Asian death toll at 11,000 and rising.

[J.]

Yes, everyone (with a few exceptions perhaps) has been brought up to see deaths as something absolutely negative, but that's mostly based on the moral preachings of a religion that I don't ackonwledge or belive in; hence my question. A catastrope (for the ones affected) of the magnitude means less people and a small step towards a less over populated world, thus it can be seen as something positive from my (subjective/egoistic) point of view.

And on a side note (in an attempt to stop you from ranting about trooness etc, which you seem to have a great penchant for): I'm not saying I got happy when I heard about the catastophe, but I don't care much either since it has no effect on me or my life.

But if this tsunami had swept over Sweden and killed your family, would you still accept that it "means less people and a small step towards a less over populated world, thus it can be seen as something positive from my (subjective/egoistic) point of view."?

 

[IOfTheStorm]

Actually the religion you dont acknlowledge to believe in says that the afterlife is more important than this we live right now, so "death is not that bad/negative".
But the most important thing is that noone has the right to judge if thousands have to die and if it is good. What are you, Hitler? There is always no positive thing about thousands dying. If you find any positive thing about it, you have a serious problem. Excuse me but this logic is not better than the way Bush's brain (?) works.

 

[spaffe]

But if this tsunami had swept over Sweden and killed your family, would you still accept that it "means less people and a small step towards a less over populated world, thus it can be seen as something positive from my (subjective/egoistic) point of view."?

Of course not. Seen from my S/E PoW that would be terrible.

 

[spaffe]

Actually the religion you dont acknlowledge to believe in says that the afterlife is more important than this we live right now, so "death is not that bad/negative".

That's a pretty odd argument to bring since it hits hard on your previous post. But anyway, it's not really that important in this matter (or as an attack on my argument) since it's not a part of the worldview of most people, which is what has to be the focus since that is what governs the emotional responses and reaction of the majority.

But the most important thing is that noone has the right to judge if thousands have to die and if it is good. What are you, Hitler? There is always no positive thing about thousands dying. If you find any positive thing about it, you have a serious problem. Excuse me but this logic is not better than the way Bush's brain (?) works.

Oh please, don't try to knock me out with a reference to Hitler, that's just silly and low.

Exactly why can't I judge that? I have a mind, and why not use it instead of relying on already made up moral codes?

If, say two thousand people that tries to hunt me down and kill me falls into a suddenly opening ravine, of course that's positive, how could it not be? My existance is obviously preferable to two thousand people I don't know.

I think you've just given a good example of the black and white worldview I dislike with so many people: something is either good or bad, there are no nuanses. There are always nuanses.

(I have to leave the computer now but I will answer later today or tomorrow)

 

[teh_hottt]

I've contacted the Red Cross to send me some of the bodies....asians are delicious, especially when prepared with a delightful peanut sauce and followed by a few cheesecakes.

 

[IOfTheStorm]

Why dont try to "knock you down" with a reference to Hitler? What you said is not that different from what he used to say, especially that :

Exactly why can't I judge that? I have a mind, and why not use it instead of relying on already made up moral codes?

Look at the first part of my signature for a start. Then since its not YOUR life, you have no right to judge what will happen to another life that doesnt affect yours, and it doesnt do anything wrong to others too (like the lifes of thousands and thousands of dead children down there in Asia). And guess what, some "already made up moral codes", exist for SOME REASONS!
In this case its all about BLACK AND WHITE, it is either GOOD or BAD. And thousands people dying is just plain B-A-D. It is very SIMPLE.
If you fail to understand this, i cant help you sorry.

 

[Russell]

Do you realize that this planet can't really sustain the number of people alive today? From that point of view, it is a positive thing if nature kills a few thousand people every now and then, because with no population control soon enough pretty much EVERYONE would be killed instead, from lack of food and other resources.

I'm well aware that humanity is fucking up the planet beyond all repair - we're causing the sixth mass extinction in the history of life at the moment - yet to look at this tragedy in a positive light due to our effect on the planet is ridiculous. It shows a complete lack of empathy, and shameless self-interest. Yes we're screwing our planet up, and yes, as a species we are more or less screwed, but anybody who actually sees this on the news and feel nothing for the victims of this tragedy (whether it is due to our overpopulation, or anything else for that matter) must be completely heartless.

 

[Hell Mike]

I don't think we're screwed as a species, but I do believe that a thorough cleansing would do us good. Of course some people dying isn't really a big deal, the only problems we notice from here are a) We can't blame Usama and nuking out planet to retaliate wouldn't really help, and b) Tourists (aka civilized people) have died

 

[J.]

From Godwin's law: In addition, whoever points out that Godwin's law applies to the thread is also considered to have "lost" the battle, as it is considered poor form to invoke the law explicitly.

 

[Russell]

I am not "looking at it in a positive light", I am recognizing that there are good qualities about this happening too. IotS is arguing that there can be no positive thing about thousands dying, no matter what, and THAT'S ridiculous if anything.

I never said you were

EDIT:I should have made that clearer, mine was a general statement, trying to point out only that looking at this in a purely positive light is, in my opinion, stoopid

 

[J.]

I am not "looking at it in a positive light", I am recognizing that there are good qualities about this happening too. IotS is arguing that there can be no positive thing about thousands dying, no matter what, and THAT'S ridiculous if anything.

I understand what you are saying. However, as I've pointed out, if this happened to your family, then you'd be in mourning instead of just "bah, it's good for the planet." Your stance is incredibly hypocritical.

 

[IOfTheStorm]

Do you realize that this planet can't really sustain the number of people alive today? From that point of view, it is a positive thing if nature kills a few thousand people every now and then, because with no population control soon enough pretty much EVERYONE would be killed instead, from lack of food and other resources.

(BTW, you've already unequivocally lost this argument: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law)

The main reason why i think you all say just STUPID THINGS, is what J said to spaffe. If all these happened to your country or relatives, all of you would not talk about the SHIT you are talking now, just cry and ask "why to me?". You wouldnt even dare to think about "overpopulation of earth" etc.
This is like the "killing for peace" thing people say. Since soon enough everyone would be killed from lack of food, is not bad that some will die from a disaster nature brings! And despite that, this is not about "population control". This is about a mass death of 50 thousand people. "Population Control" is not about people dying, but about less pregnancies.
And read again the link you posted... especially this part "simply because the nature of these events is such that any comparison to any event less serious than genocide or extinction is invalid and in poor taste.".

 

[NAD]

I hate this "well if it doens't affect me personally it doesn't matter" mindset. Where does that mentality come from?

 

[J.]

Since overpopulation can lead to lack of food, can't this "lack of food" be seen as a positive since it will lead to millions of deaths (and thus population control), and then only the strong will survive? Oh that's right, the "lack of food" will effect the entire planet, not just some rink-a-dink islands in Asia.

 

[Russell]

I don't think we're screwed as a species, but I do believe that a thorough cleansing would do us good. Of course some people dying isn't really a big deal, the only problems we notice from here are a) We can't blame Usama and nuking out planet to retaliate wouldn't really help, and b) Tourists (aka civilized people) have died

Oh trust me, we are completely. At the latest the Earth will be engulfed by the sun in 15 billion years, but we've got lots of things that could and probably will, wipe us out before then

Oh, and was the "civilized people" a comment on our news coverage and general attitude in the west, or do you genuinely believe that the affected areas a) aren't civilized and b)because of this it doesn't matter if they die? If the latter, I utterly disagree on both points

 

[IOfTheStorm]

Simple if you're incapable of thinking outside the Christian mindset you so obviously are QUITE entrenched in, sure... For those with independent thought, though, it's not necessarily that simple.

Yes yes "all christians are sheep yes yes and they cant think yes and they have no independent thought aaargh blouaargh". Start thinking about some none "christians" that have the same opinion about this matter with me.

 

[NAD]

Also the "only the strong should survive" argument is weak. What constitutes strength? Is it physical? Mental? One's personality? One's resistance to warm weather? Somebody really good at the stock market?

 

[Hell Mike]

I understand what you are saying. However, as I've pointed out, if this happened to your family, then you'd be in mourning instead of just "bah, it's good for the planet." Your stance is incredibly hypocritical.

Why is this hypocritical? I haven't seen anyone say "if it was my family I wouldn't care" or even something like it.
I think it's very obvious that EVERYONE values people differently, if my family had died there I'd be upset, but they didn't so I don't care much. Don't even try to tell me that you value a 45-year old aborigine named James that neither you or I have ever heard of as much as you do your family.

 

[Russell]

Since overpopulation can lead to lack of food, can't this "lack of food" be seen as a positive since it will lead to millions of deaths (and thus population control), and then only the strong will survive? Oh that's right, the "lack of food" will effect the entire planet, not just some rink-a-dink islands in Asia.

I believe the entire overpopulation argument is flawed in the first place. Human population is going to level out at 12 million in about 50 years when the planet can no logner support a larger population... No genocides or natural disasters (short of wiping out the species) will affect that.

 

[Hell Mike]

Oh trust me, we are completely. At the latest the Earth will be engulfed by the sun in 15 billion years, but we've got lots of things that could and probably will, wipe us out before then

Sure, within 15 billion years, but that's one hell of a long time. I just don't think the earth will implode because I just drove to Lögd-boa to get milk instead of walking.

Oh, and was the "civilized people" a comment on our news coverage and general attitude in the west, or do you genuinely believe that the affected areas a) aren't civilized and b)because of this it doesn't matter if they die? If the latter, I utterly disagree on both points

a, but I don't pretend to care myself either. I, like most others, will forget all about this in a relatively short time, and I, like most others, won't raise a finger to help the afflicted or become a scientist working to prevent future earthquakes.