Quote:
Originally posted by dtb
Who said anything about discussing it? Like Ty said -- that person was someone's father, brother, friend -- it's akin to officiously intruding on someone's grief, with a whiff of prurient leering thrown in. No one needs to see that. Did you want to see the beheading tape? I thought you expressed the view that no one in his right mind would want/need to see that -- how is this any different?
To see images of the planes crashing into the buildings, while horrendous and disturbing are less intimate and private than focusing on the pain and suffering of one individual as he falls to his death.
Why do I bother? If you can't see this distinction, there's really no point.
|
If you could see the man's face and identify him, I wouldn't have posted it. Just curious about how you feel about the famous OK City picture of the firefighter with the baby:
http://www.s-t.com/daily/04-96/04-07-96/1aoak.htm
Is it nothing more than prurient leering to look at the photo?
To me, it really all depends on why someone is looking at the photo. With the beheading video, I really think many if not most people just wanted to see the gore. That is very different from why I posted the pic of the WTC or would post the pic of Baylee.
eta - it also depends on the picture itself. With the Berg case, it was a video of a murder complete with audio and the identity of the person was clear. That is very different from a still photo of someone who is falling and cannot be identified.
