GAM, of course I'm talking about the value of my connection to the person.
1) Life is "valuable," fine, I'll give you that. But maybe we need a better word, because:
2) Value is relative.
So, it depends on how much you want to argue semantics and wrap it up under the pretense of logic. Life is life, WE give it value. For the most part, we are taught to hold life in high regard, so we do. Focus on the concept:
Life is life. We give it value.
So, if we give it value, it only has importance based on our connection to it. Therefore, am I supposed to "value" the life of somebody half-way across the world with whom I have absolutely no connection to? I don't want them to die, I mean, I think the war and the death in that region is obscene in scale, because it's really based on nothing. However, if some guy gets shot in Tikrit, or my best friend gets shot next door, there is a huge difference in the way I will react.
And yes, it's true that across the world, they wouldn't consider my life valuable. The difference, GAM, between the terrorists and I, is that I really wish them no harm, because I have nothing to do with them, and their lives don't impact mine as they go about their daily business. They want me dead because I live where I do, and the way I do. Not because I have any specific connection to them.
I get tired of the outlandish comparisons you make sometimes.
Again, life itself doesn't really have a value past the slight drive for companionship we have as a species. Even then, the majority of people you probably wouldn't be friends with, so that point is moot. Life is life. Give it what value you will, to who you will, but remember it all depends on your perspective.
The leaps I make aren't all that big: You said you valued whomever's life over another anonymous person, same as John W. What I had said (and I brought your comments in because it wasn't elaborated) was that Terrorists ostensibly value a Muslim's life over yours on the basis of religion (They'll kill you or a Muslim either way... difference being you're going to hell because you're not Muslim i assume, but that's another matter entirely). John's words pretty much mirror the terrorists' ideals. Machiavellian, eh?
I look at life as potential... it has value only if actuated by constructiveness to society at large. Basically, I may not have known JFK, or Martin Luther King or Jesus Christ, or Sir John A. MacDonald... but I value their lives because of what they did. Same as I may not know you personally, but I value your life because of what you are doing with students (even though it may at somepoint seem otherwise). I don't value your life over anyone else's, but that doesn't mean that your life is worthless.
As for perspective, basically, everyone else's life means a whole lot less to me than my own.
But I am a bit of a Narcicist.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edited Thursday, July 19, 2007 10:58 AM
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
I'm a little sick of people thinking that the terrorists hate you for where you live and how you live. They don't give a rat's ass about how you live.
They have made their position clear on many occasions.
They want the unmitigated support of Isreal stopped.
They want the US to stop exploiting (unfairly) the oil reserves of Muslum nations.
They want the US presence removed from areas considered sacred to Islam
They don't care if you quaff a beer in front of an NFL game or drive a Caddy to the golf course. They want less interference in what they consider to be their sphere of influence. Until US citizens realize these truths there will never be an end to the conflict.
They are people, not idiots. They don't care if you wear jeans and a t-shirt any more than you care if they wear the Burka. That isn't a cause worth dying for. Stopping weapons shipments to their perceived enemy is.
PAX
PS: This is what part of the alphabet would look like if Q and R were eliminated
- Mitch Hedberg (RIP)
An insurgent that drops the weapon and runs isn't unarmed, he's reloading. And as far as I'm concerned, he was still holding it when I was firing back.
I'll be judged by 12, not carried by 6, thank you. Actually, the only judgement I care about comes from those who were along side me.
The whole "gotta walk a mile in their shoes?" Does that mean we should have dropped the A-bomb on us before we nailed Japan? Should we have fire bombed NYC before Dresden? The whole point of war is to beat your opposition into submission by any means. You can try to pretend there's honor in it, but it's just survival of your race/idea/creed/whatever vs. the other guys.
O noes!
Hope your squad mates see the same thing, people that gun down civillians and surrendering enemies are not treated well by UCMJ. And IIRC, a General Court-Martial's jury (if so selected) is 9 members, am I not correct?
The whole "gotta walk a mile in their shoes" is relevant, the people that engage the military face to face are brainwashed into thinking it's about the stuff that Hahahaha pointed out. The higher ups, they know it's about oil, money and power over the people that can be controlled through their religion.
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
I would think that any person that fires upon a soldier would be a "lawful combatant" and that would be rergardless of whether or not they throw down their weapon and run. The object IMHO should not be soley the posession of a weapon, but whether or not they used it in an act of agression.
Thus, if someone shoots one of, say, Smokey's mates (and i sincerely hope that wouldn't happen), that someone is fair game. If that someone throws down his weapon and surrenders, then he's a POW. If he throws down his weapon and runs away, what's to say his weapon didn't jam and was running for a machine gun nest?
Goodbye Callisto & Skaši, Hello Ishara:
2022 Kia Stinger GT2 AWD
The only thing every single person from every single walk of life on earth can truly say
they have in common is that their country is run by a bunch of fargin iceholes.
Depends on the act of aggression... If someone shoots a US Service person the bird, it's an act of aggression, but hardly one worth wasting ammunition or a life over.
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
Let me rephrase...
If someone attacks someone with what is commonly known as a leathal weapon (Gun, knife, broken whiskey bottle, 9-dragon trident, or a Hanson renunion CD), rthen the above stands.
Goodbye Callisto & Skaši, Hello Ishara:
2022 Kia Stinger GT2 AWD
The only thing every single person from every single walk of life on earth can truly say
they have in common is that their country is run by a bunch of fargin iceholes.
The Hanson CD is formally listed as a WMD... Weapon of Malevolent Distaste.
In order of lethality:
Nuclear fission weapons
Biological weapons
Hanson Reunion CD
Chemical weapons
George W Bush/Rosie O'Donnell
Radiation weapons.
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
^^^so where does the Protein Mass formerly known as Ginger Spice rate?
Goodbye Callisto & Skaši, Hello Ishara:
2022 Kia Stinger GT2 AWD
The only thing every single person from every single walk of life on earth can truly say
they have in common is that their country is run by a bunch of fargin iceholes.
Depends... Geri Halliwell isn't too bad.
The group of them aren't pure evil... they're the margarine of Evil, The "I Can't Believe It's Not Evil!" of evil.
Except for Posh Spice... She's Pestillence. ESP since you can read the serial # on her implants.
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
