BuzzerBeater Forums

1. this affects everyone in the world. Period. If you think otherwise you're only fooling yourself.

This is what Alex Jones said yesterday.

I'm not trolling; I actually mean what I am saying.

Why should I be caring about those people? It hinders the progress of society to mourn for those we have no relation to. We should be taking time to prevent terrorist attacks, not looking back at them with remorse.


So no jokeru, if NYC was bombed I would probably stop reading the news for a few weeks to stay away from the waste of journalism that will be produced as an upshot.

i THINK I get it, what he is trying to say is that with each passing incident we collectively care just a little bit less. Eventually the world will be like something out of the film Brazil where a bomb can rip thru a restaurant and people will not even look up from their braised Eel in wine sauce. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c6zVHwFA0a0

Ok first things first, I know I have no relationship to them because if someone close to me had died I would damn well know by now. If you are equivilating possible future relationships to current relationships then that is where your reasoning is fatally flawed, and here is why:

What if the scientist's work was halted by an ex-girlfriend who was stalking him and the attack killed the ex-girlfriend but not the scientist? Advantage me.

What if the woman who is now your wife was actually a serial killer and killed you because you crossed paths with her in NYC? Advantage her.

Both of these events have both negative and positive outcomes that cancel each other out.

-I don't know whether to be happy about such an attack because there is not enough information yet. Thus, as I should, I remain neutral.
-I think there is reason enough to say that from a terrorist attack, the possible positive impact on a single person that is yet to be known or predicted can easily negate the possible negative impact on a single person that is yet to be known or predicted, provided that that person has no current relation to anyone immediately/directly negatively affected by the terrorist attack. This also points to remaining neutral on a personal level.
-Not to mention that the probability of a person having been caught in a terrorist attack being this specific person who would have had have such a great an impact, positive or negative, on my life is so close to 0 it is essentially meaningless and should not be used as reasoning in any way shape or form. 0 is a neutral number, wouldn't you agree?
-With that, I'd say it is far more reasonable to say that this terror attack does not affect me as directly as society and journalism says it should.

So saying that perhaps a terrorist attack could affect me greatly in 5 to 10 years is reason for me to be sympathetic to such attack is absolutely wild. Would that mean I should feel sympathy for every time a baby dies before its first words anywhere around the world? Should I be sympathetic for anyone who stays at home typing posts about terrorist when they could be out in the town pursuing the possible chance of meeting the loveliest woman they've ever met? Any of those events could be just as insignificantly impactful yet society chooses to mourn only the ones that involve mass death of people they've never seen/met before? Makes no sense.

I hope you understand what I'm getting at.



Last edited by Neway at 11/17/2015 6:55:33 PM