The complaining and Philosophical Issue Bar
 

Hey, I was already thunkin' bout it before--so why not? First new issue on the chopping block: I have discovered what I beleive to be one of the fundumental flaws in human thinking:
Protecting feelings/the system
This is the basis of censorship which I despise so much. The idea that it is more important to lie and protect that to give truth and let the chips fall where they may. While it's true that I'd lie to save a life, I wouldn't lie in a way that would do more damage than good.
People tend to try to protect the system from "corruption" in thought when, in my humble opinion, said culture, society, etc. was not made robust enough to even so much as entertain the thought of questioning the way things are and should not exist. I'm just saying, maybe we need a little more natural selection of culture.
More thought on this as said thought develops and becomes coherent.

I just have one question..

It is really a flaw? Should humans do away with emotions?

I vote for this thread to be locked up. It can get out of hand, especially w/ the other threads....

An Intervention
 

On the behalf of the International Community, and indeed, humanity, i feel compelled to intervene in this mighty struggle. Allow me to inroduce myself...I am Matthew Lee, Executive Director of the International League of Students, and s representative of the youth of the international community. This discussion is clearly getting out of hand, and while each side does have its points, please read this and try to understand the other side.

Every time we get up out of bed, get into a car, go to school (or work), promote an action, or choose to do anything at all , we take a risk. However, the is the matter of that which is routine, and that which is not. Those actions that I have mentioned are routine, but things such as space exploration, war, and other such are not. Nothing is certain in this world, not even the infamous "Death and Taxes." In war, one is not destined to die...yes, there may be a greater chance of death, but it is not certain. Yet those people who volunteer to defend our country know that every time they go into action, they put their lives on the line for their country. Is this not also the case for the astronauts? The people who have been a part of Space Exploration and other endeavors in science know of the great risks that accompany what they do, and yet they continue to serve scientific community, and thus the world, in that way. Many of the things that we use in our lives today are spinoffs of the Space Program, which was probably the only good outcome of the Cold War. Those who risk their lives for their country and their people, those who would be willing to die for a just cause..is that not the definition of bravery, bravery as befits who we term heroes? Think about those who died to make Space a safer place for us to visit, to make the world better for us all to dwell in. If not for Apollo 1, we might have had a fire while the CM was naring the moon, and we would never have discovered why they died, so that our exploration might be in vain. If not for Challenger, many more could have been hurt later on, and the mistakes of Thiokol would never have been exposed. If not for 9/11, the people of America, as well as many of the other Western nations, would still be all too complacent about the very real threat of terrorism. And without Columbia, the world would have continued to ignore those who have served it. Remember, those selected for the Space Prgram have a choice whether or not to be part of it, and fully informed of the risks, they do not.

When we mourn the dead, we mourn the fact that we will never again be able to experience them as human beings, to truly know them. We mourn the loss of a human life, and our inabilities to have saved them. We of humanity are not immortal, and it is in the knowing that our lives are limited, that human life is precious. We treasure every moment, through our hearts, our minds, and our very souls. When people are alive, we all too often do not take the time to know them, and after their loss, we mourn that we no longer can.

On the topic of those who died because of AIDS in Africa, their deaths are truly tragic as well. Millions all over the world are infected with AIDS, and many will probably die in the coming years, even if there is a cure, because of the huge economic gap between rich and poor. But many of those people who are infected, did not know the odds or ways of geting AIDS, and while victims, did not die for a cause. We of the International League of Students know of and know those who are dying, and we try to educate others of the risks, but also help to weave the theads of tolerance and mutual understanding that bind the world together. The AIDS problem should be a considered a problem by the rest of the world, yet sadly, it is overlooked because of the inglorious deaths it causes. If the people continue to be apatheic towards those who die, then there will be none left when threats to their well-being become known.

The Poem Apathy

Now, let us think for a moment upon how we were able to recieve the news of the destruction of Columbia...a free and usually unrestricted press. That is a form of free expression, part of the concept of human rights and freedoms, our natural rights, guaranteed to us by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, among other international treaties. Under Article 5 of the UNiversal Declaration of Human Rights and Under Article 29(2). In this regard, we should respect the rights of those who died on the Columbia, and not degrade them through our actions or our words, and we should excercise our natural rights morally, as specified in the UDHR. Those of the Columbia, and all of those who have died for a just cause in history have excercised their rights and their power to choose o make this world a better place. To honor their memory, we should not deny their value to the world as a whole, for as members of the scientific community serving the world, they were willing to give the sacrafice of their lives. While you may be free to disagree, for the sake of the rights of others, for respect and international morality, please use your words and actions constructively towards the making of a better world, for until you have voluntarily chosen to risk yourself for the embetterment of humankind, until you can truly understand the mindset of the people who were on the mission, you are not qualified to degrade them or their memory.

Even that which FIRST was based upon, gracious professionalism, has respect as one of its foundations. In compliance with this, and international directives, please respect the people who have died, and those who risk themselves to make the world a better place. I stand firmly by the viewpoint of the internaitional community that their willingness to risk themselves should be honored, for it is only in these tragedies that we truly realize the grave risks and responsibilities that people will take in order to serve their people, their nation, and their world.

Re: An Intervention
 

Might I say, a very awesome post. Only a few thoughts from me.
The willingness from themselves for the risk isn't the question. It's the concept that they should get more respect and honor because that bit of information in the universe flipped from 1 to 0 somehow. I'm not trying to degrade them--I just see no reason to give them MORE honor in my mind simply because they're dead. When I heard about the shuttle crash, I said to myself, what a shame--it probably could've been avoided--I'm sure they'll be missed. I didn't think any higher or lower of them than I ever had before, just that it was a sad occurance.
And FAK--I think I figured out the hooplah. It's society mourning the death of someone who it as a whole believes was genentically superior than most, and died in a way that works against the betterment of mankind through natural selection--just a thought. I look forward to hearing y'all's replys.

The glorification (or even idolization) of the dead has been a big question of mine for a while now, so I'd like to post my thoughts on the subject. I'm not a representative of the international league of students, nor am I a man of many typed words, so bear with me if my thoughts seem a bit off.

Our culture, as it seems, thrives on tragic events and the people involved. If you'll remember, shortly after 9/11, there was a veritable rat race of people making tributes and generally competing to see just who was the most touched by this tragedy. Suddenly, if you didn't cry every time you saw the smoking wreckage of the WTC, you were a heartless, unamerican JERK who didn't derserve to breathe American Air. Schools had readings, parades, and various artistic tributes to show thier love for the people who perished in the buildings. People they didn't even know. People they didn't even care about. All they wanted to do was to show how noble thier schools were and that the students enrolled there were more than mindless monkeys comparing new outfits in the middle of thier lunch block. You'll also remember the plethora of merchandise that came out just after. Those wonderful car door flags, the American car door stickers, as well as patriotic napkin holders (for real!). People were just as quick to capitalize on the deaths of however many people died in that tragedy as they were to write a pretty poem and email it to all thier patriotic friends. Even now, Bowflex has that wonderful american flag in thier ads, as well as being supported by two "All-American" soldiers. People honor the dead, then they make money off of them.

It takes place even in the music industry. Rock and roll Gods are made out of every drug-overdose rock star victim. Nirvana wouldn't be half as popular as it is if people didn't feel obligated to buy thier new album, in memory of Kurt Kobain. The only reason we are to see that band as one of the greatest of all time is because the media has made it into one of the biggest cash-sow bands in our time. The DEAD BAND IS STILL RELEASING SINGLES AND NEW ALBUMS!!! tell me what is so normal about this? given the popularity of Nirvana, realistically, the big media moguls could synthesize a new single from chopping up old songs, splicing the lyrics together, and calling it "Smells like a heart-shaped box"! Let's not forget Tu-Pac Shakur and Notorius B.I.G.

Why is it that only the dead get the recognition they deserve? If the old quote "you don't realize what you have untill it's gone" is true, how many martyrs will we have in the next decade? What rack star will OD tonight and become and instant Icon? FAce it, guys. The only reason we mourn the deaths of these astronauts is because we think we have to. That's the only reason there are tears in the eyes of people who didn't even know those ill-fated astronauts. They want to fit in and look noble. Monkey see, monkey do I suppose.

Didn't I say i wasn't a man of many words? Alright I'll shut up now.

May I introduce a quote into this discussion? I read it in a very influential book, and it has become my unofficial motto:

"Man is forced to accept masochism as his ideal, under the threat that sadism is the only alternative."

Everywhere I look at society, I see this. People think that they are EXPECTED to take certain actions, in order to gain the respect of someone else. Then, since they had to do it, they expect others to do it as well. Pretty soon, it becomes an artificial desire indistinguishable from natural law. Look at charity: Since when is it more important to save someone else than oneself? However, when such a choice arises, those who chose themselves are harassed and cursed by those who took to heart the teachings of society.

In EVERY situation, you must make your own decisions. Think how each thing applies to you, and choose from there. Yes, sometimes the public as a whole can have a good idea, but NEVER take it for granted. And I've been, on the whole, impressed with the way the members of this Board respect the opinions of others, so I don't need to say anything more on it.

Well...
 

Well...for this post, allow me to discuss human emotions, and how our emotions, and our deviations from pure human nature can affect us. Masochism and sadism are far from our only choices in life, but they are the strongest of those with which we are presented, so one may often percieve them as our only two choices. However, as there are more emotions than hatred and love, there are more choices than simply masochism and sadism.

Let us consider for a moment, the origins of society, and how humanity was able to raise itself from the level of isolated hunters in the vast savannas of earth, to bands, to tribes, to villages, and then to cities, to awesome civilizations that united huge area of land under a common language, common coin, common culture. Society was based on the limitation of our own individual spheres of influence, so that others may have the full usage of their own limited spheres of influence, leading to the promotion of the survival of the whole, instead of the individual. Henceforth, Natural Selection began to loose its grip on hummanity, as in the past, as now, the strong began to defend the week in a form of collective security that defines society. Altruism and charity grew out of this ideal "collective security", in saying that one valued the needs of others above one's own needs, or "the needs of the many over the needs of the few." It was in this spirit, the spirit of unity and cooperation so that the whole of humanity might be lifted up, that organizations such as the United Nations and the International League of Students were founded, and it is this spirit of unity and collective security that dominates in the world today. As such, our species, in cooperating with itself and using collective security, has created series of world-spanning societies, so that today, we have grown from our humble origins, to masters and stewards of this earth. Consider this: If everyone were to be selfish and care only of themselves, we would not have developed a society, but would merely be rogue bands of hunters, roaming the world, and becoming extinct.

Everytime we are debating between performing an action or not, everytime we face a difficult situation, and everytime that we are affected by events of this world, we decide with a combination of emotion and logic, for a human being is not logic alone, or we would be merely computers. Nor are we pure emotion, or we would be merely one of the lower animals which cannot use logic. It has oft been said that logic is the ideal to which humanity should aspire, but its antithesis, emotion, is also necessary to human nature. Thus we should not scorn one or the other, but join them both together into a synthesis , a combination of these two ideals that will allow us to shed light on issues more easily than by one or the other alone, for it is the two together that define us.

I'll break board tradition here and use a personal experience to better illustrate my point. This weekend at Thespian festival, five of my friends were involved in a major car accident and I was unaware of quite how serious it was until they were taken back to our hotel by my sponsor. Basically, the left side of their car was crushed by an eighteen-wheeler truck, and you are probably aware of the potential for injury involved in an accident of that magnitude. I did not know in what condition they were in, so I waited after the curfew (facing the risks of getting too chilled, sleep deprivation, getting caught and barred from festival, and other such) so that i could make sure that they were well, choosing to value the well-being of my friends over my own. Why? Because I cared about them, and they were valuable to me. Even in dire circumstances, I would place their well being over my own, because that is the way that I am, and the way that I would like others to care for me. To be willing to save the lives of others, instead of oneself requires a strength of character, a willpower that most do not have. It requires looking beyond the well-being of the individual, to the well-being of the collective whole. It requires compassion, love, and courage...none of which are to be found in pure logic.

The reason that those who choose to save the lives of others, to take risks for the embetterment of all, and to value others above themselves are respected and revered is because they have transcended selfish human nature, human nature, which dictates that the individual is most important of all. Those people are not reacting out of an artificial desire, but have managed to find it within themselves to challenge the basic human condition. What they do is not masochism, not "artificial", because the desire to help others, to ensure the well-being of the whole dominates in them, rather than the selfishness that pervades many of us. Human nature, in its natural state, is primitive and selfish, seeking only to benefit the individual, while those who have transcended base human nature have learned to put others before them, for a person is only one being in this world, but perhaps one of you might make a difference in this community, so that the actions of one may affect many, and may not only benefit yourself, but others.

In life and society, it is not that we ask to revel in pain, or revel in the delivery of pain, but that we have found an alternative that is neither of the two. We are willing to deal with the pain, to ensure that others may not have to deal with the pain, for if a person can save at least one other person, then he or she has made a difference. We, as humans, should be willing to help make a better society, to aid others in the struggle of life, for it is not enough to know logic, but the emotions of compassion, courage, and most of all, love...for it is often true that "love conquers all", and at the very least, it conquers the baseness of human nature.

Does your use of the word "transcend" suggest that I should consider others as more important than myself? If so, then I flatly reject it. Or rather, I would qualify it. I do not consider people per se to be more important than me (after all, I have to live with me). It is not my wont to reward potential over value. I would have to be acquainted with the people to decide whether I would sacrifice myself for them. (I assure you, though, there are a few people for whom I would) In most cases, most socially-oriented people would consider me "a monster," because I believe myself more important than many people.

In the words of Ayn Rand, "there is nothing wrong with helping others, IF you can afford it, and if they are deserving of it."

amen to that!

And I can't help notice one side here mentioning sacrificing yourself for many others. OBVIOUSLY anyone here would likely sacrifice themselves if required to save a hundred random lives. But it seems moronic to sacrifice your one self than for another one self--because that doesn't make a difference all things being equal. And most people will consider themselves worth more than most people--it's the only way to survive--not many people could live knowing that they're just another cog in the machine (although I don't mind so much) and thus must force themselves to realize their self-inherent superiority over anyone else, or at least above average. I submit that is impossible to try to compare oneself to anyone else, as you start with this biassed perspective, and you can never know a person as well as you can know yourself, so assessing value is mostly pointless. Although in EXTREME cases, you could make an obvious comparison, it shouldn't work when comparing your worth to another person's.
Anyway, the reason you mourned for you friends, PsiMatt, is because you actually knew them. Why mourn the deaths of a few thousand people you never heard of--they're not part of YOUR society. The only thing that made me sad about 9/11 is that businesses would try to use it as an excuse to fire people a moth early that year in a slumping economy.

Eveybody open your mouth
Everybody just say ah
Everything will be all right if you play along

Everybody open your mouth
Everybody just say ah
Everything will be all right, this won't hurt at all

Everybody get in line
Everybody turn and caugh
Everything will be all right if you just lay off

Everybody open your mouth
Everybody just say ah
Everything will be all right, this won't hurt at all

Everybody get in line
Everybody turn and caugh
Everything will be all right if you just lay...
Everything will be all right if you just lay....
Everything will be all right if you just lay off.

-Barenaked Ladies- 'Get In Line'


Take that and chew on it for a while. It basicly describes the current mind set of most of the world.

Ummm... what did that have to do with anything?

I dont believe that it is moronic to sacrifice your own life to save anothers for one reason. Could you live with yourself if you knew for a fact that you could have saved anothers life, even if it meant the loss of your own? It depends on your view of life, both your own and the other persons. My personal feeling on it is I would have trouble living with myself and the knowledge that I could have saved somebody even if it meant I risked my own life. John I find it sad that you think its about comparison, because in the end Im not sure it is. Sometimes its not believing that you are any better or worse then the people around you but more about feeling that you can make a difference as a human being. We are all people with various different talents. If we work together we create a new whole tapestry and make the world a richer place for our living in it.

Very intellegent people over the years have thought it was more important to risk their own lives for others then their lives would be knowing they could do something and dont. To risk your life takes a lot of courage, and a lot of bravery. To be able to overcome the fear of losing your own life, even to save another person can be a very hard conscious decision. In caring about other lives, you enrich your own.
Obviously there are some people who agree with me or we would not have Police, Fire Fighters or paramedics or emts. These people put their lives on the line for not the masses, but often just one or two lives. They do it over and over again. Relief and aid workers go into situations where they could die from disease or from the tensions of a third world country, to save individuals, not masses. Doctors and Nurses go into warzones in order to save the lives of injured solders, as well as risking disease and in some of the rougher areas attacks and death threats against themselves and their families.

John,

I usually do not reply to people's posts to disagree, but your last one really offended me. To call someone "MORONIC" for giving their one life to save another person's life is really out of line. It is fine and acceptable for you to label yourself a moron and apply that standard to yourself, but to label someone else a moron is unacceptable.

To put it in more personal terms for you, I am an EMT (Emergency Medical Technichan/ the person on an ambulance). It's my job to save lives on a one on one basis. When I did my field internship time for my certification, I picked the city of Compton. Compton is one of the most dangerous cities in the nation and in the time i was down there, I almost got shot, got exposed to AIDS, and was assaulted in the line of duty. Therefore it offends me for you to imply that if someone such as myself or any other EMT died helping a single person, is moronic. The job of emergency workers is hard enough. However, as anyone in the emergency services will tell you, we are willing to give it all to save a single individual or even attempt to make a save. Thats right, no mass rescues, no dramatic multiple rescues, just a single rescue that may cost us our life every time we respond.

Furthermore, John, I submit to you, that the reason I mourned 9/11 was because of all the innocent life lost. In addition to the workers at the WTC, 343 firefighters, 77 police officers and 8 single role EMTs lost their lives that day. All of them were people I deeply respect. To say they are not part of MY society is wrong. Being involved with EMS, I understand the great sacrafice the people that respond to emergency calls make. Therefore, I know first hand, they are not morons. Actually, they are just normal people who are here to help you when you need it the most, and sometimes die for that.

In conclusion, I am not trying to preach, however, I am trying to express my opinion to you. I feel that it is a noble cause to lose your life while saving someone else. I feel that if I died while saving someone else, my life would be well spent. So, while you may think that it is moronic to sacrifice your life for someone else, i will willingly lay my life down to save another even if it was to save you John, or anyone else that thinks its moronic.


Sean Roberts, EMT 1D
Just another "moron" willing to save.

Very well put Ashlee and Sean (way to represent Cali, jk)...I was going to reply about that but you guys basically said everything I wanted to.

About the whole philosophical stuff, I think it's really great that we're all exploring these concepts but a lot of this is beyond our grasp as teenagers (or even people decades older than us). So I'm not saying don't discuss this, but just a reminder that we all come from different circumstances with our own opinions that should be conveyed respectfully. So yeah, let's not judge other people's points of views.

Sean, well said.

Police officers, firemen and other emergency medical people should be given the highest respect. Everyday they risk lives. I honor and support all of the people that do this. It wouldnt kill you to thank the firemen, police men and EMT's, who knows, maybe one day these "morons" might save your life too.

Read
 

Here are two poems that express the consequences of doing nothing, of simply valuing ourselves above others...

First they came for the Jews.

First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out -
because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for the communists
and I did not speak out -
because I was not a communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out -
because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.

Pastor Martin Niemöller

Apathy
So long ago the mists of time called out for one who cared,
who cared at all about eternity,
but in the silence there was none,
who would restore life's destiny.

And so the worlds of truth and light,
the Earth so full of youth,
succumbed to the ancient demon's might,
to vanish in time and truth.

Why would someone care, or even understand...
when plights not theirs do call out for a friend,
"It be not ours" they mock and say,
while praying for another day to come and pass eventlessly,
so that they may not troubled be.

But who would then saveth ye, when the keeper comes to toll for thee,
When death strikes at their heart of hearts,
with the poison'd tip of its thrice-feared dart.

And so no one ever tries...to save a life instead of cry,
and those who may have given thanks are turned into ancient tanks,
devoid of life yet full of pride,
empty of joy and rusting away...

Matthew David Lee

Well, folks I'll address everything new in a minute, but I have to bring up a new topic.
Yes, I agree that people overcome loss as you said, but what the hell. Do we really need to perpetuate this archaic mythology that there's an afterlife? Isn't it enough to be a good person in this life and see that for its own rewards? I look forward to seeing your responses.

Now for old news:
A Snotdgrass:
How does trading one life for another make a difference? You're just substituting your known quantitative value for someone else's unknown quantitative value. Yes, I understand RISKING your life--that makes perfect sense, but I'm speaking specifically of all out sacrifice (or odds so close as to make it the same).
I understand courage and bravery, but there is definately a fine line between that and martyrdom, and that line is where there is no positive benefit from taking such a course of action. I don't see how -1+1 is any different than 1-1. There is still no net effect, and thus you are accomplishing nothing. Yes, our emergency services risk thier lives, but do they sacrifice them? I'd hope our best and brightest would think through a little more if they KNEW they were going to die.
Sean330: (Hey, I saw your team at regionals last year :D)
Anyway, again, you'r RISKING, not SACRIFICING your life. Yes, risking your life is heroic, but dying is no more heroic--in fact its exactly as heroic--you're just dead. I admire your bravery and courage to go out every day (or however many days you work--I know a lot of emegency service people work 3-16 hour shifts, 4-12 hour shifts, and crazy stuff like that a week), you're taking a calculated risk, but there's no guarantee that you'll die, and a very high chance that you'll save at least one life.
And please, NEVER lay your life down before mine--while I would be able to bear it on my conscience, I'd be forever harassed for not visiting your grave every year. If you lay down your life for me and another person, okay. I respect your analysis that no life is more valuable than another, so I can't see how an exchange is anything more than a kind gesture to a random stranger. Does it make you a good person? Yes. Does it make you a hero? I would say no, but many would. Again, the reason I say not is because your original set out goal had no net positive impact. True, it had a positive impact for saving a life, but it also has an equally negative effect of taking your life away. I refrain: 1-1=-1+1. Really well spoken post, by the way.
Doanie8: I believe that us all coming from different circumstances makes us able to come to better conclusions on our own. The more voices that speak, the more ironing out that can be done in thot processies, the more new ideas can be brought to light. As I observed at a diversity training course once: the problems submitted were only solvable by the fact that everyone there came from a different background. And although I try not to disrespect others' beliefs, I sometimes do by accident (my inner thoughts are quite a bit ruder--and less accurate or considerate than my outward ones), or say something that can be interpreted as such. I apologize for having done so in the past, and my inevitable repitition of the disrespect.
Again, in general, these people aren't morons if they're saving more lives than they're losing. I never even inferred that. I made perfect clarification that I meant in a one for one case. And for that matter, how come FAK never gets any flak? His wordage is by no means as clear.
PsiMatt: Your poems don't reall apply. I see no incredible risk to speaking out against the execution of others. In fact, I remember lots on the history channel about people who joined WWII to fight specifically to stop the haulocoust(sp?), and they weren't sacrificing thier lives--they were only risking them. Again, clear defined line. BIG difference between giving up and risking life. And it's not like I don't care--there's just nothing I can do about it. I'm not going to sit and sulk about every person who ever died every moment of my life--that's counter productive. Again: IF I CAN DO NOTHING, I WILL TRY NOT TO WORRY. Not giving up my one life for another person's one life doesn't make me uncompassionate--it makes me a person who has a mythodical and ordered sense of logic and reasoning. Again, setting out to accomplish nothing is niether noble nor courageous (although it might be brave).

As the flavor text on one of my favorite Magic cards reads: Urza convinced many Dominarians not only to set aside their differences, but embrace them. (Bonus points to anyone who can name that card.)

Im sorry you feel that way. However it would have been a lot better if you had spelled my last name correctly and not basically made it into an insult with the spelling. And you know what? If you were in danger and it came between me giving up my life to save yours I would STILL do it. You have said nothing that convinces me otherwise. I believe in the value of all human life, and I know I have lead a fulfilled and happy life. If my life ended right now I could die happy knowing that fact.

and you know what? I do believe in an afterlife. I believe that there is something that happens after death. Because I do believe there is something about us that is separate yet somehow connected within ourselves.

About the afterlife thing, I personally believe that most of the support for this view comes from the fact that life isn't fair! A lot of people don't want to have to deal with it, so they like to believe that there is a great equalizer. Then, they can feel good about their suffering, because, by taking it in the $@#$@#$@#, they're getting karmic brownie points and condemning the other guy to Hell. Thus, they convince themselves that there is no reason to stick up for themselves. This is very dangerous attitude to promote, unless you're a slave driver or the Catholic Church.

Personally, I believe that there is no 'life after death,' because there is EXACTLY no evidence of any mechanism by which it would work. To convince me of something unprovable, one must show at least a way it MIGHT work. Is anyone up to the challenge?

The aforementioned statement comes from the "Pledge of Loyalty" Magic Card...i will be responding to the other points when i have time

FAKrogoth:
I have to agree with you about the afterlife. The idea of any deity or locations such as hell is inconcievable. if we are to believe the intangible is existent, it would negate the value of perceptions (meaning our world [as we and others see it] would be meaningless and inconsequential). If we can say that an angry, vengeful father figure in the sky is a reality, than what does that say of the reality I feel through my fingers on the keyboard?

A. Snodgrass: Sorry--that was actually a typo. I didn't mean it. I can't recall the last time I resorted to name calling, as it doesn't actually accomplish anything unless the person you're talking to has the intelligence of a salt shaker.
PsiMatt: Good job.
Everyone:
Please, read my ENTIRE post before you decide to reply to what I've said. I'm tired of repetedly clarifying the exact same words over and over again. I've responded to everything said in this post, completely explaining EXACTLY how I feel, and pointed out that I never said risking your life in attempt to save others is moronic. Sacrificing your life in attempt to save others is in may opinion moronic (especially when you don't know the person well enough to know that it's a worthy price).

Just a general comment, I believe that mike did fully read through your post. However, your wording in that first post left something to be desired. Plus the way that you posted, it gave the feeling that you dont differentiate between risking and sacrificing of life. You have done nothing to dispell that to this point.
If it comes down to sacrifice there are two different things that could happen. Either way you die, but you know what? at least maybe you made an impact. I find it sad that you wouldnt sacrifice yourself so that others could be safe...but that is your choice. I respect that you respect your own life. I personally just cannot value my life over any other.

John, in reply to what you said previously, I indeed, did read your entire post and still find myself compelled to respectfully disagree with your assertions. The basis behind the term risking one's life is that the danger involved is a danger to the extent to which it may kill you. Every time someone risks their life, it is a gamble therefore. Therefore, the people who die and the ones who live risking their lives are absolutely no different in nature. One lost the "lottery" and one of them "won." Let me put forth a theoretical situation based on what has happened to emergency responders in the past.

There are 2 EMTs on an ambulance, and the rig arrives first on scene of a shooting with a victim down, but still alive. When life is at stake, risks must be taken to save it and intervention is started to save the victim without the protection of the police. Now, as is sometimes the case, the shooter returns to the scene to see how he did and lets assume in this case he does, and decides he wants to kill the people trying to initiate lifesaving treatment. He opens fire and, while treating EMT 1 is shot and killed by the gunman, but EMT 2 escapes injury because as fate would have it, the bullets all miss him, yet hit his partner. Maybe the victim survives. Even if the victim died, at least his family could rest assured that everything that could be done to save him was done. To the families of many victims, this is very important. Therefore based on your assertions is EMT 1 a "moron" and EMT 2 a "hero" by virtue that one was in the wrong place and one was not? EMT 1 died, while EMT 2 only risked his or her life So, in this case, which has happened in real life, does one's location in relationship to where the bullets went determine whether the person was a noble person, or whether they were a moron because one survived and one did not at the same call?

A second factor that bothered me was when you said "especially when you don't know the person well enough to know that it's a worthy price." I feel that we, as humans, have no right to judge one person above another. If you save someone, you gave them a second chance at life. With this chance they may become the next Ben Carson, Martin Luther King, or Albert Einstein. However, the effects of the rescue may not be fully realized for years to come or ever. While, it may seem that you based on your intellectual ability may be superior to someone of lesser intelligence, it is foolish, in my opinion, to value yourself as more than another.

In conclusion, John, I respect your opinion, but feel that the alternate opinion has the right to be voiced and should be voiced as well.

If you have to continually explain and clarify your original words, you didn't do such a great job in the first place.

If you're going to argue, it's your responsibility to make sure that your words are chosen carefully, correctly, and with due regard for their connotations.

If, by reading your words, people are unclear as to your position, confused, or misinterpreting what you intended to say, it's your own fault. You probably ought not go around yelling at people because you did a poor job elucidating yourself.

your life is in your own hands...however if you have the choice between living or saving a few hundred or even three or four people it then becomes your battle within yourself to make that decision. people who have the courage to save others without regards to their own life are not moronic...they are pursuing what choice they have made for themselves...

Too a few people:
I believe that was clear enough. I think I split hairs enough in that definition.

1) I believed you to read my entire post. That wasn't directed towards you, it was directed towards that guy that re-stated the same argument that had been given for the third time.
2) I said, in no otherwise interpretable words (as well did FAK, who I agree on everythng except for certain particulars of religion), that it was equally heroic dying or not. Read the posts again--I'm too lazy. And no: EMT 1 did not sacrifice his life, he risked it, thus exempting him from the John Bono moronic clause (as that statement seems to haunt me no matter how much clearer I try to make it).
3) Who is to say that the person sacrificing thier life won't be the next Ben Carson, Martin Luther King, or Albert Einstein? Thus why I made the net effect statement.
4) Yes, I respect your opinion, too (although I'd like to hear it once instead of three times in different words because certain people want to reaffirm that they feel the same way as the other guy who just posted *cough* Big Mike *cough*). I look forward to arguing some more.

Onizuka: Yes, I think we've been over this.

I think you guys just need to agree to disagree, and leave it at that. You pretty much know for certain you won't convince the other person to change their point of view. So what's the point of arguing more?

If anyone of you don't have anything other than arguing with each other to say to each other, just do it privately.

My opinion about this matter has not been expressed in writing in this thread. If you search around, you'll find that I have, however, shared those feelings. In fact, I shared them in direct reply to you in another thread and you chose to ignore them.

Instead, I spoke only of your awful writing. You may fancy yourself to be an adept, intelligent debater, but it's apparent that you are not. Your arguments, thus far, are peppered with childish remarks and irrelevant complaints that stem from your own inability to clearly and concisely defend yourself.

Honestly, I don't care enough about you or your opinion on this matter to enter into a debate about it. As far as I am concerned, and making judgement based upon your behavior on these forums, I consider you to be a self-righteous, arrogant, sad person. If other people wish to continue to engage you, that is their prerogative. However, the least you can do is make a better effort at appreciating the effort they put into their arguments, as well as putting in a little yourself. When you can show that you've intelligently considered your position by writing in a collected, coherent, persuasive manner, perhaps you'll change some of our opinions.

That is what you're trying to do, after all? Surely, you wouldn't do this to stroke your ego, right?

Well, you've got me mostly pegged. Although I apologize, I meant someone else, and your name came to mind (not entirely sure why, as your argument had only been partially said by someone else--porper person now cited).
And no, I don't put as much effort as I could into my arguments. I'm not exactly writing an English essay here--I get enough of that. And yes, if you'll note, I made a clear distinction between sacrifice and risk. Twice. Then emphasized it the third.

I would agree, for this thread has degenerated from its original point of debate into a childish feud for opinion. I vote that this thread be locked

I second that motion.

- Katie

Sounds good to me.

Everybody has gotten their 2nd & 3rd final pokes in. Any others can be taken up via email or something.