20 Years ago... [Archive] - SUBSIM Radio Room Forums

JALU3

06-04-09, 02:47 AM

...the PRC was definatly a Red China.
For all those who died, who had hoped for reform.

http://mappingthefuture.csis.org/tiananmen.jpg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiananmen_Square_protests_of_1989)

Yet it looks like the struggle for reform continues to this day.
Detained in Macau (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/5440965/Tiananmen-Square-ringleader-detained-in-Macau.html)
Police close square overnight to bar protest (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/05/world/asia/05beijing.html?ref=global-home), remain to deter (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601102&sid=awPUXKHQxtJ0&refer=uk).

http://ncb3964.k12.sd.us/year/pics/tiananmen%20square.gif

But modern technology helps to spread the word. (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,525037,00.html)

Schroeder

06-04-09, 06:03 AM

Yep, a shame that the Government still refuses to even talk about it.:nope:

UnderseaLcpl

06-04-09, 07:58 AM

Well, at least the Chinese Reds are nicer than the Soviets. If he was a Soviet expatriate, they'd welcome him with open arms, right before shipping him to the Lubiyanka and slapping him with a quarter in the Gulag.
That is, assuming they didn't just shoot him.

Schroeder

06-04-09, 08:02 AM

You are aware that maybe up to 2600 people died during the protests back then?

Letum

06-04-09, 08:10 AM

I was speaking to a professor in a Chinese university a while ago. He thought
that the Chinese economic success was slowing down or even reversing the
little progress that was being made in government reform as it made it easier
to cover the cracks in the system.

Apparently any intellectually freedom in the humanities departments all but
vanished after Tienanmen and has not come back.

UnderseaLcpl

06-04-09, 08:49 AM

You are aware that maybe up to 2600 people died during the protests back then?

Oh yes, I know and it is a terrible thing. And before that there was Mao's Red Guards and the cultural revolution, another event with a heavy human toll.
But when it comes to mass murders, human rights abuses, and general maltreatment of one's own populace, nobody beats the Stalinists. Not even the Nazis.
At least the Chinese were nice enough to wait for students to protest before killing them. Soviet academia was afforded no such luxury, and joined tens of millions in the Gulag, where they pretty much all died of exposure or starvation or being worked to death. The lucky hundreds of thousands were just shot, or hanged.

It is not my intent to trivialize Tianamen Square in any way, I'm just saying that when it comes to Communism, it could be a lot worse.

Letum

06-04-09, 08:59 AM

I'm not so sure such things can be treated as relative.
It does not make much sense to me to say that one massacre is worse than
any other massacre aside from academic interest.

UnderseaLcpl

06-04-09, 09:22 AM

I'm not so sure such things can be treated as relative.
It does not make much sense to me to say that one massacre is worse than
any other massacre aside from academic interest.

Off the top of my head, I can think of about 6 million people who might take exception to that line of reasoning.:DL

Letum

06-04-09, 09:42 AM

If you treat such events as relative then you end up with conclusions such as
"It is better to have 1 million people massacred than it is to have 2 million
people massacred".
I don't like that line of reasoning. It's crazy to tell one victim that he is better
off than another victim because his massacre wasn't as bad as another.

I struggle to find better words.

Skybird

06-04-09, 10:35 AM

Letum,

the 1 million versus 2 million thing is a mathematical question. Of course it is better to have just 1 million killed than it is to have 2 million killed. Questioning that would be insane.

For the one being dead, it does not matter if he was part of the 1 million or the 2 million scenario.

Keep both questions separate. It does not help - and does not make sense - to mix them. Thus your confusion.

Compared to 20 years ago, thing shave improve din China, if comparing over those 20 years, there is change. The thing is there is not as much change as some in the West hoped for, or demand to be. But change there is nevertheless, while many things also stayed the same, granted. But still, all in all, things have become different a bit, compared to 20 years ago.

Letum

06-04-09, 11:09 AM

I am unable to see how the massacre of one million is better than the massacre
of two million. From whose point of view is it better? Who loses out more from
one as opposed to the other?

If we are talking about either-or events, then it is better the lesser event
from the point of view of the potential survivors of the lesser event, but the
same does not apply for events that have taken place already.

Skybird

06-04-09, 11:17 AM

I am unable to see how the massacre of one million is better than the massacre
of two million. From whose point of view is it better?

From the point of view of those one million who could be dead, but are not.

Don't make this complicated again. Putting things into relation is all nice and well, but sometimes you are crucifying yourself with it.

One million dead - or alive: that is what is the difference. If you cannot see that, then help you God, for man cannot. ;) :)

Letum

06-04-09, 11:28 AM

I am unable to see how the massacre of one million is better than the massacre
of two million. From whose point of view is it better?From the point of view of those one million who could be dead, but are not.

Please excuse the edit, I posted and then found better words.

To keep things short "A" refers to a lesser massacre than "B".

You are making the mistake of confusing either-or events with
simultaneous, fixed events.

In the either-or case, there are indeed people that survive event A, but
would have not survived event B, had B taken place. From their point of
view it is indeed better that A happened (and not B).
However, if both A and B have occurred simultaneously and
interdependently, then it does not make sense to say there are survivors of
A who would have not survived if B had taken place. in this scenario there
are survivors of A who would not have survived if B had taken place twice,
but that is another either-or scenario.

This can be demonstrated by the way that members of the "those [..] who
could be dead" group do not always exist.

For example:
Say there is a country of 1 million inhabitants, "Country A", and a country
of 10 million inhabitants, "Country B".

In each country there is a massacre. In country A 100% of the population
is wiped out (1 million). In country B 20% is killed (2 million).

If you want to say that the events in country A where less bad, then it
can't be from the point of view of "those one million who could be dead"
because such a group does not exist.

It is a little nuanced, but not that complicated.

Skybird

06-04-09, 12:44 PM

That's all nice and well, Letum, and it is very theoretical and abstract and intellectual and philosophically disconnected from reality.

A massacre where 2 million get killed, still sees twice as many people killed, as one with 1 million killed. Stop philosopphy to create an altwernative universe. Use some math to deal with the one you're in. And that is a place where an event that sees 2 million killed sees twice as many people being killed than a killing that results in the killing of 1 million. I wonder what is so difficult in seeing that.

Sometimes your mindgames really seem to catapult you directly into an orbit not around just planet Earth but around all the solar system. Try to keep at least one foot on the ground.

I must say I totally and completely fail to see anything relevant in your attempt to explain what you're after. I must even say that the attempt is most absurd, and - as I already said - disconnected from reality. If at least you woudl argue quality versus quantity aspects. With that I could at least sympathize, and to some degree maybe even agree.

If i would follow your thinking, then I would need to conclude that it does not matter if in WWII 6 million people died, 6 thousand died, or 60 million died. And if 4 billion people would have died, then it would matter even less, since there wouldn't be a group of survivors from homo sapiens anyway.

Sorry, but you completely lost me. I can just roll my eyes.

Letum

06-04-09, 01:53 PM

If i would follow your thinking, then I would need to conclude that it does not matter if in WWII 6 million people died, 6 thousand died, or 60 million died.

Gaaah! There you go again with another either-or example!

If it was a case of either 'x' people dieing or 'y' people dieing, then clearly
the lesser is the better as then it is better for the people who have survived.
Alternatively, if both x and y people have died in two independent events of
different or equal magnitude then the severity in terms of the badness of
each event is no different from the point of view of any possible person.

I don't see how this is "disconnected from reality". It is very, very,
relevant.

UnderseaLcpl

06-04-09, 02:33 PM

I think I see what Letum is saying. A massacre cannot and should not be compared to a different massacre to determine which was "more" atrocious. It sets a benchmark by which some killings are made less detestable, whereas we should focus on the fact that they are all equally despicable from a moral standpoint.
Is that close?

In the meantime, I tend to side with Sky in the view that 2 lives are worth more than one life, generally speaking. I think that is an appropriate method of guaging the severity of an atrocity, so long as we do not lose sight of the fact that such acts are violations of fundamental human rights.
There are other factors that must be considered as well. It is one thing to be unarmed and gunned down in the midst of a protest or demonstration. It is quite another to be imprisoned, lined up against a wall, and shot. It is yet another thing to be imprisoned for nothing, tortured into confession, and sent to a forced labor camp to die a slow death due to malnourishment and exposure. That was a favorite Soviet trick, amongst others.

In conclusion, I think the type of atrocity and the scale on which it occurred does matter. As long as we maintain awareness of fundamental human rights violations, rather than just numbers, the most horrible acts will become less and less prevalent, just as they have in the Western world. We're suffering such a dearth of atrocities at the moment that we have to look elsewhere to find some, or harp endlessly on pansy-torture like what went on at Guantanamo.

nikimcbee

06-04-09, 03:12 PM

PBS Frontline did a show a while back on what ever happened to the man infront of the tank.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/tankman/view/

Letum

06-04-09, 03:16 PM

nikimcbee

06-04-09, 03:16 PM

Skybird

06-04-09, 03:17 PM

It comes down to this: if you are in a situation where you must decide on who lives and why dies, and you have two groups and can only help one of them, by which standards do you decide? Or do you reject to decide at all, saying that it all is so sad and tragic that you lack the words to describe it, or that the fate of each single group is so dramatic that it always equals that of the other group anyway?

I once gave the example of aid going into one war or desaster zone, and the aid was refused by local villagers saying that for religious reasons they could not come down from their damn hill and help unloading the trucks. The truclkdrivers were not able to do it all by themselves and carry it up to them piece by piece, and why should they. The commander of that truck column decided to stay in place and trying to negotiate with them, although at that timne trucks were in short supply and were desperately needed. They staye don the scene for 12 hours I think.

I took fire back then when saying they should not have stayed, but drive the goods to the next village, unload at the next opporutnity where their help was welcomed, return to the camp and get the next transport rolling. While they stayd in that rleigous village, there trucks were almost non-existent. People died becasue the aid they could have transported, did not reach themn, for these trucks were missing. I was attacked for that, asking me how I could decide to let the religious villagers on that hill possibly die, to help other villagers somewhere else, and how I could dare to say the life of the ones is more worth than the life of the others.

But that never was the point to me. The point is that for me - for us - it makes no difference wether the ones or the others die. I decided the issue on the basis of simple math. Shoiuld many peopöle die just to allow the few to live? Eventually I considered that the few in this case were incredibly stupid primitives. Eventually. but I did not compare the value of lives. I opted for what would have caused the lesser death toll. why I was attacked for that in that discussion, escapes my understanding. It also escapes my ethical standards.

Sometimes things are simple. They must not be made more complicated than they are.

Indeed, they often are simple. and indeed me artificially make them complicated. Because most of the time we do not dare to accept them in their simple essence, then we need much time to admit them to ourselves.

Letum

06-04-09, 03:32 PM

It comes down to this: if you are in a situation where you must decide on who lives and why dies, and you have two groups and can only help one of them, by which standards do you decide?

That is another 'either one scenario, or the other' case.
You should choose the lesser. The lesser would be least bad.

If both scenarios have already taken place, interdependently of each other,
then it is not an 'either-or' case and there is no longer anyone for whom
either scenario was any better or worse than the other.

I will try to give another example:

Lets say two farmers have 10 goats each. Additionally, there are two herds
of wild goats; each heard comprising of 10 goats.

The area floods.

One farm loses 8 goats, one 4 goats.
One heard of wild goats loses 8 goats, the other 4.

For the goats on the farm, it is clear that we can say that the loss of 8 is
worse because the farmer has lost more. The farmer is the point of view from
which one of the losses is the greater.

However, the wild goats have no farmer.
None of the surviving wild goats is any worse off than any other surviving wild
goats and none of the dead wild goats is any worse off than any of the other
dead wild goats. Both goat-losses are bad because each dead goat has lost
out, but there is no goat, dead or alive, for which the events in either group
was better or worse.

No dead goat in the group that lost 8 goats has lost any more than any given
dead goat in the group that lost 4.
Likewise, no surviving goat in the group that lost 8 goats has lost any more
than any given surviving goat in the group that lost 4.

If we postulate the existence of an observing goat belonging to neither herd,
it has not lost or gain anything at all from either event.

Aramike

06-04-09, 04:21 PM

But when you're talking about the loss of life in the perspective of the human race, then we must use the term "magnitude" as a qualifier.

Not all tragedies are the same and I have to agree with Skybird 100% here. Your analogy makes little sense, considering that we're not talking about the substance from the perspective of an individual. Rather, approaching the situation as a whole, the greater tragedy would be the one with the greater loss.

Letum

06-04-09, 04:38 PM

the greater tragedy would be the one with the greater loss.

For whom is it a greater tradgedy?

Aramike

06-04-09, 04:52 PM

For whom is it a greater tradgedy?But that's never been the question, has it?

On the scale of the human race the greater tragedy would be the greater loss of life. It is impossible (an unwise) for any of us to reduce our perspective to that of the individuals affected, as it would clearly cloud our judgement.

For instance, to the widow the tragic pain of the loss of her husband has little to do with defining the circumstances leading to that loss.

The word "tragedy", and similar words, are completely based upon the context in which they are being used. When being used in the context of lives lost, the greater tragedy will be the one with the greater loss of life. You're attempting to assert that the word "tragedy" cannot be reconciled with a word describing magnitude, but the fact is that it can.

Language is used to describe and communicate concepts. If someone says that the loss of 2 million people is a greater tragedy than the loss of 2 thousand, that would be an accurate description.

That description has nothing to do with the impact to the individuals, mind you - it merely is based upon this forumla:

Loss of human life = Tragedy.
2 Million > 2 thousand

As such, the loss of 2 million human lives is a greater tragedy then the loss of 2 thousand.

Letum

06-04-09, 05:05 PM

For whom is it a greater tradgedy?But that's never been the question, has it?

well if there isn't a person for whom the tragedy is greater, then how can
the tragedy be greater?

Loss of human life = Tragedy.
2 Million > 2 thousand

As such, the loss of 2 million human lives is a greater tragedy then the loss of 2 thousand.I would say:

Loss of human life = Tragedy for the person losing the life and his
friends/family and anyone else effected by the loss only.
That the loss happened to many other people and their respective
friends/family and anyone else effected by the loss does not compound
the loss for anyone.

You seam to be taking the position of a farmer in my previous, goat
based example.
There is no such position in the real world. It is utterly abstract.

Aramike

06-04-09, 05:11 PM

well if there isn't a person for whom the tragedy is greater, then how can
the tragedy be greater?

I would say:

Loss of human life = Tragedy for the person losing the life and his
friends/family and anyone else effected by the loss only.
That the loss happened to many other people and their respective
friends/family and anyone else effected by the loss does not compound
the loss for anyone.

You seam to be taking the position of a farmer in my previous, goat
based example.
There is no such position in the real world. It is utterly abstract.You're changing the meaning of the word to fit your argument.

The fact is that, if someone communicates that there are two tragedies involving the loss of human life, and that one was greater, the VAST majority of people will understand that the greater tragedy will be the greater loss of human life. That is not abstract in any way. It can completely be quantified, if that's the qualifier. Also, abstract concepts are STILL concepts, and can STILL be described using language.

Seriously, you are absolutely wrong. Why must you play this game, instead of ever seeing the obvious? It isn't that hard to admit that either you're wrong or that you were looking at the situation from a different perspective (this isn't the first time)?

Do a poll: ask ten people, all things being equal, what's the greater tragedy, the loss of 10 people, or the loss of 1000. I bet the results will be 10 for 10. Meaning that the communicated quality of the term "greater tragedy" works.

Letum

06-04-09, 05:16 PM

You're changing the meaning of the word to fit your argument.

I am describing the word differently to illustrate the concepts I wish to
convey.

I can't be held accountable if the common usage of this word of that does a
poor job of explaining this concept or that with out clear explanation of how
the word is being used.

I wish to discuss concepts and ideas, not semantics.

Skybird

06-04-09, 07:01 PM

You're lost in abstraction, Letum. Where others have too less in their head, you have far too much. You have too much thinking on your mind. That way, reason got lost. You're disconnected. Get back to your senses.

Regarding the past, "past" describes what once has been, but is no more. That truth is a bit too profane to make a huge fuss of it. Events of the past affected people, and mattered for them, and sometimes they still matter today. And no matter wether past or present: for every individual surviving or dying in desaster, it obviously made or makes a difference. the surviving wild goats are alive and did not get killed. without doubt they are better off than the wild goats that got killed, but could have lived on if not having died. Another profanity, isn't it. the farmer is just another entity, calculating the costs and the profits of events as he take note of them.

the genocide in darfhur still takes place in the present. Some revenge-massacre by the SS in some Italian village took place in the past. Both do not directly affect me. But still, it is valid to say that the genocide in present Darfhur represents a greater massacre or crime than the the past massmurder in that Italian village. Becasue in Darfhur, over one million people got killed so far, and in that Italian village let'S say 280.

Keep it simple.

Letum

06-04-09, 07:45 PM

Personal comments aside...

I don't understand where the paragraph about the past game from.
I only mentioned the past because it is the only time that either-or events
can not be, although in hindsight, that does not help matters because they
are replaced by 'what-if's.

Aramike

06-04-09, 11:24 PM

I am describing the word differently to illustrate the concepts I wish to
convey.

I can't be held accountable if the common usage of this word of that does a
poor job of explaining this concept or that with out clear explanation of how
the word is being used.

I wish to discuss concepts and ideas, not semantics.Language involves common usage as a neccessity; if it did not, then it would be difficult to communicate.

Ultimately, in this discussion you should have understood what others meant regarding the magnitude of tragedies, and then presented your thought regarding tragedy separately - not as a "but".

From most people's perspective, one cannot compare 2 million deaths with 2 thousand.

UnderseaLcpl

06-05-09, 02:25 AM

Whilst I also agree with this to some lesser extent, it isn't the angle I was
coming from at all.
I don't think the stance you lay out holds a lot of water.

I guess I didn't understand you, then. I was trying to put my position in terms of what I thought was your position.

After reading your most recent posts, I still don't understand it, but it seems heartless and simplistic, if you will forgive my brusqueness.

If you cannot understand empathic sentiment for members of one's own species, I will ask Sky to explain/debate the genetic causality of such sympathy, something I have been meaning to do for some time now, before I was distracted by the Were-fish game.

(Speaking of which, I forgot to thank you for that, so thanks. It was a lot of fun.:up:)

Skybird

06-05-09, 05:08 AM

As I see your thoughts, Letum, you try to say that if nobody survives a tragedy, it is as if the tragedy has not taken place. Because only when you assume the tragedy had not taken place, you can not compare scale and quality of two such events. If there isn't a person for whom the tragedy is greater, how can the tragedy be any greater, you said. But that we still can know of events unfolding somewhere in the world, without us being directly affected, and that we still can compare the two to each other in scale, size, quality - that you do ignore. Even worse, your conclucison of "if nobody hears the sound, the sound is noiseless" can be truned against you. I misery or drama I cause and do not take note of, is as well as non-existing/unimportant/unassessable. That way somebody driving a car and overtaking another car so dangerously that the other drives in shock drives off the road, against a tree and gets killed along with the whole family in the car, and the first driver not seeing it in the mirror and driving on and away - well, according to you that is no tragedy/drama. One could even use your argument to claim that if the fikrst driver get caught, he should not be held repsnsible, since it is highly questionable that he has casued somethign that could be judged or evaluated by standards that would allow to hold him responsible.

Or WWI and WWII. According to you, once the last survivors and their offsprings have died in the near future, and no witnesses lives anymore, according to your logic we could not compare the consequences and different death tolls between the two anymore. Because they do not mean any drama for us anymore, they are not affecting us directly.

A tragedy unfolding in the world somewhere today - how could it be a tragedy if we simply refsue to take note of it? Or to refer to the UN: if we ignore the genocide in Darfhur, how could it be a genocide, then?

So, I think you are not only a lil' bit lifted-off, and absurd, but also dangerous, considering the consequences you invite. Or in the aid-convoy example I referred to, there were guys in command who obviously also refused to compare two situations. That'S why they stayed and wasted time for so long, and probably caused the dying of many more people elsewhere for they alolowed their trucks to be locked down for so long. they wanted to avoid the smaller tragedy, and by that allowed a greater tragedy happening. Because they did not weigh and compare.

Not judging and noit commenting, is nice for mediation and buddhist ideology. But in everyday life, we need to assess, evaluate and judge things, make decisions for options and decide against other options by that, and accept the consequences we cause. We must not always be emotionally aroused when doing so, that is positive, but that does not mean we do not differ between the different amounts of suffering in two different events of drama, desaster or tragedy. We cannot escape to do so, even more if we have the intention to get engaged. And if the things already took place a,ng time agi in the past, we still can - and do - compare them.

You make it very complicated, Letum, which would be okay if you would gain anything from it. But you gain nothing from it.

Keep it simple, then.

Letum

06-05-09, 09:33 AM

As I see your thoughts, Letum, you try to say that if nobody survives a tragedy, it is as if the tragedy has not taken place.

NO!
That is ridiculous!
If that is what I meant, that is what I would have said. Where have I said
anything to that effect. It is essential that you fully understand me before
you try to refute me.

I will try to explain myself one last time; as clearly and simply as I can.

In standard form, my arguments runs like this:

1. For something to be more or less bad, there must be someone for whom it is more or less bad.
2. There is no one (dead or alive) for whom a larger massacre is more or less bad then a smaller one.
3. Therefor a larger massacre is no more or less bad then a smaller one.

It can be demonstrated as valid:

1. For X to be true, there must be someone for whom X is true.
2. In the event of Y, there is no one for whom X is true.
3. Therefor, in the event of Y, X is not true.

Where X is somethings ability to be more or less bad
And Y is a massacre

I hold premise 1 as inherently and obviously sound.
Event A can not be worse than event B if it isn't worse for anyone.

Premise 2 is very easily refutable if you can think of someone for whom
a larger massacre is more or less bad then a smaller one.
The only person I could think of for whom this might be true is the "Farmer",
but this person is an abstraction, unless you want to bring a god into the
argument.

As the argument is valid, I do not need to justify the conclusion any
further.

Letum

06-05-09, 09:41 AM

[...]it seems heartless and simplistic

Hehe....SB accuses me of not being simple enough, you of me being too simple.
I don't think it is heartless at all. It does not lessen the magnitude of suffering.

If you cannot understand empathic sentiment for members of one's own
species[...]

My approach is not less emphatic in any way so far as I can see, although
that is, of course, a matter of opinion. I am personally very much
tormented by the multitude of suffering that takes place daily. I don't think
anyone who could see within me could accuse me of lacking empathic
sentiment.

Skybird

06-05-09, 10:32 AM

NO!
That is ridiculous!
If that is what I meant, that is what I would have said. Where have I said
anything to that effect. It is essential that you fully understand me before
you try to refute me.

I will try to explain myself one last time; as clearly and simply as I can.

In standard form, my arguments runs like this:

It can be demonstrated as valid:

I hold premise 1 as inherently and obviously sound.
Event A can not be worse than event B if it isn't worse for anyone.

Premise 2 is very easily refutable if you can think of someone for whom
a larger massacre is more or less bad then a smaller one.
The only person I could think of for whom this might be true is the "Farmer",
but this person is an abstraction, unless you want to bring a god into the
argument.

As the argument is valid, I do not need to justify the conclusion any
further.

That is upmost absurd what you say. The events you now even try to press into a formula, have always somebody for whom they are true: for example us while we talk about them and be aware of them having taken place. We see them, we value them, and we conclude which one if the greater tragedy when comporing numbers. we could eventually also use other standards, too, but comparing we do, and then come to a statement saying this or that is the greater tragedy. that does not need any epistemology, no X and no Y, no goats and no farmers.

Man, get real again, for your own sake! You really make me feel worried for the mental representation of the world you seem to spend your Second Life in. You try to outline twists and complexities that simply are not there.

Okay, it seems nobody of us seems to get through to you. For my own part, I leave it here.

Tip: read Marc Aurel. A good remedy against excessive thinking and a hyperactive intellect that hijacks people's minds. As I said before, I don't think you are stupid, Letum, quite the oppposite: you are too smart.

Letum

06-05-09, 11:49 AM

Aramike

06-05-09, 11:53 AM

Let's say there are two mothers, both with five children. One mother loses one child. The other mother loses all five.

How can you justify stating that both instances are equally tragic?

The good news is that the vast, vast majority of people wouldn't even try. In fact, even the US War Department saw it differently, as indicated by the Sole Survivor policy instated after the Sullivan brothers tragedy.

Aramike

06-05-09, 11:54 AM

Skybird

06-05-09, 12:51 PM

If I am "too smart" then you are not intellectually serious enough.
You repeatedly comment about me instead of trying to find fault with any of
the premises or conclusions I make.

"excessive thinking" indeed! :shifty:
What was it some Greek once said about the unobserved life?
Your premises and conclusions, as you call them, are too queer. You expect reason in reply to what shows a lack of reason. You abuse intellectualism to artifically create abstract alternate realities that you then demand to be taken for the "real" reality. And if one tells you that you and the others do not talk about the same reality by that, you complain about not meeting your demands.

Seen that way you are the problem in this, Letum, and that's why I cannot avoid to refer to you when adressing the problem of your strange claims. Although it refers to you personally, it is not meant personally (in that it is not meant to personally attack you).

Letum

06-05-09, 03:53 PM

Let's say there are two mothers, both with five children. One mother loses one child. The other mother loses all five.

How can you justify stating that both instances are equally tragic?

No. In this case they are not equally bad because premise 2 does not stand in this case.

2. There is no one (dead or alive) for whom a larger massacre is more or less bad then a smaller one.in this case there is someone for whom the events are more or less bad for; the mothers and surviving children.

Your premises and conclusions, as you call them, are too queer. You expect reason in reply to what shows a lack of reason.

If I lack reason, then use better reason to show me where I lack reason.

Aramike

06-05-09, 03:54 PM

No. In this case they are not equally bad because premise 2 does not stand in this case.

in this case there is someone for whom the events are more or less bad for; the mothers and surviving children.You're WAY overcomplicating it if you need to put subsections and conditions in place.

Letum

06-05-09, 03:57 PM

You're WAY overcomplicating it if you need to put subsections and conditions in place.

If it is complicated then either A) I am wrong, in which case it should be simple
to show me which of my premises is wrong or why the argument is logically
invalid. Or B) It reflects a complex reality.

Skybird

06-05-09, 04:09 PM

Or c.) it simply is complete nonsense, in which case neither logic nor reason can achieve anything to illustrate that. ;) Only a fool not knowing what humour is tries to explain his joke - and then wonders that despite his explanation still nobody is laughing.

Letum

06-05-09, 04:15 PM

There is no nonsense that can not be shown to be nonsense by systematic
and rigorous rationalism. The more nonsense it is, the easier it is to do.

Skybird

06-05-09, 05:11 PM

Okay, Letum, it's not you, it's us.

And still we others do compare two tragic events, and eventually find the one to be more severe a tragedy than the other, no matter wether in past nor present, no matter whether being personally influenced and affected, or not.

As a wise man once said: if he wants to go there at all cost, let him go. Bon voyage, then.

Aramike

06-06-09, 03:15 AM

If it is complicated then either A) I am wrong, in which case it should be simple
to show me which of my premises is wrong or why the argument is logically
invalid. Or B) It reflects a complex reality.I've already showed you.

You just did what you always do - reject any logic that contradicts a flawed point you made at an earlier point.

Again:

Loss of human life = Tragedy.

Greater = higher number.

Therefore, "Greater tragedy" means higher number of human lives lost.

Seriously, you are so far off base that it is surprising that someone of your intellectual fortitude won't grasp this concept, although this seems to be a recurring theme. Frankly, I think you are simply refusing to acknowledge that you may have been mistaken in the original post you made regarding this subject. You are asking all of us to show you how your arguments are wrong, while neglecting to show us how the opposite is true.

Stubborness only goes so far, and is the trademark of a weak mind.

Letum

06-06-09, 07:16 AM

Again:

Loss of human life = Tragedy.

Greater = higher number.

Therefore, "Greater tragedy" means higher number of human lives lost.

That's not a refutation of what I'm saying. It doesn't show where or why I am
wrong, if you think I am. All you have done is provide your two definitions of
concepts. You can't prove any idea right or wrong using a dictionary.
I could not prove Einstein wrong by saying:

Light = Instant
Speed = Not instant
Therefore light does not have any speed.

Or that the world is flat by saying:

Sky = Up
Up = One direction
Therefore the sky must always be up in the same direction and the world must be flat.

AngusJS

06-06-09, 08:10 AM

But when it comes to mass murders, human rights abuses, and general maltreatment of one's own populace, nobody beats the Stalinists. Not even the Nazis.
At least the Chinese were nice enough to wait for students to protest before killing them. Soviet academia was afforded no such luxury, and joined tens of millions in the Gulag, where they pretty much all died of exposure or starvation or being worked to death. The lucky hundreds of thousands were just shot, or hanged.

I think the Khmer Rouge was the worst of all. Even while millions of Soviet citizens were being sent off to the gulags, for most people, life went on. Compare that to Cambodia, where the entire population was forced into communes, where you could be killed for wearing glasses (because that meant you were an intellectual), and where 20% of the population was executed or starved to death.

UnderseaLcpl

06-06-09, 12:47 PM

I think the Khmer Rouge was the worst of all. Even while millions of Soviet citizens were being sent off to the gulags, for most people, life went on. Compare that to Cambodia, where the entire population was forced into communes, where you could be killed for wearing glasses (because that meant you were an intellectual), and where 20% of the population was executed or starved to death.

I tend to lump the Khmer Rouge in with Stalinists, but you're absolutely right, that was a nightmare regime if there ever was one.

Aramike

06-06-09, 01:24 PM

That's not a refutation of what I'm saying. It doesn't show where or why I am
wrong, if you think I am. All you have done is provide your two definitions of
concepts. You can't prove any idea right or wrong using a dictionary.
I could not prove Einstein wrong by saying:

Light = Instant
Speed = Not instant
Therefore light does not have any speed.

Or that the world is flat by saying:

Sky = Up
Up = One direction
Therefore the sky must always be up in the same direction and the world must be flat.Umm, I'm not bothering to try to refute what you're saying. What you're doing is attempting to refute what others are saying. You're not completely wrong, but neither are those who believe a tragedy of greater numbers can be communicated as a greater tragedy.

And yes, a dictionary CAN prove an idea right or wrong, if that idea is communication.

I think you've taken this to the point where I don't think myself or anyone else can take you seriously and further on it. Sorry, dude - but when someone says "greater tragedy", almost all of us understand the concept. And that's the point.