[URL="Lesbian couple starved their three children"]http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2586598/3-children-starving-1-chained-floor.html[/URL]
Clicking doesn't seem to work, is it hyperlinked right?
Yes because them being lesbian is relevant.
Oh it's the daily mail, of course its relevant then, gotta feed the extreme right.
[QUOTE=Azarath;44338545][URL="http://Lesbian couple starved their three children"]http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2586598/3-children-starving-1-chained-floor.html[/URL][/QUOTE]
[noparse][URL="Lesbian couple starved their three children"]http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2586598/3-children-starving-1-chained-floor.html[/URL][/noparse]
You got the URL tags backwards.
[noparse][URL="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2586598/3-children-starving-1-chained-floor.html"]Lesbian couple starved their three children[/URL][/noparse]
like that.
[URL="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2586598/3-children-starving-1-chained-floor.html"]Lesbian couple starved their three children[/URL]
the most recent comment on TDM is fairly reasonable today
[quote= +19 -12]Odd that I never see "Heterosexual couple" in the title of seemingly endless articles of Americans abusing or killing their kids.[/quote]
well, probably a fluke I guess
[quote= +100 - 17]They got to adopt because of social engineering and quotas, probably they even jumped the queue in front of a hetro couple. End Times. The world has become distorted[/quote]
there's the daily mail we all know and love
[quote]The girl, who appeared to have suffered the most extreme abuse, was chained to the floor to prevent her from getting any food, they said.
'It seems that the little girl was the major target of this abuse,' Miller continued, adding that she looked 'like a concentration camp victim'.
The girl was in the hospital for about five days, he said, and seemed "traumatized."
There was evidence that she was may have been put in the closet as well as that she was sometimes shackled at the ankle and at other times by a collar around her neck, Miller said[/quote]
Holy shit. Why the fuck would they do this?
[QUOTE=Fatfatfatty;44338559]Yes because them being lesbian is relevant.
Oh it's the daily mail, of course its relevant then, gotta feed the extreme right.[/QUOTE]
well yeah of course it's relevant, why wouldn't it be
this is why lesbian couples shouldn't be allowed adopt kids!!
[QUOTE=]Odd that I never see "Heterosexual couple" in the title of seemingly endless articles of Americans abusing or killing their kids[/QUOTE]
I like how this one from their comment section says how no one ever says "hetrosexual couple" in an article headline. Which they're saying is something that we shouldn't be pointing out as a detail in a news story. Then proceeds to use Americans as an example in the same exact way.
[QUOTE=Blazedol;44338728]Holy shit. Why the fuck would they do this?[/QUOTE]
Batshit insane, probably.
THAT IS OUTRA...
oh wait it's the dailymail
[QUOTE=Dr McNinja;44338803]I like how this one from their comment section says how no one ever says "hetrosexual couple" in an article headline. Which they're saying is something that we shouldn't be pointing out as a detail in a news story. Then proceeds to use Americans as an example in the same exact way.[/QUOTE]
It's still the Dailymail comments, just take what you can get.
I couldn't have read this piece of enthralling news without knowing they were lesbians, onto the next headlines!
[QUOTE][I]Muslim[/I] Family force feeds kids Vegetables[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE][I]Jewish[/I] Prime Minister Blows up Sandwich[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE][I]Gay[/I] Grocer commits Carbicide[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=KennyAwsum;44338984]I couldn't have read this piece of enthralling news without knowing they were lesbians, onto the next headlines![/QUOTE]
Those headlines aren't quite as bad as the horrific child abuse detailed in the article.
[QUOTE=Fatfatfatty;44338559]Yes because them being lesbian is relevant.
Oh it's the daily mail, of course its relevant then, gotta feed the extreme right.[/QUOTE]
they say lesbian couple to say that it's 2 females, where if they see just "couple" people would think a man and a woman.
jesus christ stepping on eggshells with you lot
[QUOTE=Azarath;44339078]Those headlines aren't quite as bad as the horrific child abuse detailed in the article.[/QUOTE]
In all seriousness, Child Abuse at any level is a serious issue.
Both of them should probably never care for a child ever again, nor be allowed near one.
I don't like the fact that 2 of the children were adopted and there wasn't procedure to make sure if the mothers were capable. That must have been doubly horrible for them.
On the other subject,
I don't like the tone that the Article's headline goes for that is all.
If it was any other site, it'd just be "[I]Couple starved their three children[/I]".
That is my issue, papers like the daily mail always feel like they need something to hook people in and feed on imagination.
In all honesty, if good Journalism is done and then credit is where credit is due but the Daily Mail aren't known for that. Im not going to throw in the obligatory youtube video to the Daily Mail song. We all must know it by now.
[QUOTE=HybridTheroy;44339183]they say lesbian couple to say that it's 2 females, where if they see just "couple" people would think a man and a woman.[/QUOTE]
Would love to agree but seems fishy.
[QUOTE=KennyAwsum;44339289]
Would love to agree but seems fishy.[/QUOTE]
this is an article about children being starved and all people care aboout is "ooo daily mail, why do they feel the need to use adjectives, my god!"
[QUOTE=Azarath;44339078]Those headlines aren't quite as bad as the horrific child abuse detailed in the article.[/QUOTE]
how's this
[img]http://i.imgur.com/YP1mJYN.png[/img]
[img]http://i.imgur.com/eDGvrLd.png[/img]
[QUOTE=HybridTheroy;44339356]this is an article about children being starved and all people care aboout is "ooo daily mail, why do they feel the need to use adjectives, my god!"[/QUOTE]
we all know very well daily mail writes shit to get pageviews. Starting anything with 'lesbian' is a sure-fire way to rouse people, though it's entirely relevant to this case. I'd love to read the thousands of articles they've written for all the other cases of child neglect in the past year.
[QUOTE=dai;44339512]
we all know very well daily mail writes shit to get pageviews. Starting anything with 'lesbian' is a sure-fire way to rouse people, though it's entirely relevant to this case. I'd love to read the thousands of articles they've written for all the other cases of child neglect in the past year.[/QUOTE]
except having 'lesbian' before 'couple' is legitimately a way to refer to a 'lesbian couple'
like i said before just putting "couple starved three kids" you'd think a man and woman.
what would you rather? the title that makes it less descriptive ("couple starved three kids", "2 girls starved 3 kids"), the title that takes more space ("2 female partners starved 3 kids". "a couple of girls who decided to parent together starved 3 kids), or the one that makes the most sense, is descriptive and to-the-point without taking up too much space and risking a '...' cut-off?
whats the first thing we learn about forming titles [i]in junior high[/i]?
I think you missed the part where I said it WAS pertinent to the article to denote them as lesbian. The fact everyone's bitching about DM is that we all know they cherrypicked the article out of many potential ones BECAUSE it's about that hot topic.
Like the time they wrote an article on someone talking smack about the nhs like people do all the time, when it was obvious they picked this one instance to write about because it was a transgender saying it
Well to be honest, it's hard to write this article without mentioning that the two parents were lesbians.
But of course, it shouldn't be in the headline.
[QUOTE=dai;44339695]I think you missed the part where I said it WAS pertinent to the article to denote them as lesbian. The fact everyone's bitching about DM is that we all know they cherrypicked the article out of many potential ones BECAUSE it's about that hot topic.[/QUOTE]
That's why you're upset?
What is so terrible about covering this story exactly? I'm sure you wouldn't be so hot and heavy if the source link wasn't DM
[QUOTE=paul simon;44339936]
But of course, it shouldn't be in the headline.[/QUOTE]
Personally I don't see why not.
[QUOTE=paul simon;44339936]Well to be honest, it's hard to write this article without mentioning that the two parents were lesbians.
But of course, it shouldn't be in the headline.[/QUOTE]
Why shouldn't it? They're a lesbian couple, not a heterosexual couple.
When an article says "Middle-aged man bla bla bla" do you say "Why do they think it is necessary to mention he is middle-aged" Or "Why do news articles use adjectives!". Titles are to start the article off with a proper visualization and entice the reader into continuing.
[QUOTE=HybridTheroy;44339984]Why shouldn't it? They're a lesbian couple, not a heterosexual couple.
When an article says "Middle-aged man bla bla bla" do you say "Why do they think it is necessary to mention he is middle-aged" Or "Why do news articles use adjectives!". Titles are to start the article off with a proper visualization and entice the reader into continuing.[/QUOTE]
It's just that it seems to offend people a bunch :v
edit: this was supposed to be an edit but I fucked up
[QUOTE=paul simon;44340005]It's just that it seems to offend people a bunch :v[/QUOTE]
Yep, that's the response i was waiting for that lets me know not to take [i]you[/i] seriously
[QUOTE=HybridTheroy;44339944]That's why you're upset?
What is so terrible about covering this story exactly? I'm sure you wouldn't be so hot and heavy if the source link wasn't DM[/QUOTE]
why are you getting violently upset about this
I'm literally explaining why people are calling out dailymail for picking a sensationalist topic, because [i]that's the reason they make money[/i]. There's a reason it's banned as a serious source of news here.
I've said it [I]twice[/I] now that I personally think mentioning they're lesbians is 100% proper in this article and I'm not getting hot and heavy over that fact
[QUOTE=dai;44340064]why are you getting violently upset about this
I'm literally explaining why people are calling out dailymail for being sensationalist[/QUOTE]
yeah man, my jimmies are so violently rustled i dont know whether to argue with you or punch my wall which is why i do both i have been punching the wall by my computer throughout the whole duration of this thread so far
but seriously, all im doing is calling you guys on your extreme bias. im not upset, im pointing something out.
if anything negative, i would be annoyed that every thread with a dailymail source turns into a thread about dailymail.
People assuming that "couple" always means heterosexual is fucked and it's not going to change unless people make an effort stop using it that way. [I]That includes the media.[/I]​
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
