🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1814@trwrba.UUCP> suhre@trwrba.UUCP (Maurice E. Suhre) writes:
>
>I've been watching the shuttle jokes/debates going past and I think there
>is a certain lack of perspective.  Just ask yourself the following
>questions (and estimate the answers).
>
>	1.  How many people die every day on the freeways/hiways
>	    in the US?
>	2.  How many teenagers die of drug overdose every day?
>	    Or in traffic accidents with drugs and/or alcohol
>	    being a significant factor?
>	3.  How many women die as a result of illegal abortions?
>	4.  How many people die in Shuttle accidents every day?

If you assume that all people are worth the same, then the shuttle
explosion is not that big a tragedy in terms of lost life.

In the long run, Mankind ( no flames because I didn't say Man/Womenkind
or Personkind, please! ) could benefit geatly from the increased use of
space, but it will take several years for this to happen.  Thus todays
astronauts are taking great risks to bring about a better world, a world
that they themselves will probably not live to see.

Contrast this to your average Usenet reader.  Taking myself as an example,
I am taking almost no risk to bring about a better Unix for the 80286.
Somehow, I doubt that this will bring about a better world. :-)

On the other hand, I think I am probably more useful to Mankind than
someone who is about to die of a drug overdose, or the average women
who dies from an illegal abortion.

Thus, if I hear about an astronaut dying, and two or three random 
USENET readers dying, I will feel a greater sense of loss over 
the astronaut.  And if someone from the net dies, and the same 
day I hear that two or three addicts died, I will feel more 
sorrow over the person from the net.  I think many people feel 
the same as I do, and this is why the shuttle explosion is 
considered such a tragedy, even though "only" seven people died.  

Oh well, time to put on the heat shield....
-- 
Tim Smith       sdcrdcf!ism780c!tim || ima!ism780!tim || ihnp4!cithep!tim

In article <1814@trwrba.UUCP> suhre@trwrba.UUCP (Maurice E. Suhre) writes:
>I've been watching the shuttle jokes/debates going past and I think there
>is a certain lack of perspective.  Just ask yourself the following
>questions (and estimate the answers).
>
>	1.  How many people die every day on the freeways/hiways
>	    in the US?
>
>	2.  How many teenagers die of drug overdose every day?
>	    Or in traffic accidents with drugs and/or alcohol
>	    being a significant factor?
>
>	3.  How many women die as a result of illegal abortions?
>
>Finally,
>
>	4.  How many people die in Shuttle accidents every day?

I think Maurice here has a lack of perspective.  I know of no one who has
died of deaths type 1,2,3 in the past month.  I know of 7 people who died
in a Shuttle accident.

If your best friend's parents were killed, would you tell them that their
getting all upset is tacky and stupid, since they ignore all the strangers
that get killed every day, according to the news?  Even if he witnessed
their deaths?

Not only do I think Maurice has a lack of perspective, I think he is very
rude telling us what our emotions should be.  As if 70 deaths are 10 times
worse than 7 deaths, and thus we should measure our emotions accordingly.

Are you possibly planning to give us some traffic accident/drug overdose/
illegal abortion death jokes or something to balance everything out for us?

ucbvax!brahms!weemba	Matthew P Wiener/UCB Math Dept/Berkeley CA 94720

In article <11862@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> weemba@brahms.UUCP (Matthew P. Wiener) writes:
>In article <1814@trwrba.UUCP> suhre@trwrba.UUCP (Maurice E. Suhre) writes:
>>I've been watching the shuttle jokes/debates going past and I think there
>>is a certain lack of perspective.  Just ask yourself the following
>>questions (and estimate the answers).
>>
>>	1.  How many people die every day on the freeways/hiways
>>	    in the US?
>>
>>	2.  How many teenagers die of drug overdose every day?
>>	    Or in traffic accidents with drugs and/or alcohol
>>	    being a significant factor?
>>
>>	3.  How many women die as a result of illegal abortions?
>>
>>Finally,
>>
>>	4.  How many people die in Shuttle accidents every day?
>
>I think Maurice here has a lack of perspective.  I know of no one who has
>died of deaths type 1,2,3 in the past month.  I know of 7 people who died
>in a Shuttle accident.
>
>If your best friend's parents were killed, would you tell them that their
>getting all upset is tacky and stupid, since they ignore all the strangers
>that get killed every day, according to the news?  Even if he witnessed
>their deaths?
>
>Not only do I think Maurice has a lack of perspective, I think he is very
>rude telling us what our emotions should be.  As if 70 deaths are 10 times

Please.  I didn't tell anyone what their emotions *should be*, and have
never done such a thing.  We feel what we feel, and at any given moment
cannot feel any differently.  If someone points out alternative view-
points or explanations, then I may feel differently after hearing them.
Or not.

>worse than 7 deaths, and thus we should measure our emotions accordingly.
>
>Are you possibly planning to give us some traffic accident/drug overdose/
>illegal abortion death jokes or something to balance everything out for us?
>
No.
>ucbvax!brahms!weemba	Matthew P Wiener/UCB Math Dept/Berkeley CA 94720

I did not intend to single out Mr. Wiener's posting in particular, but
the unstated point I had hoped to make has not yet been mentioned.
The followup is an easy vehicle to state my unstated point:

	I believe that the deaths of type 1, 2 and 3 are *preventable*,
	at least to a large extent.

Finally, I would hate to see net.jokes.d degenerate into net.flame
or some such nonsense.

Maurice

{decvax,sdcrdcf,ihnp4,ucbvax}!trwrb!suhre

In article <11862@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> weemba@brahms.UUCP (Matthew P. Wiener) writes:
>In article <1814@trwrba.UUCP> suhre@trwrba.UUCP (Maurice E. Suhre) writes:
>>I've been watching the shuttle jokes/debates going past and I think there
>>is a certain lack of perspective.  Just ask yourself the following
>>questions (and estimate the answers).
>>	1.  How many people die every day on the freeways/hiways
>>	2.  How many teenagers die of drug overdose every day?
>>	3.  How many women die as a result of illegal abortions?
>>	4.  How many people die in Shuttle accidents every day?
>
>I think Maurice here has a lack of perspective.  I know of no one who has
>died of deaths type 1,2,3 in the past month.  I know of 7 people who died
>in a Shuttle accident.

I think Matthew betrays an all-too-popular lack of perspective here. He says
he knows of no one has has died recently in a traffic accident, yet is of
course familiar with the story of the shuttle victims. Why would that be ?
Exposure to the news of these events. The media manipulates our awareness
of world events in ways that "make good copy" and boost their ratings.
Generally, these lack perspective and morality. Maurice's comment are es-
pecially relevant in this case. The shuttle tragedy is seven people dying
in an experimental accident. All the flagwaving and press releases try to 
make it into something else, to tug at our heartstrings and attention.
  Is any good accomplished by this unfortunate, insincere media spectacle ?
I don't think so; rather it dulls one to the "everyday, humdrum" tragedies 
that occur more regularly. Lock the doors and turn on the news program.

  "An emotional show, or a show of emotions?" Gerald Nachmann.

> In article <11862@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> weemba@brahms.UUCP (Matthew P. Wiener) writes:
> >In article <1814@trwrba.UUCP> suhre@trwrba.UUCP (Maurice E. Suhre) writes:
> >>I've been watching the shuttle jokes/debates going past and I think there
> >>is a certain lack of perspective.  Just ask yourself the following
> >>questions (and estimate the answers).
> >>	1.  How many people die every day on the freeways/hiways
> >>	2.  How many teenagers die of drug overdose every day?
> >>	3.  How many women die as a result of illegal abortions?
> >>	4.  How many people die in Shuttle accidents every day?
> >
> >I think Maurice here has a lack of perspective.  I know of no one who has
> >died of deaths type 1,2,3 in the past month.  I know of 7 people who died
> >in a Shuttle accident.
> 
> I think Matthew betrays an all-too-popular lack of perspective here. He says
> he knows of no one has has died recently in a traffic accident, yet is of
> course familiar with the story of the shuttle victims. Why would that be ?
> Exposure to the news of these events. The media manipulates our awareness
> of world events in ways that "make good copy" and boost their ratings.
> Generally, these lack perspective and morality. Maurice's comment are es-
> pecially relevant in this case. The shuttle tragedy is seven people dying
> in an experimental accident. All the flagwaving and press releases try to 
> make it into something else, to tug at our heartstrings and attention.
>   Is any good accomplished by this unfortunate, insincere media spectacle ?
> I don't think so; rather it dulls one to the "everyday, humdrum" tragedies 
> that occur more regularly. Lock the doors and turn on the news program.
> 
>   "An emotional show, or a show of emotions?" Gerald Nachmann.

	The reason that the Challenger explosion is such a major media event
is not because seven people died but because the space shuttle exploded.
It may be cruel to say that the loss of the space shuttle means more than
the loss of seven lives, but as has been pointed out that people die every day.
What strikes at our hearts and captures the media attention is the fact that
the space shuttle represented the hopes and dreams for the future of all mankind.
So while the loss of seven astronauts is tragic, it really is no less tragic
than the deaths of all those people who die on the freeway or of drug overdoses,
it happens.  The destruction of a symbol of the hopes and dreams of mankind is a
tragedy which everybody feels.
-- 

	Gary Ross
	JPL Spacecraft Data Systems group
	sdcrdcf!smeagol!ross (UUCP)
	ia-sun2!smeagol!ross@csvax.caltech.edu (ARPA)

> In article <1814@trwrba.UUCP> suhre@trwrba.UUCP (Maurice E. Suhre) writes:
> >
>... 
> If you assume that all people are worth the same, then the shuttle
> explosion is not that big a tragedy in terms of lost life.
> 
>... 
> On the other hand, I think I am probably more useful to Mankind than
> someone who is about to die of a drug overdose, or the average women
> who dies from an illegal abortion.
> 
> Thus, if I hear about an astronaut dying, and two or three random 
> USENET readers dying, I will feel a greater sense of loss over 
> the astronaut.  And if someone from the net dies, and the same 
> day I hear that two or three addicts died, I will feel more 
> sorrow over the person from the net.  I think many people feel 
> the same as I do, and this is why the shuttle explosion is 
> considered such a tragedy, even though "only" seven people died.  
> 
> -- 
> Tim Smith       sdcrdcf!ism780c!tim || ima!ism780!tim || ihnp4!cithep!tim


this posting is so bizarre and involved so obviously few brain cells
that it is not even worth commenting on, other than perhaps to say
"what the fuck does the average woman and illegal abortions have in
common, you onion head?!"

In a response to a posting of mine, ingrid@pilchuckDataio.UUCP, (the Real
Swede) calls me on onion head after quoting an article of mine out of
context, and also shows that he can not understand common English:
>
> [ my out of context stuff here, where I use the phrase "the average
>   women who dies of an illegal abortion" ]
>
>this posting is so bizarre and involved so obviously few brain cells
>that it is not even worth commenting on, other than perhaps to say
>"what the fuck does the average woman and illegal abortions have in
>common, you onion head?!"

Look, if I say "The average person who owns a boat can swim", I
mean "If a person is a typical member of the set of all people who
own boats, than that person is also a member of the set of people
who can swim."  I think most people will agree with this interpretation.
Am I wrong here?  And if I say "The average women who dies of an illegal
abortion", most people will understand what I say.

Yes, I know that the above would be best said as "the average boat
owner can swim", but I think this is a matter of style.

Now go and read my article again.  Maybe this time you can understand
what I was saying.  And if you choose to quote me, please quote enough
to give a reasonable context.  My article was supporting the point of
view that some people are of more value than others.  I choose to give
examples of people that I felt to be of higher value than me, and some
who I felt to be of lower value.  By only including the parts where I
talk about people I feel are of lower value, you give a distorted view
of me to the rest of the net.

If you want to argue the point of view that everyone is of equal value,
then go ahead.  But try to do so in a rational way.  Saying that your
side is right because the other side is not using many brain cells is
not a rational form of argument ( although I admit that it can
be fun to insult people who you disagree with, moose-breath! :-) ).

--
Tim Smith       sdcrdcf!ism780c!tim || ima!ism780!tim || ihnp4!cithep!tim