20 Years ago... - Page 2

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by UnderseaLcpl

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?

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.

nikimcbee · 06-04-09, 03:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JALU3

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

Yet it looks like the struggle for reform continues to this day.
Detained in Macau
Police close square overnight to bar protest, remain to deter.

But modern technology helps to spread the word.

puts on zampolit hat....

and as subsim's official zampolit; none of this ever happened. It was just hollywood film footage from set of Red Dawn.

The Chinese characters translate: Moo Shoo pork, it does the body good.

...and those tanks, that is our new SUV. The man was just a hapless pedestrian.

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skybird

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aramike

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Letum

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aramike

Quote:

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?

Quote:

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Letum

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aramike

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Letum

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.

06-04-09, 02:33 PM	#16
UnderseaLcpl Silent Hunter Join Date: May 2008 Location: Storming the beaches! Posts: 4,254 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	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. __________________ I stole this sig from Task Force

06-04-09, 03:12 PM	#17
nikimcbee Fleet Admiral Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Patroling the Slot. Posts: 17,952 Downloads: 90 Uploads: 0	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/ __________________

06-04-09, 03:17 PM	#20
Skybird Soaring Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: the mental asylum named Germany Posts: 42,638 Downloads: 10 Uploads: 0	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. __________________ If you feel nuts, consult an expert.

06-04-09, 07:01 PM	#28
Skybird Soaring Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: the mental asylum named Germany Posts: 42,638 Downloads: 10 Uploads: 0	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. __________________ If you feel nuts, consult an expert.

06-04-09, 07:45 PM	#29
Letum Navy Seal Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: York - UK Posts: 6,079 Downloads: 43 Uploads: 0	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. __________________ Last edited by Letum; 06-04-09 at 07:57 PM.

06-04-09, 04:21 PM	#22
Aramike Ocean Warrior Best of SUBSIM Chairman Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Milwaukee, WI Posts: 3,207 Downloads: 59 Uploads: 0	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.