HorrorMovieFans.com

can we all agree that it's far out of bounds to bring survivors of a tragedy, in person, to manipulate lawmakers into voting a certain way? it wouldn't be okay if trump did it. it shouldn't be okay if liberals do it.

there is dire need to find some kind of solution, but i don't think it should ever involve directly using victims as pawns to get your way, politically.

zombie wrote:can we all agree that it's far out of bounds to bring survivors of a tragedy, in person, to manipulate lawmakers into voting a certain way? it wouldn't be okay if trump did it. it shouldn't be okay if liberals do it.

there is dire need to find some kind of solution, but i don't think it should ever involve directly using victims as pawns to get your way, politically.

I see both sides to this. There is definitely a school of thought that if not after a tragedy, when? I can understand that. How long should we wait to enact laws that protect us after a tragedy exposes a problem?

That being said, victims can be used or they can be willing participants in change. In any event, you hope your elected officials have enough sense to not overreact to situations. As a prevention to knee jerk reactions, we need look no further than the constitution.

Also, there is something sleazy, regardless of who is doing it, about waiting on tragedy to pounce on trying to pass laws you wanted all along. If we are talking about school shootings, I think trying to ban anything and thinking that is a real solution is ridiculous. There is a huge societal problem at play here. Blaming guns, music, video games, etc. is no solution.

Nobody blames the gun when a cop shoots, either. Weird double standard.

Foo wrote:

zombie wrote:can we all agree that it's far out of bounds to bring survivors of a tragedy, in person, to manipulate lawmakers into voting a certain way? it wouldn't be okay if trump did it. it shouldn't be okay if liberals do it.

there is dire need to find some kind of solution, but i don't think it should ever involve directly using victims as pawns to get your way, politically.

I see both sides to this. There is definitely a school of thought that if not after a tragedy, when? I can understand that. How long should we wait to enact laws that protect us after a tragedy exposes a problem?

That being said, victims can be used or they can be willing participants in change. In any event, you hope your elected officials have enough sense to not overreact to situations. As a prevention to knee jerk reactions, we need look no further than the constitution.

Also, there is something sleazy, regardless of who is doing it, about waiting on tragedy to pounce on trying to pass laws you wanted all along. If we are talking about school shootings, I think trying to ban anything and thinking that is a real solution is ridiculous. There is a huge societal problem at play here. Blaming guns, music, video games, etc. is no solution.

the sleazy part comes, particularly when you actually bring the survivors to wherever the laws are being decided. and yeah, i'm talking, in this instance, about a school shooting.

i didn't think about whether the survivors wanted to come to try to make change. that's understandable from their point of view. but i still see it as manipulation by the politicians to bring them along, either way.

all of that said, i have no problem with talking about a solution, no matter how soon after the tragedy. just don't play the survivors as pawns to that end is my point.

zombie wrote:i have no problem with talking about a solution, no matter how soon after the tragedy. just don't play the survivors as pawns to that end is my point.

Fair point, but what does it say about the general public when that is what it takes to get them to pay attention to them?

Jason wrote:

zombie wrote:i have no problem with talking about a solution, no matter how soon after the tragedy. just don't play the survivors as pawns to that end is my point.

Fair point, but what does it say about the general public when that is what it takes to get them to pay attention to them?

you don't think the general public pays attention when reports are shown on the news? can voters and lawmakers not be reminded that way?

i don't know what side of the issue you're on. conservative, so possibly right to bear arms? so, with that as the premise, would it change your mind if the survivors of a school shooting went along to campaign with a strict gun control candidate? how would you feel about that?

zombie wrote:

Jason wrote:

zombie wrote:i have no problem with talking about a solution, no matter how soon after the tragedy. just don't play the survivors as pawns to that end is my point.

Fair point, but what does it say about the general public when that is what it takes to get them to pay attention to them?

you don't think the general public pays attention when reports are shown on the news? can voters and lawmakers not be reminded that way?

i don't know what side of the issue you're on. conservative, so possibly right to bear arms? so, with that as the premise, would it change your mind if the survivors of a school shooting went along to campaign with a strict gun control candidate? how would you feel about that?

The difference is I am suspicious of democrats actually planning a tragedy to suit their agenda. They are that evil.

Jason wrote:
The difference is I am suspicious of democrats actually planning a tragedy to suit their agenda. They are that evil.

that's an interesting twist. what makes you feel that democrats specifically, as opposed to just politicians in general, are capable of that? what about them, in particular, makes you feel like they are "that evil"?

zombie wrote:

Jason wrote:
The difference is I am suspicious of democrats actually planning a tragedy to suit their agenda. They are that evil.

that's an interesting twist. what makes you feel that democrats specifically, as opposed to just politicians in general, are capable of that? what about them, in particular, makes you feel like they are "that evil"?

Well, they organized the assassination of their own president in 1963.

zombie wrote:

Foo wrote:

zombie wrote:can we all agree that it's far out of bounds to bring survivors of a tragedy, in person, to manipulate lawmakers into voting a certain way? it wouldn't be okay if trump did it. it shouldn't be okay if liberals do it.

there is dire need to find some kind of solution, but i don't think it should ever involve directly using victims as pawns to get your way, politically.

I see both sides to this. There is definitely a school of thought that if not after a tragedy, when? I can understand that. How long should we wait to enact laws that protect us after a tragedy exposes a problem?

That being said, victims can be used or they can be willing participants in change. In any event, you hope your elected officials have enough sense to not overreact to situations. As a prevention to knee jerk reactions, we need look no further than the constitution.

Also, there is something sleazy, regardless of who is doing it, about waiting on tragedy to pounce on trying to pass laws you wanted all along. If we are talking about school shootings, I think trying to ban anything and thinking that is a real solution is ridiculous. There is a huge societal problem at play here. Blaming guns, music, video games, etc. is no solution.

the sleazy part comes, particularly when you actually bring the survivors to wherever the laws are being decided. and yeah, i'm talking, in this instance, about a school shooting.

i didn't think about whether the survivors wanted to come to try to make change. that's understandable from their point of view. but i still see it as manipulation by the politicians to bring them along, either way.

all of that said, i have no problem with talking about a solution, no matter how soon after the tragedy. just don't play the survivors as pawns to that end is my point.

I think the key here is when the victims are children, then it is clearly exploitative, for obvious reasons. Kids should never be used as a prop for any agenda.

Jason wrote:

zombie wrote:

Jason wrote:
The difference is I am suspicious of democrats actually planning a tragedy to suit their agenda. They are that evil.

that's an interesting twist. what makes you feel that democrats specifically, as opposed to just politicians in general, are capable of that? what about them, in particular, makes you feel like they are "that evil"?

Well, they organized the assassination of their own president in 1963.

okay. i'll let it be. i'm not prepared to challenge or counter conspiracy theories, when i don't know what actually happened, if not the official story.

Foo wrote:

zombie wrote:

Foo wrote:

zombie wrote:can we all agree that it's far out of bounds to bring survivors of a tragedy, in person, to manipulate lawmakers into voting a certain way? it wouldn't be okay if trump did it. it shouldn't be okay if liberals do it.

there is dire need to find some kind of solution, but i don't think it should ever involve directly using victims as pawns to get your way, politically.

I see both sides to this. There is definitely a school of thought that if not after a tragedy, when? I can understand that. How long should we wait to enact laws that protect us after a tragedy exposes a problem?

That being said, victims can be used or they can be willing participants in change. In any event, you hope your elected officials have enough sense to not overreact to situations. As a prevention to knee jerk reactions, we need look no further than the constitution.

Also, there is something sleazy, regardless of who is doing it, about waiting on tragedy to pounce on trying to pass laws you wanted all along. If we are talking about school shootings, I think trying to ban anything and thinking that is a real solution is ridiculous. There is a huge societal problem at play here. Blaming guns, music, video games, etc. is no solution.

the sleazy part comes, particularly when you actually bring the survivors to wherever the laws are being decided. and yeah, i'm talking, in this instance, about a school shooting.

i didn't think about whether the survivors wanted to come to try to make change. that's understandable from their point of view. but i still see it as manipulation by the politicians to bring them along, either way.

all of that said, i have no problem with talking about a solution, no matter how soon after the tragedy. just don't play the survivors as pawns to that end is my point.

I think the key here is when the victims are children, then it is clearly exploitative, for obvious reasons. Kids should never be used as a prop for any agenda.

children, as anyone below the age of 18 or do you consider teens to not be "children" in this situation? either way, i think i'm with you on that.

Imagine if every gun advocate gathered up kids they know who were possibly saved by guns and had them lay down in front of congress. Would be just as bad.

Public service ads with little kids talking about how the handgun mommy carries prevented her from getting raped or how the home invasion was stopped by an AR-15. Awful any way you play it with kids.

zombie wrote:

Foo wrote:

zombie wrote:

Foo wrote:

zombie wrote:can we all agree that it's far out of bounds to bring survivors of a tragedy, in person, to manipulate lawmakers into voting a certain way? it wouldn't be okay if trump did it. it shouldn't be okay if liberals do it.

there is dire need to find some kind of solution, but i don't think it should ever involve directly using victims as pawns to get your way, politically.

I see both sides to this. There is definitely a school of thought that if not after a tragedy, when? I can understand that. How long should we wait to enact laws that protect us after a tragedy exposes a problem?

That being said, victims can be used or they can be willing participants in change. In any event, you hope your elected officials have enough sense to not overreact to situations. As a prevention to knee jerk reactions, we need look no further than the constitution.

Also, there is something sleazy, regardless of who is doing it, about waiting on tragedy to pounce on trying to pass laws you wanted all along. If we are talking about school shootings, I think trying to ban anything and thinking that is a real solution is ridiculous. There is a huge societal problem at play here. Blaming guns, music, video games, etc. is no solution.

the sleazy part comes, particularly when you actually bring the survivors to wherever the laws are being decided. and yeah, i'm talking, in this instance, about a school shooting.

i didn't think about whether the survivors wanted to come to try to make change. that's understandable from their point of view. but i still see it as manipulation by the politicians to bring them along, either way.

all of that said, i have no problem with talking about a solution, no matter how soon after the tragedy. just don't play the survivors as pawns to that end is my point.

I think the key here is when the victims are children, then it is clearly exploitative, for obvious reasons. Kids should never be used as a prop for any agenda.

children, as anyone below the age of 18 or do you consider teens to not be "children" in this situation? either way, i think i'm with you on that.

Anyone below 18 is a child, so yes. They are particularly subject to manipulation as they literally rely on their parents who are likely pushing the whole exploitation.

Foo wrote:Imagine if every gun advocate gathered up kids they know who were possibly saved by guns and had them lay down in front of congress. Would be just as bad.

Public service ads with little kids talking about how the handgun mommy carries prevented her from getting raped or how the home invasion was stopped by an AR-15. Awful any way you play it with kids.

agreed. when i saw this about gun control laws, i thought of conservatives doing something similar with terrorism survivors to push for travel bans or something similar. it's particularly sleazy when it's children that you're using to do it.

zombie wrote:

Jason wrote:

zombie wrote:

Jason wrote:
The difference is I am suspicious of democrats actually planning a tragedy to suit their agenda. They are that evil.

that's an interesting twist. what makes you feel that democrats specifically, as opposed to just politicians in general, are capable of that? what about them, in particular, makes you feel like they are "that evil"?

Well, they organized the assassination of their own president in 1963.

okay. i'll let it be. i'm not prepared to challenge or counter conspiracy theories, when i don't know what actually happened, if not the official story.

The only thing we know about history is what we are told. In classrooms, history books still say that Lee Harvey Oswald was a lone assassin who was killed by Jack Ruby two days later, a man so distraught over the loss of his beloved president that he couldn't take the grief and killed Oswald.

So ass backwards. Makes you really skeptical of what you're told about history.

Jason wrote:
The only thing we know about history is what we are told. In classrooms, history books still say that Lee Harvey Oswald was a lone assassin who was killed by Jack Ruby two days later, a man so distraught over the loss of his beloved president that he couldn't take the grief and killed Oswald.

So ass backwards. Makes you really skeptical of what you're told about history.

it's good to keep an open mind, and don't just accept whatever you're told to believe or think. but it doesn't lend itself to such a topic. i would no sooner know how to argue a point, when the life cycle of bigfoot is thrown into the mix.

Easy, bigfoot is a hoax. :p

zombie wrote:

Foo wrote:Imagine if every gun advocate gathered up kids they know who were possibly saved by guns and had them lay down in front of congress. Would be just as bad.

Public service ads with little kids talking about how the handgun mommy carries prevented her from getting raped or how the home invasion was stopped by an AR-15. Awful any way you play it with kids.

agreed. when i saw this about gun control laws, i thought of conservatives doing something similar with terrorism survivors to push for travel bans or something similar. it's particularly sleazy when it's children that you're using to do it.

The Khan family speaking out against Trump...Trump using family members of people killed by illegals. Not a fan of any of that.

Jason wrote:Easy, bigfoot is a hoax. :p

and lee harvey oswald a patsy, let's say, but then we have to consider who exactly did it and the reasons why. surely there is an easier way to discuss your perception that democrats, alone, are that evil?