3 ms·
This argument makes absolutely no sense. The 'political point' here is that children are being killed. If you can't use the dead bodies of children to illustrat
by blocking_io 13y ago
This argument makes absolutely no sense. The 'political point' here is that children are being killed. If you can't use the dead bodies of children to illustrate this, then what can you use? Digitial manipulation is irrelevant to the fact that this was a real funeral with real dead children.
- DanBC 13y agoA different point is that we are so numb to images of dead children that those photos need to be manipulated so we take attention. That's pretty chilling.
- blots 13y agoWhenever I see photos of suffering children in a political context for me it is the "look at those poor children, clearly the [opposing group] are poor evil" argument. Which is not about the children anymore, it's about diverting your attention from the cause of the problem. And this argument is used over and over on any occasion. How can you not become numb to that?
- blocking_io 13y agoIt's not much of a stretch to say anyone killing children is (if not evil) in the wrong.
- gbog 13y agoMy argument is that there are some limits to what can be exposed to the public. You won't show on tv pictures of abused children to fight against children abuse. As a father, each time I see dead children I can't stop imagining it could be my kids, it hurts deeply, striking very intimate chords. I don't think it is ethical to strike these chords. These kind of pictures can be used as proofs if needed, but should not be public.
- blocking_io 13y agoIt's not ethical to encourage you to feel empathy? OK. You're entitled to your opinion but it's stupid.