The problem here is that the pro-censorship people have already made up their mind, so arguments like Bob's won't convince them of anything.
I'm sorry, but it seems that I phrased it incorrectly.Xanthious said:I can't help but be a bit taken aback by the hypocrisy here. You say in one breath that stricter regulation or bans on guns would help but in the next breath you say that the various types of media don't play a part.
In essence what you are saying that it's fine to give the things you as a law abiding citizen enjoy, legally without hurting anyone, a pass. However, those things that other law abiding citizens enjoy, legally without hurting anyone, those need further scrutiny and regulation.
Sure you can say if he didn't have the guns he wouldn't have been able to kill as many people but then I could just as easily say if he wasn't inspired to do so by the previous
*snip*
That does makes sense, we don't connect positive emotions to it but subconsciously a part of us does express the same feelings as if we did, it's not something we can control but pandering to those feelings (like the news media does) is exactly the problem.Katya Topolkaraeva said:Perhaps like is the wrong word (though def still the right word for a lot of people) we are interested in it and we are excited by it and we stimulated by it. So while many may not consciously "like" it, i'd say our brains def. like it if that makes sense?Shotgun Guy said:However I wouldn't say so much that we like it, perhaps some do. I think we are interested in it, we want to understand why, figure out the reason, when in reality there is very rarely a rational reason.