Who watches Al Jazeera? - Page 5

Asher · March 25, 2003, 02:45

Quote:

Originally posted by Willem
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that also a Christian thing? I'd say there's alot more people who believe in an afterlife in America than in Afghanistan. I could be mistaken but I doubt it.

I'm fairly sure you're mistaken. There are no doubt MANY religious people in America (

) but there are no doubt MANY more religious people in Afghanistan...

Willem · March 25, 2003, 02:46

Quote:

Originally posted by Asher

Honest question: If pure, hardcore truth is all your after -- what do you think of the 5 year olds watching this?

Then why not just run the video in the eveneing when a 5 year old is supposed to be in bed? Very simple really.

Asher · March 25, 2003, 02:48

Quote:

Originally posted by Tassadar5000
No ashwer, I dont want to FORCE them. If I did, I would have the government pass a law requiring that everyone take 1000 pictures of the dead bodies, sign them, and put them all over their house. (4000 pictures will be the averege)

You're taking the "force" statement too literally (sorry, I left this up for you to deduce on your own but it looks like I'll have to explain it anyway

)

By making all the big-name news networks switch to showing the full carnage, you're "forcing" America to watch it because all of their major sources show it. You're shoving it in their face and screaming "TAKE IT! TAKE ITTT!!!!!".

That's the reason you don't want it on a new network. You know that Americans don't want to see the carnage, and the only way to get them to watch it is to force it on CNN and hopefully people will inadvertently watch it or be too lazy to turn the channel every time a "warning" comes up...

Nubclear · March 25, 2003, 02:48

Quote:

Originally posted by Asher

I'm fairly sure you're mistaken. There are no doubt MANY religious people in America (

) but there are no doubt MANY more religious people in Afghanistan...

We have a population of 250 million.

They have a pop of 30 million.

I'm sure there are at least 30 million religious people in the US

Asher · March 25, 2003, 02:49

Quote:

Originally posted by Willem
Then why not just run the video in the eveneing when a 5 year old is supposed to be in bed? Very simple really.

Or even better, why not air it at all?

The people who would stay up to a specific time late at night to see it may as well just get the thing on the 'net...

Willem · March 25, 2003, 02:49

Quote:

Originally posted by Asher

I've never said anything of the sort, nor implied it.

Take your strawmen elsewhere...

Not everybody -- just the people who need it.

You said flat out that it would traumatize millions. Don't make me go back and copy your quote. Those of us in the Vietnam generation saw some horrific things on our TV sets, and most of us have since grown up to become well adjusted adults. Give people some credit, they can deal with these types of things much better than you think they can.

Asher · March 25, 2003, 02:50

Quote:

Originally posted by Tassadar5000
We have a population of 250 million.

They have a pop of 30 million.

I'm sure there are at least 30 million religious people in the US

Is this a joke?

I'm not talking raw numbers, I'm talking percentages. That should have been obvious...

Nubclear · March 25, 2003, 02:50

Quote:

Originally posted by Asher

By making all the big-name news networks switch to showing the full carnage, you're "forcing" America to watch it because all of their major sources show it. You're shoving it in their face and screaming "TAKE IT! TAKE ITTT!!!!!".

And they can deny it.

So in that sense yes I do want to "force" them. Though in the literal sense, I dont

Quote:

That's the reason you don't want it on a new network. You know that Americans don't want to see the carnage, and the only way to get them to watch it is to force it on CNN and hopefully people will inadvertently watch it or be too lazy to turn the channel every time a "warning" comes up...

Actually......Usually after a disaster, people watch more news

And I'm not about to start a News Network in LOGAN UTAH and try to make it internationale just so people who want the FULL news can get it.

Nubclear · March 25, 2003, 02:51

Quote:

Originally posted by Asher

Is this a joke?

I'm not talking raw numbers, I'm talking percentages. That should have been obvious...

It was.

100 percent of people in my house like the Russian flag and think its the best.

I'm sure the number is less than 50 percent in America

But hey, I got 100 percent so most people must thbink the Russian flag is the best

Asher · March 25, 2003, 02:52

Quote:

Originally posted by Willem
You said flat out that it would traumatize millions.

Hello, millions != "everyone"

Quote:

Don't make me go back and copy your quote.

Do you think you could manage to do that without hurting yourself?

Quote:

Those of us in the Vietnam generation saw some horrific things on our TV sets

I love this, not because it doesn't disprove anything about being traumatizing, but because it illustrates that showing the "full impact of war" doesn't change a damn thing. The US administration was alive and well in the Vietnam war, they know the harsh realities of war first-hand in many cases, and still they support it.

There's simply no case for showing the carnage of war on everyone's TV.

Nubclear · March 25, 2003, 02:52

Quote:

Originally posted by Asher

Or even better, why not air it at all?

The people who would stay up to a specific time late at night to see it may as well just get the thing on the 'net...

Most Americans dont even stay up to watch "normal" news

Nubclear · March 25, 2003, 02:54

Ill save him the trouble

Quote:

Asher
King

Nov 1999
time: 11:53:38 PM

24-03-2003 11:09:20 PM link

Agathon, at first my opinion of you sunk to new lows when you referred to the police as "pigs" in the protest thread.

And now you've gotten to the point where you want to cause trauma to millions of people because you want them all to be anti-war. And even that logic doesn't make sense.

though it doesnt help Willems case.......

Asher · March 25, 2003, 02:55

Tass, what's the point of that?

I realize I said it would traumatize millions of people.

Willem either has reading comprehension problems or intentionally set up a strawman which said that an "entire generation" became "raving lunatics" because of it.

It's a blatant strawman, I never said either "entire generation" nor that it caused people to become "raving lunatics".

Edit: Ah, you added some of your own text to the quote's context. Makes more sense now.

Nubclear · March 25, 2003, 02:56

Quote:

Originally posted by Asher
Tass, what's the point of that?

I realize I said it would traumatize millions of people.

Willem either has reading comprehension problems or intentionally set up a strawmen which said that an "entire generation" became "raving lunatics" because of it.

It's a blatant strawman, I never said either "entire generation" nor that it caused people to become "raving lunatics".

you missed my edit

Willem · March 25, 2003, 02:58

Quote:

Originally posted by Asher

I'm fairly sure you're mistaken. There are no doubt MANY religious people in America (

) but there are no doubt MANY more religious people in Afghanistan...

The population of Afghanistan is what, about 25-30 million? I'm not entirely sure. The US is about 300 million, and I'd say there must be at least 15% of those with a moderate to strong believe in Christianity, and an afterlife. So America Christians would easily top Afghani Muslims.

Ming · March 25, 2003, 02:58

I think some people need to chill... before they get chilled...

Nubclear · March 25, 2003, 02:58

Quote:

Originally posted by Tassadar5000
you missed my edit

And I have to go.

I'll continue this debate tomorrow if this thread remains untouched

Asher · March 25, 2003, 02:59

Quote:

Originally posted by Willem
The population of Afghanistan is what, about 25-30 million? I'm not entirely sure. The US is about 300 million, and I'd say there must be at least 15% of those with a moderate to strong believe in Christianity, and an afterlife. So America Christians would easily top Afghani Muslims.

AGAIN

I'm not talking raw numbers (that's exceedingly stupid), I'm talking percentages.

The percentage of people in Afghanistan believing in the afterlife is undoubtedly higher than that in America.

Willem · March 25, 2003, 03:02

Quote:

Originally posted by Asher

Is this a joke?

I'm not talking raw numbers, I'm talking percentages. That should have been obvious...

For crying out loud Asher, at least keep your argument straight:

"I'm fairly sure you're mistaken. There are no doubt MANY religious people in America ( ) but there are no doubt MANY more religious people in Afghanistan"

You quite obviously were talking raw numbers. And that was only a couple of posts ago.

Asher · March 25, 2003, 03:04

Quote:

Originally posted by Willem
For crying out loud Asher, at least keep your argument straight:

"I'm fairly sure you're mistaken. There are no doubt MANY religious people in America ( ) but there are no doubt MANY more religious people in Afghanistan"

You quite obviously were talking raw numbers. And that was only a couple of posts ago.

Why don't you look at it in context...

We were talking about the AVERAGE American/Afghani, then afterwards in a subsequent post I said there are MANY more religious people in Afghanistan than America, in the context of the average American/Afghani. I was thinking of it in terms of percentages, not raw numbers (I don't understand why you would think raw numbers would be relevant...)

I apologize for being unclear and relying on your analytical skills to realize I wasn't implying a nation of 300M had less religious people than a nation of 25M.

See, you yell at me for being patronizing, and just when I go and leave things up for you to figure out...

Willem · March 25, 2003, 03:08

Quote:

Originally posted by Asher
The US administration was alive and well in the Vietnam war, they know the harsh realities of war first-hand in many cases, and still they support it.

There's simply no case for showing the carnage of war on everyone's TV.

But there's a whole new generation of people that hasn't, and it's their future that's being affected. They should know fully what's at stake.

Willem · March 25, 2003, 03:16

Quote:

Originally posted by Asher

Willem either has reading comprehension problems or intentionally set up a strawman which said that an "entire generation" became "raving lunatics" because of it.

The point I'm trying to make, which you either fail to grasp or are trying to avoid, is that my generation saw these types of graphic images, and we were able to deal with it. We weren't traumatized, nor did they do any damage to our fragile psyches. We just saw the war more realisticaly than what people today are being shown, and we handled it in our own way. People are much stronger emotionally than you seem to want to give them credit for.

Asher · March 25, 2003, 03:20

Quote:

Originally posted by Willem
The point I'm trying to make, which you either fail to grasp or are trying to avoid, is that my generation saw these types of graphic images, and we were able to deal with it. We weren't traumatized, nor did they do any damage to our fragile psyches.

I thought I shot down that point with my "jump off a 14-story building" example.

You can't say your entire generation saw the footage and everyone is fine. You just...can't.

You may be fine (so you claim

) but others may not be. Sure, the majority of people probably get over it, but those same people today are overwhelmingly (75%)supporting this war effort.

Some people are still traumatized from it, and you don't seem to get that. I was ignoring your "our generation saw it and is fine" garbage because I thought I already addressed that. You cannot stereotype a generation like that. And in any case, it clearly doesn't change people's perspective on supporting the war (look at the polls)

IIRC, the younger people are the more likely they are to oppose the war. These younger people never saw the Vietnam stuff.

Keep that in mind.

Asher · March 25, 2003, 03:22

It's not just long-term stuff too, it's mostly short-term.

Children having nightmares, having mommy-and-daddy having to sit down and explain to them at a young age what happened to that man's head... Nasty stuff emotionally.

Willem · March 25, 2003, 03:22

Quote:

Originally posted by Asher

Why don't you look at it in context...

If you mean percentages, then say it. It's not my fault you're not communicating clearly.

Asher · March 25, 2003, 03:24

Quote:

Originally posted by Willem
If you mean percentages, then say it. It's not my fault you're not communicating clearly.

I already apologized for relying on context.

I am somewhat used to dealing with people who are in university or university graduates -- so they have the ability to see things in context and make distinctions and realize what people are saying without them carefully spelling out every detail of what they're saying in every sentence.

Quite frankly, I think it's simply ridiculous that you assumed I meant there are more people, as a raw number, religious in Afghanistan (25M) than US (300M). I think it says more about you than me.

Willem · March 25, 2003, 03:24

Quote:

Originally posted by Asher
It's not just long-term stuff too, it's mostly short-term.

Children having nightmares, having mommy-and-daddy having to sit down and explain to them at a young age what happened to that man's head... Nasty stuff emotionally.

War is hell. If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen.

Asher · March 25, 2003, 03:27

Quote:

Originally posted by Willem
War is hell. If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen.

I completely agree.
Which is why if people want to see the heat, they should have to go to the kitchen, rather than have the kitchen come to them. Bad analogy, but you get the picture.

To take the bad analogy even further, by putting those graphic images on TV, you're throwing people in the kitchen and letting them run out again if they can't take the heat.

And I think there's many problems with that attitude.

Urban Ranger · March 25, 2003, 05:00

Quote:

Originally posted by Asher
Nonsense -- there is absolutely nothing NEWSWORTHY of blood and corpses. We can be told numbers of losses, that's all that's needed.

Here's YOUR solution: You want to satisify your necrophelia fetish, hop on Kazaa and spare everyone else.

So, are you suggesting that the media should "sanitise" what they show? After all, blood and corpses are part of the war. To see a war in its nasty nakedness, the media has a responsibility of showing everything: blood, corpses, refugees, buildings destroyed, everything.

TheStinger · March 25, 2003, 05:03

Does anyone think WW1 would have continued past Verdun and the Somme if there was reporting like we see today.