JohnQ: Sorry about that, I did misunderstand your post a bit. I was in a hurried rush to restart after the 10.3.3 update.
Happens all the time which is why I'm quick and blunt to urge people to back up and read my words again, sorry. People skim for keywords and presume. It's the web.
Quote:
Originally posted by SilentEchoes
One thing though:
"since we are damning all of the U.S. based one one news channel's views, why not."
What do you mean one channel?
I am basing this off from at-least 10 different channels, that have just mentioned it. Not just one. Where did you get that from?
Everyone is talking. What, you are saying all of Europe is mum in dignified sorrow?
B.S. There are recriminations, theories, arguments, agendas flying left and right there as well and you know it.
Let's not forget we had 2 or 3 days or so of relatively peaceful greif-related non-political coverage prior to the election.
200, 3000 what's the difference . I doubt there is : huge numbers, incredibely too high.
The main difference i see with 9/11 is the lack of symbolic force of the terrorists attack in spain.
The fall of the WTC, and the attack of the pentagon, was a symbolic aggression, and was perceveid like an attack against all the occidental world.
BTW i did not see the image of the Spanish bombing, just heared the radio. (it could explain my difference of perception)
Strange and weird to thing that the exceptionnal nature of 9/11 came not only from the exceptionnaly high number of deaths, but also about the loss of some buildings (something that should be worthless compared to the fall of the WTC)
Frankly who will forget the image of the WTC ?. Honestly it would have been better if no one filmed this images : too much mediatic impact for the terrorists.
The most insulting and unrepresentative piece of trash I have seen in the media in some time was today's cartoon by Michael Ramirez in the Los Angeles Times. It showed Spain's new PM and a blood spattered "generic terrorist figure", doing high fives.
Reality would better served by a cartoon showing Bush administration officials wearing kneepads and servicing the Saudi princes and royal families, and their country's traditional support systems for Islamic fundamentalism and the accompanying teachings of hatred instilled into Saudi children. The "war against terror" is phoney in its current format and the media needs to police itself in a responible manner if there is to be any hope of winning (the WOT) Terrorism will never stop by bombing foreign nations, and 90% of the Spanish knew this before the Iraq war started. Asnar paid no attention to the public's fears, which blew back in such violent fashion a few days ago.
The big problem which the Bush Administration refuses to deal with, or is unable to:
(1) We need Saudi oil like an addict needs his crack. The Saudis have America over an oil barrel because we refuse to invest in alternative energy research and environmental responsibility.
(2) Saudi Arabia, the major source of terrorism in the world, is invested to some $TWO TRILLION in Wall Street and US industry in general.
(3) The Saudis, if threatened with any kind of reprisals will divest from the US and probably impose an oil embargo, with the support of other OPEC nations. Result: the US economy, already in a mess, goes into an uncontrolled tailspin, causing unprecedented chaos in the international banking and monetary system.
It was Saudi Arabia who attacked us on 9-11. We have done nothing* about it....apart from attacking two countries which are peripheral to the problems at hand, and further enraging terrorist groups, or getting new ones to form.
How do we fight terrorism with mass ignorance, promoted by the irresponsible corporate media, much of which is owned by companies close to big energy and big oil? Americans aren't even aware who the real culprits are, and the government isn't prepared to take action against them. We are in a Catch 22, unable to do anything, and Osama bin Laden/al Q has a winning ticket on all counts. And that is the scariest part.
And that fact that the media is talking about the implications and theories beyond the grief means squat since everyone did the same thing during 9-11 (at least the world press sure did). It wasn't 10 seconds into the attack that foreign press was saying we "had it coming".
You got this info. from where? Do you speak any other languages besides English to have read that, or did you just hear it somewhere?
Quote:
If anything about this that is galling is the absolute rush that countries do to "ME TOO" by claiming terrorist attacks are "their 9-11". Everyone does it when it's their turn.
Who the **** are you to say what a country's 9/11 should or shouldn't be?
Quote:
Problem is we don't (I don't) have a sliding scale for the value of human life, so to say 200 Spanish lives is remotely equivalent to nearly 3,000 lives is a bit offensive right off the bat.
So if you don't have a sliding scale for human life as you so claim,whyTF are you crying about what to the Spanish IS their 9/11?? It's a ****ing good thing it was only 200 lives! I'm sure they're not trying to rationalize this by means of numbers.
Quote:
I wish country's would reserve the "this is our 9-11" rhetoric to incidents that claim a similar number lives out of respect for those that did die on 9-11 many of whom were immigrants or non U.S. citizens too, let's not forget.
What the hell is wrong with you? Who are you to tell a country who just suffered a deadly terrorist attack that claimed 1700 casualties how they should feel about it?? Did it ever occur to you that it's just a symbolism when they call it "their" 9/11?
Quote:
Each life is precious. 200 lives is 200 too many lost to this shit.
But 200 is not 3000.
Someone forgot to send the worldwide bulletin you wrote about having to "qualify" to earn the 9/11 analogy.
Quote:
I don't do grief by sliding scale. No per capita life valuations.
BS. It's ALL you've done on this post. Maybe your ridiculous spin has you confused. "200 is not 3000, so don't you dare call this 3/11 your 9/11 !!!" is all you're saying.
Quote:
It's not ungratefulness it's that I suspect we reserve the 9-11 tag for similar numbers.
I feel sorry for you.
Quote:
3000 Spaniards die, you bet, we'll be marching.
Yeah, it's just a numbers game isn't it? I wish you had the balls to say this nonsense to a Spaniard's face. What a load of rubbish.
I only have the following questions. Do you think it is better that Spain will be pulling out? For Iraq? For Europe? Was Spain's participation in the Iraq rebuilding process significant or symbolic?
Imagine if a city's police union said "We have had too many officers receive death threats to them and their families, so we have decided to not police the dangerous areas of the city."
Pulling out is only a symbolic, vengeful statement. Too bad it only hurts Iraqis more than the U.S.
Whatever the weak reasons used to go to war, what's done is done, the war was started and to help end it, the new Government will require foreign troops for a while.
One can dissent and still be a part of the coalition if only for Iraq's sake.
In-fighting will do nothing for peace.
(Where the f*** is the U.N.....my god are they useless)
Oh, that's right, it was "too dangerous" to stay there....
You mistakenly see what I am saying as a selfish clinging to 9-11 as a sacred nationalistic taboo that no one should dare identify with.
That's precisely what your BS sounds like.
Quote:
I'm very grateful they did not lose 2700 people. 1 is too many.
Great, we agree here...but then you treat us to this "beauty":
Quote:
But one life is exactly equivalent to any other life. My god, how can you say 200 is as terrible as one that claims 3000?
I didn't say that at all. You're the fool making the numerical distinctions not me. Let's go back to the "one is too many" sane argument. Are you that obtuse that you can't see why a smaller, less populated country like Spain could claim that horrible attack as "their" 9/11?? They're not saying 3/11 was worse than 9/11. The only fool pursuing that argumentative garbage is you. "How dare they call it their 9/11 when fewer people died"? is your BS argument.
Quote:
(Insert irrational "tell that to a dead person's family" retort here.) Yeah, I know, it's horrendous to all involved. However they cannot be compared.
You're the one comparing them numerically of all ways. Of course, let's just ignore the fact that the attack apparently came from Al Qaeda, on the 11th day, exactly 911 days after 9/11/2001. Yeah, no comparison. How dare they call it their 9/11.
Quote:
3000 is not 200,000 (i.e. 9/11 is not "our Hiroshima")
3000 is not 6,000,000 (i.e. 9/11 is not "our Holocaust")
ad nauseum....
You're nauseating. Here come Johnny's numbers again.I wouldn't be stupid enough to make such numerical comparisons. However I wouldn't be dumb enough to ignore any similarities and ramifications either.
Quote:
You're saying -I'm- using a sliding scale? Do you know what that term means?
No, you're saying that. Show me where I said it. Go on, show me. I know what the term means....go on, show me where I said you were using a sliding scale...come on.
Quote:
Anyway I don't expect you to be able to think clearly. Few can talk objectively about this crap...
Speak for yourself. Discussing this "crap" is obviously way over your head.
Quote:
You skimmed, saw "9/11" and presumed I'm some pro-Bush , pro-war , flag waving Republican merely by daring to speak frankly.
Lame spin.Yeah, I only quoted you and replied to all the quotes. Yeah, skimming. I don't care what party you belong to. I was pointing out and discussing how bloody stupid and callous it is to be pissed about someone calling what happened on 3/11, "Spain's 9/11" because the casualty total does not fulfill your "requirements". I pity small minded people like you.
I only have the following questions. Do you think it is better that Spain will be pulling out? For Iraq? For Europe? Was Spain's participation in the Iraq rebuilding process significant or symbolic?
Eugene, being fluent in Español and having friends in Spain I can tell you I had been following what was happening in Spain
towards the elections.
Zapatero pledged during his campaign to pull out troops unless the United Nations takes charge in Iraq by mid-year.
Was the participation in Iraq symbolic. Not hardly if you listen to Ricardo Sanchez(US commander in Iraq)and other top military people in Iraq. In fact a big deal is being made out of it for that same reason.
I think it's bad for Iraq because the Iraqis want less US presence and more international forces.
No, you're saying that. Show me where I said it. Go on, show me. I know what the term means....go on, show me where I said you were using a sliding scale...come on.
Where?
I said:
"I don't do grief by sliding scale. No per capita life valuations."
You said:
"BS. It's ALL you've done on this post."
How is that not you implying I'm using a sliding scale?
Look. Maybe you are math challenged. If so, I apologize.
But I know that the sanctity of one life is exactly equivalent of any other life, no matter what.
1 life = 1 life.
Now you, and many other well intentioned people, seem to think it is okay to take into account population in order to equate two wildly different numbers.
By doing so you use proportionality as a way to say 1 life != 1 life; 1 life over here is equivalent to 5, 100 or 3000 lives over there somewhere else.
But doing so politicizes the tragedy for momentary political association with another larger tragedy.
Proportionality is repugnant.
I don't care what country you're from:
To me, 3000 American lives = 3000 Israeli lives.
To me, 3000 Israeli lives = 3000 Palestinian lives.
To me, 3000 Korean lives = 3000 Irish lives.
To me, 3000 Mexican lives = 3000 British lives.
To me, 3000 Chinese lives = 3000 American lives.
Fill in the blank, go ahead, same answer:
To me, 3000 _______ lives = 3000 ______ lives.
All life is precious.
You are saying in effect:
-- (not a quote)
200 Spanish lives = 3000 American lives. (I know it was less than 3000 and not all American) "just because" Spain has a smaller population.
--
Factoring in differences in population is usually a cheap ploy to raise the significance of events for political reasons. (Sometimes innocent mistake in reasoning).
It's a very common trend, to do this sliding scale in factoring grief.
I am whole heartedly against it precisely BECAUSE all life is sacred and all people are equal.
Anyone else see what I'm saying?
We aren't talking per capita income we are talking LIVES. Lives are indivisible.
1 = 1, period.
We aren't talking about selling 100,000 iPods in the U.S. and 10,000 iPods in the U.K. being ok because the population is smaller. (random numbers)
You don't use that math with lives.
Spain is just as likely to have a terrorist attack that claims 3000 lives all at once. I would prefer to save the 9/11 comparisons to something approximately similar in scope, no more selfishly than Japanese not appreciating Hiroshima comparisons or Jews not wanting Holocaust comparisons for far smaller incidents.
If 1 life is important, more lives are more important. Severity damn well factors in body count. It helps us keep in mind why precisely we should avoid such atrocities or disasters.
"I don't do grief by sliding scale. No per capita life valuations."
You said:
"BS. It's ALL you've done on this post."
All you did was numerical valuations. Lame try.
Quote:
Look. Maybe you are math challenged. If so, I apologize.
Yeah, dead lives are a numbers game right? What a tool you are.
Quote:
But I know that the sanctity of one life is exactly equivalent of any other life, no matter what.
No shit Sherlock. You're finally getting somewhere. That's why whether it's 200 or 2000 ot whatever number mr. Everything's a number, the tragedy of 1700 casualties including 200 dead perpetuated by the same ****ers responsible for 9/11 could be viewed as Spain's 9/11 by most, except you. Because 3000 is more than 200.
Quote:
By doing so you use proportionality as a way to say 1 life != 1 life; 1 life over here is equivalent to 5, 100 or 3000 lives over there somewhere else.
More rubbish from you. You're the only one seemingly putting a numerical value to something intangible.
Here. If it pisses you off so much that people may consider 3/11 Spain's 9/11 for more obvious reasons than statistics, I have some advice for you: DEAL WITH IT.
Yeah, dead lives are a numbers game right? What a tool you are.No shit Sherlock. You're finally getting somewhere. That's why whether it's 200 or 2000 ot whatever number mr. Everything's a number, the tragedy of 1700 casualties including 200 dead perpetuated by the same ****ers responsible for 9/11 could be viewed as Spain's 9/11 by most, except you. Because 3000 is more than 200.
More rubbish from you. You're the only one seemingly putting a numerical value to something intangible.
Here. If it pisses you off so much that people may consider 3/11 Spain's 9/11 for more obvious reasons than statistics, I have some advice for you: DEAL WITH IT.
You are beyond reasoning with. :shrug:
Aside: Might I presume that you are a Democrat and you are pro-abolishment/reform of the Electoral College? (I'm hoping so, since it will be supremely ironic.) But I'm asking, so I let me know if I'm wrong.
I think it's bad for Iraq because the Iraqis want less US presence and more international forces.
I think the incoming Spanish government is going to act out of haste and symbolism rather than real consideration for the future of Iraq. It's a protesta against something past which is much less significant than present and future.
Comments
One thing though:
"since we are damning all of the U.S. based one one news channel's views, why not."
What do you mean one channel?
I am basing this off from at-least 10 different channels, that have just mentioned it. Not just one. Where did you get that from?
Originally posted by audiopollution
If you consider the population of Spain, by your reasoning it would have taken 415 Spaniards killed to have you marching in the streets.
That's just it.
I do not use a sliding scale for human life.
Don't demonize me for speaking frankly.
Each life is precious. Each life is equal to another. Is this not so?
Why is it so terrible to say 1 life is equal to 1 life?
Originally posted by SilentEchoes
JohnQ: Sorry about that, I did misunderstand your post a bit. I was in a hurried rush to restart after the 10.3.3 update.
Happens all the time which is why I'm quick and blunt to urge people to back up and read my words again, sorry. People skim for keywords and presume. It's the web.
Originally posted by SilentEchoes
One thing though:
"since we are damning all of the U.S. based one one news channel's views, why not."
What do you mean one channel?
I am basing this off from at-least 10 different channels, that have just mentioned it. Not just one. Where did you get that from?
Everyone is talking. What, you are saying all of Europe is mum in dignified sorrow?
B.S. There are recriminations, theories, arguments, agendas flying left and right there as well and you know it.
Let's not forget we had 2 or 3 days or so of relatively peaceful greif-related non-political coverage prior to the election.
The main difference i see with 9/11 is the lack of symbolic force of the terrorists attack in spain.
The fall of the WTC, and the attack of the pentagon, was a symbolic aggression, and was perceveid like an attack against all the occidental world.
BTW i did not see the image of the Spanish bombing, just heared the radio. (it could explain my difference of perception)
Strange and weird to thing that the exceptionnal nature of 9/11 came not only from the exceptionnaly high number of deaths, but also about the loss of some buildings (something that should be worthless compared to the fall of the WTC)
Frankly who will forget the image of the WTC ?. Honestly it would have been better if no one filmed this images : too much mediatic impact for the terrorists.
Everyone is talking. What, you are saying all of Europe is in mum in dignified sorrow?
No I really don't know what all of Europe is doing, but I do think, however, that the US news should at-least extend their sorrow, AT-LEAST ONCE.
PS did the 10.3.3 update break anyone elses VB code buttons?
It only takes one death to set history in motion as the the assasination of Ferdinand proved.
I wasn't proactively "comparing" or trying to diminish the significance or sadness of the situation.
I just think that perspective, respect for scale, only further strengthens the value of life, not diminish it.
Saying "tragedy X" was a worse tragedy than "tragedy Y" diminishes neither. It only says that we need to work to avoid getting into those numbers.
all
Reality would better served by a cartoon showing Bush administration officials wearing kneepads and servicing the Saudi princes and royal families, and their country's traditional support systems for Islamic fundamentalism and the accompanying teachings of hatred instilled into Saudi children. The "war against terror" is phoney in its current format and the media needs to police itself in a responible manner if there is to be any hope of winning (the WOT) Terrorism will never stop by bombing foreign nations, and 90% of the Spanish knew this before the Iraq war started. Asnar paid no attention to the public's fears, which blew back in such violent fashion a few days ago.
The big problem which the Bush Administration refuses to deal with, or is unable to:
(1) We need Saudi oil like an addict needs his crack. The Saudis have America over an oil barrel because we refuse to invest in alternative energy research and environmental responsibility.
(2) Saudi Arabia, the major source of terrorism in the world, is invested to some $TWO TRILLION in Wall Street and US industry in general.
(3) The Saudis, if threatened with any kind of reprisals will divest from the US and probably impose an oil embargo, with the support of other OPEC nations. Result: the US economy, already in a mess, goes into an uncontrolled tailspin, causing unprecedented chaos in the international banking and monetary system.
It was Saudi Arabia who attacked us on 9-11. We have done nothing* about it....apart from attacking two countries which are peripheral to the problems at hand, and further enraging terrorist groups, or getting new ones to form.
How do we fight terrorism with mass ignorance, promoted by the irresponsible corporate media, much of which is owned by companies close to big energy and big oil? Americans aren't even aware who the real culprits are, and the government isn't prepared to take action against them. We are in a Catch 22, unable to do anything, and Osama bin Laden/al Q has a winning ticket on all counts. And that is the scariest part.
Originally posted by johnq
And that fact that the media is talking about the implications and theories beyond the grief means squat since everyone did the same thing during 9-11 (at least the world press sure did). It wasn't 10 seconds into the attack that foreign press was saying we "had it coming".
You got this info. from where? Do you speak any other languages besides English to have read that, or did you just hear it somewhere?
If anything about this that is galling is the absolute rush that countries do to "ME TOO" by claiming terrorist attacks are "their 9-11". Everyone does it when it's their turn.
Who the **** are you to say what a country's 9/11 should or shouldn't be?
Problem is we don't (I don't) have a sliding scale for the value of human life, so to say 200 Spanish lives is remotely equivalent to nearly 3,000 lives is a bit offensive right off the bat.
So if you don't have a sliding scale for human life as you so claim,whyTF are you crying about what to the Spanish IS their 9/11?? It's a ****ing good thing it was only 200 lives! I'm sure they're not trying to rationalize this by means of numbers.
I wish country's would reserve the "this is our 9-11" rhetoric to incidents that claim a similar number lives out of respect for those that did die on 9-11 many of whom were immigrants or non U.S. citizens too, let's not forget.
What the hell is wrong with you? Who are you to tell a country who just suffered a deadly terrorist attack that claimed 1700 casualties how they should feel about it?? Did it ever occur to you that it's just a symbolism when they call it "their" 9/11?
Each life is precious. 200 lives is 200 too many lost to this shit.
But 200 is not 3000.
Someone forgot to send the worldwide bulletin you wrote about having to "qualify" to earn the 9/11 analogy.
I don't do grief by sliding scale. No per capita life valuations.
BS. It's ALL you've done on this post. Maybe your ridiculous spin has you confused. "200 is not 3000, so don't you dare call this 3/11 your 9/11 !!!" is all you're saying.
It's not ungratefulness it's that I suspect we reserve the 9-11 tag for similar numbers.
3000 Spaniards die, you bet, we'll be marching.
Yeah, it's just a numbers game isn't it? I wish you had the balls to say this nonsense to a Spaniard's face. What a load of rubbish.
You mistakenly see what I am saying as a selfish clinging to 9-11 as a sacred nationalistic taboo that no one should dare identify with.
That is not what I said.
You also read into it that I am not sympathetic or grieving for the Spaniards.
Again, you skimmed and presumed.
I'm very grateful they did not lose 2700 people. 1 is too many.
Is it sinking in yet?
But one life is exactly equivalent to any other life. My god, how can you say 200 is as terrible as one that claims 3000?
(Insert irrational "tell that to a dead person's family" retort here.) Yeah, I know, it's horrendous to all involved. However they cannot be compared.
3000 is not 200,000 (i.e. 9/11 is not "our Hiroshima")
3000 is not 6,000,000 (i.e. 9/11 is not "our Holocaust")
ad nauseum....
You're saying -I'm- using a sliding scale? Do you know what that term means?
You seem to think that me wanting to maintain a sense of reverence to scale is equivalent to me not caring about the loss or taking it serious.
Wrong.
Anyway I don't expect you to be able to think clearly. Few can talk objectively about this crap...
You skimmed, saw "9/11" and presumed I'm some pro-Bush
I feel sorry for you.
Pulling out is only a symbolic, vengeful statement. Too bad it only hurts Iraqis more than the U.S.
Whatever the weak reasons used to go to war, what's done is done, the war was started and to help end it, the new Government will require foreign troops for a while.
One can dissent and still be a part of the coalition if only for Iraq's sake.
In-fighting will do nothing for peace.
(Where the f*** is the U.N.....my god are they useless)
Oh, that's right, it was "too dangerous" to stay there....
IT'S WAR!
Originally posted by johnq
You have no clue what I'm talking about.
You seem pretty confused yourself.
You mistakenly see what I am saying as a selfish clinging to 9-11 as a sacred nationalistic taboo that no one should dare identify with.
That's precisely what your BS sounds like.
I'm very grateful they did not lose 2700 people. 1 is too many.
Great, we agree here...but then you treat us to this "beauty":
But one life is exactly equivalent to any other life. My god, how can you say 200 is as terrible as one that claims 3000?
I didn't say that at all. You're the fool making the numerical distinctions not me. Let's go back to the "one is too many" sane argument. Are you that obtuse that you can't see why a smaller, less populated country like Spain could claim that horrible attack as "their" 9/11?? They're not saying 3/11 was worse than 9/11. The only fool pursuing that argumentative garbage is you. "How dare they call it their 9/11 when fewer people died"? is your BS argument.
(Insert irrational "tell that to a dead person's family" retort here.) Yeah, I know, it's horrendous to all involved. However they cannot be compared.
You're the one comparing them numerically of all ways. Of course, let's just ignore the fact that the attack apparently came from Al Qaeda, on the 11th day, exactly 911 days after 9/11/2001. Yeah, no comparison. How dare they call it their 9/11.
3000 is not 200,000 (i.e. 9/11 is not "our Hiroshima")
3000 is not 6,000,000 (i.e. 9/11 is not "our Holocaust")
ad nauseum....
You're nauseating. Here come Johnny's numbers again.I wouldn't be stupid enough to make such numerical comparisons. However I wouldn't be dumb enough to ignore any similarities and ramifications either.
You're saying -I'm- using a sliding scale? Do you know what that term means?
No, you're saying that. Show me where I said it. Go on, show me. I know what the term means....go on, show me where I said you were using a sliding scale...come on.
Anyway I don't expect you to be able to think clearly. Few can talk objectively about this crap...
Speak for yourself. Discussing this "crap" is obviously way over your head.
You skimmed, saw "9/11" and presumed I'm some pro-Bush
Lame spin.Yeah, I only quoted you and replied to all the quotes. Yeah, skimming.
Originally posted by Eugene
I only have the following questions. Do you think it is better that Spain will be pulling out? For Iraq? For Europe? Was Spain's participation in the Iraq rebuilding process significant or symbolic?
Eugene, being fluent in Español and having friends in Spain I can tell you I had been following what was happening in Spain
towards the elections.
Zapatero pledged during his campaign to pull out troops unless the United Nations takes charge in Iraq by mid-year.
Was the participation in Iraq symbolic. Not hardly if you listen to Ricardo Sanchez(US commander in Iraq)and other top military people in Iraq. In fact a big deal is being made out of it for that same reason.
I think it's bad for Iraq because the Iraqis want less US presence and more international forces.
Originally posted by Gilsch
No, you're saying that. Show me where I said it. Go on, show me. I know what the term means....go on, show me where I said you were using a sliding scale...come on.
Where?
I said:
"I don't do grief by sliding scale. No per capita life valuations."
You said:
"BS. It's ALL you've done on this post."
How is that not you implying I'm using a sliding scale?
Look. Maybe you are math challenged. If so, I apologize.
But I know that the sanctity of one life is exactly equivalent of any other life, no matter what.
1 life = 1 life.
Now you, and many other well intentioned people, seem to think it is okay to take into account population in order to equate two wildly different numbers.
By doing so you use proportionality as a way to say 1 life != 1 life; 1 life over here is equivalent to 5, 100 or 3000 lives over there somewhere else.
But doing so politicizes the tragedy for momentary political association with another larger tragedy.
Proportionality is repugnant.
I don't care what country you're from:
To me, 3000 American lives = 3000 Israeli lives.
To me, 3000 Israeli lives = 3000 Palestinian lives.
To me, 3000 Korean lives = 3000 Irish lives.
To me, 3000 Mexican lives = 3000 British lives.
To me, 3000 Chinese lives = 3000 American lives.
Fill in the blank, go ahead, same answer:
To me, 3000 _______ lives = 3000 ______ lives.
All life is precious.
You are saying in effect:
-- (not a quote)
200 Spanish lives = 3000 American lives. (I know it was less than 3000 and not all American) "just because" Spain has a smaller population.
--
Factoring in differences in population is usually a cheap ploy to raise the significance of events for political reasons. (Sometimes innocent mistake in reasoning).
It's a very common trend, to do this sliding scale in factoring grief.
I am whole heartedly against it precisely BECAUSE all life is sacred and all people are equal.
Anyone else see what I'm saying?
We aren't talking per capita income we are talking LIVES. Lives are indivisible.
1 = 1, period.
We aren't talking about selling 100,000 iPods in the U.S. and 10,000 iPods in the U.K. being ok because the population is smaller. (random numbers)
You don't use that math with lives.
Spain is just as likely to have a terrorist attack that claims 3000 lives all at once. I would prefer to save the 9/11 comparisons to something approximately similar in scope, no more selfishly than Japanese not appreciating Hiroshima comparisons or Jews not wanting Holocaust comparisons for far smaller incidents.
If 1 life is important, more lives are more important. Severity damn well factors in body count. It helps us keep in mind why precisely we should avoid such atrocities or disasters.
Originally posted by johnq
Where?
I said:
"I don't do grief by sliding scale. No per capita life valuations."
You said:
"BS. It's ALL you've done on this post."
All you did was numerical valuations. Lame try.
Look. Maybe you are math challenged. If so, I apologize.
Yeah, dead lives are a numbers game right? What a tool you are.
But I know that the sanctity of one life is exactly equivalent of any other life, no matter what.
No shit Sherlock. You're finally getting somewhere. That's why whether it's 200 or 2000 ot whatever number mr. Everything's a number, the tragedy of 1700 casualties including 200 dead perpetuated by the same ****ers responsible for 9/11 could be viewed as Spain's 9/11 by most, except you. Because 3000 is more than 200.
By doing so you use proportionality as a way to say 1 life != 1 life; 1 life over here is equivalent to 5, 100 or 3000 lives over there somewhere else.
More rubbish from you. You're the only one seemingly putting a numerical value to something intangible.
Here. If it pisses you off so much that people may consider 3/11 Spain's 9/11 for more obvious reasons than statistics, I have some advice for you: DEAL WITH IT.
Originally posted by Gilsch
All you did was numerical valuations. Lame try.
Yeah, dead lives are a numbers game right? What a tool you are.No shit Sherlock. You're finally getting somewhere. That's why whether it's 200 or 2000 ot whatever number mr. Everything's a number, the tragedy of 1700 casualties including 200 dead perpetuated by the same ****ers responsible for 9/11 could be viewed as Spain's 9/11 by most, except you. Because 3000 is more than 200.
More rubbish from you. You're the only one seemingly putting a numerical value to something intangible.
Here. If it pisses you off so much that people may consider 3/11 Spain's 9/11 for more obvious reasons than statistics, I have some advice for you: DEAL WITH IT.
You are beyond reasoning with. :shrug:
Aside: Might I presume that you are a Democrat and you are pro-abolishment/reform of the Electoral College? (I'm hoping so, since it will be supremely ironic.) But I'm asking, so I let me know if I'm wrong.
Originally posted by Gilsch
I think it's bad for Iraq because the Iraqis want less US presence and more international forces.
I think the incoming Spanish government is going to act out of haste and symbolism rather than real consideration for the future of Iraq. It's a protesta against something past which is much less significant than present and future.