Bleh, 3 exams in the same week suck. Especially when they're one day right after another. Anyway, just from looking at another post, I was wondering what people thought of it. This is taken from Firestorm's signature.
"When you kill one man it is a tragedy, but when you kill ten thousand, it is a statistic." (Attributed to Joseph Stalin).
Do you people agree? Disagree? Don't care?
I need a break
Moderator: MOD_TitansOfSteel
-
PrinceCorrin
- Posts: 299
- Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2001 8:00 am
- Location: Bossier City, Louisiana
- Contact:
Perhaps. It is interesting to note that some nations are responsible for some atrocities that have never really been properly recognized by the majority of the world. We all know about the Holocaust, but how many know about the slaughter of ppl in Post WWII Russia? Stalin didn't murder tens of thousands, he murdered hundreds of thousands.
Still pales in comparison to Hitler's Millions, but even Adolf don't hold a candle to legalized abortion, which has claimed the lives of some 50 MILLION children in the US alone. Now philosophically we could go into a huge discussion about who's the bigger monster, Nazis or abortionists, but I ain't goin into it.
Sorry, pet peeve of mine. I love my country, but we can be really thick sometimes.
Still pales in comparison to Hitler's Millions, but even Adolf don't hold a candle to legalized abortion, which has claimed the lives of some 50 MILLION children in the US alone. Now philosophically we could go into a huge discussion about who's the bigger monster, Nazis or abortionists, but I ain't goin into it.
Sorry, pet peeve of mine. I love my country, but we can be really thick sometimes.
I see your lips moving, but all I hear is: Blah Blah Blah, I'm a friggin moron.
PC, I certainly hope that abortion comment of yours was a flamebait only..
I did find it a bit strange, though, when people mourning over the NYC incident were considered hypocrites just because they hadn't mourned for other attrocities as well. Apparently they forgot that sh!t happens all around the world so often, that you simply wouldn't have the time to mourn for every lost human soul.
As harsh as it seems, but you really have to limit your mourning to people you can relate yourself to. I don't cry over Afghanistan refugees dying out in hunger just because they represent so little to me, but a remarkable landmark that I was personally going to visit one day getting destroyed with everybody in it just like that certainly makes a tear roll for me. <img src="frown.gif" border="0">
I did find it a bit strange, though, when people mourning over the NYC incident were considered hypocrites just because they hadn't mourned for other attrocities as well. Apparently they forgot that sh!t happens all around the world so often, that you simply wouldn't have the time to mourn for every lost human soul.
As harsh as it seems, but you really have to limit your mourning to people you can relate yourself to. I don't cry over Afghanistan refugees dying out in hunger just because they represent so little to me, but a remarkable landmark that I was personally going to visit one day getting destroyed with everybody in it just like that certainly makes a tear roll for me. <img src="frown.gif" border="0">
--
Jukka Mikkonen a.k.a. Sir Rechet
Jukka Mikkonen a.k.a. Sir Rechet
I think it depends of which kind of men you kill. If you kill 10 thousand Americans on a terrorist attack, that´s a murder for the world, if one million people lose their home, die of starving, etc, due to a revenge act against a fundamentalist government and a much inferior country, then nobody cares about it, ´cause it´s US who is attacking..."When you kill one man it is a tragedy, but when you kill ten thousand, it is a statistic." (Attributed to Joseph Stalin).
Do you people agree? Disagree? Don't care?[/QB]
Here we have had a terrorist group for over than 30 years and I think (after IRA weapons´ delivery) it´s the only one active at this moment in Europe, but in US you have been calling them "Basque patriots" for all this time.
P.S: I´m afraid Stalin´s murders are even higher than Hitler´s.
The TAO says :
"Its obvious that those who want to make the world a better place can't reach anything. The world is a holy place as it is, nothing anybody can change. The wise accepts all things the way they are. He knows that all manifestations are beyond his control. He does what has to be done, without pride. He does what has to be done cause there is no other choice. Accept the world the way it is."
"Its obvious that those who want to make the world a better place can't reach anything. The world is a holy place as it is, nothing anybody can change. The wise accepts all things the way they are. He knows that all manifestations are beyond his control. He does what has to be done, without pride. He does what has to be done cause there is no other choice. Accept the world the way it is."
I find that many asian philosophies tend to be too fatalistic. They would rather just live their lives for their own personal happinesses and sadnesses rather than help their neighbor out. This is partially how mass killings can pass as statistics. Someone in the Holocaust was quoted as saying "When they came for the Jews, I said nothing, so they took them away. When they came for the old, I said nothing, so they took them away. When they came for the Christians, I said nothing, so they took them away. When they came for me, there was no one left to say anything." (something along those lines, I can't remember the exact quote) I think it is better to try and change the world and the society around which in return will give greater protection.
An interesting aside, evolutionarily, it is only beneficial to sacrifice oneself for the group, IF everyone else in the group is inclined to do the same (not saying everyone sacrifices themselves at once you smart-alecs out there). Take for instance the case of Belding's ground squirrel. They live in social clusters, and when a bird of prey flies by (or some other predator), the first squirrel that sees it lets out a shriek, thereby drawing attention to itself, but warning the others to get away. However, if the squirrel was brought up in isolation and then introduced into the group, it will not shriek.
[ November 05, 2001: Message edited by: Lyhrrus ]</p>
An interesting aside, evolutionarily, it is only beneficial to sacrifice oneself for the group, IF everyone else in the group is inclined to do the same (not saying everyone sacrifices themselves at once you smart-alecs out there). Take for instance the case of Belding's ground squirrel. They live in social clusters, and when a bird of prey flies by (or some other predator), the first squirrel that sees it lets out a shriek, thereby drawing attention to itself, but warning the others to get away. However, if the squirrel was brought up in isolation and then introduced into the group, it will not shriek.
[ November 05, 2001: Message edited by: Lyhrrus ]</p>
-
PrinceCorrin
- Posts: 299
- Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2001 8:00 am
- Location: Bossier City, Louisiana
- Contact:
I do not understand that. What do you mean?Originally posted by Jukka Mikkonen:
PC, I certainly hope that abortion comment of yours was a flamebait only..
In response to the comment about the millions of Afghanis starving and dieing: They had a choice. The ppl in the WTC did not. Do not confuse a response to an attack on US soil with Vengeance. The United States is NOT exacting revenge, we are taking measures to assure the future safety and peace of our ppl. That is a duty of our leaders set forth in our Constitution. We have a right to live in peace, and they cannot be allowed to take that away from us.
Yes, innocent ppl die. I'm sorry. Try arguing this with Mr. Taliban who likes to sleep in a different hospital every night because then he won't get bombed. We are not the bad guys here.
I see your lips moving, but all I hear is: Blah Blah Blah, I'm a friggin moron.
I´m afraid people from Afganistan can´t chose too much right now, "bads" are ruling them, "goods" are bombing them.
I must remember you that US sold them the weapons they´re using now, as happened with Irak, and many other countries. Do you really think you are the center of the world?
First, that attack wasn´t supported by a country, it was a terrorist group.
Second, do you really think you´ll stop terrorism just by destroying That country?
And third, if you want to leave in peace, you should start seeing inside, US is the country with the biggest number of murders in the hole world, i don´t think you can live safe if anybody can get a weapon just having an 18+ID. <img src="frown.gif" border="0">
I must remember you that US sold them the weapons they´re using now, as happened with Irak, and many other countries. Do you really think you are the center of the world?
First, that attack wasn´t supported by a country, it was a terrorist group.
Second, do you really think you´ll stop terrorism just by destroying That country?
And third, if you want to leave in peace, you should start seeing inside, US is the country with the biggest number of murders in the hole world, i don´t think you can live safe if anybody can get a weapon just having an 18+ID. <img src="frown.gif" border="0">
Originally posted by PrinceCorrin:
In response to the comment about the millions of Afghanis starving and dieing: They had a choice.
Uhh.... where's the choice? No food, limited rights, no constitution guarenteeing those few rights... Not trying to flame you or anything, just pointing out an important detail.
PC, I'd like to avoid getting into the abortion discussion here, as I know it'll propably heat up a bit. But for the record, I'm pro-abortion, because there certainly exists very imaginable scenarios where the new babyborn would make life miserable for way too many people, usually including itself. But it's in no way supposed to be anything but the last-ditch resolve for desperate situations, not a backup plan for failed birth control.
I know it sounds very fascist, but the 'respect' for life has gone too far, IMHO. I'm sorry, but I just can't understand the reasoning behind keeping, say, a terminally ill patient alive for one extra day with extensive medical care and a humongous price tag. Just because it's possible due to technology doesn't automatically make it a mandatory action. I, for one, would be rather dead than tied into bed as a half-vegetable and having someone feed me, change my diapers and so forth for years.
I've been in the US as an exchange student for one year, and I fell off a horse during that time. After receiving the bill for a quick ER visit (X-rays plus some very basic anti-bacterial cleaning up & patching my wounds) I was truly shocked. 398 freakin' bucks for THAT ??? WTF??? Better make sure you can afford getting seriously ill over there!
Still, I saw way too many times how families took ridiculously large loans to afford, say, a surgery for their 'poor old grandma'. Not only did they screw up their chances of ever getting out of their debts, they also dragged quite a few families around them into an economical turmoil. For what? To save one life at the expense of tens of others forever stuck in poverty? I'd say, LIVE AND LET DIE!! <img src="mad.gif" border="0">
I know it sounds very fascist, but the 'respect' for life has gone too far, IMHO. I'm sorry, but I just can't understand the reasoning behind keeping, say, a terminally ill patient alive for one extra day with extensive medical care and a humongous price tag. Just because it's possible due to technology doesn't automatically make it a mandatory action. I, for one, would be rather dead than tied into bed as a half-vegetable and having someone feed me, change my diapers and so forth for years.
I've been in the US as an exchange student for one year, and I fell off a horse during that time. After receiving the bill for a quick ER visit (X-rays plus some very basic anti-bacterial cleaning up & patching my wounds) I was truly shocked. 398 freakin' bucks for THAT ??? WTF??? Better make sure you can afford getting seriously ill over there!
Still, I saw way too many times how families took ridiculously large loans to afford, say, a surgery for their 'poor old grandma'. Not only did they screw up their chances of ever getting out of their debts, they also dragged quite a few families around them into an economical turmoil. For what? To save one life at the expense of tens of others forever stuck in poverty? I'd say, LIVE AND LET DIE!! <img src="mad.gif" border="0">
--
Jukka Mikkonen a.k.a. Sir Rechet
Jukka Mikkonen a.k.a. Sir Rechet
It's not about the money Jukka. There's no formal logic to the pro-life argument IMO. Mostly it's people's differing interpretations of what is life, what makes life, and is life holy and therefore should not be interfered with (by man)?
Something about US law as far as I know. If someone is unconscious and/or unable to indicate clear desicion making (the latter is a bit ambiguous), then the right to make personal decisions for that person passes on to next of kin or the person who has power of attorney. Personally, if I go comatose, and the only possibility I have of awaking is to come back a complete vegetable, I'd want not to be put on life support. However, if I have not expressly stated these wishes on a legal document, then that decision goes on to my parents (or if I had given power of attorney to someone else, then they have that choice).
From there, the person who makes that choice may not be willing to terminate my life. For instance, if your own mother or father were out cold in the same situation, and you had the choice, what would you do? In a sense, I believe many people would have moral objections to choosing to end someone else's life.
Going back to abortion, in a sense, the unborn baby has no ability to communicate its decisions to us. As a result, the mother has that choice. I think it's more than traumatic enough for a mother to choose to kill her own child, and that we shouldn't heckle them for doing so. The people who believe that the child should be born anyway will generally not understand nor realize the pain the mother and child will go through while growing up if the mother cannot properly support the child physically (food and financial), mentally, and emotionally. It's always easier to point a finger and call something wrong than to internalize the situation and try and see it from the other side.
P.S. This topic went nowhere where I imagined it would go. The thought train has jumped from the platform out into la la land. <img src="smile.gif" border="0"> Not that it's a bad thing.
Something about US law as far as I know. If someone is unconscious and/or unable to indicate clear desicion making (the latter is a bit ambiguous), then the right to make personal decisions for that person passes on to next of kin or the person who has power of attorney. Personally, if I go comatose, and the only possibility I have of awaking is to come back a complete vegetable, I'd want not to be put on life support. However, if I have not expressly stated these wishes on a legal document, then that decision goes on to my parents (or if I had given power of attorney to someone else, then they have that choice).
From there, the person who makes that choice may not be willing to terminate my life. For instance, if your own mother or father were out cold in the same situation, and you had the choice, what would you do? In a sense, I believe many people would have moral objections to choosing to end someone else's life.
Going back to abortion, in a sense, the unborn baby has no ability to communicate its decisions to us. As a result, the mother has that choice. I think it's more than traumatic enough for a mother to choose to kill her own child, and that we shouldn't heckle them for doing so. The people who believe that the child should be born anyway will generally not understand nor realize the pain the mother and child will go through while growing up if the mother cannot properly support the child physically (food and financial), mentally, and emotionally. It's always easier to point a finger and call something wrong than to internalize the situation and try and see it from the other side.
P.S. This topic went nowhere where I imagined it would go. The thought train has jumped from the platform out into la la land. <img src="smile.gif" border="0"> Not that it's a bad thing.
-
PrinceCorrin
- Posts: 299
- Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2001 8:00 am
- Location: Bossier City, Louisiana
- Contact:
I have to disagree here. It has always been easier to accept something as ok. I don't pretend to know everything, and I certainly am not going to say I know more than anybody here. All I know is that abortion is murder. There is always an alternative.Originally posted by Lyhrrus:
[QB]It's always easier to point a finger and call something wrong than to internalize the situation and try and see it from the other side.
QB]
Adoption is a wonderful thing. I am not going to make ambiguous claims or say that everybody will be happier alive, but man has no right to play with life.
I am a Christian, and that plays a strong role in my values. Mock me if you will, think me wrong if you want, but don't think I am stupid. I have considered this subject probably more than you have. I have researched this subject probably a lot more than you have.
It is simple when they tell you that it can't be helped, but dig a little, and you'll find out that it can.
It's always easier to say it's ok and not think about it, than to wonder if it might be a bad thing after all, and make an educated decision for yourself.
I see your lips moving, but all I hear is: Blah Blah Blah, I'm a friggin moron.