Thread: Who Would You Grieve For?

Originally Posted by saltyseedog

They want us to be all caught up and emotional about celebrities to keep the population distracted from real issues that are having an effect on them

I agree and disagree. If one of my favorite musicians died, I would be sad because their career had been a part of my life, and I would miss that part. However, if some celebrity on some TV show died I might not really mind. (that sounds wrong..)

Originally Posted by saltyseedog

They want us to be all caught up and emotional about celebrities to keep the population distracted from real issues that are having an effect on them

Salty, being sad over a celebrity's death is normal. Mourning someone's who's inspired you isn't a conspiracy. The reason any celebrity death is on the news is because it is in fact part of the news. Celebrity deaths sell better, people don't want to hear about children they don't know are dying simply because they don't care, or don't want to see the suffering. News of children starving aren't in the news because it happens everyday, do you realize how even MORE dull and boring the news would be if they announced every single person who died everyday? I don't think you would because you'd call it a conspiracy either way.

I don't think I'd ever really "truly" "grieve" over a celebrity....

Originally Posted by mcwillis

You must be joking buddy. Just to stay alive, millions in the Third World work harder, and for longer hours, than any 'developed' worker would countenance. Just to get water (often impure and potentially dangerous to health) many walk miles per day in temperatures of 40 degrees centigrade. To gather firewood for cooking becomes a major, all-day task. Without money or technology which Westerners take for granted, miracles of ingenuity are performed daily in otherwise hopeless conditions. I believe it is precisely the appalling complacency implied by this remark that maintains the dangerous imbalance between the developed and developing worlds. We owe them our help.

If they live in such terrible conditions it's because they didn't work hard enough to improve their conditions. Helping them would mean rewarding their laziness. If they want my sympathy, they need to earn it like Whitney Housten did.

We don't owe them anything. They were the ones that let us colonize them in the first place. They were the ones that couldn't develop fast enough and improve their technology and infrastructure to a level defensible against exploitation. They deserve to be exploited. I don't even see why we ended the slave trade. It was a perfectly legitimate business. Still is. Millions of people disappear every day to be trafficked in sex trade and I applaud that.

I grieve when somebody that could have contributed greatly to the world dies. Whitney Houston wasn't that.

I'll probably be sad when Dylan dies but for the most part, I grieve for scientists and the like.

As far as all the dying children goes, grieving for them is pointless unless it does something to prevent the situation from happening again. Otherwise it's just to make yourself feel like you care.

I honestly would care about all the children in 3rd world countries dying if I could do anything about it.
I realise I have basically no ability to help any of them. It's been suggested that giving to charities generally only makes the situation worse. I'll have to look in to it more, but I
may even stop my monthly donations soon.
If I could help them build up their society technologically and educate them and give them healthcare or simply get other countries out of their country, I would.
But because I can't it feels like an unnecessary burden to grieve for them or worry about them at all.

As for celebrities, I don't give a fuck. As philstoned said, if it's Dylan or someone I really think can help humans see some truth or improve our situation etc. then yes I would.
But that's mostly because we will have lost a voice of reason, an opportunity to improve, forever.

I wouldn't even grieve for Dylan, though I would give him a proper send-off on facebook and so forth. As for other achievers, I would remember their contribution and give them proper respect for it, but I wouldn't really grieve. I mostly reserve my grief for people in my life that I am attached to like friends and family. And for billionaire capitalists because they've earned it.

^^^ Making me laugh.

I feel sad that people suffer, but unless it is shoved in my face, I rarely think about the conditions of people around the world. Still, dying and suffering children make me cry. It's a parent thing.

I would mourn the loss of Captain Kirk and Mister Spock.

i vote neither. it hard for me to see one persons life as more important then anothers. and i don't see death itself as something negative.

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

As far as all the dying children goes, grieving for them is pointless unless it does something to prevent the situation from happening again. Otherwise it's just to make yourself feel like you care.

Well children have near unlimited potential....there's really no telling what they could have done or what could have become of them.

Originally Posted by tommo

I honestly would care about all the children in 3rd world countries dying if I could do anything about it.
I realise I have basically no ability to help any of them. It's been suggested that giving to charities generally only makes the situation worse. I'll have to look in to it more, but I
may even stop my monthly donations soon.
If I could help them build up their society technologically and educate them and give them healthcare or simply get other countries out of their country, I would.
But because I can't it feels like an unnecessary burden to grieve for them or worry about them at all.

As for celebrities, I don't give a fuck. As philstoned said, if it's Dylan or someone I really think can help humans see some truth or improve our situation etc. then yes I would.
But that's mostly because we will have lost a voice of reason, an opportunity to improve, forever.

As a consumer. You carry much of the power of what happens in other countries. At least you actually have some sort of power to have an effect. Some people are stuck in horrible situations that there is no way out of.

"Grievance" is a relative term.

I 'grieved' for my father, when he died, but I didn't shed many tears. I 'grieve' for the continuous deaths of countless children in 3rd world countries, but I understand this to be a global constant, and I'm not about to break down into emotional turmoil over it. I 'grieve' for the deaths of people like Michael Jackson, because I understand the contributions that he has made to humanity in general, but there's no hole in my heart. I 'grieve' for the deaths of certain ideals, because they make me a little less optimistic about society, yet that's the way the cookie crumbles. I 'grieve' for the discontinuations of my favorite works of art/music/entertainment, because they have impacted my life so heavily, and are now gone, but I recognize these things to be gone, so I continue on with my life...

Exactly what kind of 'grievance' are we talking about, in this context?

Originally Posted by Auron

Well children have near unlimited potential....there's really no telling what they could have done or what could have become of them.

The chance that a child will grow up to do something truly great is probably close to 1 in a million. In all likelihood they will become a plague on the world and the rest of humanity.

Originally Posted by saltyseedog

As a consumer. You carry much of the power of what happens in other countries. At least you actually have some sort of power to have an effect. Some people are stuck in horrible situations that there is no way out of.

This is true. I try to not buy from unethical (exploitative, environmentally destructive etc.) companies. But I also realise that almost every other person just does not give a single fuck.

Originally Posted by tommo

The chance that a child will grow up to do something truly great is probably close to 1 in a million. In all likelihood they will become a plague on the world and the rest of humanity.

Your chances of winning the lottery are less than that, but if you were given one thousand tickets a day would you play it? When the world gets great people, we all win.

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

...Millions of people disappear every day to be trafficked in sex trade and I applaud that.

Um, what?

Originally Posted by Oneironaut Zero

"Grievance" is a relative term.

I 'grieved' for my father, when he died, but I didn't shed many tears. I 'grieve' for the continuous deaths of countless children in 3rd world countries, but I understand this to be a global constant, and I'm not about to break down into emotional turmoil over it. I 'grieve' for the deaths of people like Michael Jackson, because I understand the contributions that he has made to humanity in general, but there's no hole in my heart. I 'grieve' for the deaths of certain ideals, because they make me a little less optimistic about society, yet that's the way the cookie crumbles. I 'grieve' for the discontinuations of my favorite works of art/music/entertainment, because they have impacted my life so heavily, and are now gone, but I recognize these things to be gone, so I continue on with my life...

Exactly what kind of 'grievance' are we talking about, in this context?

I meant "grieve" as in, just be sad, shed a tear here and there. Not exactly break down for days and cry. You wrote exactly what I meant!

Niether. If I don't know em personally, it doesn't affect me and I wouldn't care a single bit.

What reason would I have in grieving for either? Seems like a silly question to me. I will grieve when someone that I love dies, that's about it.

I wouldn't grieve for either.

Originally Posted by The Sandman

Um, what?

If my answers frighten you cease asking scary questions