hypocricy in it's purest form

[lapslf]

Yesterday, we held three minutes of silence in my school for the victims of the attack in Madrid. Yes, three minutes for two hundred people.

Do you have any idea how many minutes the people in Asia or Africa, who work themselves to death in sweat shops to deliver us cheap clothes get, or all the people in third world countries wo are starving to death because we use all the soil to feed our livestock, or all the people in Afghanistan and Iraq who got bombed an shot because the US wanted some cheap oil reserves? Lemme see... nothing plus nothing plus nothing is..... NOTHING!

Hold silences EVERY time something bad happens -especially when we caused it- or don't hold silence at all!

[TimScheff]

Its the same reason that action/special effects blockbusters do well at the theaters and people are more afriad of flying in a place than driving a car. When someone gets blown up, the death is violent and more noticable, especially when people die in a group versus individually (ie plane vs. car). I think we should recognize all harms and death as a result of a violent and unjust world but it won't happen. But the worst thing is, as long as a great deal of attention is paid to the victims of terrorism versus other calamaties we help give power to the terrorists behind the bombings.

[Jimsween]

Waah waah waaah, I had to be quiet for a while, waaaah waaaaaaaah waaaaaaaaaaaaaah.

[bumcheekcity]

At 3/16/04 05:16 PM, Jimsween wrote: Waah waah waaah, I had to be quiet for a while, waaaah waaaaaaaah waaaaaaaaaaaaaah.

Really Jim, you aren't funny.

Veggiemeal, I totally agree. Two Hundred people is NOT a lot in a global scale of things. More people die from... I dunno. ANYTHING than terrorism.

[Jimsween]

At 3/16/04 05:24 PM, bumcheekcity wrote: Really Jim, you aren't funny.

Veggiemeal, I totally agree. Two Hundred people is NOT a lot in a global scale of things. More people die from... I dunno. ANYTHING than terrorism.

Waaah waaaah waaaah, jimsween hurt my feelings so I'm going to get back at him another thread. waaah.

On a side note, are you all so dense that you don't get the fact that these people were murdered, they didn't die of natural causes, like those people in Africa. Just because they don't hold moments of silence for everything doesn't mean they shouldn't when they have a reason to, whiny bitches.

[Dagodevas]

At 3/16/04 02:54 PM, Veggiemeal wrote: Yesterday, we held three minutes of silence in my school for the victims of the attack in Madrid. Yes, three minutes for two hundred people. etc...

That's not exactly "hypocricy in it's purest form". That's more like irony.

[DocWily]

It was just a show of respect. If we had a moment of respect for every death, we'd never get anything done.

[rMammoth]

At 3/16/04 02:54 PM, Veggiemeal wrote: Yesterday, we held three minutes of silence in my school for the victims of the attack in Madrid. Yes, three minutes for two hundred people.

Do you have any idea how many minutes the people in Asia or Africa, who work themselves to death in sweat shops to deliver us cheap clothes get, or all the people in third world countries wo are starving to death because we use all the soil to feed our livestock, or all the people in Afghanistan and Iraq who got bombed an shot because the US wanted some cheap oil reserves? Lemme see... nothing plus nothing plus nothing is..... NOTHING!

Hold silences EVERY time something bad happens -especially when we caused it- or don't hold silence at all!

Yeah, because there is all that oil in Afganistan, right? RIGHT? Seriously, what the fuck are you even talking about? We can't have moments of silence if all the sweatshop workers in other countries can't join us? What the fuck influence do we have on that? See other countries have different governments. Yeah. Think about it. Moron.

Oh and silence EVERY TIME SOMETHING BAD HAPPENS... wow. Just wow. Cut your balls off now, I don't want to see what happens when an idiot like you has to raise kids.

[Mr-Fluffykins]

becuase the as put in that thing about racism being the new weathism or somethingthe ewathy most care about the weathy and thheese poeple in thge other country are poor

[TheShrike]

At 3/16/04 05:49 PM, Dagodevas wrote: That's not exactly "hypocricy in it's purest form". That's more like irony.

I was going to say the same thing.

At 3/16/04 05:55 PM, rMammoth wrote: Yeah, because there is all that oil in Afganistan, right? RIGHT?

Oil in Afghanistan.
Bitch.

Oh and silence EVERY TIME SOMETHING BAD HAPPENS... wow.

Why not? Why be picky about which deaths we honor and which deaths we don't?

[Jimsween]

At 3/16/04 10:39 PM, crass_clock wrote:

At 3/16/04 05:55 PM, rMammoth wrote: Yeah, because there is all that oil in Afganistan, right? RIGHT?

Oil in Afghanistan.
Bitch.

Yeah, the US fought a war (that costed billions) for a oil pipeline (that will save millions). Nice one there.

Oh and silence EVERY TIME SOMETHING BAD HAPPENS... wow.

Why not? Why be picky about which deaths we honor and which deaths we don't?

Because if you aren't, nobody will take death seriously anymore.

At 3/16/04 10:53 PM, Jimsween wrote: Yeah, the US fought a war (that costed billions) for a oil pipeline (that will save millions). Nice one there.

There is more oil in the Caspian Sea ($6 trillion worth) than in Saudi Arabia but you need a pipeline through Afghanistan to get the oil out.

More fun facts:
All of the leading Taliban officials were in Texas negotiating with UNOCAL in 1998.

John Maresca, VP of UNOCAL, testified before Congress and said there will be no pipeline until the Taliban is gone and a more friendly government is established.

Bush ordered an invasion of Afghanistan even though none of the 9/11 hijackers came from Afghanistan. (Most came from Saudi Arabia, an economic partner of the U.S.)

Bush blamed Bin Laden but has never offered any proof, saying it's a "secret".

The Taliban offered to negotiate to turn over Bin Laden if the U.S. presented some proof. We all know what happened next.

Afghanastin's new president formerly worked for UNOCAL and Bush appointed a special envoy to represent the US to deal with that new government. The special envoy was the former "chief consultant to UNOCAL".

Because if you aren't, nobody will take death seriously anymore.

1. You have no proof of that
2. Why favor one over the other? Why the exciting deaths over the natural ones or AIDS?

[peedee]

the states also paid to get bin laden out of jail in 1992.

[lunchbxpat]

At 3/16/04 11:21 PM, peedee wrote: the states also paid to get bin laden out of jail in 1992.

oh my god, another thread turned into "how the u.s. screwed up"

anyway, i understand your position on the silence thing, but i think that it's just nice to stop and be respectful once in a while. it's rare that a large group of people get together and pay their respects to something, so it is nice to organize it once in a while. it's more out of respect for our culture, and an attempt to raise awareness within than it is to really honor the deceased.

[Jimsween]

At 3/16/04 11:19 PM, crass_clock wrote:

At 3/16/04 10:53 PM, Jimsween wrote: Yeah, the US fought a war (that costed billions) for a oil pipeline (that will save millions). Nice one there.

There is more oil in the Caspian Sea ($6 trillion worth) than in Saudi Arabia but you need a pipeline through Afghanistan to get the oil out.

No you do not, you notice how I said SAVE millions, yeah, maybe you should read more carefully next time. There are several other ways to get that oil, going through Afghanistan is just the shortest. You could go through Turkey, Armenia, and Azerbaijan. You could go through Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan Tajikistan and then Pakistan, or you could add China in the middle there. You could go through.... RUSSIA! *gasp* Or you could just forget about the pipelines, which is much more expensive. It's just cheaper to go through Afghanistan, but still not worth the cost of the war.

Because if you aren't, nobody will take death seriously anymore.

1. You have no proof of that

And you have no proof they will, all I have to do is make a reasonable argument as to why that is true. If you have a fire drill every day, people don't respond to the fire drill anymore, because they hear it all the time anyways. The same can be applied to this.

2. Why favor one over the other? Why the exciting deaths over the natural ones or AIDS?

Because those are all natural causes, we can understand why they die, because some virus or something of the sort killed them, but murder is an entirely differen't thing. Murder is the ultimate crime, you can't commit any crime worse, and sane human beings, cannot understand why someone would knowlingly make the choice to take the life of another, so we are naturally more facinated and saddened when something like this happens. Der.

[BrokenPhoenix]

It is not hypocrisy. The difference is that the victims of the Madrid bombing died because of random acts of murder. People with the only intent of a high body count decided to kill some people while they were minding their own business.

However, this sweatshop example or whatever it is, those are more political issues. Those people are in their jobs not because of the big bad United States. They'd be working like that regardless of who their products went to. People starving? Same thing.

^^ Those people are dying because their economy sucks, their government sucks, and everything sucks. In all, yes, their situation sucks. Yet it is not in any way our obligation to mourn that suffering in the same way as murder. While unfortunate, it's the fault of their governments, and as such we SHOULD be trying to correct that situation. It does not require the same respect, however, as a random act of murder would.

It's terrible that some are born into poverty and a life of basic servitude for the small upper class in their country, but it is hardly as much of a tragedy as a couple hundred people getting murdered on the way to work and survivors having their lives changed forever.

It's not hypocricy whatsoever. It's the cold, harsh realities of life. Darwinism. Some people simply have it better, some people are more likely to survive than others. When losers with a bone to pick decide to interject and murder the innocent, that's when it's a real tragedy.

Like I said, that may seem cold, but we can't save everyone. If we have silence for every death, the world would halt. Life would cease if we had to mourn everything. Have respect for the dead and if you like help as much as you can, but don't get out of hand and start saying it's not appropriate to mourn some death and not all death.

If you disagree, take another look at the big picture of the world.

[Vowl]

I agree that a school should not force you to pretend to feel emotion.

[lapslf]

At 3/17/04 03:32 AM, BrokenPhoenix wrote: Blablabla, I missed the point

My friend, why is it murder to kill someone quickly with a train bomb, but is it not murder to kill someone slowly by forcing him to walk bare-legged in a barrel of toxics to prepare fabrics for our clothes? Or to use up all good soil in Africa to feed our livestock, so that the locals die of starvation? I don't just blame the US for this like you seemed to think, but the entire western world. Those people are not poor because they are well, just poor. They are poor because the western companies keep abusing them, making them work under terrible circumstances for eenyweeny little wage.

My point is, why don't we ever hold silence for those people? Or for all the victims in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq? Or perhaps the thousands of people that died in the recent earthquake in Iran? Sure, it wasn't murder, but do you think that makes it any better for the family's of the victims?

Why the hell do we only hold silences when there's a tragedy in the western world, that's my bloody question. If anything happens in Asia, or Africa, or South America we don't seem to give a toss.

[Fire-Penguin]

At 3/16/04 05:24 PM, bumcheekcity wrote: Veggiemeal, I totally agree. Two Hundred people is NOT a lot in a global scale of things. More people die from... I dunno. ANYTHING than terrorism.

The point is we don't need MORE people to die... it's stupid if you look at it that way... 1 person's death can effect 100 people emotionaly...
My brothers best friend died in a car accident two weeks ago 150 people came to the funeral, 100 people knew him well...

im against all wars but you no sadam kill a town of 6000 people with chemicals one day... wonder waht their families had to say...

[Jimsween]

At 3/17/04 12:29 PM, Veggiemeal wrote: Why the hell do we only hold silences when there's a tragedy in the western world, that's my bloody question. If anything happens in Asia, or Africa, or South America we don't seem to give a toss.

If you don't know the answer to this, then you probably shouldn't be talking about otehr people missing the point. It's because there is no public outcry for it, these people are far away, we don't know them, so they don't matter to us. We didn't hold any silences for the Madrid bombings in the US, Spain is far away, and they don't speak our language, why should we feel bad about people we don't know?

[peedee]

we should feel bad because they are fellow human beings. they are the same as us, except in personality traits. when even one person dies, i dont care how(unless its natural, i.e. old age), its painful to hear about. i hate it whne i hear shit like that.

[Jimsween]

At 3/17/04 01:21 PM, peedee wrote: we should feel bad because they are fellow human beings. they are the same as us, except in personality traits. when even one person dies, i dont care how(unless its natural, i.e. old age), its painful to hear about. i hate it whne i hear shit like that.

Thats good for you, but most people don't feel bad just because a fellow human being died. And if most people don't, why have a few minutes of silence?

[peedee]

no, im not disagreeing with you or anything. im just saying we should. people need to realize that its wrong, people shouldnt die from unnatural causes. its hard to explain what i mean...

[Jimsween]

At 3/17/04 01:28 PM, peedee wrote: no, im not disagreeing with you or anything. im just saying we should. people need to realize that its wrong, people shouldnt die from unnatural causes. its hard to explain what i mean...

I get what you are saying, but it really isn't hypocracy, it's just something we should be doing.

[peedee]

exactly! thank you! thats what iw as trying to say, but i couldnt figure out how to word it!(i just got up....)lol. so this thread is pointless!

[lapslf]

At 3/17/04 01:11 PM, Jimsween wrote: If you don't know the answer to this, then you probably shouldn't be talking about otehr people missing the point. It's because there is no public outcry for it, these people are far away, we don't know them, so they don't matter to us. We didn't hold any silences for the Madrid bombings in the US, Spain is far away, and they don't speak our language, why should we feel bad about people we don't know?

Bullshit. Somebody you don't know means just as fucking much to you as somebody in Iran you don't know. By the way, a huge part of the US speaks Spanish, so the people in Madrid actually did speak the same language. And what does it matter what language somebody speaks? Or how far away he is? Does that make the fact that he dies any less tragic? Kinda self-centered point of view I'd say.

[peedee]

read jimsweans last post dude, he is agreeing...

[Jimsween]

At 3/17/04 01:35 PM, Veggiemeal wrote:

Bullshit. Somebody you don't know means just as fucking much to you as somebody in Iran you don't know.

Nope. I care more about a person in Britan who dies than some person in China.

By the way, a huge part of the US speaks Spanish, so the people in Madrid actually did speak the same language. And what does it matter what language somebody speaks?

It matters because we can't make a relation to taht person if they aren't talking the same way we do. You do realize that people are different, don't you?

Or how far away he is? Does that make the fact that he dies any less tragic? Kinda self-centered point of view I'd say.

Welcome to Earth, population 7 billion.

[bumcheekcity]

At 3/16/04 05:28 PM, Jimsween wrote: Waaah waaaah waaaah, jimsween hurt my feelings so I'm going to get back at him another thread. waaah.

As usual, I have no idea what you're tlaking about, but that's kinda usual now...

On a side note, are you all so dense that you don't get the fact that these people were murdered, they didn't die of natural causes, like those people in Africa.

A murded person is now worth more than someone who dies via AIDS?