Too a few people:
Quote:
myself
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.
|
I believe that was clear enough. I think I split hairs enough in that definition.
Quote:
Originally posted by Sean_330
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.
|
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.