Printable View
As you've already heard, Whitney Houston passed away a few days ago. However, every day thousands of children die due to starvation and malnutrition. The question is, who would you grieve more deeply for? A celebrity who has deeply impacted your life, or children that die in the thousands everyday?
Undecided.
For one, the celebrities are an emotional attachment so I grieve them cause they mean something to me.
And the children is an ongoing problem that is always happening, and it is a problem that effects such a vast number of people that I do feel bad that that kind of thing is happening.
Why grieve? They all go to "Heaven."
Whitney Housten, she was successful and earned it. Those children need to pull themselves up by their bootstraps.
Nope.
Sounds just like how God operates. Omnipotent indeed! Someone who has all the power of God and let's all this suffering continue isn't "Omnipotent" as much as "A sadist."Quote:
Originally Posted by Omnis Dei
Okay, I'll be the one to say it. Of course children dying in Africa is a far more important problem, and of course more saddening. However, we are talking about a celebrity who impacted your life. Think about a celebrity/ famous person you impacted you and think, WHAT IF they died. Now think about how sad you are right now, because RIGHT NOW, children are dying.
If you aren't that sad right now, then of course, you would be more saddened by the celebrity dying. This is why I voted celebrity. haters gonna hate.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Omnis Dei
Finally, an honest answer I can agree with.Quote:
Originally Posted by Solarflare
The saving from starvation of millions in the Third World requires only ordinary 'powers' and is the responsibility of humanity as a whole. For the Masters to use 'supernatural' powers to end the starvation would be an interference with our free will, and against the karmic law. The 1983-1985 famine in Ethiopia, for example, was unnecessary - foreseen and warned against for years by the aid-agencies, and the result, not simply of drought (an 'act of God') but of poverty and political machinations.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Sandman
I do not grieve over the passing of people I don't know.
What a crock.Quote:
Originally Posted by mcwillis
Would you explain which part is untrue?Quote:
Originally Posted by The Sandman
"Pitty not the dead, but the living"- Albus Dumbledore
I voted before I read the OP :doh: I thought children meant my own. Neither would've been my choice :P
Really!?
No one would be sad if Shigeru Miyamoto died!?
Tsk Tsk Tsk
I do not mourn for those whom I do not know in a personal matter. If somebody who influenced me died I would be somewhat sad, but I would not mourn my loss and would probably get over it completely in a few minutes.
I bring this up pretty much any time there's anything in the news about a pointless bit of a celebrity's personal life (which is pretty much every day).
I find this so interesting that none of this "hey guys X's death is more important than y's death" stuff was going on when Micheal Jackson (or most other recent celebrities) died. Heck, remember when all those wild exotic animals got released and they had to shoot them all? Most people were sad, angry at the guy who did it, and angry at the cops and people who were behind the decision. Not one person mentioned "hey what about da troops who are getting killed everyday!?". Another example is Amy Winehouse...people were just like "oh we saw that coming".
To put things in a closer perspective. Just imagine talking to your family about one grandparents that passed away and someone says "I'm going to miss Grandma more than Grandpa...we shouldn't discuss him at all right now". The point I'm getting at is: any loss of life regardless of how a person chose to live it is never a good thing.
This sounds callous, but I don't even "grieve deeply" for those I love. At least not consciously. My grief spills over into my dreams for decades, though.
But when I'm awake... what can you do? For those starving etc you can help by trying to make a difference with your time, money and/or resources. But what if you have nothing to give? Do you beat yourself up for not being wealthier or in some sort of political/religious power position?
I hope not.
You move on with your life.
Once someone is dead, shed some tears, feel sad, feel mad, acknowledge the loss then continue living the best you can.
It really belongs in another thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by mcwillis
I don't feel bad for the one who died as much as I feel sad for myself and others who happen to be alive. I'll miss those musicians who were influential to me, simply because music is a part of my life, therefore they were, and I would be loosing what I enjoyed.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SmVAWKfJ4Go
I appreciate those who mourn the living. I appreciate the idea that if we walked around mourning everyone around the world who is suffering, we would lead a miserable existence. Televise the facts surrounding the death of Whitney Houston, and then show images of the suffering in Darfhour with electrodes to someones head. I think you will find we mourn both.
If you don't mourn the children suffering in some remote third world nation, you may be a sociopath, but I don't care to pass judgement on you. I don't know why you think the way you do.
Remember, this is a poll. It evokes a bunch of emotion, and people feel they have to pick a side when in fact, they don't mourn one more or less necessarily. Of course, some do mourn on more or one less. The point is, I think a lot of people mourn both plenty.
I should throw up some divisive poll and stir the pot!
Who the fuck is Whitney Houston? Why do you even care about her???????
My great grandfather died 3 days ago. I am not grieving. I know he's passed on to the spirit world to be with my great grand mother. People normally freak out and panic when someone dies because of their uncertainty if there is anything after that or whatever other negative beliefs they may hold. (hell)
Dave makes a great point. I mourn more for the family and friends who have been left behind.
Like, whenever I see a funeral procession, I say a quick prayer for the living. I don't know any of the people, but I still empathize with their pain.
I just think it's emotionally unhealthy to hold on to grief.
:hug: Salty. Sorry to hear about your great grandfather.
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..)Quote:
Originally Posted by saltyseedog
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by saltyseedog
I don't think I'd ever really "truly" "grieve" over a celebrity....
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by mcwillis
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.
Well children have near unlimited potential....there's really no telling what they could have done or what could have become of them.Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by tommo
"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?
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Auron
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by saltyseedog
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by tommo
Um, what?Quote:
Originally Posted by Omnis Dei
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!:)Quote:
Originally Posted by Oneironaut Zero
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.
If my answers frighten you cease asking scary questionsQuote:
Originally Posted by The Sandman