Cont: School shooting Florida - pt 2

[fuelair]

Then I guess CBS shouldn't try to mislead the public. Interesting that the Snopes debunking says that he had his talking points about the NRA by 6 pm. and, evidently, his parent's permission to ride his bike back to an active crime scene alone and a signed release so he could be interviewed on air. Still not a survivor and barely a witness.

He was there when the attack occurred. That makes him a survivor. YMMD but it would be very, very wrong. Good try but no prize/award for you on this!!!

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Hogg interviewed classmates

Hogg interviewed fellow students while they were in hiding.

 

[fuelair]

Why? If Snopes is right, CBS shouldn't broadcast David Hogg quotes out of context. But their best evidence that the quote was taken out of context is the fact that he's said he was in class in other interviews. Well, that's what liars do, give conflicting information.

Even worse try. Reread all the appropriate posts for details.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

It's also a distraction from having to explain how they came to the conclusion they'd be able to fight off that fabled "tyrannical government".

 

[CaptainHowdy]

He was there when the attack occurred. That makes him a survivor. YMMD but it would be very, very wrong. Good try but no prize/award for you on this!!!

If he was there when the attack occurred, he is a witness. If David Hogg is a "survivor" of a school shooting because he was at school and heard gunshots, all the other students who were similarly situation would also be "survivors." Would a student who was at school but in a different building and didn't hear or see anything also be a "survivor?" What about students who had already gone home for the day? Are they survivors?

If you call a student like David Hogg a "survivor" what do you call the kids who were shot by Nikolas Cruz and spent days or weeks in the hospital recovering? Or a kid who was standing next to somebody who was shot and watched them die? Are they all part of the same "survivors" club?

 

[Meadmaker]

If he was there when the attack occurred, he is a witness. If David Hogg is a "survivor" of a school shooting because he was at school and heard gunshots, all the other students who were similarly situation would also be "survivors." Would a student who was at school but in a different building and didn't hear or see anything also be a "survivor?" What about students who had already gone home for the day? Are they survivors?

If you call a student like David Hogg a "survivor" what do you call the kids who were shot by Nikolas Cruz and spent days or weeks in the hospital recovering? Or a kid who was standing next to somebody who was shot and watched them die? Are they all part of the same "survivors" club?

As usual, you have successfully gotten to the heart of this matter. Brushing aside all that nonsense about dead kids and whether or not the guns that were used to kill them ought to be legal, you are focused like a laser on exactly what credentials are needed to have the word "survivor" used to describe someone.

Stay focused. It's working great.

 

[Meadmaker]

It purports to show us how a grassroots movement organized by the students at MSD took the world by storm but is actually a documentary of how an anti-NRA media exploited this incident to push its agenda. You know, the "conspiracy theory" that these kids weren't making the news, the news was making the kids.

Surprisingly, they did give airtime to Kyle Kushuv, the only kid who knows what he's talking about. But still, I think all these students will be able to identify with Jessica Lynch in a few years.

One more thought on this post. I watched the show. I now can put a face to the name of David Hogg. Not being a TV news watcher much of the time, I hadn't seen him, or at least not enough to know which one was him. Oh, but that's not the point.

The point I was going to make is that the TV show didn't "purport" to show anything at all. It was a series of video clips, stitched together, with little or no narration. Just an occasional text box. There was no "purporting" going on.

And they not only gave a decent amount of air time to Kyle Kushum, they gave a heck of a lot of air time to Andrew Pollack, who did not advocate gun control.

 

[jimbob]

If he was there when the attack occurred, he is a witness. If David Hogg is a "survivor" of a school shooting because he was at school and heard gunshots, all the other students who were similarly situation would also be "survivors." Would a student who was at school but in a different building and didn't hear or see anything also be a "survivor?" What about students who had already gone home for the day? Are they survivors?

If you call a student like David Hogg a "survivor" what do you call the kids who were shot by Nikolas Cruz and spent days or weeks in the hospital recovering? Or a kid who was standing next to somebody who was shot and watched them die? Are they all part of the same "survivors" club?

Ohh I know...

It's "Crisis actors" isn't it?

 

[Aridas]

Ohh I know...

It's "Crisis actors" isn't it?

He already admitted that he was incorrectly using that term. It would be good to just leave it behind us until such time as someone else actually tried to push it.

There's plenty of reasonable stuff that you can disagree with or take issue with him about, either way, if you were so inclined. No need to demean yourself with one-liners about the few things that he's actually admitted error regarding.

ETA: For that post, for example, the simple fact that most of us are using survivor in the sense of "survived a situation where they were in real danger and where a number of others there did die," is enough to show that his attempted distinction is worthy of little more than an eyeroll. As for what we call those actually injured? Usually, "casualty" fits just fine, as an easy example. CaptainHowdy's already discredited the validity of his opinion himself many times over, though, which means that this particular attempt, which was merely a matter of opinion, not fact, could have been safely ignored.

 

[quadraginta]

<snip>

CaptainHowdy's already discredited the validity of his opinion himself many times over, though,

Sure, he has certainly done that.

which means that this particular attempt, which was merely a matter of opinion, not fact, could have been safely ignored.

But then it would be bereft of the public ridicule it deserves.

Some things are safely ignored. Others not so much.

His kind of petty, mean-spirited poison needs to be exposed. The antidote is sunlight, not darkness.

 

[smartcooky]

If he was there when the attack occurred, he is a witness. If David Hogg is a "survivor" of a school shooting because he was at school and heard gunshots, all the other students who were similarly situation would also be "survivors." Would a student who was at school but in a different building and didn't hear or see anything also be a "survivor?" What about students who had already gone home for the day? Are they survivors?

If you call a student like David Hogg a "survivor" what do you call the kids who were shot by Nikolas Cruz and spent days or weeks in the hospital recovering? Or a kid who was standing next to somebody who was shot and watched them die? Are they all part of the same "survivors" club?

Victims?

I guess being a young person and having a few of your school friends shot and killed doesn't really count for anything (at least in the vile and toxic existence you lead).

 

[Dave Rogers]

If you call a student like David Hogg a "survivor" what do you call the kids who were shot by Nikolas Cruz and spent days or weeks in the hospital recovering? Or a kid who was standing next to somebody who was shot and watched them die? Are they all part of the same "survivors" club?

Yeah, and all those fakers who claim to be Holocaust "survivors" when they never even went into the gas chambers should be next on the list for personal attacks.

Really, this isn't hard. A school was attacked. Some of the pupils were killed, and the rest survived, but the entire school was under attack. The kids who hid in cupboards are survivors. The kids who were standing next to somebody who was shot, are survivors. The kids who were shot but pulled through are survivors. The teachers who were in the school are survivors. Because they were all targets of the attack, and they all survived.

Dave

 

[fuelair]

If he was there when the attack occurred, he is a witness. If David Hogg is a "survivor" of a school shooting because he was at school and heard gunshots, all the other students who were similarly situation would also be "survivors." Would a student who was at school but in a different building and didn't hear or see anything also be a "survivor?" What about students who had already gone home for the day? Are they survivors?

If you call a student like David Hogg a "survivor" what do you call the kids who were shot by Nikolas Cruz and spent days or weeks in the hospital recovering? Or a kid who was standing next to somebody who was shot and watched them die? Are they all part of the same "survivors" club?

You are, I doubt. following the idea that all people present in any active shooter situation except armed persons looking to drop the shooters with prejudice are survivors of a psychiatrically bad situation even if not shot/knifed/etc. physically.

 

[332nd]

I hear a lot of people insisting that they need military grade weapons to fight against the government because it's only a matter of time before population control, FEMA reeducation camps, etc...

ETA: Whoops! I could've sworn I put the Military grade weapons line in the original post.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

I hear a lot of people insisting that they need military grade weapons to fight against the government because it's only a matter of time before population control, FEMA reeducation camps, etc...

ETA: Whoops! I could've sworn I put the Military grade weapons line in the original post.

Ah, got you. When I first read it I thought you may have been implying that they do need them for that purpose, not sure why I read it that way in retrospect...

 

[jimbob]

He already admitted that he was incorrectly using that term. It would be good to just leave it behind us until such time as someone else actually tried to push it.

There's plenty of reasonable stuff that you can disagree with or take issue with him about, either way, if you were so inclined. No need to demean yourself with one-liners about the few things that he's actually admitted error regarding.

.

He didn't exactly admit it, more like "OK they weren't crisis actors, but they were plants"

Read what else he posted in the previous part of this thread.

Sure, he has certainly done that.




But then it would be bereft of the public ridicule it deserves.

Some things are safely ignored. Others not so much.

His kind of petty, mean-spirited poison needs to be exposed. The antidote is sunlight, not darkness.

Exactly.

There are posters who are more pro-gun than me, but who are obviously sincere and rational. They don't promote conspiracy theories about mass shootings.

Mockery is all it's worth.

 

[Aridas]

He didn't exactly admit it, more like "OK they weren't crisis actors, but they were plants"

Read what else he posted in the previous part of this thread.

That doesn't change that the term "crisis actor" is best left to the past, in part because continuing to poke at it gives him easy ways out. Without checking, as I recall, "plants" would be a bit inaccurate, too. He described them more like convenient, easily manipulable pawns and relied heavily on the fact that adults exist in their lives, some of which did share their opinions, unsurprisingly, and some of which did help them get things done to try to discredit them, without ever touching the actual issues that they championed beyond general insults and seemingly grudging acknowledgement of some unspecified parts.

There are posters who are more pro-gun than me, but who are obviously sincere and rational. They don't promote conspiracy theories about mass shootings.

To speak for myself, I have no problem with pro-gun people, myself. My problem lies with bad arguments, regardless of who uses them. That far too many of the pro-gun people seem to have a penchant for trotting out terrible and absurd arguments is certainly an undeniable mark against them as a whole, though.

 

[CaptainHowdy]

As usual, you have successfully gotten to the heart of this matter. Brushing aside all that nonsense about dead kids and whether or not the guns that were used to kill them ought to be legal, you are focused like a laser on exactly what credentials are needed to have the word "survivor" used to describe someone.

Stay focused. It's working great.

Thank you for your support. I don't agree with you that this is actually the "heart of the matter." After all, it's really the media that are pushing the "David Hogg as a survivor" narrative. There are so many other things about David Hogg that are wrong it doesn't do any good to focus on this.

 

[CaptainHowdy]

One more thought on this post. I watched the show. I now can put a face to the name of David Hogg. Not being a TV news watcher much of the time, I hadn't seen him, or at least not enough to know which one was him. Oh, but that's not the point.

The point I was going to make is that the TV show didn't "purport" to show anything at all. It was a series of video clips, stitched together, with little or no narration. Just an occasional text box. There was no "purporting" going on.

And they not only gave a decent amount of air time to Kyle Kushum, they gave a heck of a lot of air time to Andrew Pollack, who did not advocate gun control.

Then what was the show about? It wasn't just a series of video clips thrown together at random without any attempt at telling a story.

 

[CaptainHowdy]

Victims?

OK. Then what do you call the kids who were killed?

I guess being a young person and having a few of your school friends shot and killed doesn't really count for anything (at least in the vile and toxic existence you lead).

It doesn't give them any special insight into gun control policy nor does it give them the right to deflect the blame for Nikolas Cruz away from the government entities and policies that are responsible.