Planetarion Forums

Planetarion Forums (https://pirate.planetarion.com/index.php)
-   General Discussions (https://pirate.planetarion.com/forumdisplay.php?f=2)
-   -   Madeleine MCcann (https://pirate.planetarion.com/showthread.php?t=194459)

milo 12 May 2007 18:31

Madeleine MCcann
 
Two and a half million pounds!!!! No ****ing way.

The cynical side of me assumes this is a publicity stunt from some of the donors, lets face it shes had the surprise sex and burial under the patio treatment by now. So the NOTW and 'high profile' businessmen pledge their money to return her knowing they'll probably never have to pay out. I'm very skeptical whether 'overweight black girl from the ghetto'* would get nearly the same amount of coverage/sympathy/treatment. Don't get me wrong i wish her well, but the massive media coverage is if anything making me more unsympathetic (purely because it makes me literally turn off).




*insert undesirables of choice

pig 12 May 2007 18:57

Re: Madeleine MCcann
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by milo
Two and a half million pounds!!!! No ****ing way.

lets face it shes had the surprise sex and burial under the patio treatment by now.

We are all twats on this forum, but I feel a bit uncomfortable about that part of the statement.

All I can say is hope for the best for the girl, and I hope she comes back. Making jokes at this stage is a bit low (imo)

I am Idler 12 May 2007 18:58

Re: Madeleine MCcann
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by milo
Two and a half million pounds!!!! No ****ing way.

The cynical side of me assumes this is a publicity stunt from some of the donors, lets face it shes had the surprise sex and burial under the patio treatment by now. So the NOTW and 'high profile' businessmen pledge their money to return her knowing they'll probably never have to pay out. I'm very skeptical whether 'overweight black girl from the ghetto'* would get nearly the same amount of coverage/sympathy/treatment. Don't get me wrong i wish her well, but the massive media coverage is if anything making me more unsympathetic (purely because it makes me literally turn off).




*insert undesirables of choice

I am glad you measure peoples worth in media coverage. Now go **** yourself. Really

milo 12 May 2007 19:01

Re: Madeleine MCcann
 
what the ****

furball 12 May 2007 19:03

Re: Madeleine MCcann
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by pig
We are all twats on this forum, but I feel a bit uncomfortable about that part of the statement.

All I can say is hope for the best for the girl, and I hope she comes back. Making jokes at this stage is a bit low (imo)

Why?

It really goes without saying that if poor Madeleine were not a pretty little white girl, the media wouldn't care, and neither would most of the country. The same went for Sarah Payne as opposed to Victoria Climbie. America did the same over Natalee Holloway.

bwtmc 12 May 2007 19:03

Re: Madeleine MCcann
 
I figure the news of the world feel they owe the family a few after all the papers they've ran on the story.

I don't really like that Richard Branson, Stephen Winyard etc. are going to those lengths to support this particular family just because the media have gone mad on it. I haven't found anyone that's actually wrapped in the story. Everyone seems to be sorry. Sorry but frustrated as to why this has got quite this much attention, and why other missing kids are forgotten about!

bwtmc 12 May 2007 19:10

Re: Madeleine MCcann
 
Pity it happened in Portugal really, we would've been ready to send out thousands of help Madeleine text messages straight away had it been in the UK..! http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4847750.stm

pig 12 May 2007 19:36

Re: Madeleine MCcann
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by furball
Why?

It really goes without saying that if poor Madeleine were not a pretty little white girl, the media wouldn't care, and neither would most of the country. The same went for Sarah Payne as opposed to Victoria Climbie. America did the same over Natalee Holloway.

Why is it low?

She is an innocent girl who can't defend herself. Her parents are going to hell and back worrying about her, and as for Madeline herself I hate to even bring myself to think what has happened/happening to her. I don't think cracking a joke on the internet about her is appropriate. (Nor is it appropriate in real life).

You are right the media has drawn my attention to her, doesn't mean that I shouldn't feel sorry for her.

I am Idler 12 May 2007 19:41

Re: Madeleine MCcann
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by furball
Why?

It really goes without saying that if poor Madeleine were not a pretty little white girl, the media wouldn't care, and neither would most of the country. The same went for Sarah Payne as opposed to Victoria Climbie. America did the same over Natalee Holloway.

So would you rather have the media shut up about it ? What exactly are you proposing? I have no idea why you even feel the need to belittle the issue by racial slur.

Tomkat 12 May 2007 20:01

Re: Madeleine MCcann
 
It is possible to be too cynical and sarcastic on the net to try and look cool/funny in front of others.

In this case, it isn't funny at all.

Demon Dave 12 May 2007 20:31

Re: Madeleine MCcann
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by pig
Why is it low?

She is an innocent girl who can't defend herself. Her parents are going to hell and back worrying about her, and as for Madeline herself I hate to even bring myself to think what has happened/happening to her. I don't think cracking a joke on the internet about her is appropriate. (Nor is it appropriate in real life).

Is it any less appropriate than the London Bombings joke thread?

I don't believe it is

Benneh 12 May 2007 20:46

Re: Madeleine MCcann
 
i dont see why the parents arnt getting any ****ing blame in all of this.

They checked every 30 mins, so much can happen in that time. Surely leaving 3 under 4's "sleeping" is a shit idea so they can have dinner. jeez

pig 12 May 2007 20:51

Re: Madeleine MCcann
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Demon Dave
Is it any less appropriate than the London Bombings joke thread?

I don't believe it is

Possibly not, but there is a difference.

This is a young child we are talking about. Sure making jokes in the London bombing thread wasn't too appropriate but unlike then the only thing we know for sure is that young madeline has been kidnapped. We don't know if she is dead/alive etc. Also there is a level of acceptance.

Making a joke about a defenseless young girl compared to a group of people who were horribly killed by an act of terrorism is different in my eyes.

Like Tomkat said it is possible to be too cynical/sarcastic, and this is one of those moments.

pig 12 May 2007 20:55

Re: Madeleine MCcann
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Benneh
i dont see why the parents arnt getting any ****ing blame in all of this.

They checked every 30 mins, so much can happen in that time. Surely leaving 3 under 4's "sleeping" is a shit idea so they can have dinner. jeez

I agree. If I had children I don't think I would leave them alone unsupervised. But I am not a parent.

Also I think the reservation for criticism is being saved for after the situation has been resolved. For now many, including myself are hoping for the safe return of this young child. Thus my thoughts can only go out to the parents instead of criticising them.

I know it's not cool to feel sorry for people, but I really do in this situation.

Nodrog 12 May 2007 21:30

Re: Madeleine MCcann
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by milo
[ I'm very skeptical whether 'overweight black girl from the ghetto'* would get nearly the same amount of coverage/sympathy/treatment. Don't get me wrong i wish her well, but the massive media coverage is if anything making me more unsympathetic (purely because it makes me literally turn off).

If they had offered a reward for a black girl people would be whining about how they were only doing it to look PC/liberal/whatever.

lokken 12 May 2007 21:34

Re: Madeleine MCcann
 
Both this and the London Bombings joke thread were pretty terrible.

For a parent to lose a child in this way is a tragedy and I hope they find Madeleine, alive and unharmed. Yes the parents were silly not watching over their children but I guess the last thing you expect to happen on holiday is to have your child abducted. I don't know about you I don't find abducting of children acceptable or understandable anywhere, even if the parents weren't vigilant enough.

Just delete this thread, it's shit.

Yahwe 12 May 2007 21:42

Re: Madeleine MCcann
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Demon Dave
Is it any less appropriate than the London Bombings joke thread?

The London bombing thread was both entertaining and an important way of dealing with the event.

This thread is interminably dull

Dante Hicks 12 May 2007 21:50

Re: Madeleine MCcann
 
"**** Natalee Holloway".
http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2005/7/3/491/18474

And as I quoted in my blog nearer the time :
Quote:

Originally Posted by Duckman
"It's the news - not because it's important but because our constant coverage makes it important"

And as I have said previously, the London Bombing thread isn't comparable because many of us were a lot more "involved"* in that than we are in something like this. Not that I care particularly.

* = Not necessarily literally, but in the sense of momentarily worrying for loved ones, etc.

Yahwe 12 May 2007 22:06

Re: Madeleine MCcann
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by horn
sorry but "it's how we dealt with the deep felt grief" is crap. the glorified and completely false idea of a english stiff upper lip, hardened way of dealing with grief through dark humour is rubbish. it was just funny. kind of like how laughing at etheopian jokes aren't a way of dealing with your guilt at having to spend money on gym memberships to keep your waistline down while they're dying of starvation. it's just funny because our morality doesn't fare too well when asked to rely on abstract rationalizations.


incoherent rubbish.

get some prozac ffs

Dante Hicks 12 May 2007 22:12

Re: Madeleine MCcann
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by horn
the glorified and completely false idea of a english stiff upper lip, hardened way of dealing with grief through dark humour is rubbish.

While it's probably exaggerated, people who live in England do in my very limited experience certainly seem to "do" dry, darker humour than our English speaking cousins in the colonies. As Douglas Adams mentions when Gail (an American) is speaking to Trillian:
Quote:

Originally Posted by Mostly Harmless
Gail : "What's the strange thing you British play?”
Tricia McMillan : “Err, cricket? Self-loathing?”
Gail : “"Parliamentary democracy."

Of course that doesn't mean it's all explicitly for therapy, but I doubt anyone claimed that either.

Dante Hicks 12 May 2007 22:17

Re: Madeleine MCcann
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by horn
you laughed at it because it was funny. not because it "dealt" with the pain you felt at these people dying.

But I'd be much more likely to find a joke about the London Bombings funny than I would about a similar event in Bangladesh - and that partially is because the first is abstractly about "me", whereas the other is merely cruelty about people thousands of miles away who are also some of the poorest on Earth.

Saying "you laugh because it's funny" is true but unhelpful. Why was it funny?

Yahwe 12 May 2007 22:22

Re: Madeleine MCcann
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by horn
i'll shorten it down...

you laughed at it because it was funny. not because it "dealt" with the pain you felt at these people dying.

a) why couldn't you say that in the first place instead of trying to use big words and failing to make any sense?
b) I did not say it was to 'deal with the pain'; I said "deal with the event" those londoners here who are not housebound social retards had to get on the tube the next day as well as a myriad of other aspects which come with an event of this kind.
c) I am sure that comedy does help overcome pain
d) Using the response "no you didn't" when someone tells you how they feel may work well in the schoolyard but it looks remarkably silly here
e) How many people must laugh at you while pointing and chanting "spastic" until you get the message.

milo 13 May 2007 00:24

Re: Madeleine MCcann
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Nodrog
If they had offered a reward for a black girl people would be whining about how they were only doing it to look PC/liberal/whatever.

I'm skeptical that a child of the undesirable degenerates would get a similar 'reward'. That child could conceivably be white (from your POV perhaps someone from Glasgow).

If the some of the posters in this thread or wider society think they would be an equatable level of coverage/money, all power to them. But if you don't think there would be a similar reaction, i'm not really sure why i've said anything that scandalous; my point is simply that the type of media attention given is making be disassociate with MM.

Still to juxtapose with the london bombings thread, the outcry is because people in this country are more connected (for lack of a better term) with blond haired blue eyed four year olds - shes one of 'us'. Yet the rationale for the london bombing jokes was because we connected with it - the victims were 'us'. I wasn't aware that surprise sex comments were suddenly unsayable, but surely if anything its in keeping with the LBJ thread?

dda-II 13 May 2007 00:27

Re: Madeleine MCcann
 
Gallows humor abounds in many cultures. Certaninly it does in America though one could argue that we caught it from the mother country.

My take is that Milo is offended by the over coverage of essentially human interest type stories which have relatively little impact on daily life of most people. I concur in this distaste for the over sensationalized coverage of many stories.

I was pulling my hair out on the Holloway story after a very few days. I was recently apalled to see another Holloway story on the tv when the authorities dug up the VanderSlute backyard.

And at the risk of seeming insensitive, the entire time I was watchintg the Holloway coverage I kept being amazed at the fact that her step-father was going on the air and using his nickname of "Jug" instead of his real name.

However, the fact that the victim in this case is of such a tender age that it gets a little bit distastefull to make her the butt of what was essentially a paedophile joke.

milo 13 May 2007 00:35

Re: Madeleine MCcann
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks
But I'd be much more likely to find a joke about the London Bombings funny than I would about a similar event in Bangladesh - and that partially is because the first is abstractly about "me", whereas the other is merely cruelty about people thousands of miles away who are also some of the poorest on Earth.

Saying "you laugh because it's funny" is true but unhelpful. Why was it funny?


Can you clarify what you mean by 'abstractly about me'. If brown communists got blown up, would it be funny?

Yahwe 13 May 2007 01:32

Re: Madeleine MCcann
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by horn
bombastic

I knew that your 'word a day' toilet paper would eventually run out forcing an end to your absurd attempt to appear clever; is it not hubris for it to end on this?

Phang 13 May 2007 06:00

Re: Madeleine MCcann
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Yahwe
I knew that your 'word a day' toilet paper would eventually run out forcing an end to your absurd attempt to appear clever; is it not hubris for it to end on this?

****ing christ. one day, one day you will learn that other people know things - both things you know, and things you don't. until that day, this post is exactly why i would estimate 3/4 of the forum has you on ignore.


And milo/horn are right. If you want to feel miserable about 3-year-olds, give money to landmine charities and help. Don't indulge this horseshit. You didn't know the girl and her nationality and circumstance don't somehow make her unique among the thousands of child casualties every day.

Knight Theamion 13 May 2007 10:35

Re: Madeleine MCcann
 
Is the girl dead yet? I am getting a bit tired of a ****ing toddler getting full media coverage while every day the world gets more and more ****ed up.

'Human intrest' sells, but when do we reach the limit where we say 'we stop selling this shit' or 'we stop buying this shit' .... I fear the worst.


I would be an intresting thesis if it wouldn't be better for 'society' in general if she just appeared to be dead now with a nice explanation, like 'crazy man took her, killed her then killed himself'.... or what would happen if some predator (animal like) took her and killed her ... or some child kidnapping organization to sell her as a slave ..
The intresting part of this all is the huge, huge overreaction the cause of her death will get...

Anyway I hope it is soon over, the best solution would be finding her without having any clue what happened and just a 'smile' on her face..

KoeN 13 May 2007 11:00

Re: Madeleine MCcann
 
or like this ;]

Tomkat 13 May 2007 11:51

Re: Madeleine MCcann
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Phang
And milo/horn are right. If you want to feel miserable about 3-year-olds, give money to landmine charities and help. Don't indulge this horseshit. You didn't know the girl and her nationality and circumstance don't somehow make her unique among the thousands of child casualties every day.

Noone has said that they feel miserable about any 3 year olds. Just that extended media coverage may help the whole situation as someone could come forward with some useful information. The chances are slim, sure, but being cynical and sneery about it all doesn't help anything either.

Tomkat 13 May 2007 12:29

Re: Madeleine MCcann
 
This is a relatively short-term situation. Oxfam is long-term.

But hey, if you want to argue using extreme analogies that aren't that relevant to the one in question, then you keep on doing that bucko.

Tomkat 13 May 2007 13:16

Re: Madeleine MCcann
 
I'm pretty sure crime is a long-term problem too.

Deffeh 13 May 2007 14:13

Re: Madeleine MCcann
 
i think a baby dying of starvation somewhere in africa might be a short term situation to them, even if we have a tendency to view tragedy on that scale as a long term thing because these people are statistics to us.


Also agreeing entirely with Phang. Thats right. You heard me.

Dante Hicks 13 May 2007 14:13

Re: Madeleine MCcann
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by horn
Just to clarify, are you suggesting that you are indeed dealing with the "pain" felt at these events by laughing at them?

Well I didn't really have much pain to deal with. Personally there was very little "damage" on me personally (I had to have a quick ring round to check people were OK in a slightly self-consciously absurd exercise).

There was a slightly sinking feeling that this could escalate, or be the start of things to come - will there be an upsurge in racism or police "crackdowns", etc, etc. And even in an atomised/alienated city there still is a civil society and collective "mood" of sorts. So yeah, an opportunity to laugh probably helped a bit, but I'm not that emotional anyway.

Speaking generally laughter has some "healing" power I'd say. From what I've seen/know of Irish wakes, part of the point is to have a joke and laugh about the deceased to help everyone overcome some of the grief. Now, not every joke will be at the expense of the deceased, but if someone stood up and recalls an anecdote where the deceased (his brother) was slightly embarrassed then I suspect most people would think this appropriate and probably laugh. Now, if a random person who'd never met or knew of the deceased came in off the street and told abusive jokes about the dead then I suspect the crowd's response might be a tad different. No?
Quote:

I'd suggest jokes about the London bombings were more likely to make you laugh because the London bombings got a lot more coverage than any Bangladesh equivelent.
Yeah, I'm pretty sure that's not the reason. I just find certain types of humour cheap basically. People confuse being "edgy" with being brave sometimes (sup Family Guy). Voltaire's satires of the aristocracy were brave, Little Britain's satire of chavs are merely cheap, from what I can tell.

So I guess there's three factors (although it's not conscious, obviously).
1. How genuinely brave is the humour? (it does not have to be).
2. How do I relate to the subject matter?
3. How does the person telling the joke relate to the subject matter?

I am a big fan of Bill Hicks but his entire trailer trash "bit" makes me want to be sick. I can't relate to it ("lol, it's true - I do sleep with my sister while living off welfare!") and Bill tells the routine from the perspective of someone not who grew up in a trailer park (or even poverty) but from someone who watches Cops. And it's basically spineless comedy, which from him was disappointing.

Now, it's possible to subvert these rules and be funny, but it has to be well done. An Anglo-Jewish comic does a bit along the lines of :
Quote:

I'm sure you've all heard Chris Rock say how he feels about certain parts of his own community. As he says....he loves black people. But he hates nig*ers.

Now, as a Jew, I can totally connect to that. I mean I'm Jewish and I love Jews...but boy - do I hate nig*ers.

<waits for audience response to die down a bit>

Now, now wait a minute....I know what you're thinking...how can I say that? But it's OK beause I talked about it with my brother in law, and he said - you're 100% right.

...And he's Jewish too.
I found that mildly amusing because it subverts the expected pattern and so forth, but if the rest of his routine was about how he hates how black people messing up Golders Green and so on then that'd be less funny.
Quote:

I can't think of something less funny than someone having to give you a power history lesson quickly before telling you a joke.
That applies generally - the way you appreciate a subject matter (if at all) will affect your appreciation of the joke. Well, duh! I remember telling the crappy pun from Porridge:
"Show me a man who laughs at defeat....and I'll show you a Jamaican chiropodist with a sense of humour."
But the person I said it to didn't know what a chiropodist was, so there was no humour at all.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Milo
Can you clarify what you mean by 'abstractly about me'. If brown communists got blown up, would it be funny?

No one getting blown up is funny. Even if GWB blew up tomorrow that would not automatically be funny to me. But would it be possible to make a funny joke about it? Of course. Would I find the joke funnier if I could relate to it better? Of course.

Very simple example : The biggest fans I have ever met of the Life of Brian bit with the "Judean's People's Front" vs "The Popular Front of Judea" rivalry are extreme lefties because they know that is all so true, and despite the fact it's a tragedy (to them at least) that the far left is so fragmented and shit and something they blame (perhaps somewhat egocentrically) for the appalling state of (bits of) the world.

Any subject is suitable for humour as I have said many times, but context and timing is everything. I watched a Pilger documentary on Friday, large sections of which were describing various horrors, to which there was a dark humour to some of it. Some of the humour though stemmed from the fact you (as a bunch of lefties watching a documentary) were supposed to have an emotional connection with the lefties on screen (even if they were "brown"). That emotional connection to me is what makes humour possible (even when very dark humour).

Dante Hicks 13 May 2007 14:20

Re: Madeleine MCcann
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Phang
****ing christ. one day, one day you will learn that other people know things - both things you know, and things you don't.

It would probably help if horn didn't use some of his words in contexts that make it look like he's just learnt them, or is involved in a bet to use them within a given time period.

(I agree with your overall point however)

Gary 13 May 2007 15:49

Re: Madeleine MCcann
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Benneh
i dont see why the parents arnt getting any ****ing blame in all of this.

They checked every 30 mins, so much can happen in that time. Surely leaving 3 under 4's "sleeping" is a shit idea so they can have dinner. jeez

Yes, the parents were truely idiotic. If they felt the need to go back every 30 minutes, then they had a thought at the back of their minds that it was NOT ok to leave children on their own for the duration of an evening (otherwise why go back every half hour). Ironically by going back that often, someone obviously saw them coming and going :(

I have sympathy for the parents, because they will both be consumed by guilt for the rest of their lives, but what were they thinking!! :confused:

JonnyBGood 13 May 2007 15:57

Re: Madeleine MCcann
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks
It would probably help if horn didn't use some of his words in contexts that make it look like he's just learnt them, or is involved in a bet to use them within a given time period.

(I agree with your overall point however)

Your cavillous point really exacerbates an already exasperating situation.

Gary 13 May 2007 16:09

Re: Madeleine MCcann
 
Its not paranoid to not leave your children unattended in that situation like your trying to imply it is.. If that's what you would do with your children that's fine. You will be the one who will have to live with the consequnces, knowing YOU allowed a paedophile to get to your child (if that were to happen).

And as for you saying that this kind of thing is smoothering children in cotton wool (or whatever) is missing the point. Maybe when the kid is older you can begin to let go - secondary school seems a good place to start if it is deemed they can travel home from school on their own.

All Systems Go 13 May 2007 16:15

Re: Madeleine MCcann
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by GJN
Its not paranoid to not leave your children unattended in that situation like your trying to imply it is.. If that's what you would do with your children that's fine. You will be the one who will have to live with the consequnces, knowing YOU allowed a paedophile to get to your child.

And as for you saying that this kind of thing is smoothering children in cotton wool (or whatever) is missing the point. Maybe when the kid is older you can begin to let go - secondary school seems a good place to start if it is deemed they can travel home from school on their own.

Oh here we go! When someone kidnaps a child, they're always a paedophile aren't they?

For all you know they could be selling the children into slave labour or selling them to paedphiles, but does that make them a paedophile? I don't think so!

Gary 13 May 2007 16:18

Re: Madeleine MCcann
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by All Systems Go
Oh here we go! When someone kidnaps a child, they're always a paedophile aren't they?

For all you know they could be selling the children into slave labour or selling them to paedphiles, but does that make them a paedophile? I don't think so!

LOL! A child goes missing (from a hotel room within a 30 minute time period, where some one was watching over the room), not seen nor heard for a length of time. Yes, they are more likely than not been taken by a predatory paedophile. I dont think that is an unreasonable assumption to make. That is the most likely outcome here.

Nodrog 13 May 2007 16:38

Re: Madeleine MCcann
 
Ah, the predatory paedophiles. Roaming the country in large gangs looking for unattended children to throw in a sack and carry away to the paedophile palace to be raped and murdered :(

JonnyBGood 13 May 2007 16:51

Re: Madeleine MCcann
 
I believe there was actually a free babysitting service at the hotel they were staying. However you never know, the babysitter could have been a paedophile! One cannot be too careful these days.

Sarina_Joy 13 May 2007 17:31

Re: Madeleine MCcann
 
Everyones a potential paedophiles.

JonnyBGood 13 May 2007 17:35

Re: Madeleine MCcann
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Sarina_Joy
Everyones a potential paedophiles.

That's paedophile talk that is!

Dante Hicks 13 May 2007 18:28

Re: Madeleine MCcann
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Sarina_Joy
Everyones a potential paedophiles.

I'm not. :(

milo 13 May 2007 18:35

Re: Madeleine MCcann
 
The only solution is ugly children.

JonnyBGood 13 May 2007 18:54

Re: Madeleine MCcann
 
Does anyone else think people care more about blonde haired blue eyed girls because on some level they probably want to bone them when they grow up? From an evo-psych perspective it makes sense.





God bless evolutionary psychology.

milo 13 May 2007 19:06

Re: Madeleine MCcann
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood
Does anyone else think people care more about blonde haired blue eyed girls because on some level they probably want to bone them when they grow up?


Why bother with when she grows up? But yeah my interest is only there if theres a sense of depraving the beautiful, im pretty sure most if not all people are the same. When this is eventually solved there will be the inevitable books giving blow-by-blow accounts of what happened to her to satisfy the darker side of human psych - the funny thing is the people who buy those books would probably be first in line shouting down child-porn for enduring the suffering of the child or supporting absurd notions like 'abuse by proxy'

Tomkat 13 May 2007 19:56

Re: Madeleine MCcann
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by horn
what? I'm saying why don't we replace the news with awareness campaigns for whatever crimes have taken place that week/month, i.e. showing pictures of fugitives in the hope that it will result in people coming forward with information.

That would defeat the point of Crimewatch. It is only on once a week (and iirc for an hour) because people will watch that and pay attention to the crimes on it. If there was a whole channel dedicated to all the crimes that were currently unsolved then it wouldn't be watched.
Are you thinking up these ridiculous arguments to try to argue your point, or are you just being deliberately difficult?

Hicks 13 May 2007 21:44

Re: Madeleine MCcann
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by horn
It's a bit unfair on milo for you all to be shit at the same time in the same thread.

Yes milo is a pretty edgy cool Internet poster. I hope his feelings aren't hurt because people disagreed with him.


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 16:23.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2002 - 2018