Well, what are you doing here then? Don’t bother explaining if you don’t want to. I don’t give a shit. I never said you weren’t entitled to your opinion or your emotions; just don’t expect me to agree with you.
The only thing “wrong” in all of this is your asinine assumption that i am indifferent to the deaths of these two people. All i said was that i accord them no more importance than any other victim of a similar attack.
Get it? No more, and no less important. I am far from indifferent to their deaths. In fact, i stated very clearly that i think all such deaths are tragic. Is it sinking in yet?
Well, MHENDO, I for my part concede you are perfectly entitled to you insensitivity on the issue. I may not agree with it, but I can understand the lack of emotion from which it springs.
My emphasis. I will merely point out again that the bolded part is your baggage that you are bringing to the discussion, which is in no way justified by what the OP’er actually said. And since you claim to disdain that which is pointless and illogical, perhaps you’d like to explain the logic of insisting that addressing a given subset of a class is the same as ignoring the rest of the class. I’m not talking about victims here, I’m talking about logic: An observation that is on its face limited to subject A does not imply anything about subjects B through Z.
If I go to a concert featuring three acts and I say “the second act was really great,” I’m not saying the other two acts sucked.
If I select a cookie for my dessert of choice from a tray, that doesn’t mean I am ignoring or disdaining or negatively commenting on the other dessert selections.
And if I say “Wow, the death of that four year old in the train wreck yesterday was sure awful,” that doesn’t mean I’m implying the deaths of the other people killed in the wreck were not awful – just that hers was remarkably awful, because of her age.
I’m not saying you have to agree with this but please, at least tell me you understand it.
Ignoring Aldeberan’s extremist blathering for a moment, you are essentially rationalizing the deaths of (Palestinian) children. In a thread supposedly concerned with mourning a tragic (Jewish) death.
Talk about irony…Your bias is so transparent that it undermines your point. And sadly this is one of the reasons that little progress can be made in Israel.
No, Zev was not rationalizing the deaths of children. Foolish behaviour by children and teenagers can result in severe consequences to themselves or others. That’s simply common sense, not rationalization. I cannot imagine for even a moment that I would allow or condone my children to place themselves in such a situation. No matter what or why.
Shame on any adult who stands aside watching them and does nothing to stop it. Shame on the parent, particularly, for failing in their responsibility to their child.
Nonsense. Throwing a rock at a man with a machine gun is fucking stupid. You don’t need a political bias to realize this, although you do need at least a double digit IQ, so I can see how this might have gotten past you. This isn’t rationalizing a death, it’s pointing out the likely outcome of an extremely unwise course of action.
And it’s especially stupid if the Israeli soldiers are really as trigger-happy as Aldebaran claims. (Although really, what are the odds of Aldebaran being right about something?) If throwing a rock at a man with a machinegun is stupid, throwing a rock at a man with a machinegun whom you suspect is a homicidal maniac is so staggeringly stupid the rock-thrower could have had a great career in American poltics, if he weren’t dead because he threw a rock at a psycho with a deadly weapon.
Please note that I do not think that Israeli soldiers are psychos. That comment was made for illustrative purposed only.
I don’t expect you to agreed with me, but I do hope, that you would be a bit more understanding of other people’s opinions. And if you don’t agree, fine. Voice that disagreement, but please try to be a bit less condecending in voicing that disagreement. I have no problem with people disagreeing with any viewpoint or opinion I (or anyone else) may have, but I do have a problem with people who voice that disagreement as though they are the morality police and make statements of disagreement that appear to be an attempt at making someone feel guilty for the opinion or emotions they may have.
You are correct. It was an assinine assumption on my part. In fact it was flat out wrong. I wrote out of emotion and unease rather than commenting on what you had actually said. For that, I do owe you an apology, so, I’m sincerely sorry. In hindsight I did one of the things that happens on this board that I personaly find to be very asshole(ish) and obnoxious. Again, I apologize.
So if I do place more importance or impart more sorrow to the deaths of these two people then you have no problem with that? I’m not say that I do place more importance on these two deaths, but if I did, then you would have no problem with that and would not feel the need to post condecending comments implying that I am morally wrong for that? If so, then great. I’m glad I was wrong in that matter and happy that we’ve cleared it up.
No, but you do seem to be strongly implying that they weren’t as good as the second one. And, unless you qualify your statement further, it is reasonable for others to infer as much.
Surely, at the very least, you’re saying that those other desserts are not as appealing as the one that you chose.
I do understand that this is your reaction to the situation. But as soon as you say that her death was “remarkably awful,” you introduce a comparative element that, by definition, makes the others appear less awful. And that’s what i have a problem with. I see no particular reason that a child’s death is any more tragic than an adult’s, nor that a woman’s death on her wedding day is any more tragic than her death would be if it occurred after 5 years of happy marriage, or, for that matter, after five years of an awful marriage.
I’m not completely without emotion–i’ve already said that i find all these deaths tragic–but i also believe that at least a modicum of reason can be applied to such situations. For example, while many people believe that children’s deaths are inherently more tragic than those of adults, i can’t think of a logically convincing argument to sustain such a position.
Also, given your apparent belief in the inherent subjectivity of such issues, i’m surprised that you take such umbrage at my position. After all, it’s just mine, and i don’t believe i ever said i expected anyone to share it.
GREATHOUSE – Good lord, man, this is the Pit. Your rational measured response and – say it isn’t so! – apologizing are going to lower the tone here considerably, by raising the tone here considerably. You stand in immediate danger of losing your reputation as a Pitizen! To repair the slur to your Pitworthy image, you should immediately post something about a felching goat.
[sub]Civility, sheesh – What’s next, no burping?[/sub]
“Drive-by attack”? That wasn’t a drive-by: I addressed your post, showed where I disagreed with it, and presented an alternative interpretation of the matter at hand. My post can not reasonably be termed a drive-by because it had subject-relevent content. Calling you stupid was just gravy.
And I gradutated college about five years ago. Remember, leander, when you “assume” you make a “ume” out of “a” and “ss”.
Now, despite me no longer being a college kid, you still may not spank me. Sorry, but I’m seeing someone. If it doesn’t work out, I’ll be sure to look you up. But I want dinner first. Maybe a movie, too.
For that matter, the fact that you accused me of making a “typical” drive-by attack in response to my second post in the thread only goes to reinforce my intial point in this thread: namely, that you ain’t all that bright.
I see. Based on one comment on a message board. Very perceptive. Again, though, funny about the assumptions remark. Did they teach you irony at Ball State?
And yes, I’m assuming all sorts of things. But now that I know you’re still a kid, I will refrain from the spanking.
Sigh. No, I’m not. I’m not saying anything about the other two. You know, your last post was only directed at me, but there are lots of other posters in this thread. May I then assume they are less interesting people than I? Because under your rationale, the fact that you’re not talking to them “strongly implies” they aren’t as good to talk to as I am. You insist this is a reasonable inference to make, but it just isn’t. You cannot infer a particular opinion of a given subject from a total absence of comment on that subject. Because there’s no there there.
I said “If I select a cookie for my dessert of choice from a tray, that doesn’t mean I am ignoring or disdaining or negatively commenting on the other dessert selections” to which you reply:
You don’t know that, because I haven’t said anything about the other desserts. Maybe the cookie is the only one without chocolate, to which I am allergic (note to those contemplating sending me chocolate: this allergy is purely fictitious and for purposes of illustration, so mail away). Maybe I’m on a diet and a cookie is all I’m allowing myself. Maybe I other choice happens to be what I had for dessert last night.
You don’t know. You cannot infer my feelings about the other options from my silence, unless my silence is so ostentatious as to clearly intend to convey an opinion. I admit that can be the case, but clearly is not with such a commonplace remark as “Gosh, this latest tragedy is sure tragic.”
:: Shrug :: Nope. Just because I’m choosing to address myself to one thing doesn’t mean I’m saying anything about anything else. And frankly it’s rare to meet someone who will insist on inferring a comparison between A and B from a comment addressing A, because it simply is not logical to do so.
And I have no problem with you holding your opinion. I have a problem with you holding it based on a logical fallacy that leads you to unfairly read into the OP opinions and statements that are not in fact there. This problem, BTW, is not in any way subjective. I’m hardly in a position to object to your opinion, but I am in a position to point out that the reasoning you employ to reach it is faulty. But far from taking umbrage at even that, I don’t even really care whether you see the faulty reasoning and, acknowledging at this point that you apparently really don’t, I’m willing to leave it at that.
If i sounded condescending, then i’m sorry. I think a problem is that when one claims, as i have been, to be trying to look at an emotional issue using reason instead of emotion, then it’s almost inevitable that one will come across as condescending, because one is implying that others are being less rational.
And i still believe this to be the case. As i said to Jodi, for example, i still think that a belief in the inherently greater tragedy of a child’s death is a purely emotional, and not a very logical position. I understand the emotions that lead people to take such a position, but i maintain my argument that it is irrational.
That is very gracious–thankyou. We all say things we regret on these Boards at times, and that’s why i try to make a point of not holding grudges over time, or from one thread to another. If we all held grudges against everyone who dissed us at one time or another, this Board would cease to function.
I suppose it depends what you mean by “have a problem.” Do i concede that you have every right to your own reactions and beliefs? Yes, of course. Nor would i say that you are morally wrong for taking such a position. But i still reserve my right to argue that your position is illogical, and that articulating such a position out of nowhere, and apparently apropos of nothing, as Zev did in the OP, is rather pointless.
You, along with everyone else arguing your case, suggest that taking a position on these two individuals does not imply any particular position on those not mentioned. But, as i suggested to Jodi, as soon as you use a comparative term like “remarkably” or “more,” you effectively set up a hierarchy in which some victims seem more worthy than others. Whether you intend this or not is beside the point; i’m not arguing that it is done maliciously. But the very fact that quite a few people have responded to the OP making similar observation to mine suggests that there can be a disjunction between production and reception.
So, when Zev or Jodi or you say that you didn’t mean to make invidious distinctions, i take you at your word. I see no reason to do otherwise. But i still don’t believe that my response, or those of others who took my position, was inherently unreasonable. The problem of human communication is that the very complexity that makes it so rewarding can also lead to cognitive and emotional problems such as those in this thread.
Peace.
And, on preview, i see Jodi’s most recent post.
If you truly believe that if, upon walking out of a three-act performance, you say “Wasn’t that second act fantastic” without any further qualification, that i have no business inferring that you like it more than the other two, then there’s really nothing to talk about. Inference is a key part of human communication.
You are right that i may not know your exact inner feelings on a particular subject. You are even right that there may be other reasons for your choices (a chocolate allergy; a diet), but the fact is that by making a choice you say that (for whatever reason) you prefer, at this point in time, to select the cookie over the other desserts.
You see, what you intend to imply, and what others infer, can be two totally different things. If you are discussing a train wreck in which there are multiple deaths (as in your last example), and you say that all those deaths are tragic, but that one is “remarkably” tragic, then people will reasonably infer that you are saying that it is more tragic than the others. Whether you actually mean that or not becomes largely irrelevant–you have used an intensifier within a limited, specific context, and people interpret such things in particular ways.
You imply, with your constant appeal to the notion of addressing point A, but not point B, that there is no local, specific context to the issues being discussed. But there is always context. If you watch five people doing the same thing, and make an observation that one of them–and only one–is “remarkably” good at the task, can you not see that this sets up a hierarchy, even if you make no comment whatsoever (good or bad) about the others?
You are certainly correct that this is a matter of logic, not opinion. You are perfectly entitled to the belief that a child’s death is inherently more tragic, but don’t then pretend that saying so is not setting up a pecking order of importance. Or, at least, don’t be surprised when other people interpret your words in this way.
Jodi, I have to disagree with you: if you single out one victim to mourn out of a tragedy that killed many others, there is a clear implication that you feel that victims fate was in some way “more tragic” than the others. That might not be your intent, but I think that would be a very common interpretation of such a statement. That’s not to say that it imples you felt there was nothing tragic about about the other deaths, only that the one you singled out had some special poignance over the others. And I don’t see anything wrong about that. Tragedy is relative. Certainly, the bomber saw nothing tragic in this. It’s entirely human to identify with the specific circumstances of one victim, and feel that death to be more tragic than the others.
Anyway, I only say this since it seems that’s not what you’re trying to communicate, but that was the message I got.
leander, as always, it has been a joy and an education to talk with you. I feel I’ve really grown as a person thanks to this exchange. Best of luck in all your future endeavors.
