Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
IF this is so horrid and not just the root of more left/right feigned outrage BS then every photo featuring FDR, Churchill, and that great mass murderer Stalin together should be burned as being absolutely pornographic, eh?
Sigh. I knew this would happen.
First some rwnj's show up blaming liberals and now I have the lwnjs trying to compare historical photographs from the pottsdam conference with a magazines use of an extremely recent terror attacker to try to sell copies and make $$$.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,329 posts, read 54,389,283 times
Reputation: 40736
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mathguy
Feigned outrage?
Explain to me why you are think I'm "feigning outrage".
Because you say "I won't read the magazine again, not even if the choice is that or Knitting World at my dentists office"
That you say you won't read it again implies you have read it at least occasionally. To say you'd now rather read Knitting World and won't read RS again because they print a cover that clearly states the man is monster over the picture is so horrid because? The picture is of one of the bombers, is it not? Are you really so naïve as to believe all murderers, killers, bombers, monsters look the part?
No, I think this is much ado about nothing, the very definition of feigned outrage.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,329 posts, read 54,389,283 times
Reputation: 40736
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mathguy
Sigh. I knew this would happen.
First some rwnj's show up blaming liberals and now I have the lwnjs trying to compare historical photographs from the pottsdam conference with a magazines use of an extremely recent terror attacker to try to sell copies and make $$$.
Like it or not the mope on the cover became part of history the moments the bombs exploded. Besides, Stalin was a KNOWN mass murderer at the time those photos were published, don't try to hide behind the 'historical' curtain.
And, has Rolling Stone EVER made a statement they existed for altruism more so than making $$$?
Because you say "I won't read the magazine again, not even if the choice is that or Knitting World at my dentists office"
That you say you won't read it again implies you have read it at least occasionally. To say you'd now rather read Knitting World and won't read RS again because they print a cover that clearly states the man is monster over the picture is so horrid because? The picture is of one of the bombers, is it not? Are you really so naïve as to believe all murderers, killers, bombers, monsters look the part?
No, I think this is much ado about nothing, the very definition of feigned outrage.
You never answered my question and I pointed out that it's bad because they chose his headshot over other options with the sole intention to sell magazines. It's tasteless pandering.
The only reason you are here bleating and moaning is because the rwnj's started moaning that this is the fault of liberals and you just automatically jumped in on the other side of the argument.
Look at how the sides have lined up along the usual political lines around here, now THAT is pathetic.
Consider trying some independent thought sometime.
Like it or not the mope on the cover became part of history the moments the bombs exploded. Besides, Stalin was a KNOWN mass murderer at the time those photos were published, don't try to hide behind the 'historical' curtain.
And, has Rolling Stone EVER made a statement they existed for altruism more so than making $$$?
Ah, so your point is that 50 years from now the Boston Marathon bombing will be forever linked to the glossy headshot of the younger bomber.
That's the difference between the pottsdam conference photo and the cover....
Why don't you just go bicker mindlessly with the rwnj's, those type of poo flinging exchages have sorely eroded whatever rational discussion skills you might have once had. It's a lot harder when the other person keeps dragging you back to facts instead of screaming garbage about *******s isn't it?
Hey, maybe right after the Casey Anthony case broke we could get a picture of her showing her boobs or at least a nice thong shot. It wouldn't be tasteless though because once in this book I saw a picture of Adolph Hitler......
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,329 posts, read 54,389,283 times
Reputation: 40736
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mathguy
You never answered my question and I pointed out that it's bad because they chose his headshot over other options with the sole intention to sell magazines. It's tasteless pandering.
I answered your question in the post you quoted. And I'll add in this case I say it's feigned outrage because you single out Rolling Stone, do you really believe tasteless pandering isn't a favored method in many different markets if it makes $$$?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mathguy
The only reason you are here bleating and moaning is because the rwnj's started moaning that this is the fault of liberals and you just automatically jumped in on the other side of the argument.
Well, when it IS rwnjs feigning outrage what other side could I possibly take? It's left/right BS, NOTHING more.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mathguy
Look at how the sides have lined up along the usual political lines around here, now THAT is pathetic.
Consider trying some independent thought sometime.
You're the one that doesn't seem to be thinking here, independently or otherwise. Maybe you should read Knitting World if you don't understand controversy sells and Rolling Stone and every other for profit publication is in the business of selling.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,329 posts, read 54,389,283 times
Reputation: 40736
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mathguy
Ah, so your point is that 50 years from now the Boston Marathon bombing will be forever linked to the glossy headshot of the younger bomber.
No, that's YOUR imagination at work. MY point is that Rolling Stone has chosen to publish an article about the bomber and has done nothing wrong putting him on the cover labeled as a monster.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mathguy
That's the difference between the pottsdam conference photo and the cover....
I NEVER said a word about pottsdam, YOUR imagination again. I merely said publications put pictures on covers to SELL, and that includes some real scum like Stalin, Manson, bin Laden, etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mathguy
Why don't you just go bicker mindlessly with the rwnj's, those type of poo flinging exchages have sorely eroded whatever rational discussion skills you might have once had. It's a lot harder when the other person keeps dragging you back to facts instead of screaming garbage about *******s isn't it?
Why don't you quit inserting the products of your imagination in your posts and alleging they came from me? That's YOUR mindless bickering.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mathguy
Hey, maybe right after the Casey Anthony case broke we could get a picture of her showing her boobs or at least a nice thong shot. It wouldn't be tasteless though because once in this book I saw a picture of Adolph Hitler......
Ah, Casey Anthony cheesecake, I see you're now imagining a nice fruit salad of apples and oranges, eh?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
