x
Click to expand

beerholder

Last status update:
-
Personal Info
Date Signed Up:1/20/2012
Last Login:3/01/2015
Funnyjunk Career Stats
Comment Ranking:#5536
Highest Content Rank:#2238
Highest Comment Rank:#266
Content Thumbs: 5109 total,  5932 ,  823
Comment Thumbs: 12617 total,  14013 ,  1396
Content Level Progress: 72% (72/100)
Level 150 Content: Faptastic → Level 151 Content: Faptastic
Comment Level Progress: 57.19% (286/500)
Level 311 Comments: Wizard → Level 312 Comments: Wizard
Subscribers:1
Content Views:269206
Times Content Favorited:214 times
Total Comments Made:1374
FJ Points:13052

Funny Text/Links

Funny Pictures

  • Views: 49615
    Thumbs Up 1444 Thumbs Down 128 Total: +1316
    Comments: 246
    Favorites: 62
    Uploaded: 06/06/13
    Why I love the game. Why I love the game.
  • Views: 33102
    Thumbs Up 1119 Thumbs Down 57 Total: +1062
    Comments: 33
    Favorites: 17
    Uploaded: 11/15/12
    Fan placement Fan placement
  • Views: 27724
    Thumbs Up 834 Thumbs Down 151 Total: +683
    Comments: 17
    Favorites: 41
    Uploaded: 11/21/12
    Do you trust this printer? Do you trust this printer?
  • Views: 29035
    Thumbs Up 710 Thumbs Down 86 Total: +624
    Comments: 119
    Favorites: 19
    Uploaded: 09/16/12
    dat' a... dat' a...
  • Views: 7658
    Thumbs Up 290 Thumbs Down 16 Total: +274
    Comments: 4
    Favorites: 5
    Uploaded: 09/06/12
    Scumbag employers Scumbag employers
  • Views: 9729
    Thumbs Up 238 Thumbs Down 24 Total: +214
    Comments: 8
    Favorites: 4
    Uploaded: 01/15/13
    Move over, Japan. Here's Russia Move over, Japan. Here's Russia
1 2 3 4 5 6 > [ 36 Funny Pictures Total ]

YouTube Videos

Funny Gifs

  • Views: 2832
    Thumbs Up 22 Thumbs Down 11 Total: +11
    Comments: 1
    Favorites: 4
    Uploaded: 01/05/13
    Poonikins Poonikins
  • Views: 1457
    Thumbs Up 13 Thumbs Down 3 Total: +10
    Comments: 1
    Favorites: 0
    Uploaded: 02/17/14
    Water rivers on Mars Water rivers on Mars

latest user's comments

#21 - second one 02/26/2015 on Unsolved Mysteries 0
#7 - at first glance I thought you drew a dick on him, I was about …  [+] (1 new reply) 02/26/2015 on TMNT Pixel Art +8
User avatar #10 - sineztro (02/26/2015) [-]
don't pass out when there's markers about
#36 - it's not ideological, nobody has been exposed to a doctrine ab…  [+] (17 new replies) 02/25/2015 on SJWs and Nu-Age Liberals in... +2
User avatar #37 - captainprincess (02/25/2015) [-]
Yes
it is

It supposes a moral and ideological imperative upon what is essentially an objective task
User avatar #39 - flemmi (02/25/2015) [-]
i dont see how it is objective. who decided from what position the photo was taken? what if there is something outside the picture? how it journalism objective when the journalist is a human? Robots are objective humans are subjective.
User avatar #41 - captainprincess (02/25/2015) [-]
Humans are capable of objective behaviour
Journalism is one such job that prefers objective behaviour

They record and report events as they occur
This is an amoral job and one's ethics and ideology can intervene but doing so is not required

You impart far too much responsibility on journalists.
Life isn't black and white
Nuance allows for something to work and be important in one instance and not in another

And the key point of this is that moral and ethical oriented behaviour in jounralists isn't even an issue
It's not WRONG for reporters to do the humane thing
It's just not required of them, it's not a part of their job
User avatar #42 - flemmi (02/25/2015) [-]
than the reporter would be a likewhore on favebook.

becasue seeing a picture helps the one on it. /sarcasm
User avatar #44 - captainprincess (02/25/2015) [-]
Yeah I can see you're not quite wrapping your head around this
User avatar #62 - drunkjesus (02/25/2015) [-]
I see what you're saying. That said, you're a piece of shit human being in general not you specifically if you stand by as you watch others dying or in pain while simultaneously having the capacity to save a life or end the pain. So I don't care if it's not their job or it breaches journalistic integrity, morality is part of what makes us human, its why we have laws governing us. So fuck your job as a journalist, save a life instead.
User avatar #86 - captainprincess (02/26/2015) [-]
Eh
That's something else

I don't hold it against them for sticking to the letter of their job, it lets us know more of what's actually going on
User avatar #87 - drunkjesus (02/26/2015) [-]
I do blame people for sticking to the letter of their job. I don't like using references from Nazi's because its melodramatic but the Nuremberg trials were filled with people only doing their job, or following orders, or people who thought they were making a better world. Just because it's your job doesn't mean you should forget what's around you and what's morally correct.

Not trying to be a dick or anything, just saying. Again, I understand you, it's just that I disagree on a moral level.
User avatar #88 - captainprincess (02/26/2015) [-]
If you want to blame someone for sticking to the letter of their job then you must first question why

I, for instance, refuse to blame nazis who were doing so under threat of themselves or their families facing persecution or execution, despite the horrors they were complicit in.

Ofc this coming from the man who refuses to blame reporters for staying uninvolved in the pursuit of reporting but point is, I would say you need to work out to a greater detail who has done what and why before you take a moral stance on events

That's just me though
#92 - drunkjesus (02/26/2015) [-]
Can't reply to your other comment so I'll just leave it at this. I see what you're saying but I just disagree on a moral/philosophical level, which won't get us anywhere. I would say however, that even though a journalists interferes and becomes part of the event, it doesn't effect the actual objective truth, though it does effect integrity. Though that may get you nowhere with the media, I think it still matters.
I think you're a greater good kind of guy, which I can respect, even if I disagree. Cheers buddy, you made me think a bit.
#93 - captainprincess (02/26/2015) [-]
User avatar #89 - drunkjesus (02/26/2015) [-]
Yep, that's one of the reasons why I dislike the Nazi connection as well. But for this case, and I think most cases now a days (there'll always be exceptions) this isn't a factor. Especially for these journalists who stand by while these horrible things are happening. If we're going morally, which I certainly am, I use Kant's categorical imperative as a good way of putting things. Treat people both as an ends and a means, if you're just treating them as a tool, you're just using the person. And that's what the journalists are doing. They use these poor people for their own goals. Noble, though they may be, they are using these people nonetheless.
User avatar #91 - captainprincess (02/26/2015) [-]
I mean the categorical imperative is useful though
Which I would argue puts the journalists as doing a moral deed if their intention is to capture the truth of the events they see before them in every detail that we should know more of the world
#90 - captainprincess (02/26/2015) [-]
I got nothing for that besides saying I don't see it that way
User avatar #75 - hudis (02/26/2015) [-]
If a person can take a photo that saves a hundred lives at the expense of one, why is that a bad thing? The only reason you feel strongly about this one life is because you now have a connection to the anecdote. I'd argue that it would be significantly harder to decide who's a shit human being if you had anecdotal evidence of the suffering of the one-hundred people or more who actually might die if this kind of picture isn't taken. And this is not something I'm just taking out of my arse; people are definitely affected by things they see in the media, and emotionally impactful pictures like the one above can function incredibly well to convey the message and urge people to give money, sponsor a child or in rare cases even travel abroad to volunteer.

People simply would not care as much about these things if these pictures were not taken. For all we know, that picture alone might have contributed to saving thousands of lives. At the expense of one. Why is that a bad thing?
User avatar #80 - drunkjesus (02/26/2015) [-]
It's bad because what you're discussing is hypothetical. Someone could definitely save a life or alleviate suffering, whereas what you're talking about may or may not have an impact at all. Yeah, the photos make a difference, but I don't think they make that much of a difference. I mean look at all the photos like this that get floated around, some group might get started or a group may get more volunteers or more money, but no one has made significant ground on it yet. Not that it should stop them though, thee needs to be another way of making an impact.
As a qualifier though, I do think that the photos matter, just find another way of making an impact. Photos of starving kids are fine, so long as you help, and as long as they're not on the brink of death. If the only way you can make an impact is letting others die then something's fucked, namely with our society as a whole.
So I'm just saying, there's a difference between what you can actually do and what could hypothetically happen if everything goes well. I mean imagine if that photo never caught on, and it never got any airtime, then you let a child die for nothing. So I'm saying they need to find another way to make an impact.
User avatar #53 - flemmi (02/25/2015) [-]
well he is shooting the Photo from a certain perspective. why does he show us the boy and not what is behind the Camera. we don't know if there are people handing out water and the boy is just incidental there. of course there is a story to the picture above but the point i am trying to make is. that you cannot be objective. you can try. There is always you bias at work.

Maybe you are right and I am not willing to accept this. I am Ideologic when it comes to helping. I think helping is more important than plain reporting.

Maybe I am wrong but I hope you find piece in the fact that I am aware of my own ignorance.
#34 - well, it's supposed to be humane, even recording information r…  [+] (19 new replies) 02/25/2015 on SJWs and Nu-Age Liberals in... +5
User avatar #35 - captainprincess (02/25/2015) [-]
No it doesn't
That's an ideological fashion to think of it and while there's no real problem with that it's inaccurate
#36 - beerholder (02/25/2015) [-]
it's not ideological, nobody has been exposed to a doctrine about how to be a human being. It's just the way we work...
User avatar #37 - captainprincess (02/25/2015) [-]
Yes
it is

It supposes a moral and ideological imperative upon what is essentially an objective task
User avatar #39 - flemmi (02/25/2015) [-]
i dont see how it is objective. who decided from what position the photo was taken? what if there is something outside the picture? how it journalism objective when the journalist is a human? Robots are objective humans are subjective.
User avatar #41 - captainprincess (02/25/2015) [-]
Humans are capable of objective behaviour
Journalism is one such job that prefers objective behaviour

They record and report events as they occur
This is an amoral job and one's ethics and ideology can intervene but doing so is not required

You impart far too much responsibility on journalists.
Life isn't black and white
Nuance allows for something to work and be important in one instance and not in another

And the key point of this is that moral and ethical oriented behaviour in jounralists isn't even an issue
It's not WRONG for reporters to do the humane thing
It's just not required of them, it's not a part of their job
User avatar #42 - flemmi (02/25/2015) [-]
than the reporter would be a likewhore on favebook.

becasue seeing a picture helps the one on it. /sarcasm
User avatar #44 - captainprincess (02/25/2015) [-]
Yeah I can see you're not quite wrapping your head around this
User avatar #62 - drunkjesus (02/25/2015) [-]
I see what you're saying. That said, you're a piece of shit human being in general not you specifically if you stand by as you watch others dying or in pain while simultaneously having the capacity to save a life or end the pain. So I don't care if it's not their job or it breaches journalistic integrity, morality is part of what makes us human, its why we have laws governing us. So fuck your job as a journalist, save a life instead.
User avatar #86 - captainprincess (02/26/2015) [-]
Eh
That's something else

I don't hold it against them for sticking to the letter of their job, it lets us know more of what's actually going on
User avatar #87 - drunkjesus (02/26/2015) [-]
I do blame people for sticking to the letter of their job. I don't like using references from Nazi's because its melodramatic but the Nuremberg trials were filled with people only doing their job, or following orders, or people who thought they were making a better world. Just because it's your job doesn't mean you should forget what's around you and what's morally correct.

Not trying to be a dick or anything, just saying. Again, I understand you, it's just that I disagree on a moral level.
User avatar #88 - captainprincess (02/26/2015) [-]
If you want to blame someone for sticking to the letter of their job then you must first question why

I, for instance, refuse to blame nazis who were doing so under threat of themselves or their families facing persecution or execution, despite the horrors they were complicit in.

Ofc this coming from the man who refuses to blame reporters for staying uninvolved in the pursuit of reporting but point is, I would say you need to work out to a greater detail who has done what and why before you take a moral stance on events

That's just me though
#92 - drunkjesus (02/26/2015) [-]
Can't reply to your other comment so I'll just leave it at this. I see what you're saying but I just disagree on a moral/philosophical level, which won't get us anywhere. I would say however, that even though a journalists interferes and becomes part of the event, it doesn't effect the actual objective truth, though it does effect integrity. Though that may get you nowhere with the media, I think it still matters.
I think you're a greater good kind of guy, which I can respect, even if I disagree. Cheers buddy, you made me think a bit.
#93 - captainprincess (02/26/2015) [-]
User avatar #89 - drunkjesus (02/26/2015) [-]
Yep, that's one of the reasons why I dislike the Nazi connection as well. But for this case, and I think most cases now a days (there'll always be exceptions) this isn't a factor. Especially for these journalists who stand by while these horrible things are happening. If we're going morally, which I certainly am, I use Kant's categorical imperative as a good way of putting things. Treat people both as an ends and a means, if you're just treating them as a tool, you're just using the person. And that's what the journalists are doing. They use these poor people for their own goals. Noble, though they may be, they are using these people nonetheless.
User avatar #91 - captainprincess (02/26/2015) [-]
I mean the categorical imperative is useful though
Which I would argue puts the journalists as doing a moral deed if their intention is to capture the truth of the events they see before them in every detail that we should know more of the world
#90 - captainprincess (02/26/2015) [-]
I got nothing for that besides saying I don't see it that way
User avatar #75 - hudis (02/26/2015) [-]
If a person can take a photo that saves a hundred lives at the expense of one, why is that a bad thing? The only reason you feel strongly about this one life is because you now have a connection to the anecdote. I'd argue that it would be significantly harder to decide who's a shit human being if you had anecdotal evidence of the suffering of the one-hundred people or more who actually might die if this kind of picture isn't taken. And this is not something I'm just taking out of my arse; people are definitely affected by things they see in the media, and emotionally impactful pictures like the one above can function incredibly well to convey the message and urge people to give money, sponsor a child or in rare cases even travel abroad to volunteer.

People simply would not care as much about these things if these pictures were not taken. For all we know, that picture alone might have contributed to saving thousands of lives. At the expense of one. Why is that a bad thing?
User avatar #80 - drunkjesus (02/26/2015) [-]
It's bad because what you're discussing is hypothetical. Someone could definitely save a life or alleviate suffering, whereas what you're talking about may or may not have an impact at all. Yeah, the photos make a difference, but I don't think they make that much of a difference. I mean look at all the photos like this that get floated around, some group might get started or a group may get more volunteers or more money, but no one has made significant ground on it yet. Not that it should stop them though, thee needs to be another way of making an impact.
As a qualifier though, I do think that the photos matter, just find another way of making an impact. Photos of starving kids are fine, so long as you help, and as long as they're not on the brink of death. If the only way you can make an impact is letting others die then something's fucked, namely with our society as a whole.
So I'm just saying, there's a difference between what you can actually do and what could hypothetically happen if everything goes well. I mean imagine if that photo never caught on, and it never got any airtime, then you let a child die for nothing. So I'm saying they need to find another way to make an impact.
User avatar #53 - flemmi (02/25/2015) [-]
well he is shooting the Photo from a certain perspective. why does he show us the boy and not what is behind the Camera. we don't know if there are people handing out water and the boy is just incidental there. of course there is a story to the picture above but the point i am trying to make is. that you cannot be objective. you can try. There is always you bias at work.

Maybe you are right and I am not willing to accept this. I am Ideologic when it comes to helping. I think helping is more important than plain reporting.

Maybe I am wrong but I hope you find piece in the fact that I am aware of my own ignorance.
#28 - it's not about the job, it's about doing something that is hum…  [+] (21 new replies) 02/25/2015 on SJWs and Nu-Age Liberals in... +12
User avatar #29 - captainprincess (02/25/2015) [-]
Journalism does work
because it's task is not to be humane or convey a humane message

The task of journalism is to record information and convey it, as is, to the people who consume said reporting

When you say it's not about the job etc, what do you mean by it?
#34 - beerholder (02/25/2015) [-]
well, it's supposed to be humane, even recording information requires to transpose tangible elements in a humanly understandable context.

Collecting data isn't enough, it has to be put in a way that would make sense. Viewing journalism as a cynical instrument that records passively isn't true, journalism almost always takes part of events.

The weather man doesn't just report collected data of a vortex of 300 km winds, it interprets it in a way to understand it, and advises you how to act when exposed to a hurricane situation. This is the humane part of it, and it's not about the job, it's about the inherently traits of humans to help one another.
User avatar #35 - captainprincess (02/25/2015) [-]
No it doesn't
That's an ideological fashion to think of it and while there's no real problem with that it's inaccurate
#36 - beerholder (02/25/2015) [-]
it's not ideological, nobody has been exposed to a doctrine about how to be a human being. It's just the way we work...
User avatar #37 - captainprincess (02/25/2015) [-]
Yes
it is

It supposes a moral and ideological imperative upon what is essentially an objective task
User avatar #39 - flemmi (02/25/2015) [-]
i dont see how it is objective. who decided from what position the photo was taken? what if there is something outside the picture? how it journalism objective when the journalist is a human? Robots are objective humans are subjective.
User avatar #41 - captainprincess (02/25/2015) [-]
Humans are capable of objective behaviour
Journalism is one such job that prefers objective behaviour

They record and report events as they occur
This is an amoral job and one's ethics and ideology can intervene but doing so is not required

You impart far too much responsibility on journalists.
Life isn't black and white
Nuance allows for something to work and be important in one instance and not in another

And the key point of this is that moral and ethical oriented behaviour in jounralists isn't even an issue
It's not WRONG for reporters to do the humane thing
It's just not required of them, it's not a part of their job
User avatar #42 - flemmi (02/25/2015) [-]
than the reporter would be a likewhore on favebook.

becasue seeing a picture helps the one on it. /sarcasm
User avatar #44 - captainprincess (02/25/2015) [-]
Yeah I can see you're not quite wrapping your head around this
User avatar #62 - drunkjesus (02/25/2015) [-]
I see what you're saying. That said, you're a piece of shit human being in general not you specifically if you stand by as you watch others dying or in pain while simultaneously having the capacity to save a life or end the pain. So I don't care if it's not their job or it breaches journalistic integrity, morality is part of what makes us human, its why we have laws governing us. So fuck your job as a journalist, save a life instead.
User avatar #86 - captainprincess (02/26/2015) [-]
Eh
That's something else

I don't hold it against them for sticking to the letter of their job, it lets us know more of what's actually going on
User avatar #87 - drunkjesus (02/26/2015) [-]
I do blame people for sticking to the letter of their job. I don't like using references from Nazi's because its melodramatic but the Nuremberg trials were filled with people only doing their job, or following orders, or people who thought they were making a better world. Just because it's your job doesn't mean you should forget what's around you and what's morally correct.

Not trying to be a dick or anything, just saying. Again, I understand you, it's just that I disagree on a moral level.
User avatar #88 - captainprincess (02/26/2015) [-]
If you want to blame someone for sticking to the letter of their job then you must first question why

I, for instance, refuse to blame nazis who were doing so under threat of themselves or their families facing persecution or execution, despite the horrors they were complicit in.

Ofc this coming from the man who refuses to blame reporters for staying uninvolved in the pursuit of reporting but point is, I would say you need to work out to a greater detail who has done what and why before you take a moral stance on events

That's just me though
#92 - drunkjesus (02/26/2015) [-]
Can't reply to your other comment so I'll just leave it at this. I see what you're saying but I just disagree on a moral/philosophical level, which won't get us anywhere. I would say however, that even though a journalists interferes and becomes part of the event, it doesn't effect the actual objective truth, though it does effect integrity. Though that may get you nowhere with the media, I think it still matters.
I think you're a greater good kind of guy, which I can respect, even if I disagree. Cheers buddy, you made me think a bit.
#93 - captainprincess (02/26/2015) [-]
User avatar #89 - drunkjesus (02/26/2015) [-]
Yep, that's one of the reasons why I dislike the Nazi connection as well. But for this case, and I think most cases now a days (there'll always be exceptions) this isn't a factor. Especially for these journalists who stand by while these horrible things are happening. If we're going morally, which I certainly am, I use Kant's categorical imperative as a good way of putting things. Treat people both as an ends and a means, if you're just treating them as a tool, you're just using the person. And that's what the journalists are doing. They use these poor people for their own goals. Noble, though they may be, they are using these people nonetheless.
User avatar #91 - captainprincess (02/26/2015) [-]
I mean the categorical imperative is useful though
Which I would argue puts the journalists as doing a moral deed if their intention is to capture the truth of the events they see before them in every detail that we should know more of the world
#90 - captainprincess (02/26/2015) [-]
I got nothing for that besides saying I don't see it that way
User avatar #75 - hudis (02/26/2015) [-]
If a person can take a photo that saves a hundred lives at the expense of one, why is that a bad thing? The only reason you feel strongly about this one life is because you now have a connection to the anecdote. I'd argue that it would be significantly harder to decide who's a shit human being if you had anecdotal evidence of the suffering of the one-hundred people or more who actually might die if this kind of picture isn't taken. And this is not something I'm just taking out of my arse; people are definitely affected by things they see in the media, and emotionally impactful pictures like the one above can function incredibly well to convey the message and urge people to give money, sponsor a child or in rare cases even travel abroad to volunteer.

People simply would not care as much about these things if these pictures were not taken. For all we know, that picture alone might have contributed to saving thousands of lives. At the expense of one. Why is that a bad thing?
User avatar #80 - drunkjesus (02/26/2015) [-]
It's bad because what you're discussing is hypothetical. Someone could definitely save a life or alleviate suffering, whereas what you're talking about may or may not have an impact at all. Yeah, the photos make a difference, but I don't think they make that much of a difference. I mean look at all the photos like this that get floated around, some group might get started or a group may get more volunteers or more money, but no one has made significant ground on it yet. Not that it should stop them though, thee needs to be another way of making an impact.
As a qualifier though, I do think that the photos matter, just find another way of making an impact. Photos of starving kids are fine, so long as you help, and as long as they're not on the brink of death. If the only way you can make an impact is letting others die then something's fucked, namely with our society as a whole.
So I'm just saying, there's a difference between what you can actually do and what could hypothetically happen if everything goes well. I mean imagine if that photo never caught on, and it never got any airtime, then you let a child die for nothing. So I'm saying they need to find another way to make an impact.
User avatar #53 - flemmi (02/25/2015) [-]
well he is shooting the Photo from a certain perspective. why does he show us the boy and not what is behind the Camera. we don't know if there are people handing out water and the boy is just incidental there. of course there is a story to the picture above but the point i am trying to make is. that you cannot be objective. you can try. There is always you bias at work.

Maybe you are right and I am not willing to accept this. I am Ideologic when it comes to helping. I think helping is more important than plain reporting.

Maybe I am wrong but I hope you find piece in the fact that I am aware of my own ignorance.
#23 - take the shot, help the kid, make the story. The fact that you…  [+] (23 new replies) 02/25/2015 on SJWs and Nu-Age Liberals in... +67
User avatar #24 - captainprincess (02/25/2015) [-]
Not quite how it works
By the time you get the most impactive shot the kid might be dead
By the time you helped the kid the shots you GOT might not get the message across

But that's besides the point that's still not a journalists's job
They're not meant to change the world, they're documenters. Their job is purely to show you with visual proof what is happening. If any of them bring about a change that's just a plus but not within the remits of their work, and in all likelihood not where they can do the most good

ofc people should help oneanother
ofc it's better in the immediate when the guy takes fewer shots and helps out
but there's no call to get pissy with the guy whogets the shot
that's his job and getting that shot will still do good, arguably more good

it's never as simple as 'just do both'
fuck yeah it should be, but it never is
#28 - beerholder (02/25/2015) [-]
it's not about the job, it's about doing something that is humane. Yes, the kid had very few chances of survival, but it's in our nature to try and take those chances. Hell, how full is Facebook about almost dead cancer kids that ask for donations?

I see your point, and I guess it's pretty valid how you describe it, but If journalism works only if the reporter remains passive, then journalism doesn't fucking work since you cannot convey a humane message....
User avatar #29 - captainprincess (02/25/2015) [-]
Journalism does work
because it's task is not to be humane or convey a humane message

The task of journalism is to record information and convey it, as is, to the people who consume said reporting

When you say it's not about the job etc, what do you mean by it?
#34 - beerholder (02/25/2015) [-]
well, it's supposed to be humane, even recording information requires to transpose tangible elements in a humanly understandable context.

Collecting data isn't enough, it has to be put in a way that would make sense. Viewing journalism as a cynical instrument that records passively isn't true, journalism almost always takes part of events.

The weather man doesn't just report collected data of a vortex of 300 km winds, it interprets it in a way to understand it, and advises you how to act when exposed to a hurricane situation. This is the humane part of it, and it's not about the job, it's about the inherently traits of humans to help one another.
User avatar #35 - captainprincess (02/25/2015) [-]
No it doesn't
That's an ideological fashion to think of it and while there's no real problem with that it's inaccurate
#36 - beerholder (02/25/2015) [-]
it's not ideological, nobody has been exposed to a doctrine about how to be a human being. It's just the way we work...
User avatar #37 - captainprincess (02/25/2015) [-]
Yes
it is

It supposes a moral and ideological imperative upon what is essentially an objective task
User avatar #39 - flemmi (02/25/2015) [-]
i dont see how it is objective. who decided from what position the photo was taken? what if there is something outside the picture? how it journalism objective when the journalist is a human? Robots are objective humans are subjective.
User avatar #41 - captainprincess (02/25/2015) [-]
Humans are capable of objective behaviour
Journalism is one such job that prefers objective behaviour

They record and report events as they occur
This is an amoral job and one's ethics and ideology can intervene but doing so is not required

You impart far too much responsibility on journalists.
Life isn't black and white
Nuance allows for something to work and be important in one instance and not in another

And the key point of this is that moral and ethical oriented behaviour in jounralists isn't even an issue
It's not WRONG for reporters to do the humane thing
It's just not required of them, it's not a part of their job
User avatar #42 - flemmi (02/25/2015) [-]
than the reporter would be a likewhore on favebook.

becasue seeing a picture helps the one on it. /sarcasm
User avatar #44 - captainprincess (02/25/2015) [-]
Yeah I can see you're not quite wrapping your head around this
User avatar #62 - drunkjesus (02/25/2015) [-]
I see what you're saying. That said, you're a piece of shit human being in general not you specifically if you stand by as you watch others dying or in pain while simultaneously having the capacity to save a life or end the pain. So I don't care if it's not their job or it breaches journalistic integrity, morality is part of what makes us human, its why we have laws governing us. So fuck your job as a journalist, save a life instead.
User avatar #86 - captainprincess (02/26/2015) [-]
Eh
That's something else

I don't hold it against them for sticking to the letter of their job, it lets us know more of what's actually going on
User avatar #87 - drunkjesus (02/26/2015) [-]
I do blame people for sticking to the letter of their job. I don't like using references from Nazi's because its melodramatic but the Nuremberg trials were filled with people only doing their job, or following orders, or people who thought they were making a better world. Just because it's your job doesn't mean you should forget what's around you and what's morally correct.

Not trying to be a dick or anything, just saying. Again, I understand you, it's just that I disagree on a moral level.
User avatar #88 - captainprincess (02/26/2015) [-]
If you want to blame someone for sticking to the letter of their job then you must first question why

I, for instance, refuse to blame nazis who were doing so under threat of themselves or their families facing persecution or execution, despite the horrors they were complicit in.

Ofc this coming from the man who refuses to blame reporters for staying uninvolved in the pursuit of reporting but point is, I would say you need to work out to a greater detail who has done what and why before you take a moral stance on events

That's just me though
#92 - drunkjesus (02/26/2015) [-]
Can't reply to your other comment so I'll just leave it at this. I see what you're saying but I just disagree on a moral/philosophical level, which won't get us anywhere. I would say however, that even though a journalists interferes and becomes part of the event, it doesn't effect the actual objective truth, though it does effect integrity. Though that may get you nowhere with the media, I think it still matters.
I think you're a greater good kind of guy, which I can respect, even if I disagree. Cheers buddy, you made me think a bit.
#93 - captainprincess (02/26/2015) [-]
User avatar #89 - drunkjesus (02/26/2015) [-]
Yep, that's one of the reasons why I dislike the Nazi connection as well. But for this case, and I think most cases now a days (there'll always be exceptions) this isn't a factor. Especially for these journalists who stand by while these horrible things are happening. If we're going morally, which I certainly am, I use Kant's categorical imperative as a good way of putting things. Treat people both as an ends and a means, if you're just treating them as a tool, you're just using the person. And that's what the journalists are doing. They use these poor people for their own goals. Noble, though they may be, they are using these people nonetheless.
User avatar #91 - captainprincess (02/26/2015) [-]
I mean the categorical imperative is useful though
Which I would argue puts the journalists as doing a moral deed if their intention is to capture the truth of the events they see before them in every detail that we should know more of the world
#90 - captainprincess (02/26/2015) [-]
I got nothing for that besides saying I don't see it that way
User avatar #75 - hudis (02/26/2015) [-]
If a person can take a photo that saves a hundred lives at the expense of one, why is that a bad thing? The only reason you feel strongly about this one life is because you now have a connection to the anecdote. I'd argue that it would be significantly harder to decide who's a shit human being if you had anecdotal evidence of the suffering of the one-hundred people or more who actually might die if this kind of picture isn't taken. And this is not something I'm just taking out of my arse; people are definitely affected by things they see in the media, and emotionally impactful pictures like the one above can function incredibly well to convey the message and urge people to give money, sponsor a child or in rare cases even travel abroad to volunteer.

People simply would not care as much about these things if these pictures were not taken. For all we know, that picture alone might have contributed to saving thousands of lives. At the expense of one. Why is that a bad thing?
User avatar #80 - drunkjesus (02/26/2015) [-]
It's bad because what you're discussing is hypothetical. Someone could definitely save a life or alleviate suffering, whereas what you're talking about may or may not have an impact at all. Yeah, the photos make a difference, but I don't think they make that much of a difference. I mean look at all the photos like this that get floated around, some group might get started or a group may get more volunteers or more money, but no one has made significant ground on it yet. Not that it should stop them though, thee needs to be another way of making an impact.
As a qualifier though, I do think that the photos matter, just find another way of making an impact. Photos of starving kids are fine, so long as you help, and as long as they're not on the brink of death. If the only way you can make an impact is letting others die then something's fucked, namely with our society as a whole.
So I'm just saying, there's a difference between what you can actually do and what could hypothetically happen if everything goes well. I mean imagine if that photo never caught on, and it never got any airtime, then you let a child die for nothing. So I'm saying they need to find another way to make an impact.
User avatar #53 - flemmi (02/25/2015) [-]
well he is shooting the Photo from a certain perspective. why does he show us the boy and not what is behind the Camera. we don't know if there are people handing out water and the boy is just incidental there. of course there is a story to the picture above but the point i am trying to make is. that you cannot be objective. you can try. There is always you bias at work.

Maybe you are right and I am not willing to accept this. I am Ideologic when it comes to helping. I think helping is more important than plain reporting.

Maybe I am wrong but I hope you find piece in the fact that I am aware of my own ignorance.
#10 - Peter O'Toole was nominated 9 times and never won, this whole … 02/25/2015 on One day +1
#13 - It's ok, not everyone is supposed to like everything anyway. I… 02/21/2015 on Whore door +7
#5 - It's basically everything with fries and stake in it. Went to … 02/20/2015 on Oh, France! +1
#16 - is that the bridge that everybody's so proud of that they made…  [+] (1 new reply) 02/18/2015 on Polish-Lithuanian border +3
#19 - valtene (02/18/2015) [-]
yes

user's channels

Join Subscribe battlefield
Join Subscribe computer-geek
Join Subscribe feels
Join Subscribe fucking-science
Join Subscribe funny
Join Subscribe metal-time
Join Subscribe oc-comic-makers

user's friends

User avatar jonnyfrosty    

items

Total unique items point value: 1050 / Total items point value: 1300
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
User avatar #6 - soundofwinter ONLINE (06/20/2014) [-]
**** you
#7 to #6 - beerholder (06/20/2014) [-]
a man of his word...
User avatar #8 to #7 - soundofwinter ONLINE (06/20/2014) [-]
soundofwinter is a man you can trust
 Friends (0)