That's a crock.
There is no evidence of wrongdoing in the photograph. Period, end of story. I don't care who wrote the caption, the FACT is that there is NOTHING within the photo0 to define the individual as an abuser of the system. Period.
The photo is priceless as a piece of propoganda...but that's about it.
The photo is a photo of an unknown person snapping a shot of a famous person in an unknown cafeteria-type location. There is nothing abusive or illegal going on in the photograph in any way shape or form.
Any percieved social system abuse is in your head. Any ideas of qwelfare fraud are in your head. Any sense that this is a homeless shelter or soup kitchen is in your head. The propoganda is in the caption.
Exactly, so for me this photo ain't funny because I immediately think of all the other possible scenario's, besides that, I don't think people in need of free meals should not be allowed to own a mobile phone. The person who added the caption either has a reference frame that makes him think there is abuse going on (in which he might be right) and he wants to show that for an unknown reason (I don't think it's a campaigner for any candidate) or that coincidence caused a funny situation. You can't know which of the two it is. But since you think propaganda is not about intention, you take way the room to think it is not propaganda.
That's a crock, too. Propoganda is propoganda because of the
content of it's message, not because of the
intent of it's creator.
Well, then we just disagree on that. Though this article about the different definitions of propaganda always includes the intention of the propagandist.
I never said someone didn't have any logic because I disagreed with them. I said some people don't understand simple logic as they themselves evidenced in this thread. This post is a perfect example of individuals using the idea of "opinion" and "humour" as a way to avoid thinking logically.
And STILL no one has shown me a single piece of evidence within the photo that definitively identifies this individual as an abuser of the system. You can't even difinitively identify the locationas a soup kitchen! That's logical to you? OK...I suppose you're welcome to your own opinion on that, but don't confuse your opinion with logic.
No,why is that necessary? You don't even know if the person who added the caption thinks there is.
Logic states that this is a photograph of an unknown individual in an unknown cafeteria taking a picture of a famous person working in the kitchen. Logic also says that there are at least 2 cameras in this photo, and most likely several others there that day. Logic further says the only thing that makes this photo a "portrayal of social system abuse" is the caption.
You are right, and that for some people is the fun about it; how an innocent photo could look like a "portrayal of social system abuse". Your reference frame makes you think the creator made an innocent photo into a "portrayal of social system abuse" or that the creator has a reference frame which makes him think there is abuse going on, you just don't believe the creator could have another intention. Fine, but that's in your head and probably you exclude that possibility because your logic is different.
Logic says this is propoganda.
Your logic says this propaganda, that's what I mean with being able to understand there are different types of logic, compiled from experiences, definitions of the words you use and how your brain works.
But you're welcome to have whatever opinion you'd like. Just don't confuse it with logic...
To me you just don't get that different people have different logic, which in the end builds different opinions. Opinion is a product of logic. People with colliding logic, probably are unable to agree on many things
