Quote:
|
Originally Posted by joe_eschaton
I think natural disasters are good for humanity, like war is the hygiene of the world. I can think of no better or proven means to establish a general redistrbution of wealth. We just need more of them. See people rise to the challenges, help each other out, concentrate on what's important. I support terrorism, of a kind. I loved the Guardian reader's chattering response to Bush: 'how can you declare war on an abstract concept'? Indeed, so I make it known here that I can't be expected to advocate an abstraction either. All the same, terror hasn't really existed as an abstract concept before. I know I support it in its substance, but I don't know as yet in what form. By corrupting the language, disrupting institutions and collectives, or cultures?
Any group mentality, including nationalism/patriotism, is like falling hopelessly and suspiciously in love with the girl next door if you ask me. A pitiable proximity syndrome.
|
Natural disasters, like wars, kill people and result in vast amounts of human suffering. If you are openly advocating for there to be more natural disasters, you are also condoning the levels of suffering that are caused by those events. I find this to be reprehensible.
A general redistribution of wealth? Were you watching the news during Hurricane Katrina? The poor of New Orleans were most affected by the storm: the poor neighborhoods were the furthest below sea level and they are the least able to rebuild after the disaster. Furthermore, as you later stated, natural disasters are unpredictable. There is clearly a contradiction between considering natural disasters to be a "proven means to establish a general redistribution of wealth" and saying that they are unpredictible.
And you
support terrorism, I see. But... you ridicule Bush for
opposing terrorism because it's an abstract concept? It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand what the war on terror is about
: of course the literal target of the war is not terrorism, but the terrorists who practice it. However, the goal, at least on a basic level, is to prevent terrorism. Furthermore, terrorism is not an abstract concept any more than chemical warfare is abstract. Again, I find your approval of terrorism to be reprehensible, as terrorism causes great suffering for large numbers of people.
FYI, it is obviously preferable, in my mind, to proudly wave the flag of your homeland than to (metaphorically) wave the dual flags of natural disasters and terrorism. But maybe I feel that way because I oppose the abstract concept of human suffering: call be crazy...
