Hiku said:
mornelithe said:
You don't have to analyze it, I provided a direct quote from her Thesis. You provided a synopsis from Kotaku, setting aside the fact that Stephen Totilo is on video saying he didn't find journalistic ethics to be particularly important (this is the Editor in Chief of Kotaku), the large volumes of ethical breaches at Kotaku, and that Kotaku's parent company Gawker just got bitchslapped by a Judge for journalistic ethics violations (which may end the parent company), I'm surprised you find a secondary synposis, over what the person in question write. Call me crazy, but I'm going to go with what she actually wrote.
|
You provided one quote, and you added "at times it's unclear what she means", and "give the impression".
How do you then go on to claim that one doesn't need to analyze the thesis in order to understand her viewpoint?
Often times you can't find clarity of someone's stance from a single paragraph because it is written with the assumption that you've read the entierty of it.
I'm not looking at a synopsis over what she wrote. I'm looking at it in addition to it. That person has a better understanding of her thesis than I do, and that's the conclusion he reached.
At some point she "distinguishes between exploiting real-life children and the creation of fictionalized sexual material". And that she supposedly argues for stronger laws against child exploitation seems to contradict the notion that she would support real child pornography. So reading the full thesis may indeed be neccesary to be clear about when she's talking about real life and fiction.
|
No, you're the one who said you hadn't analyzed the thesis, I was pointing out that the quote I provided didn't require you to. And yes, at times she was unclear, you know when a really awesome time to be clear, and not give the wrong impression is? When you're writing a thesis that touches upon real and fictional child pornography. Beyond her thesis, she has also tweeted some not so ambiguous things.
And yeah, Kotaku.
