I understand Showtime 100% and I see his view on things anybody that doesn't clearly is on a lower comprehension level or just wants to argue with him for the sake of having a "bad guy" in the thread.
Printable View
I understand Showtime 100% and I see his view on things anybody that doesn't clearly is on a lower comprehension level or just wants to argue with him for the sake of having a "bad guy" in the thread.
he is saying that no one should live in NO because it's below sea level and there is a danger of hurricane perennially. that's a very strong and extreme opinion. it's too idealistic of a view
[QUOTE=nosurrender]he is saying that no one should live in NO because it's below sea level and there is a danger of hurricane perennially. [B]that's a very strong and extreme opinion. it's too idealistic of a view[/B][/QUOTE]
lol i don't know what "strong" means here.
and is it too idealistic? part of being alive is adapting to changing conditions. new orleans wasn't like this twenty years ago, but it is now...some thought should be given to the practicality of evacuating every year.
[QUOTE=SourGrapes]lol i don't know what "strong" means here.
and is it too idealistic? part of being alive is adapting to changing conditions. new orleans wasn't like this twenty years ago, but it is now...some thought should be given to the practicality of evacuating every year.[/QUOTE]
So let me ask you this. Places like Detroit, Newark, Gary, Flint, New Orleans also, etc etc are fairly well known for high crime rates, poverty, violence, and poor economies. Why are any of these cities inhabited at all? Shouldn't they all just get out of that situation? And adapt?
Is it that simple?
[QUOTE=nosurrender]he is saying that no one should live in NO because it's below sea level and there is a danger of hurricane perennially. that's a very strong and extreme opinion. it's too idealistic of a view[/QUOTE]
Incorrect. That wasn't what I was saying.
[QUOTE=JayGuevara]So let me ask you this. Places like Detroit, Newark, Gary, Flint, New Orleans also, etc etc are fairly well known for high crime rates, poverty, violence, and poor economies. Why are any of these cities inhabited at all? Shouldn't they all just get out of that situation? And adapt?
Is it that simple?[/QUOTE]
Not to get off on another issue (because this isn't my viewpoint to begin with), but for the sake of argument, many people do leave high crime areas when they get the chance (which isn't often in poverty stricken urban areas), and/or don't choose to move to higher crime areas, so in essence, what you are saying is actually happening, but not directly how you are describing.
[QUOTE=Showtime]Incorrect. That wasn't what I was saying.[/QUOTE]
so who should live in NO?
and btw that was exactly what u've been saying i can find quotes if you'd like.
[QUOTE=nosurrender]so who should live in NO?
and btw that was exactly what u've been saying i can find quotes if you'd like.[/QUOTE]
I never tried to dictate who should inhabit the area. I simply stated that my empathy has limitations in certain situations. Some of the comments you were referring to were in the context of this expression, so I can see where a person such as yourself might misconstrue the meaning if they took that comment at face value.
Once again, let me be crystal clear: I'm not criticising or demeaning any victim of the storms. I'm simply saying that my empathy has limitations. Here's a prime example taken from an article about the approaching storm:
[quote] Bette has the means to leave New Orleans. She and her husband could jump in their car and take off. During Katrina, she briefly relocated to Houston, and while happy she made that choice, she couldn't stay. She had to return to her city.
Like a relationship that suffers a bad break-up and is stronger after a reunion, she worries that she hasn't got the heart to leave and then return a second time.
"When you stand out there by that river and look at that levee," she said, "you are just so blessed to live here. I am in love, and so I make my choice."[/quote]
Now, here's a woman with the means to safely leave the city, and avoid further destruction. She could have moved from NO to a safer location. She has temporarily done it before, but admittedly chooses to stay because that's her choice. Now, if her store and/or home gets damaged, am I supposed to feel sorry for her? Am I obligated to feel empathy towards this woman who had the means to avoid this but chose not to?
I can understand the situation of one that doesn't have the means or opportunity to relocate somewhere else that's more safe. But I will not feel obligated, whatsoever, to feel empathy for people such as this woman who have the ability to leave, but choose to live in an area where she faces dire situations year after year. She made her choice, which was her right. But I don't have to feel a certain way because of it.
it doesnt matter whether it happens every year or every other decade.
Frankly and undeniably, no one deserves natural disaster. No one. And that's why you should not limit your empathy. If you think a person deserves this kind of disaster because he/she somehow saw it coming two years before the occurrence, then I guess nobody can change your mentality. I hope somebody eventually does, and increase the number of people who care enough to donate or go down and help.
I'm not trying to be mean here, but after this hurricane is over there should be no more donations going out for people to rebuild their lives in that city. Yes it is home to a great amount of people, but living under sea level between a huge lake and the Gulf of Mexico with the disastrous weather that is only getting worse each year seems like an uphill battle. How many more billions of dollars are gonna be spent repairing a city in between hurricanes before insurance companies and donation centers pay them to rebuild elsewhere (Surely there is other things we can spend billions of dollars on that are just as worthy). I say ship the NO Hornets to Seattle and give another great city a NBA team again. I hope every gets out of that city with all their cherished possessions, and hopefully this wont happen again. I'm sure we can just move party city to another city. As for football, i don't know how well the Saints would do in SA. Seattle seems to be the best place to relocate the Hornets though, I'm sure they would have no problem selling out most of their games with how well the Hornets are doing and how much Seattle wants a team back.
[QUOTE=nosurrender]it doesnt matter whether it happens every year or every other decade.[/quote]
Well, that's your opinion. In my viewpoint, if you choose to live in a high risk situation, you should expect whatever consequences result from the situation.
[quote]Frankly and undeniably, no one deserves natural disaster. No one. And that's why you should not limit your empathy.[/quote]
I never said a person deserved to suffer. But I'm also not going to have unlimited empathy for people who CHOSE that situation. If you build a house at the foot of an active volcano, am I supposed to feel empathy when an eruption destroys it? If you walk on the train tracks, am I supposed to weep if you were struck and killed? Tragedy is tragedy, and I'm not disputing that. But there is a level of accountability when one has the choice.
[quote]If you think a person deserves this kind of disaster because he/she somehow saw it coming two years before the occurrence, then I guess nobody can change your mentality.[/quote]
Once again, you show your ignorance by this statement. If this is your understanding of my viewpoint, then please don't respond to me on this issue, because it's clear you aren't comprehending my opinion. I never said people deserved it.
[QUOTE=Showtime]
Now, here's a woman with the means to safely leave the city, and avoid further destruction. She could have moved from NO to a safer location. She has temporarily done it before, but admittedly chooses to stay because that's her choice. Now, if her store and/or home gets damaged, am I supposed to feel sorry for her? Am I obligated to feel empathy towards this woman who had the means to avoid this but chose not to?
I can understand the situation of one that doesn't have the means or opportunity to relocate somewhere else that's more safe. But I will not feel obligated, whatsoever, to feel empathy for people such as this woman who has the ability to leave, but chooses to live in an area where she faces dire situations year after year. She made her choice, which was her right. But I don't have to feel a certain way because of it.[/QUOTE]
Well I would think that as a fellow human being you could still empathize with the scenario. Leaving everything you know, where you've grown up, raised a family, whatever the case is, is a decision I can imagine would be terribly hard to make. As a fellow human, you may not agree with her decision, but you should still feel some sympathy for her even having to be in a position to make that decision. Ya dig?
[QUOTE=Hoggle]I'm not trying to be mean here, but after this hurricane is over there should be no more donations going out for people to rebuild their lives in that city. Yes it is home to a great amount of people, but living under sea level between a huge lake and the Gulf of Mexico with the disastrous weather that is only getting worse each year seems like an uphill battle. How many more billions of dollars are gonna be spent repairing a city in between hurricanes before insurance companies and donation centers pay them to rebuild elsewhere. I say ship the NO Hornets to Seattle and give another great city a NBA team again. I hope every gets out of that city with all their cherished possessions, and hopefully this wont happen again. I'm sure we can just move party city to another city. As for football, i don't know how well the Saints would do in SA. Seattle seems to be the best place to relocate the Hornets though, I'm sure they would have no problem selling out most of their games with how well the Hornets are doing and how much Seattle wants a team back.[/QUOTE]
Personally I would much rather my tax dollars go to rebuilding the homes of the less fortunate who had their lives torn apart by hurricanes than another dime towards Iraq and the presence of our troops. But that's just me.
[QUOTE=JayGuevara]Well I would think that as a fellow human being you could still empathize with the scenario. Leaving everything you know, where you've grown up, raised a family, whatever the case is, is a decision I can imagine would be terribly hard to make. As a fellow human, you may not agree with her decision, but you should still feel some sympathy for her even having to be in a position to make that decision. Ya dig?[/QUOTE]
I guess we can agree on the issue of a choice. I feel sorry that she was forced to make a choice in that situation to begin with.
[quote=Showtime]Well, that's your opinion. In my viewpoint, if you choose to live in a high risk situation, you should expect whatever consequences result from the situation.
I never said a person deserved to suffer. But I'm also not going to have unlimited empathy for people who CHOSE that situation. If you build a house at the foot of an active volcano, am I supposed to feel empathy when an eruption destroys it? If you walk on the train tracks, am I supposed to weep if you were struck and killed? Tragedy is tragedy, and I'm not disputing that. But there is a level of accountability when one has the choice.
Once again, you show your ignorance by this statement. If this is your understanding of my viewpoint, then please don't respond to me on this issue, because it's clear you aren't comprehending my opinion. I never said people deserved it.[/quote]
I know what happened to you during this thread. You showed no compassion towards the people New Orleans, and were torched accordingly. And now that you realize you are being labeled as an antagonist, you have switched into a defensive mentality and continue to post this useless dribble. When it is all said and done one thing is clear; you are not nearly as compassionate to other humans as the average ISH poster and that is reprehensible.