why...

[coyboy carl]

why is a terrorist attack which kills 3000 worse than a natural disaster
(e.g. earthquake) which kills 50,000?

cc

[Robert de Vincy]

Post by coyboy carl
why is a terrorist attack which kills 3000 worse than a natural disaster
(e.g. earthquake) which kills 50,000?

Something about "free will", isn't it?

No, not getting Bill out of prison, but rather we're supposed to be able
to have total responsibility for our actions (as humans, that is) and
it's *our* decision to kill 3000 people.

An earthquake has no "free will" (the argument goes) so it can't have
the whole system of guilt and responsibility assigned to it. It's seen
as the inevitable consequence of forces beyond our immediate control.
But we can, if we want, conveniently call it "God's will".

However, terrorists often say they are acting in accordance with God's
wishes.... hmmm... I'll have to rethink my answer.

[John Porcella]

Post by Robert de Vincy

Post by coyboy carl
why is a terrorist attack which kills 3000 worse than a natural disaster
(e.g. earthquake) which kills 50,000?

Something about "free will", isn't it?
No, not getting Bill out of prison, but rather we're supposed to be able
to have total responsibility for our actions (as humans, that is) and
it's *our* decision to kill 3000 people.
An earthquake has no "free will" (the argument goes) so it can't have
the whole system of guilt and responsibility assigned to it. It's seen
as the inevitable consequence of forces beyond our immediate control.
But we can, if we want, conveniently call it "God's will".
However, terrorists often say they are acting in accordance with God's
wishes.... hmmm... I'll have to rethink my answer.

Not really, I think that you do not need to rethink. How would they know
that it is God's wish?

[coyboy carl]

Post by Robert de Vincy

Post by coyboy carl
why is a terrorist attack which kills 3000 worse than a natural disaster
(e.g. earthquake) which kills 50,000?

Something about "free will", isn't it?
No, not getting Bill out of prison, but rather we're supposed to be able
to have total responsibility for our actions (as humans, that is) and
it's *our* decision to kill 3000 people.

I had as much part to play in the death of the 3,000 as I did in the death
of the 50,000.

Why should it be any different to *me*?

Why should it be any different to News editors and the families of the
grieving who choose to remember the event every year.

I'm not saying we shouldn't remember, I'm saying this whole world has
everything massively out of proportion.

Post by Robert de Vincy
An earthquake has no "free will" (the argument goes) so it can't have
the whole system of guilt and responsibility assigned to it. It's seen
as the inevitable consequence of forces beyond our immediate control.
But we can, if we want, conveniently call it "God's will".

If it's God's will then that raises another point.

God kills 50,000 people in an earth quake and the world loves him.

Terrorists kill 3,000 people and the world hates them.

I can only conclude that God is a terrorist who has brainwashed the human
race.

cc

[Robert de Vincy]

Post by coyboy carl

Post by Robert de Vincy

Post by coyboy carl
why is a terrorist attack which kills 3000 worse than a natural
disaster (e.g. earthquake) which kills 50,000?

Something about "free will", isn't it?
No, not getting Bill out of prison, but rather we're supposed to be
able to have total responsibility for our actions (as humans, that
is) and it's *our* decision to kill 3000 people.

I had as much part to play in the death of the 3,000 as I did in the
death of the 50,000.
Why should it be any different to *me*?

No one is blaming *you*. But the point is that the people who did the
terrorist act are people, just like you and me and anyone else you
would meet. Or, at least, they are in the most basic sense. Maybe
their upbringing is different and their beliefs are different to yours,
but they are still (one hopes) capable of feeling the same feelings as
you. The fact that they have the capacity to feel those feelings but
chose to ignore them... therein lies the outrage that others express
in condemning 'man-made' acts and not 'natural' acts.

I'm not agreeing that one is worse than the other in that sense. I see
them as two different things and you can't put them both on the same
Scale of Outrage because they have different causes. But that's the
way a lot (the majority?) react. Hence, the question you ask.

Post by coyboy carl
Why should it be any different to News editors and the families of the
grieving who choose to remember the event every year.
I'm not saying we shouldn't remember, I'm saying this whole world has
everything massively out of proportion.

So was I, only I was not so directly explicit.

Post by coyboy carl

Post by Robert de Vincy
An earthquake has no "free will" (the argument goes) so it can't have
the whole system of guilt and responsibility assigned to it. It's
seen as the inevitable consequence of forces beyond our immediate
control. But we can, if we want, conveniently call it "God's will".

If it's God's will then that raises another point.
God kills 50,000 people in an earth quake and the world loves him.

Exactly. Recently, the Russian siege brought that fact to me when I
heard my aunt tell me about the church she goes to. Apparently, one of
the (well-meaning) members of the clergy had set up a small altar-like
thing (I'm not sure of the right term) that had the usual Christian
imagery -- candles, written prayers, statue of some saint or Mary or
someone; a whole bunch of stuff that had references to protecting
children. The craziness of hoping to appeal to such a God *AFTER* the
fact just astounded me.

Post by coyboy carl
Terrorists kill 3,000 people and the world hates them.
I can only conclude that God is a terrorist who has brainwashed the
human race.

That, or God is an amazingly versatile invention that most humans need
in order to do things that an atheistic culture would not (could not?)
even think about carrying out and still justify it to themselves.

[John Porcella]

Post by coyboy carl
God kills 50,000 people in an earth quake and the world loves him.

Why do you assume that an earthquake is God's will? It is the result of the
movement of plates, and not necessarily in need of a supernatural
explanation.

[cowboy carl]

Post by John Porcella

Post by coyboy carl
God kills 50,000 people in an earth quake and the world loves him.

Why do you assume that an earthquake is God's will? It is the result of the
movement of plates, and not necessarily in need of a supernatural
explanation.

According to people who believe in him, God made the world.

So why didn't he make it in such a way so that earthquakes don't happen?

cc

[Ian/Cath Ford]

Post by Robert de Vincy
An earthquake has no "free will" (the argument goes) so it can't have
the whole system of guilt and responsibility assigned to it. It's seen
as the inevitable consequence of forces beyond our immediate control.
But we can, if we want, conveniently call it "God's will".

Ah, but of course, guvnor, you see the old Edexcel A Level question
runs something along the lines of '"Most hazards are not entirely
natural" Discuss....'

Yes, that earthquake might kill 50,000 people but the death toll isn't
entirely due to the earthquake. In many cases it'll be due to
disease, often due to water borne nasties in the aftermath. Better
emergency relief solves at least some of that.

Building control - not only how but also where and what type - could
play a really important role (eg. Bam, Izmit etc compared to Kobe) and
are directly related to human concerns - very often money and/or
politics. Remember that Californian earthquake in, perhaps, 89 where
the highways collapsed? The state government was supposed to be
fitting highway columns with supports - the risk had been identified -
but decided that it was rather too expensive and that they mght
actually have to collect taxes to be able to do it - so didn't. The
majority of the casulaties were, iirc, in that highway collapse. At
Izmit corruption seems to have led to building regs being ignored. In
Gujarat poor quality building control and poor materials were at least
partically at fault. Bam - well, the political and economic causes
are clear there.

Fire - major killer in quakes but can be partially dealt with through
advanced planning.

And so on. The cause of the earthquake hazard is probably beyond our
control. We don't directly or, probably, indirectly cause them. We
*do* cause them to become hazards (both by living in earthquake zones
and in the ways we live in them). We can minimize the risk - at a
cost which, surprise, is why fewer people die as a result of natural
hazards in MEDCs than in LEDCs. Which kind of suggest that it's all
the faultof the global capitalist system - long live the revolution
etc etc etc...

Of course, for other 'naural' hazards human actions can either
directly or indirectly cause them.

Ian

[John Porcella]

Post by coyboy carl
why is a terrorist attack which kills 3000 worse than a natural disaster
(e.g. earthquake) which kills 50,000?

Firstly, who is claiming that one disaster is 'worse' than another?

Anyway, the former is entirely avoidable and man-made. The latter is an act
of nature and unavoidable.

In essence, any loss of life is a pity, but the former is an needless waste.

[Robert de Vincy]

Post by John Porcella

Post by coyboy carl
why is a terrorist attack which kills 3000 worse than a natural
disaster (e.g. earthquake) which kills 50,000?

Firstly, who is claiming that one disaster is 'worse' than another?

No one here, explicitly. But how many anniversaries of disastrous
earthquakes do we see being... I was going to write "celebrated" but
that's not really the word. "Remembered"?

Anyway, the point is, there seems to be a whole bunch of commemorative
services three years on for a certain terrorist attack, and yet there
are very few such services (and equivalent, not just strictly religious
services of remembrance, but the whole anniversary-event affair) for all
the 'natural' disasters that have claimed many more lives.

An implication of all this attention and the continuation (re-enactment?)
of the 'horror' of that event is that it was somehow more momentous than
an earthquake in which 50,000 died.

Post by John Porcella
Anyway, the former is entirely avoidable and man-made. The latter is
an act of nature and unavoidable.

How does that address the question? With that paragraph you're basically
stating:
"Natural = okay, we have to accept it.
Man-made = bad bad BAD!"

Is it really that simple?

Post by John Porcella
In essence, any loss of life is a pity, but the former is an needless waste.

Ooh, Johnny-Boy, you've fallen straight into the "either-or" dichotomous
way of thinking that can lead someone else (arguing against your answer)
to put words into your mouth (or words into your fingers, if you like).

In that last sentence of yours, by saying that "Option 1 is X but Option
2 is Y" you are setting up a (possibly) false situation in which you
are claiming that the two are mutually incompatible and as such, as a
result of this implication, "Option 1 is not-Y".

In other words, are you really saying that because "the former is an [sic]
needless waste" that the latter is not needless (i.e., needed/necessary)
and not a waste?

In even more other words, your conclusion (from implication) is rather
circular. Your answer was that the terrorist attack was needless, the
earthquake wasn't; the terrorist attack was wasteful, the earthquake not.
In other words, you've merely re-described the situation that the question
was wondering about and called that description an answer!

[John Porcella]

Post by Robert de Vincy

Post by John Porcella

Post by coyboy carl
why is a terrorist attack which kills 3000 worse than a natural
disaster (e.g. earthquake) which kills 50,000?

Firstly, who is claiming that one disaster is 'worse' than another?

No one here, explicitly. But how many anniversaries of disastrous
earthquakes do we see being... I was going to write "celebrated" but
that's not really the word. "Remembered"?
Anyway, the point is, there seems to be a whole bunch of commemorative
services three years on for a certain terrorist attack, and yet there
are very few such services (and equivalent, not just strictly religious
services of remembrance, but the whole anniversary-event affair) for all
the 'natural' disasters that have claimed many more lives.
An implication of all this attention and the continuation (re-enactment?)
of the 'horror' of that event is that it was somehow more momentous than
an earthquake in which 50,000 died.

Post by John Porcella
Anyway, the former is entirely avoidable and man-made. The latter is
an act of nature and unavoidable.

How does that address the question? With that paragraph you're basically
"Natural = okay, we have to accept it.

We can mitigate the effects with planning for the aftermath, but
essentially, yes.

Post by Robert de Vincy
Man-made = bad bad BAD!"

Not bad, just man-made and avoidable. Whether good or bad depends on where
you are coming from in the argument.

Post by Robert de Vincy
Is it really that simple?

Post by John Porcella
In essence, any loss of life is a pity, but the former is an needless waste.

Ooh, Johnny-Boy, you've fallen straight into the "either-or" dichotomous
way of thinking that can lead someone else (arguing against your answer)
to put words into your mouth (or words into your fingers, if you like).
In that last sentence of yours, by saying that "Option 1 is X but Option
2 is Y" you are setting up a (possibly) false situation in which you
are claiming that the two are mutually incompatible and as such, as a
result of this implication, "Option 1 is not-Y".

I do not think that I am presenting a false dichotomy since I was not aware
of presenting a choice; I was simply analysing two situations: death by
earthquake or by man.

Post by Robert de Vincy
In other words, are you really saying that because "the former is an [sic]
needless waste" that the latter is not needless (i.e., needed/necessary)
and not a waste?

I am not "saying" anything!

I claim that death by terrorist is often needless because solutions can
often be found without killings.

Post by Robert de Vincy
In even more other words, your conclusion (from implication) is rather
circular. Your answer was that the terrorist attack was needless, the
earthquake wasn't; the terrorist attack was wasteful, the earthquake not.
In other words, you've merely re-described the situation that the question
was wondering about and called that description an answer!

See my comments above.

[Stuart Williams]

Post by John Porcella

Post by Robert de Vincy
In other words, are you really saying that because "the former is an [sic]
needless waste" that the latter is not needless (i.e., needed/necessary)
and not a waste?

I am not "saying" anything!

You wait: I'll get you. You'll use language metaphorically and I'll have
your cojones for dinner.

SW

[Robert de Vincy]

Post by Stuart Williams

Post by John Porcella

Post by Robert de Vincy
In other words, are you really saying that because "the former is
an [sic] needless waste" that the latter is not needless (i.e.,
needed/necessary) and not a waste?

I am not "saying" anything!

You wait: I'll get you. You'll use language metaphorically and I'll
have your cojones for dinner.

It's getting tiresome now, isn't it?

[Toby]

On Sun, 12 Sep 2004 21:28:16 +0100, Stuart Williams

Post by Stuart Williams

Post by John Porcella

Post by Robert de Vincy
In other words, are you really saying that because "the former is an [sic]
needless waste" that the latter is not needless (i.e., needed/necessary)
and not a waste?

I am not "saying" anything!

You wait: I'll get you. You'll use language metaphorically and I'll have
your cojones for dinner.
SW

teehee I will bring the chilli sauce.

[Ian/Cath Ford]

On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 17:33:50 +0100, "coyboy carl"

Post by coyboy carl
why is a terrorist attack which kills 3000 worse than a natural disaster
(e.g. earthquake) which kills 50,000?

Because it happened where it did when it did and involved people with
some power.

It doesn't mean it's fair or just or anything like that. It's just
that we look first to what is closest or appears closest I think.

Ian

[Alun Harford]

Post by coyboy carl
why is a terrorist attack which kills 3000 worse than a natural disaster
(e.g. earthquake) which kills 50,000?

Well I have an even more difficult question:

Why was the attack on the WTC worse than the one on the Al-Amiriyah shelter?
Why was the attack in Beslan worse than the one in Aboke? Or the Iranian
military's abuction of 200,000 children and forcing them to march over mine
fields?

I dunno.

[jess]

Post by coyboy carl
why is a terrorist attack which kills 3000 worse than a natural
disaster (e.g. earthquake) which kills 50,000?

i don't think that it *is* worse, but it seems worse as it feels more
preventable.

[cowboy carl]

Post by jess

Post by coyboy carl
why is a terrorist attack which kills 3000 worse than a natural
disaster (e.g. earthquake) which kills 50,000?

i don't think that it *is* worse, but it seems worse as it feels more
preventable.

how would it have been prevented?

cc

[Robert de Vincy]

Post by cowboy carl

Post by jess

Post by coyboy carl
why is a terrorist attack which kills 3000 worse than a natural
disaster (e.g. earthquake) which kills 50,000?

i don't think that it *is* worse, but it seems worse as it feels more
preventable.

how would it have been prevented?

Padding.

Lots of padding on the outside of the towers.

[jess]

Post by cowboy carl

Post by jess

Post by coyboy carl
why is a terrorist attack which kills 3000 worse than a natural
disaster (e.g. earthquake) which kills 50,000?

i don't think that it *is* worse, but it seems worse as it feels more
preventable.

how would it have been prevented?

by the people not doing it.

noone decides to cause an earthquake.

ya get me?

[cowboy carl]

Post by jess

Post by cowboy carl

Post by jess

Post by coyboy carl
why is a terrorist attack which kills 3000 worse than a natural
disaster (e.g. earthquake) which kills 50,000?

i don't think that it *is* worse, but it seems worse as it feels more
preventable.

how would it have been prevented?

by the people not doing it.
noone decides to cause an earthquake.
ya get me?

right, and the earthquake could have been prevented by it not happening.

things like that are called "acts of god".

i don't see how someone can believe in a god which is all powerful and
whatnot, but can't stop an earthquake. and i don't see how someone can
worship a god which allows such terrible things to happen.

thus, either god exists and he is powerless, or god exists and he is evil.

either way, why do people spend their whole life worshipping him?

cc

[Robert de Vincy]

cowboy carl did write:

[snip]

Post by cowboy carl
i don't see how someone can believe in a god which is all powerful and
whatnot, but can't stop an earthquake. and i don't see how someone
can worship a god which allows such terrible things to happen.
thus, either god exists and he is powerless, or god exists and he is evil.
either way, why do people spend their whole life worshipping him?

Most religious people don't, though.

You're presenting a view from one side, focusing on the negative side
(the powerlessness or the evilness). But that is glossed over with
platitudes such as "God's will" and "God moves in mysterious ways", etc.
Yes, a disaster might be bad for *us* but there's a reason, see? It's all
part of some grand purpose, part of His Great Plan.

When you ask, though, what this Plan is, this part is also neatly glossed
over by saying that God is inscrutable or works on a level far beyond us
mortals. Some of us might even get to find out what this Plan is when
we die or when the Day of Judgement happens and the lucky few all frolic
around in eternal paradise! Whatever the details are, we're not allowed
to know now; it's all a big secret but it's a good secret and all for our
ultimate benefit. Very convenient for accepting natural disasters and
accidents and still believing in a benevolent god, wouldn't you say? The
idea of the Judaeo-Christian God wouldn't have lasted this long if it
didn't have all those in-built safeguards to keep hope in and loyalty to
the deity alive.

[Robert de Vincy]

Post by Robert de Vincy
[snip]

Post by cowboy carl
i don't see how someone can believe in a god which is all powerful
and whatnot, but can't stop an earthquake. and i don't see how
someone can worship a god which allows such terrible things to
happen.
thus, either god exists and he is powerless, or god exists and he is evil.
either way, why do people spend their whole life worshipping him?

Most religious people don't, though.

Forgot to expand on that sentence. I don't mean that they don't
spend their whole life worshipping him, but rather that they don't spend
their whole life worshipping the god that you portray in your message.
It's the "powerful and benevolent" image that they worship, not the
heartless/powerless version that you (and I) see.

Post by Robert de Vincy
You're presenting a view from one side, focusing on the negative side
(the powerlessness or the evilness). But that is glossed over with
platitudes such as "God's will" and "God moves in mysterious ways",
etc. Yes, a disaster might be bad for *us* but there's a reason, see?
It's all part of some grand purpose, part of His Great Plan.
When you ask, though, what this Plan is, this part is also neatly
glossed over by saying that God is inscrutable or works on a level far
beyond us mortals. Some of us might even get to find out what this
Plan is when we die or when the Day of Judgement happens and the lucky
few all frolic around in eternal paradise! Whatever the details are,
we're not allowed to know now; it's all a big secret but it's a good
secret and all for our ultimate benefit. Very convenient for
accepting natural disasters and accidents and still believing in a
benevolent god, wouldn't you say? The idea of the Judaeo-Christian
God wouldn't have lasted this long if it didn't have all those
in-built safeguards to keep hope in and loyalty to the deity alive.