the us constitution

This is a discussion on the us constitution within the A Brief History of Cprogramming.com forums, part of the Community Boards category; "it gets complicated. any average of 5000 deaths means nothing. but when a bunch of people die together there was ...

  1. #91
    The Earth is not flat. Clyde's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    1,420
    "it gets complicated. any average of 5000 deaths means nothing. but when a bunch of people die together there was a common cause. the 5000 in afghanistan died because our weapons aren't perfect, and they killed innocent people. the 3000 in new york died because a terrorist decided to crash planes into the world trade center. big difference. "

    So? 3000 people are "nothing" who cares?

    "it deters more murder. a murderer murders because of hate"

    So? The max number of people a murderer would kill would only be a couple of hundred MAX, thats "nothing" so who cares?

    "terrorism not just kills people, it tortures their minds, and inflicts fear into their hearts. deaths are just deaths. the dead will remain dead forever. it's the living who should be protected."

    Who cares if it "tortures their minds", the number of people affected are "nothing".

    "the people who died in concentration camps died because the nazi's committed genocide against the jewish race. (and then some.) i care not about the people who died, but about the very idea of killing off a race. it is pure hate. pure hate != collateral damage. "

    Oh I see! So its not the 6 million people that died that bothers you its the "idea" of killing off a race, after all 6 million people are "nothing", so they don't matter. I mean if Hitler had randomly rounded up 6 million people off the street that would be ok, since he wouldn't have been killing off a race.

    "i care about the living, not the dead."

    The dead were once living you know. You say "you don't care" when thousands of living people die, say you are in charge of miltary operations, you don't care that civilians die, so what the hell why don't we just nuke Afghanistan that would probably kill most of the trrorists; civilian casualities? Who cares?

    "the cause of death matters because it can help prevent more death"

    Prevent more death? Why? Who cares?

    "accidents are largely unpreventable beyond a point. war isn't accurate"

    Utter nonsense, there are plenty of things the military can and does do to minimise casualities, you know why? Because most people DO CARE.
    Last edited by Clyde; 05-24-2002 at 06:25 AM.

  2. #92
    In The Light
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    598
    howdy,
    The problem is the US thinks it knows best. It keeps making the same mistakes, never seeming to learn. Prevention is better than cure.
    in America we have a saying
    "The road to hell is paved with good intentions"

    the Americam public continues to be lead by "politicians " and not statesmen. as long as that is the case i imagine we will continue to pave the road.

    M.R.
    I don't like you very much. Please post a lot less.
    Cheez
    *and then*
    No, I know you were joking. My point still stands.

  3. #93
    Just because ygfperson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    2,493
    "it gets complicated. any average of 5000 deaths means nothing. but when a bunch of people die together there was a common cause. the 5000 in afghanistan died because our weapons aren't perfect, and they killed innocent people. the 3000 in new york died because a terrorist decided to crash planes into the world trade center. big difference. "

    So? 3000 people are "nothing" who cares?

    "it deters more murder. a murderer murders because of hate"

    So? The max number of people a murderer would kill would only be a couple of hundred MAX, thats "nothing" so who cares?

    "terrorism not just kills people, it tortures their minds, and inflicts fear into their hearts. deaths are just deaths. the dead will remain dead forever. it's the living who should be protected."

    Who cares if it "tortures their minds", the number of people affected are "nothing".

    "the people who died in concentration camps died because the nazi's committed genocide against the jewish race. (and then some.) i care not about the people who died, but about the very idea of killing off a race. it is pure hate. pure hate != collateral damage. "

    Oh I see! So its not the 6 million people that died that bothers you its the "idea" of killing off a race, after all 6 million people are "nothing", so they don't matter. I mean if Hitler had randomly rounded up 6 million people off the street that would be ok, since he wouldn't have been killing off a race.

    "i care about the living, not the dead."

    The dead were once living you know. You say "you don't care" when thousands of living people die, say you are in charge of miltary operations, you don't care that civilians die, so what the hell why don't we just nuke Afghanistan that would probably kill most of the trrorists; civilian casualities? Who cares?

    "the cause of death matters because it can help prevent more death"

    Prevent more death? Why? Who cares?
    death is not insignificant. but there is a point where it really doesn't matter anymore. people have to let go sometime.

    when i say i care about the living, not the dead, i mean that we can do more to help the living than the dead. the dead are beyond all help. they have died. if they have souls, their fate is beyond our control.

    when i say that the military makes unpreventable mistakes, i mean that there is a balance between effectiveness and cleanliness. a nuke would be near 100% effective in removing the terrorists in that region, but in the process we atomize the land and make it hostile for hundreds of years to come. on the other hand, killing terrorists only would involve much more precise methods. it would require a massive intelligence presense in afghanistan, which is a hard thing to maintain. it also lowers the effectiveness of any attack drastically.
    the attack on afghanistan reached an acceptable balance. without wasting too many lives, we have destroyed a large percentage of taliban and al queda forces.

  4. #94
    The Earth is not flat. Clyde's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    1,420
    "death is not insignificant. but there is a point where it really doesn't matter anymore. people have to let go sometime"

    I'm well aware of that, and i'm not advocating grieving for the rest of your life for every person ever killed, what I am saying is that the attitude that people dying "doesn't matter" is ATROCIOUS.

    "when i say i care about the living, not the dead, i mean that we can do more to help the living than the dead. the dead are beyond all help. they have died. if they have souls, their fate is beyond our control. "

    By claiming that you "don't care" that 5,000 civilians were killed, you are saying that 5000 people dying doesn't matter, that if you would expend no effort what-so-ever to prevent civilian casualties because you don't care about them.

    "when i say that the military makes unpreventable mistakes, i mean that there is a balance between effectiveness and cleanliness. a nuke would be near 100% effective in removing the terrorists in that region, but in the process we atomize the land and make it hostile for hundreds of years to come. on the other hand, killing terrorists only would involve much more precise methods. it would require a massive intelligence presense in afghanistan, which is a hard thing to maintain. it also lowers the effectiveness of any attack drastically.
    the attack on afghanistan reached an acceptable balance. without wasting too many lives, we have destroyed a large percentage of taliban and al queda forces."

    Well actually, a nuke would be totally useless at removing terroists because for every terroist killed in the blast 10 more would be created. However, I know full well that for any war civilian casualities are an inevitability BUT we try to MINIMISE the number of people killed because unlike you most people DO care about the deaths of innocent people.

    You have expressed opinions that epitomise the cause of anti-US sentiment.
    Last edited by Clyde; 05-24-2002 at 04:44 PM.

  5. #95
    Just because ygfperson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    2,493
    I'm well aware of that, and i'm not advocating grieving for the rest of your life for every person ever killed, what I am saying is that the attitude that people dying "doesn't matter" is ATROCIOUS.
    people shouldn't die. but when they do, it's done. how can i miss people who i have never met?
    By claiming that you "don't care" that 5,000 civilians were killed, you are saying that 5000 people dying doesn't matter, that if you would expend no effort what-so-ever to prevent civilian casualties because you don't care about them.
    what can i do to prevent civilian casualties? protest against this war when i believe it is for a just cause? besides, we already expend a great deal of effort on preventing innocent casualties.
    Well actually, a nuke would be totally useless at removing terroists because for every terroist killed in the blast 10 more would be created.
    that's probably true. but i was thinking in terms of military objectives.
    However, I know full well that for any war civilian casualities are an inevitability BUT we try to MINIMISE the number of people killed because unlike you most people DO care about the deaths of innocent people.
    but we do try to minimize deaths already! some will always slip through the cracks.
    You have expressed opinions that epitomise the cause of anti-US sentiment.
    what has america done that other countries, even afghanistan citizens themselves haven't? let's assume that 5000 innocents were killed by american bombing alone, assuming no ground kills are counted (because they were done by the northern alliance with us approval). how many die in african civil wars alone? why should we focus our resources on not killing civilians when so many deaths already happen elsewhere? are the afghans more needy than the somolians who die of hunger, the columbians who die in revolts, the indonese who have suffered for the last 20 years while its government attacked east timor, or the russians, who's living conditions have steadily worsened?

    america is big and powerful, and therefore attracts attention. we may not be as morally correct as the canadians, but we live in a world of realpolitik. we must be brutal at times, when no one else can afford to be. our influence showers the globe not because of military conquest, but because of economic prosperity. we are not responsible for curbing anti-american sentiment. (though it would really help.)

    what about america attracts disrespect? our actions in the middle east, vietnam, and the cold war in general didn't help. but what can happen now? why does this sentiment still exist? is the only solution our symbolic "de-throning" from world affairs? do we get more involved in world affairs? should we become the world's whipping boy?

    i've said this many times before, but i'll say it again. in america, we love freedom. what people do with it comes second. sorry if we can't fit into your prejudiced image of america, world savior.

  6. #96
    Disagreeably Disagreeable
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    711
    Good points, ygf.

    You took a lot of the words out of my mouth...

  7. #97
    The Earth is not flat. Clyde's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    1,420
    "people shouldn't die. but when they do, it's done. how can i miss people who i have never met?"

    I'm not asking you to miss them, I'm asking you to CARE. There is a big difference you know, I'm asking you to give a damn that those people died. If ANYONE had said they "didn't care" that 3000 people had got killed in the WTC, they got a grilling from the American public and the American press, and thats it, the unbelieveable duality, the absolute narrow minded, blindly patriotic, sense of Superiority the you must have to express such a view;

    Person A: I don't care about the innocent Americans that died in the WTC.

    Person B: You unfeeeling, immoral, bastard they were innocent people!

    Person A: Yea ok my bad.

    Person B: I don't care about the innocent Afghans that died in the Afghan conflict.

    Person A: You unfeeeling, immoral, bastard they were innocent people!

    Person B: Nah, those people die anyway, who cares if they die, clearly Americans are far more important, these foreigners they're just like sub-humans.

    "what can i do to prevent civilian casualties? protest against this war when i believe it is for a just cause? besides, we already expend a great deal of effort on preventing innocent casualties. "

    You can do nothing. But i'm bloody glad that the people who can do something about it don't have your attitude.

    "but we do try to minimize deaths already! some will always slip through the cracks"

    I know, because people do care.

    "how many die in african civil wars alone? why should we focus our resources on not killing civilians when so many deaths already happen elsewhere? "

    I just can't believe i'm reading this stuff.

    "are the afghans more needy than the somolians who die of hunger, the columbians who die in revolts, the indonese who have suffered for the last 20 years while its government attacked east timor, or the russians, who's living conditions have steadily worsened? "

    No they aren't more needy, and that means that it doesn't matter if you killed them!? Thats so rediculous, i really cannot believe my eyes, you are saying its ok to kill innocent Afghans on grounds that there are loads of other people suffering anyway.

    Well excellent, its ok to destroy the World Trade Centre it's only 3000 people, are the Americans more needy than the Somolians who die of hunger, the columbians who die in revolts...... blah blah

    "what about america attracts disrespect? our actions in the middle east, vietnam, and the cold war in general didn't help. but what can happen now? why does this sentiment still exist?"

    Anti US feeling stems from past US foreign policy and is driven home by the "I don't care" mentatility, after American has ****ed over a country, they don't apologise, they don't help rebuild it, they just wash their hands of the whole affair and say "I don't care".

    "i've said this many times before, but i'll say it again. in america, we love freedom. what people do with it comes second. sorry if we can't fit into your prejudiced image of america, world savior"

    America "loves" freedom, my God man do you actually buy this stuff? This inciduous meaningless rhetoric ,coming from politicians who's only aim is to use it as global propaganda to prop up their self esteem. Every democratic country "loves" freedom, whatever the hell that actually means. I don't have a prejudiced image of America, Christ when I argue with my friends I'm the one DEFENDING US actions. Plus that statement is COMLETELY IRRELEVANT, what exactly does America "loving" freedom have to do with you "not caring" that the US killed 5,000 Afghans?

    My particular argument here is not about America, it's not even about the 5000 casualities, its about the attitude YOU expressed, which is one of the reasons that there is so much anti-US feeling abroad.

    You said you DIDN'T CARE that 5000 innocent people died, it's such fantastically morally retarded statement, that i suspect that you just said something stupid that you didn't actually mean and just have to much pride to take it back.

  8. #98
    In The Light
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    598
    howdy,
    America "loves" freedom, my God man do you actually buy this stuff?
    yep!

    M.R.
    I don't like you very much. Please post a lot less.
    Cheez
    *and then*
    No, I know you were joking. My point still stands.

  9. #99
    Just because ygfperson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    2,493
    I'm not asking you to miss them, I'm asking you to CARE. There is a big difference you know, I'm asking you to give a damn that those people died. If ANYONE had said they "didn't care" that 3000 people had got killed in the WTC, they got a grilling from the American public and the American press, and thats it, the unbelieveable duality, the absolute narrow minded, blindly patriotic, sense of Superiority the you must have to express such a view;
    why should i care? because everyone else does? because it's good p.r.? because i was brought up to care? i am not blindly patriotic. i have never said i cared about the deaths of those who died in the world trade center attacks. 3000 people isn't much. it's the intent to do much more, the emotional scarring of half our people, the destruction of the center of capitalism on the grounds that its destruction will make everything ok again... from their points of view.
    a blindly patriotic person points to the flag for the answer to every question. s/he doesn't question the laws, s/he just obeys them. critism is one of our cornerstones. i don't support our actions because they're american; i don't support some of our actions, period. but the notion that america is simply bad just because doesn't fit into a society which critisizes its leaders every chance we get. (watch any american news program for evidence, like cnn.)
    Person A: I don't care about the innocent Americans that died in the WTC.

    Person B: You unfeeeling, immoral, bastard they were innocent people!
    person a expressed his/her opinion. person b's response is that person's opinion. people have a right to their opinion.
    Person A: Yea ok my bad.

    Person B: I don't care about the innocent Afghans that died in the Afghan conflict.

    Person A: You unfeeeling, immoral, bastard they were innocent people!
    another few opinions being expressed.

    Person B: Nah, those people die anyway, who cares if they die,
    their family cares. their government cares. but i don't because i don't know anything about them. the only words in my mind are 'innocent' and 'afghan', and these together don't a person make. i care when a person is missed, and a person is missed because he/she will never be there again.
    clearly Americans are far more important,
    i know more americans personally than any other nationality. so i guess that's true.
    these foreigners they're just like sub-humans.
    america is made of foreigners... that doesn't make any sense.
    No they aren't more needy, and that means that it doesn't matter if you killed them!? Thats so rediculous, i really cannot believe my eyes, you are saying its ok to kill innocent Afghans on grounds that there are loads of other people suffering anyway.
    we can't not kill civilians. in any military operation innocents will be killed. i'm asking, how is it right to spend our resources saving afghans we may kill by accident, while so many others could use our resources to help more people? it's much easier to prevent, let's say... malaria than it is to prevent innocent deaths by our military. do you have any statistics on how many people the american military kills by accident?
    Well excellent, its ok to destroy the World Trade Centre it's only 3000 people, are the Americans more needy than the Somolians who die of hunger, the columbians who die in revolts...... blah blah
    the americans aren't more needy, but it's much easier to help americans than others overseas. besides, we believe in self-determination. countries should decide their own fates. giving out massive aid to the whole world in need would bankrupt us; or on a more reasonable scale, make that country dependant on us.

    suppose england needed a high amount of monetary aid. (i'm assuming you're british.) we provide it. what then? you could either become more dependant on our aid, surrendering to american culture; or you could reject our aid entirely, on the grounds that you made this problem, you could find a way out. it wouldn't be as pretty, as quick, as painless, but it might be better if it keeps your self-determined culture intact.
    Anti US feeling stems from past US foreign policy and is driven home by the "I don't care" mentatility, after American has ****ed over a country, they don't apologise, they don't help rebuild it, they just wash their hands of the whole affair and say "I don't care".
    true. but as you said, it's in the past. are other countries just going to act snooty at us, morally superior, until the time where everyone just forgets?
    America "loves" freedom, my God man do you actually buy this stuff?
    yes. america != its government. whatever my government decides, the people love freedom. i'm absolutely sure of that. eveyone i know supports this.
    This inciduous meaningless rhetoric ,coming from politicians who's only aim is to use it as global propaganda to prop up their self esteem.
    [sarcasm]for global propaganda, it sure has been successful. [/sarcasm]
    Every democratic country "loves" freedom, whatever the hell that actually means.
    it means people are free to screw up or succeed beyond their wildest dreams, both without any help from a powerful friend.
    I don't have a prejudiced image of America, Christ when I argue with my friends I'm the one DEFENDING US actions.
    that's funny, in a way. when i argue with this communist friend (college professor, what are the chances?), i say i'm a republican. to republicans, i say i'm a liberal. to moderates, i say i'm an extremist. it helps provoke conversation.
    Plus that statement is COMLETELY IRRELEVANT, what exactly does America "loving" freedom have to do with you "not caring" that the US killed 5,000 Afghans?
    loving freedom == non-interference in the fates of others.
    not caring comes from not knowing about the individual people.
    not caring == non-interference

    My particular argument here is not about America, it's not even about the 5000 casualities, its about the attitude YOU expressed, which is one of the reasons that there is so much anti-US feeling abroad.

    You said you DIDN'T CARE that 5000 innocent people died, it's such fantastically morally retarded statement, that i suspect that you just said something stupid that you didn't actually mean and just have to much pride to take it back.
    i am not lying about my attitude. perhaps i'm just a cocky teenager. my viewpoint is about living, not dying. dying is another part of life. we, as people in general, should help those who are in danger of dying. but after death, it's beyond our control. caring over 5000 people just seems insignificant when there's so much else that needs doing. every life may be significant, but to me it doesn't matter. i didn't kill them. i didn't know any of them.

    if i care about a person i don't have the slightest idea about, what does that make me? a person who cares on demand, who fakes some emotions to convince others i really do care? perhaps when i approach death i will learn to worship it. and maybe i'll genuinely feel for a person i've never met. but for now life is too short to care. why care when i can help save? but since i do neither right now, it just means that i'm another stereotypical american. don't judge me on my emotions when you're not willing to help those you really "care" about.

  10. #100
    The Earth is not flat. Clyde's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    1,420
    "why should i care?"

    One of humanities greatest strengths is it's compassion, clearly you do not share this trait.

    "3000 people isn't much. it's the intent to do much more, the emotional scarring of half our people"

    3000 people isn't much...... compared to what? the global population? And why are you comparing it to the global population anyway?

    3000 people die, you don't care, 5000 people die you don't care, 10,000? 500,000? a million? a billion? Where do you draw your line and why do you draw it there?

    "person a expressed his/her opinion. person b's response is that person's opinion. people have a right to their opinion. "

    Bollocks they do, some opinions are not ok, saying you think that black people should be rounded up and killed is NOT ok, saying that Hitler was an ok kind of a guy is NOT ok, and saying that innocent people dying doesn't matter is NOT ok either.

    "but i don't because i don't know anything about them"

    I pity you for your lack of empathy, you lack one of the fundamental traits that our society is built upon.

    "america is made of foreigners... that doesn't make any sense"

    It makes perfect sense, American citizens are deemed more important than foreigners, as in citizens of other countries.

    "we can't not kill civilians. in any military operation innocents will be killed. i'm asking, how is it right to spend our resources saving afghans we may kill by accident, while so many others could use our resources to help more people?"

    Because America is in this case the one doing the killing! How can you not see this!? America attacked Afghanistan not for the Afghan people but for America's sake, and hence has a responsibility to the people who's lives are affect, that's why resources ARE spent trying to minimise casualities. I don't think there was anything wrong with America's actions over Afganistan, there were relatively few civilian casualities, the reason being that care WAS taken.

    "It's much easier to prevent, let's say... malaria than it is to prevent innocent deaths by our military. do you have any statistics on how many people the american military kills by accident? "

    No I don't have any statistics, and i'm NOT complaining about the military, I know that they ALREADY try and minimise civilian casualities, my argument is against your attitiude, an attitude which takes a large portion of the blame when considering anti-US sentiment around the globe, an attitude that is both morally repugnant, intellectually flawed and socially damaging.

    It might well cost less to help prevent malaria, but the US isn't causing malaria! They are causing the civilian casualties, they are responsible for those deaths. Besidse which if the military didn't try to minimise casualities the resources saved certainly wouldn't go into preventing malaria, it would be reinvested into the military.

    "we believe in self-determination. countries should decide their own fates. giving out massive aid to the whole world in need would bankrupt us; or on a more reasonable scale, make that country dependant on us"

    Self-determination, that's a good one, it's ok for the US to step in and have a huge negative effect on a country, but when asked to help rebuild it the "self determination" card gets played. Again, fortunately the US government seems to be moving away from your stance, which is a damn good thing.

    "suppose england needed a high amount of monetary aid. (i'm assuming you're british.) we provide it. what then? you could either become more dependant on our aid, surrendering to american culture; or you could reject our aid entirely, on the grounds that you made this problem, you could find a way out. it wouldn't be as pretty, as quick, as painless, but it might be better if it keeps your self-determined culture intact. "

    Well for a start you're moving the goal posts, this argument centres around casualities specifically CAUSED by US action. But an aside from that, your point is still totally invalid since accepting aid in no way whatsoever means that the accepting country "surrenders to the American culture". Say there is an African country facing a famine, they need are help, you seem to be suggesting that somehow helping them harms them in the long term which is frankly rediculous, giving them food helps them FULLSTOP.

    "true. but as you said, it's in the past. are other countries just going to act snooty at us, morally superior, until the time where everyone just forgets? "

    It's not in the dim and distant past, it's in the last century, people will let it go when US foreign policy doesn't tread on other countries, and then wipe their hands of the whole affair when asked to sort out the mess they created, citing "self-determinism". I think US foreign policy is changing and for the better, mainly because attitudes like your's are being replaced with more responsible, compassionate, and generally less assinine ones.

    "yes. america != its government. whatever my government decides, the people love freedom. i'm absolutely sure of that. eveyone i know supports this. "

    Of course the people love freedom, i'm sure they love air too, and food for the matter, yet they don't proclaim those with such figure. Just about EVERY person in a democratic country "loves freedom" together with most people in non-democratic countries. This idiocy that "American loves freedom", is just an attempt by the super patriotic to make it seem like the rest of the western world doesn't.

    "for global propaganda, it sure has been successful"

    Not really, because the rest of the world sees it for exactly what it is, an attempt to make America look good when in fact every other democratic country is EXACTLY the same.

    "that's funny, in a way. when i argue with this communist friend (college professor, what are the chances?), i say i'm a republican. to republicans, i say i'm a liberal. to moderates, i say i'm an extremist. it helps provoke conversation."

    That's nice but some what irrelevant, i don't have a stereotyped view of America, most of the people I know hate America, and they have some good reasons too. In some instances I just disagree with them, but in others I do think that the US is as bad as they claim BUT I also think that just about every country is pretty bad, it's just that its more noticable with the US because they're a super-power. In most of the current world developments i'm pro-US, I do think a lot of people jump on the band-wagon when attacking the US, and are hypocritical for not realising that their own country is in most ways just as bad if not worse.

    "loving freedom == non-interference in the fates of others. "

    BZZZT welcome to reasoning 101, loving freedom == loving being free != non-interference in the fates of others.

    What a stupid thing to claim; someone falls off a cliff, but because I "love freedom" i don't save their life because that would be interfereing with their "fate", LOL. What drivel, loving freedom means nothing but loving freedom, endevearing to free people perhaps, (and like the US really does that anymore than any other country unless there is an economic incentive) but certainly not your non-interference nonsense.

    "not caring comes from not knowing about the individual people"

    That would just be you, most people do care about people that they don't know, that's why people donate to charity.

    "not caring == non-interference"

    No, not caring == non-intereference unless something's to be gained, if there is economic gain to be had not caring == interference even if it ****s over a country, of course helping the country get its feet back...... not caring == non-interference.

    "i am not lying about my attitude. perhaps i'm just a cocky teenager."

    Perhaps, maybe you're missing a key part of brain that is responsible for empathy, maybe you've been so shielded from the real world that you've lost most your humantiy, maybe.....

    "my viewpoint is about living, not dying. dying is another part of life"

    er.. dying is not another part of life, it's the end of life.

    "we, as people in general, should help those who are in danger of dying"

    Bingo, why? Because we care.

    "if i care about a person i don't have the slightest idea about, what does that make me"

    Human.

    "a person who cares on demand, who fakes some emotions to convince others i really do care"

    Most people don't need to fake their emotions because they have real ones.

    "perhaps when i approach death i will learn to worship it. and maybe i'll genuinely feel for a person i've never met."

    Worship it!?

    "don't judge me on my emotions when you're not willing to help those you really "care" about"

    I'm not in a position to help the people who die in Afghanistan, that doesn't mean i don't care. If i could help them I would because, unlike you, I do care.
    Last edited by Clyde; 05-25-2002 at 02:35 PM.

  11. #101
    Disagreeably Disagreeable
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    711
    Clyde, I may be wrong, but when ygfperson says he "doesn't care" I think what he means is that it sucks they died, but he isn't going to grieve over people he never knew/met. That makes perfect sense (IMO) to think like that, too.

    People die all the time. It sucks. It's a fact of life. But am I going to grieve over that fact? Hell no...

    (Following is appendage...)

    >It makes perfect sense, American citizens are deemed more important than foreigners, as in citizens of other countries.<

    To the US government, you bet your ass off that us US citizens are more important than non-US citizens. A government is usually established for the welfare of that nation, not for some guy in Kuwait. [Kuwait was the first non-US country I thought of. It could have easily been Canada or Australia...]

    >Bollocks they do, some opinions are not ok, saying you think that black people should be rounded up and killed is NOT ok, saying that Hitler was an ok kind of a guy is NOT ok, and saying that innocent people dying doesn't matter is NOT ok either.<

    What you just said is your opinion. I'm starting to think that you have a hard time deciphering the difference between an opinion and what is a fact...
    Last edited by Hillbillie; 05-25-2002 at 08:13 PM.

  12. #102
    Just because ygfperson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    2,493
    One of humanities greatest strengths is it's compassion, clearly you do not share this trait.
    compassion helps people get along. it makes life easier for people. compassion == helping people. but compassion can be used any number of ways. compassionate conservatism is bush's term for not aiding people, and therefore helping them help themselves.
    3000 people isn't much...... compared to what? the global population? And why are you comparing it to the global population anyway?
    i'm comparing it to the number of people who die of non-terrorist causes. at least 100,000 people on average die every day.

    3000 people die, you don't care, 5000 people die you don't care, 10,000? 500,000? a million? a billion? Where do you draw your line and why do you draw it there?
    i care about people dying. but you're talking about people who died 8 months ago. the dead are beyond help. i draw my line at my family, my friends, in general, the people who are important to me. when they are dead i miss them for their contributions to make this world a better place to live. i can't put a line on a number of souls, because then you quantize human life. it wouldn't be right to fake remorse for people whom i've never met, just because its an unusually large number of people.
    Bollocks they do, some opinions are not ok, saying you think that black people should be rounded up and killed is NOT ok, saying that Hitler was an ok kind of a guy is NOT ok, and saying that innocent people dying doesn't matter is NOT ok either.
    everyone has a right to his/her opinion. we allow groups like the kkk because the principle of free speech mandates that speech be censored only when there is no doubt that it will harm people. racist speech harms people when it provokes people to violence. but otherwise it's no reason to censor. if a person doesn't like it, he/she responds with more anti-racist speech. believe me, this happens all the time in internet chat-rooms.
    in any case, i'm not talking about speech, i'm talking about an opinion. it is not up to us to mandate opinions. we are not the ultimate judge of right and wrong. racism is not clearly wrong. killing people is not clearly wrong. we have been brought up to believe it is. in my humble opinion, i believe racism is wrong, and that killing people is wrong. but my beliefs do not give me an ability to enforce them on others.
    I pity you for your lack of empathy, you lack one of the fundamental traits that our society is built upon.
    i have empathy. i just use it wisely, where it will help people most.
    It makes perfect sense, American citizens are deemed more important than foreigners, as in citizens of other countries.
    i'm assuming you mean more important to our government. that's true, but that's because our government can only enforce its laws on its own people. foreigners are out of our jurisdiction, except when they reside in our country. (in which case they are not necessarily foreigners.)
    Because America is in this case the one doing the killing! How can you not see this!? America attacked Afghanistan not for the Afghan people but for America's sake,
    that's partially true. remember, it was the northern alliance, afghanistan's own people, who did most of the killing on the ground.
    yes, we did attack for our own sake, to prevent more terrorism. it just so happens that our actions have made lives better in afghanistan.
    and hence has a responsibility to the people who's lives are affect, that's why resources ARE spent trying to minimise casualities. I don't think there was anything wrong with America's actions over Afganistan, there were relatively few civilian casualities, the reason being that care WAS taken.
    exactly.
    my argument is against your attitiude, an attitude which takes a large portion of the blame when considering anti-US sentiment around the globe, an attitude that is both morally repugnant, intellectually flawed and socially damaging.
    why is my attitude bad? i simply don't care about the dead. i think you're misreading me somewhere.
    It might well cost less to help prevent malaria, but the US isn't causing malaria!
    malaria is no country's fault. but shouldn't we cure it anyway?
    Self-determination, that's a good one,
    thanks. i'll save that one for the joke thread.
    it's ok for the US to step in and have a huge negative effect on a country, but when asked to help rebuild it the "self determination" card gets played. Again, fortunately the US government seems to be moving away from your stance, which is a damn good thing.
    my stance is that self-determination is a good thing all the time. i have never argued that having a huge negative impact on a country is a good thing.
    Well for a start you're moving the goal posts, this argument centres around casualities specifically CAUSED by US action. But an aside from that, your point is still totally invalid since accepting aid in no way whatsoever means that the accepting country "surrenders to the American culture".
    i meant that accepting aid shows that the country is not strong enough to survive on its own. it's a self-esteem breaker if there ever was one. a country which cannot survive by itself has no real reason to exist by itself. the welfare of its citizens is always in danger.
    Say there is an African country facing a famine, they need are help, you seem to be suggesting that somehow helping them harms them in the long term which is frankly rediculous, giving them food helps them FULLSTOP.
    go beyond food. how does the food get to the people? do we distribute directly, or does their government? we would be more involved than you think. we are taking responsibility for the lives of the citizens. we are essentially showing that the government can't even support itself without outside help.
    food makes a famine stop, by definition. but sometimes something more important than survival is culture. pride in a culture holds that culture together. when people have no pride in their government, that government will have no power. a government without power is not a government.

    the american indian culture is a great culture passed down through generations. the american indian people are a race of people who once inhabited large expanses of the american continents. what are the american indians without their culture? just human beings trying to survive because it is their instinct to do so. replace the words "american indians" with any other group of people, and the meaning's the same.
    It's not in the dim and distant past, it's in the last century, people will let it go when US foreign policy doesn't tread on other countries, and then wipe their hands of the whole affair when asked to sort out the mess they created, citing "self-determinism". I think US foreign policy is changing and for the better, mainly because attitudes like your's are being replaced with more responsible, compassionate, and generally less assinine ones.
    sure. but to me, the last century is the distant past.
    Of course the people love freedom, i'm sure they love air too, and food for the matter, yet they don't proclaim those with such figure.
    freedom is the cornerstone of our culture. food, air, and water are just ingredients for survival.
    Just about EVERY person in a democratic country "loves freedom" together with most people in non-democratic countries.
    true. in america this ideal is a part of our culture, though. germany, england, france, etc... were germany, england, and france without freedom. freedom has been incorporated in the last two centuries. but america without freedom isn't america. american culture is based on freedom.
    This idiocy that "American loves freedom", is just an attempt by the super patriotic to make it seem like the rest of the western world doesn't.
    i guess that's mostly true. i believe we are a freer nation than many other democracies because of the structure of our government. no branch of government can overlook freedom just because it's convienent at the time. the bill of rights cannot be altered without a great deal of majorities. how many european nations have this guarentee? is freedom just another law that can be repealed?
    Not really, because the rest of the world sees it for exactly what it is, an attempt to make America look good when in fact every other democratic country is EXACTLY the same.
    notice the sarcasm tags.
    That's nice but some what irrelevant, i don't have a stereotyped view of America, most of the people I know hate America, and they have some good reasons too. In some instances I just disagree with them, but in others I do think that the US is as bad as they claim BUT I also think that just about every country is pretty bad, it's just that its more noticable with the US because they're a super-power. In most of the current world developments i'm pro-US, I do think a lot of people jump on the band-wagon when attacking the US, and are hypocritical for not realising that their own country is in most ways just as bad if not worse.
    i totally agree.
    Perhaps, maybe you're missing a key part of brain that is responsible for empathy, maybe you've been so shielded from the real world that you've lost most your humantiy, maybe.....
    shielded? how am i shielded? how are you coming to this conclusion?
    Most people don't need to fake their emotions because they have real ones.
    this is where we disagree.
    "perhaps when i approach death i will learn to worship it. and maybe i'll genuinely feel for a person i've never met."

    Worship it!?
    my attempt at sarcasm
    "don't judge me on my emotions when you're not willing to help those you really "care" about"

    I'm not in a position to help the people who die in Afghanistan, that doesn't mean i don't care. If i could help them I would because, unlike you, I do care.
    i do care about the living. i just don't see a reason to feel sad over the lives of people whom i've never met, whose families i've never met, who have been dead for eight months.

  13. #103
    In The Light
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    598
    howdy,
    most of the people I know hate America,
    sad very sad.
    i cant say that i know of any Americans that "hate" any people in general.
    people in specific maybe like Osama but in my circles no one says "Ihate the Afganees" or the Iraquis or any other people.
    i dont know where you come from Clyde but i must say you might want to look at the folks you hang with, they seem to be a bit narrow minded or maybe just victims of bad information.

    M.R.
    I don't like you very much. Please post a lot less.
    Cheez
    *and then*
    No, I know you were joking. My point still stands.

  14. #104
    The Earth is not flat. Clyde's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    1,420
    " dont know where you come from Clyde but i must say you might want to look at the folks you hang with, they seem to be a bit narrow minded or maybe just victims of bad information. "

    Well perhaps "hate" is too strong a word, though, i dunno, they are pretty anti-US. I wouldn't say they are narrow-minded per say. As I said I think that when you get down to it, pretty much all countries are out for themselves and would probably step on everyone else, it's simply that the US is a super-power so it's more noticeable.

    I don't think they are victims of bad information either, well i'd say no more than you are. I just think they have different information, they have reems of info. on the US being bad, and you no doubt have reems of info on the US being good.

    There are a lot of good reasons to hate the US, like i said they've done bad things, and screwed up a lot of people's lives, that's why my friends have the opinions they do. On the other hand I think that many of them are overly critical of US action, because of the opinions they have already formed, and I also think that they don't see that most of the time the rest of the world is just as bad if not worse.

    "cant say that i know of any Americans that "hate" any people in general"

    Well, you might not know of any, but there were plenty on the news claiming to hate all muslims shortly after Sept. 11, attacking mosques etc.

  15. #105
    In The Light
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    598
    howdy,

    but there were plenty on the news claiming to hate all muslims shortly after Sept. 11, attacking mosques etc.
    i cant argue with that, narrow minded thinking and gross generalization has been a problem since the begining, look at slavery and the indians.
    i honestly believe that the american public "probably" get the worst, most biased reporting of any contry. it's kind of like living in a fish bowl as far as impartial reporting goes.
    i personally was involved in two military actions in the 70's that never got to the US news. makes me wonder what else we aren't hearing about..

    M.R.
    I don't like you very much. Please post a lot less.
    Cheez
    *and then*
    No, I know you were joking. My point still stands.

Popular pages Recent additions subscribe to a feed

Similar Threads

  1. Spamming legal?
    By VirtualAce in forum A Brief History of Cprogramming.com
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: 09-16-2008, 10:04 AM
  2. The constitution MUST be ammended!!
    By Jeremy G in forum A Brief History of Cprogramming.com
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 02-26-2005, 05:05 PM
  3. Kinda surprised no one has mentioned this ("Under God" Decision")
    By Thantos in forum A Brief History of Cprogramming.com
    Replies: 84
    Last Post: 06-21-2004, 08:45 PM
  4. extent of the right to bear arms in US
    By DavidP in forum A Brief History of Cprogramming.com
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 11-12-2002, 01:54 PM
  5. whistlin' dixie
    By ygfperson in forum A Brief History of Cprogramming.com
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 09-30-2002, 12:17 AM

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21