SilentScope001 Posted October 23, 2007 Share Posted October 23, 2007 http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071022/ap_on_re_eu/spain_lessing Well, at least Dawkin was a Scientist, so he was okay for saying his comment. And Lessing can get more people to agree with her viewpoints. I might agree with her if I wasn't so sympathetic to the IRA. Still doesn't mean her comments was a bit...shall we say...strange... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Totenkopf Posted October 23, 2007 Share Posted October 23, 2007 Strange, perhaps, but not unexpected. Actually, I'd think it rather strange had she had a diametrically opposed pov and still won. Given that the IRA attack didn't take out Parliament or the Prime Minister, I fail to see how she sees it as more significant than what happened in NY and Washington. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Web Rider Posted October 23, 2007 Share Posted October 23, 2007 Yeah, because a whole war is comparable to a single event. That's like saying all of WWII was worse than some other given bad attack. OF COURSE IT IS. Because one was a prolonged struggle and the other was a singular attack. Jeeze, some people have no sense of context. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pavlos Posted October 23, 2007 Share Posted October 23, 2007 Strange, perhaps, but not unexpected. Actually, I'd think it rather strange had she had a diametrically opposed pov and still won. Given that the IRA attack didn't take out Parliament or the Prime Minister, I fail to see how she sees it as more significant than what happened in NY and Washington. Between 1969 and 2001, 3,523 people were killed as a result of the Troubles. About ten times that number were injured in the conflict. I'm inclined to agree with her. The Troubles were true terrorism - they scared people in a war of attrition. There was a time when you couldn't turn on the television without seeing some new piece of news about the situation. I also don't see your point, the President of the USA wasn't killed, nor was Capitol Hill at all affected by the 11/9 attacks. September 11th was bad, she doesn't deny that and I don't deny that, but, if you ask me, the Troubles and the terrorism of the IRA was worse (we don't even have bins in London, out of fear that there'll be a bomb in one!) It's rather like asking: Which is worse, to die, or to have a limb ripped off, then another, and another, and another... and then leaving you to bleed to death? I think I'd go with the latter. Luckily, recent progress has put an end to the Troubles and with any luck we won't see any more deaths (on both sides Republican and Unionist). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Totenkopf Posted October 24, 2007 Share Posted October 24, 2007 Part of the problem is that "9-11" wasn't an isolated event. Just as IRA terrorism was an ongoing problem, islamic terrorism against the US didn't happen just that once. You also have to remember the various embassies, Khobar Towers, the USS Cole and even the first attack on the trade center. Also, where there may now be an end to the IRA attacks, islamic terrorism vs the US is still in the early phases. And, the ramifications of the attacks on the US didn't have repercussions restricted to primarily two countries. I think her sense of context is somewhat myopic, all the more so if it becomes a pissing contest about the numbers of dead or wounded as being the deciding factor about which is "worse". Let us revisit the issue in 2031 and then compare notes, maybe she'll prove right (though I highly doubt it). "Do you know what people forget? That the IRA attacked with bombs against our government; it killed several people while a Conservative congress was being held and in which the prime minister, Margaret Thatcher, was (attending). People forget," she said. Actually, this is what I was referencing. She takes an isolated event and tries to blow its signifigance somewhat out of context. While Bush et al weren't killed, the Pentagon was hit and flight 93 was believed headed for the WH (or perhaps Congress). Seems more people died in those incidences than the direct attack on a government related function she cites, w/neither side (US and GB) losing it's leader. Perhaps if she were comparing 30+ years of IRA terrorism against the OK bombing in '93, I might see her point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Det. Bart Lasiter Posted October 24, 2007 Share Posted October 24, 2007 Yeah, because a whole war is comparable to a single event. Why should it matter if people are killed over the course of several years compared to a day? Suppose the the 3000 people killed in 9/11 were killed over the course of a week. Can you honestly say that the extra 6 days it takes for those 3000 people to be killed will significantly change the impact their deaths will have on the world? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Web Rider Posted October 24, 2007 Share Posted October 24, 2007 Why should it matter if people are killed over the course of several years compared to a day? Suppose the the 3000 people killed in 9/11 were killed over the course of a week. Can you honestly say that the extra 6 days it takes for those 3000 people to be killed will significantly change the impact their deaths will have on the world? Stop....Hammer time... Did you seriously just ask that? I said you can't compare a war to a single attack. You compared a week of death to a single act. The IRA-Britain war lasted 30 years! Generations were born and raised during this war. Yes, YES the time makes a difference, because the prolonged state of terror, fear and warfare generates a mindset in the people. A single attack can have lasting effects, but if that attack is stretched out over 30 years, the power and effect of that attack is stretched as well! I can't believe you'd even ask for somebody to explain why a war and a single attack have entirely different effects on a populous. Maybe you simply don't know about the IRA stuff. Lets try a bigger war. World War II. WWII lasted roughly 10 years, from the 1930s till the 1940s. But was for many an extension of WWI, and much of the ideologies lasted until the 1980's just before the fall of the USSR. You can read any history book to know the kind of mindset that those wars generated in the people around the world. And you can read those same sources and find all the lasting effects those ideologies had on the people, on the world, on warfare, and everything in between. The attack at Pearl Harbor generated a reaction. Just like the attack on the WTC did. But the WAR generated a mindset which has huge implications and far reaching effects on the people and countries involved, and even on people and countries NOT involved. Germany still lives under the shadow of Hitler's actions, it's illegial to even joke about being a Nazi. They barely even teach WWII in schools they're so embarrassed over it. Now, do I need to reiterate that a war and a singular attack are not comparable events? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Totenkopf Posted October 24, 2007 Share Posted October 24, 2007 Actually, Web, it was Lessing that initially offended your sense of proportionality by attempting to dismiss the trade center attacks as insignificant COMPARED to the violence perpetrated by the IRA against GB. Perhaps you should direct your ire toward her. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Web Rider Posted October 24, 2007 Share Posted October 24, 2007 Actually, Web, it was Lessing that initially offended your sense of proportionality by attempting to dismiss the trade center attacks as insignificant COMPARED to the violence perpetrated by the IRA against GB. Perhaps you should direct your ire toward her. I would, except I'd probly get somebody on my ass for being mean to and old lady. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Sitherino Posted October 24, 2007 Share Posted October 24, 2007 I personally see this as emotional bullplop. People die, people kill. I conclude people suck. 1,000s of years of human stupidity > 30 years IRA attacks > 10 years attacks on US targets by "Islamic" terrorists. We're all in the same boat. The end. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mimartin Posted October 24, 2007 Share Posted October 24, 2007 I have no problem with what Doris Lessing said. I’m sure from her perspective the IRA attacks in Britain were worst. If she had friends and loved ones in the Twin Towers I sure her perspective would be different. I fail to see what difference saying one was worst than another makes. It makes it no less tragic to any of the family members that loss someone or to those that survived but are maimed for life. To me it is all a matter of perspective and what affects you will always be what you consider the worst. Personally I don’t know which is worst, September 11, the IRA attacks in England, the estimated 75,000 to 82,369 civilian deaths in Iraq, Virginia Tech, Columbine, Katrina or 2004 Tsunamis... They were all tragic and people died, so I fail to see why one would be more tragic than another just because of time or the numbers killed. Of course I feel more toward the ones in America, but that is only because I am an American. That does not make it a fact, just my perspective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
True_Avery Posted October 24, 2007 Share Posted October 24, 2007 Nicely said, mimartin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tk102 Posted October 24, 2007 Share Posted October 24, 2007 Personally I don’t know which is worst...I fail to see why one would be more tragic than another just because of time or the numbers killed. Let's ask the robot! Robot says: Deaths = tragic More deaths = more tragic Death/time = intensity of tragedy Analysis: September 11, 2001 -- 3000 dead / 2 hours IRA -- 3700 dead / 30 years Iraq -- 80000 dead / 4 years Virgina Tech -- 33 dead / 2 hours Columbine -- 15 dead / 45 minutes Katrina -- 1800 dead / 2 days 2004 Tsunamis -- 187,000 dead / 7 hours Robot's conclusion: *robot too sad* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
True_Avery Posted October 24, 2007 Share Posted October 24, 2007 *robot too sad* Would the robot be happier if I added: Darfur, Sudan -- 450,000+ / 6 Years and counting, added 2 million without homes, wandering the desert, and a good 100,000+ woman raped, and lastly 10,000 women currently in sex slave camps? Death is death, but somehow I doubt the women in America have fear anything close to the women in Darfur, who have their husbands and sons killed in front of them, many times their daughters gang raped in front of them, then either killed, hauled off to camps, or are given a scar that labels tham as being raped so they become social outcasts for the rest of their lives. And this is done by their own government because of their religion, with little help from the outside world to stop it. Between 9/11 and a genocide, I'd still choose 9/11. At least that only lasted a few hours. Sometimes dead and how it is done does have a greater effect upon the people around it. People may talk about deaths and incidents a lot, but you don't hear a lot of people talking about the holocaust in the same light. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tk102 Posted October 24, 2007 Share Posted October 24, 2007 Would the robot be happier if I added: Yeah, I think he was sad because he didn't have any more data to analyze. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
True_Avery Posted October 24, 2007 Share Posted October 24, 2007 Yeah, I think he was sad because he didn't have any more data to analyze. We needs more data to make robot happy! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Web Rider Posted October 24, 2007 Share Posted October 24, 2007 Always remember children, your suffering doesn't matter if somebody is suffering worse. Yeah, I don't think so. The fact that a horrible event is taking place in one part of the world does not make another horrible event in another part of the world not matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mimartin Posted October 25, 2007 Share Posted October 25, 2007 Let's ask the robot!...Robot's conclusion: *robot too sad* When I look at the number and time that way I get to sad too. Between 9/11 and a genocide, I'd still choose 9/11. At least that only lasted a few hours. I’d choose neither. Darfur, Bosnia, Iraq, September 11, 2001, the IRA, Virginia Tech, Columbine and your local gang shooting are all tragic and all preventable. Humans have been here around 200,000 years and our greatest achievement is our never-ending ability to find better ways to kill each other. Wish we put in the same effort into finding ways communicate and understand each other. Sometimes dead and how it is done does have a greater effect upon the people around it.[/Quote]Agreed, but I’d add who is being kill. That is why school shootings have such an effect, young people being murder with their entire life ahead of them has great affect on most of us. I love the summation in the movie “A Time to Kill” when Matthew McConaughey tells the story of what happened to the young girl Tonya Hailey. He tells the jury to close their eyes and imagine the horrific things these men did to this young African American girl at the end he tells the jury to “imagine she’s white.” Imagine the people being murdered and raped in Darfur being white. I wonder if that would make a difference to the world leaders allowing this to happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilentScope001 Posted October 25, 2007 Author Share Posted October 25, 2007 September 11, 2001 -- 3000 dead / 2 hours IRA -- 3700 dead / 30 years Iraq -- 80000 dead / 4 years Virgina Tech -- 33 dead / 2 hours Columbine -- 15 dead / 45 minutes Katrina -- 1800 dead / 2 days 2004 Tsunamis -- 187,000 dead / 7 hours Hah. Wikipedia has some other disasters that will make those disasters pale. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_natural_disasters_by_death_toll Shaanxi earthquake (1556)-830,000/~6 hours Mount Tambora (1815)-92,000/1 Day European Heat Wave of 2003-35,000/1 Summer? The Saturia-Manikganj Sadar Tornado [in Bangladesh] (1989)-1,300/1 Day Bhola cyclone [in Bangladesh] (1970)- 500,000/1 Day 1931 Yellow River (Huang He) flood-1,000,000–3,700,000 Peshtigo Fire, Wisconsin (1871)-1,200-2,500 Iran Blizzard (1972)-4,000 Oh, and this is small footer compared to the big haul: Smallpox (20th Century)-300,000,000+ Bubonic Plague (1300s-1720s; 540-590, 1850s-1950s): 300,000,000+ Malaria (20th Century)-80,000,000 - 250,000,000 Period of Three Difficult Years (China, 1958-1961): 20,000,000–43,000,000 Chinese Famine of 1907: 24,000,000 Indian Famine (1896-1902): 19,000,000 ...Erm. This should be more than enough to make people realize that we need to arrest Mother Nature for war crimes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
True_Avery Posted October 25, 2007 Share Posted October 25, 2007 Yeah, I don't think so. The fact that a horrible event is taking place in one part of the world does not make another horrible event in another part of the world not matter. Ok, thats taking it a little too far and if you are going to quote me do it right instead of putting in what you want to hear. I will report you next time you do it. You have been warned. But you brought up a good enough point that I'll still debate with you for the time being. Yes, human suffering sucks. But, unfortunately, there are different levels of human suffering. Yes, it is horrible for a mother to have lost her child in 9/11. It will scar you for life and many never, ever get over it. But they still have a chance to move onto the next day and carry that one fear and one loss in their heart. Another mother in another country may have seen her child raped and killed in front of her while her husband lay bleeding in the corner from a bullet to the head, followed by her being pulled off to an internment camp. Both are terrible loses, but I'd still put my money on the second woman suffering more than the first. Both children are loses, and in the mothers eyes equal loses but there are degrees of suffering that follow. One can visit the site of her sons grave, mourn, and then go to the comfort of her home while the other cries in a corner over her child with the thought of possible not making it out alive herself by morning. Besides, think about it. It may be a loss for them but how big of a loss is it for you? You don't know either of them and it is only when you are thinking about it that you probably really care about both of those children dying. While 9/11 was happening, people were already dying in sudan. Were you thinking about them, or the attacks on the twin towers on September 11th? A death is a death. You are absolutely right. But some deaths have more effect on an individual society than they do across the world as a whole. They are still dead, and that is still tragic, but there are people that still care about an American dying than an Iraqi. Another example: I shoot the president. I shoot a poor homeless child in an African slum. Which one do you think the world is going to care about more? will the African child be all over the news or the death of the President? By some morals, they are equal. By the media and modern day society, the president matters more. There are deaths going on right now and I can honestly say I do not care about them until they are someone of importance. If I think really hard, I realize people die every second of every minute. If I concentrated on every single one of those deaths and mourned equally for all of them... my mind would cave in on itself and I'd be looking for the nearest gun to jam in my mouth. I don't know about you. You may have the ability to feel for every human that dies every single day. I, personally, could never handle that so I applaud you on your infinitely large heart and wish that more people like you could live day by day. *Gives you a standing ovation.* I’d choose neither. Darfur, Bosnia, Iraq, September 11, 2001, the IRA, Virginia Tech, Columbine and your local gang shooting are all tragic and all preventable. Humans have been here around 200,000 years and our greatest achievement is our never-ending ability to find better ways to kill each other. Wish we put in the same effort into finding ways communicate and understand each other. I agree competely. If they could be avoided I would avoid them. But if I had to choose between 450,000 people dead in Sudan and 3,000 dead in New York... I'd still choose 9/11. That is 447,000 less people dead. Because, if all deaths are tragic, than more deaths would be more tragic. Thats just how math works. Like you said, until we find a more constructive way to solve our problems we will continue to kill eachother. Wishing otherwise will not change that fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mimartin Posted October 25, 2007 Share Posted October 25, 2007 Because, if all deaths are tragic, than more deaths would be more tragic. Thats just how math works.I disagree, I’ll go back to my original point it is all about perspective. If it is my mother, father, sister or brother (maybe not brother) killed and/or rapped that would be more tragic to me, then 3,000 or 450,000 people I do not know. That is sad and self-centered, but true. It is always a bigger tragedy if it happens to you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Totenkopf Posted October 25, 2007 Share Posted October 25, 2007 Subjectively, I would agree. Objectively, I disagree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
True_Avery Posted October 25, 2007 Share Posted October 25, 2007 I disagree, I’ll go back to my original point it is all about perspective. If it is my mother, father, sister or brother (maybe not brother) killed and/or rapped that would be more tragic to me, then 3,000 or 450,000 people I do not know. That is sad and self-centered, but true. It is always a bigger tragedy if it happens to you. I agree, and I tried to make that point as well in my post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilentScope001 Posted October 25, 2007 Author Share Posted October 25, 2007 I disagree, I’ll go back to my original point it is all about perspective. If it is my mother, father, sister or brother (maybe not brother) killed and/or rapped that would be more tragic to me, then 3,000 or 450,000 people I do not know. That is sad and self-centered, but true. It is always a bigger tragedy if it happens to you. Also depends on your prespective. Just because you aren't directly affected by the deaths doesn't mean the deaths aren't tragic. Say, 40,000 people died in a civil war, say, in Bobsland. Now, I don't really shed tears over those deaths, but what if Bobsland has lots of oil and because of those deaths, oil prices get jacked up, UN diploamts are making speeches calling for the end to the violence, and a rich Executive who based his entire career on investment in Bobsland only to see his factories have no people (due to most of his employees being dead and all due to the civil war) will be fired for his utter stupidty. Then you can start seeing the Executive sobbing. Still being self-centered, still being egoistic, but still crying over the tragedy of him losing his job because of 40,000 people dying. You don't need to be connected to someone via biological relations to still feel the effects of their deaths. Not only that, but I would be sobbing too. The higher oil prices mean I pay more money, meaning that I will be crying over those deaths that caused me to pay more at the pump. Still being self-centered, still being egoistic, but realizing that those deaths are very important in the world, and it is because of those deaths that led to the most tragic thing ever: Me paying $0.05 extra. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Det. Bart Lasiter Posted October 25, 2007 Share Posted October 25, 2007 Now, do I need to reiterate that a war and a singular attack are not comparable events? Do I need to restate my belief that time is irrelevant factor? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.