a reply to: introvert
Sorry to double post but it just occurred to me that we might be able to have a bit of fun here.
So, we can see an example of the careful and subtle manipulation of information with a specific outcome in mind right here in this thread.
You responded to my post by quoting some of my initial post. The section of text you quoted was
"Las Vegas shooter took 20 cruises, some to foreign ports" Straight off the bat; why is this even remotely interesting or relevant at all if you're
not trying to attach some significance to his travelling habits and the destinations he visited?"
And responded with:
"The investigators and the media alike are trying to get a look at the entire picture here and are looking in to every aspect they can on this guy.
That is why it is relevant."
You selectively quoted my initial post and left out the following:
"Why not say "las vegas shooter took 20 trips to the supermarket?" Or "las vegas shooter took 20 trips to an Italian restaurant"?"
Now this may have been an unconscious decision or it may have been deliberate. Either way, this part is omitted because it undermines (not contradicts
but lessens the impact of) your assertion that the media are attempting to simply present facts about the shooter in order to build a picture of who
If this were the case then it would also be reasonable to write an article including such information as how frequently he visited certain outlets or
ate certain types of food. I included that part because it draws attention to the fact that they felt there was something significant and important
about his travel habits, over and above something as mundane as what he likes to eat for breakfast or where he buys his pyjamas, something significant
enough to write an article about.
As you cannot make the assertion that they are simply painting a picture of him (fleshing out his chatacter if you will), deny that there is a
specific undertone to the article and at the same time explain why they chose to write an article SPECIFICALLY highlighting where he had travelled to,
whilst making a conscious decision not to report other information that may also be useful to establish an overall picture of who he was, that part of
my post was left out from your response. Not because it disproves your argument in any way (it obviously doesn't) but that it impacts upon the overall
solidity of it.
From your point of view it was not necessary to include that part of my post because you didn't want to address it, and instead wanted to focus on the
bit that you feel you could present a counter point to in order to support your argument.
(Bonus points!: In addition, you also tied what the media are doing to what the investigators are doing;
"The investigators and the media alike are trying to get a look at the entire picture here.."
Implying that they are both doing the same thing and with the same intent. This lends credibility and ascribes noble intent to the media's actions by
association with law enforcement. One would have to be particularly callous to cast aspersions upon the good intentions and hard work of the fine men
and women tasked with dealing with such a tragedy as this! Perhaps a seemingly throwaway remark but one that acts upon the unconscious mind
Now, I am not suggesting that you did this because "illuminait chemtrails from Nibiru", but because you have an innate understanding of debating your
point of view and presenting your arguments in such a way as to emphasise the validity of your assertions and to undermine the assertions of the
This is normal, it is something that people naturally do and seem instinctively to understand.
However, these are also techniques that have been studied, understood, refined and employed with great skill by the likes of the media and those with
a vested interest in presenting certain points of view.