snuff' movies!
I didn't say you did. I did say this in post 11, and I wish I could find it again: I was just being lazy and didn't want to compare and contrast all the "who what where when why". The ellipsis was meant to show that.
I only saw the news after seeing 4 minutes of the video. There is a Wikipedia page already (very comprehensive on phone) and it just raises more questions that will remain unanswered for anybody who did actually see the video initially. Hope you're not in NZ as there's a 10 year penalty for anybody found with/distributing the video and 14 years if you have or try to disseminate his manifesto. There's a link to it at the bottom of the AR 15 Wikipedia page. Did you know that according to the History Channel's 'Story of the Gun', to stop the gangster threat in the 20's, the US authorities went from sub machine guns (that use pistol ammunition) to true machine guns (like the AR 15 with military rifle ammunition) because they could penetrate through cars. Also according to the wiki, among many other things, apparently the damage that was done to the cars windshield/window, was done by someone who threw the shooters empty shotgun at him as he got back into the car. At least the 'good' news is that FB and Google probably already have the necessary controls that can be implemented for Australia/NZ after the requests made by the Chinese government. I have still not made any firm decision either way due to the considerable inconsistencies and just wonder who actually benefits after the draconian reaction by the politicians.
what i read between the lines here is a conspiracy theorist. you speak emotionally as if you care about others taking your supposed rights away, yet your application of that aspect is somewhat narcissistic in how you put it forward. such desire to disassociate from human suffering and emotional pain is normal. seeking to invalidate that pain by assigning such things as fake or political is nothing new. emotional dissociative disorders are also not new. however, you literal gesticulation to the Chinese government as a political comment gives you away quite clearly. applying a reason to remove others validation of suffering is also not a new thing. your off hand validation reference to wiki as if its the liberals bible of morality to justify your opinion is not lost "just following wiki" ?
I thought it was Sarah Sanders at a White House briefing that said it but I'm wrong. https://www.realclearpolitics.com/v...n_its_entirety_trump_only_mentioned_once.html The manifesto is of no conceivable use to me.
Gee have you got it totally wrong. The wiki article talks about a 'bloodbath' and there was no blood in the video I saw. I would have stopped watching immediately if there was. The Chinese government wanted FB and Google to introduce draconian censorship measures that was widely condemned by certain parts of the US media, the same parts who also claim that no evidence of collusion either way in a recent report doesn't actually mean that there was no collusion. I am also very sensitive to the pain of others, even in those stupid video's and bloopers I tense my body and wince when anybody hits the ground hard. My brother is married to a Taiwanese lady and my cousin is married to a lady from mainland China so go crawl back under the rock under your bridge you troll.
I think the best way to dispel any 'irregularities' about the entire issue would be for Wikipedia to make some sort of announcement about how its server times were out of alignment when 1,500 edits (30 pages of 50 edits each according to the pages history) were made to their page on March 15 2019.
Why not? You question whether this actually happened because it does not fit into a media driven narrative of what a massacre should apparently look like? What? You wanted to see blood flowing out of their bodies as he shot them? You do realise that when people are shot and killed, most of the bleeding happens internally, yes? That is what they actually die from. Internal bleeding due to the destruction the bullets cause inside their bodies. New Zealand's decision is a wise one. Because the terrorist also wanted fame. Why do you think he live streamed it to begin with and sent his manifesto to so many in the minutes before he slaughtered all those people? And what questions does the Wikipedia page raise for you? You seem to appear to be a bit of a 'truther'. Are you? Yes. By a worshiper who challenged him to try to stop him. What of it? What inconsistencies? You keep saying this, but you have yet to explain what was inconsistent, aside from murmuring about how there was not much blood from the video you saw, the first 4 minutes, where he had just started shooting.. While ignoring that the blood does not actually spread like that on impact with a bullet, unless major arteries are hit.. Do you think the politicians in New Zealand somehow manufactured this, or parts of it, or maybe the narrative to implement laws against New Zealanders? Do you doubt the events of that mass shooting because it does not have enough gore in it, to fit into your own 'bloodbath' narrative? For example: Do you know what the word/term "bloodbath" actually means? "An event or situation in which many people are killed in an extremely violent way." These people were gunned down in their houses of worship. 50 people brutally murdered. The wiki article was correct in describing it as a bloodbath. Unless you are going to now try to argue that being shot to death in a massacre does not constitute being "killed in an extremely violent way" and you will basically end up looking exceptionally silly, your 'truther' style of argument should probably end here.
