Intense1

Ok, let me sift through the bits and bobs and see what I can do to clarify my meanin's a bit. Thanks Analog for the opportunity to refine my thoughts. And they do need some refinement, be assured of this.

1. When I write about a "generation" (little g) of kids in the Amish community, I do not mean a whole blanket Generation (big G). Meaning, I'm not talking about the 3 billion plus folks under 18 in the world, I'm talking about a specific group of Amish young girls at a certain age range. I reckon "generation" is a bit to broad a term. Let's call them a "segment". So this segment of this Amish community has been cut in half. (I exclude all the other 1.5 billion of potential young wives and mothers because, for the most part, Amish marry within their own community. In such a closed society, the aforementioned segment is important for this group.)

My frame of reference in developing this "segment" thingy is this: remember the bursting of the economic bubble in Southeast Asia in 1997? Well, I had just moved to Thailand and began reading everything I could get my hands on about SEA and the various cultures. A couple years later I read an article in AsiaWeek magazine about the effects of what amounted to instant poverty that millions of people were thrust into after the crisis hit in '97, particularly with warnings about the effects of poor nutrition in kids under six, and how it would show up later in their schooling in poor attention spans, low ability to process logic, and also increased learning disabilities. The country most mentioned in this area was Indonesia.

If millions of kids in Indonesia under six were effectively malnourished (quite a large percentage of this segment, if I remember the article correctly) for most if not all of that important formative time, then a whole segment of Indonesian society will be educationally (is that a word? hmmmm.) handicapped. And as this segment moves through life, this impact would be felt in many areas of society.

Now the ripple effect this would have on that whole country could be massive.* I'd like to see a followup study, but AsiaWeek merged with a solely Economic mag, and since as a rule I usually do not jump up and down and shout "Woo hoo, another about Economic magazine!", I'll just do without.

Anyway, that's where the whole segment thought came from. Hope I made sense.

2. I agree with you about the equality of the value of human lives. It wasn't my intent to say kids count for more than adults because they're kids. I was trying to convey the different sense of horror many people feel when they hear a kid was shot as opposed to hearing that an adult was shot. I mean, come on, doesn't your heart jump a bit more when you see a news report about a little two-year old killed by ricochet fire in a drive-by shooting, as opposed to seeing a report about an 18 year old? Doesn't it? Just a little bit? Both are aweful, but for some reason, in my heart, the tot rates a bit more of a bump.

3. A room full of adult hostages might include an ex-Navy Seal with a serious caffeine buzz who incidentally has a six inch knife in his boot, and a danged good chance to use it when yon gun-toter is turned away. All I can think of when I think of a room full of kid hostages is that they'll probably all pee in their pants and cry. I'll repeat what I said - Adults have a chance at fighting back, mostly because they can think abstractly and plan and use subterfuge. Kids do what they're told. Period. At least until it comes to actually going to bed when they're told. That makes the parents feel like the hostage.

Just because adults are reasonably able to fight back if so inclined and kids can't, does not mean that one is more important. That's not what I meant, and I didn't intend to imply it.

4. No, you're right, a room full of dead folk don't need protection anymore. I must have misunderstood something, or made some other wacky mistake, as I am often want to do. I think what I meant was that kids need protection, since they cannot protect themselves. (ad nauseum, sorry)

5. Don't get where the "lineage and reproduction" thing came from, but as you said not to pick at it, I'll let it scab over and heal nicely.

6. The whole "losing a whole generation because some kids die" thing was answered above - I'm not talking about a whole "G"eneration, I'm talking about a segment in a small community of people, not humanity in its glorious totality. And again, never said kids were more important, just more in need of protecting (yes they're dead, don't need protection.....yada yada)

7. Re: SOME animals not protecting their young: You know, the very minute after I hit "Submit Reply" on that previous post, I immediately thought of Guppies. Dang. Missed that one. But if you want to go and stick your hand in a dug out hole in the desert to see if you can pull out a lion cub and take it hostage, be my guest. I'll be in the Range Rover, windows pulled up.

'Kay, that's it. Oh, gotta do the asterisk.

* Such an impact of having a whole segment of kids who were born around '97 would be as follows:
1. Schools would need more tutors for slower students
2. Higher drop out rates
3. Medical needs greater
4. Funding for all of the above
5. Lots more that I can't write out right now, cause my mind is a bit whoppyjawed.
3.

__________________
(none yet, still thinkin')

analog

Oh, I knew which you meant. lol Anyhow, good example with the southeast Asia note- I was originally just saying that 6 or 8 people won't cripple the entire community. There are still a lof of other kids younger and older than them. I can see where you're saying that there can be a ripple effect, and I generally agree with that notion, but I don't think there's enough loss here to cause any real change, at all.

Many people do experience an extra sense of personal horror when the deceased is a child, but I still think this extra horror is strictly because they place the life of a child as more important than the life of an adult. Why else would the extra horror exist than because they place a higher value to a child's life? I can't think of another explanation.

Well, no, because again- I don't value human life differently depending on who it is. I have to value every human life equally.

That I will grant you, sure- but how many times have we been shown, over and over, that people do not do this? To begin with, adults get "bystander syndrome", which is a very workable observation on social psychology where the more people that are involved (starting with 2), the less likely anyone is to do anything because they figure someone else will. I can't recall the last time a group of adult hostages attempted any kind of real retaliation or lashed out against their captors (not counting the passengers on the 9/11 flight that fought back). Adult hostages do what they're told, too.

I just don't think there's a reasonable enough chance of that ever actually happening to make it worth saying there's a real difference between child hostages and adult hostages.


Oh, I didn't think that.

In general, yes. I agree that children need protection because they lack the ability to protect themselves. I'm really just discussing that 6 human losses is 6 human losses, and that's that.

Many very good points, great back-and-forth.

Leto

The logic comes in being able to use the tool properly. (note: you have to take a test to be able to use a car properly. And this is to provide for your own transportation no less).

As a gun supporter, I suspect you would be blown away.

Which is what I did, and the first time i ever saw a gun policy posted ANYWHERE, was 2weeks ago on the outside of the entrance to the Houston Hilton. It was so strange to see, that we actually took pictures of the signage. (shaking head)...

dksuddeth

will we have tests to make sure you can speak properly before you protest or state your case with the government? How about a test before you write a newspaper article?



Why? Because I don't wear a military uniform or a badge?



I know you're from Canada, but i'll ask you this. If you were in the states would you call the manager or police if someone was carrying a pistol in the mall? Even though you knew it was perfectly legal in that state?

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Leto

I doubt it. Speech doesn't wield deadly force. (confer with a physiologist for details)


If i was trying to enjoy a meal and somebody pulled a purile stunt like what I described, It wouldn't matter if I was in the States. I would make a complaint.

dksuddeth

you can kill with a knife, or a ball bat, and even your hands and feet as well. license those?

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

shakran

Uhh, no, they pretty much ban any useful knives, period. Most states restrict blade lengths to 3.5 inches - some states are far less, and only Texas allows 7 inches. Longer knives are automatically confiscated and you can be charged.

In fact, I find this avenue quite interesting. Why are all the gun guys so rabid when someone wants to restrict absurdly powerful guns, yet they remain strangely silent when they outlaw knives?

dksuddeth

good thing they don't know about my sword collection, although I wouldn't mind being able to carry one of my shorter ones. would come in handy if I ran out of ammo.

and now that you mention it, I only know a few gun owners who are also up in arms about outlawing knives as well.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Cynthetiq

I guess you've never been to the philippines either then...

there are plenty of signs that state:

no shoes, no shirt, no service, and no guns please check them with the host.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

shakran

I was clearly talking about carrying the weapons in public, not possession -- otherwise all of us would go to jail for the contents of our kitchens.

Leto

umm,,, no? I'm trying to keep this in the realm of the sensible.


you would be right. I've been to many parts of the US, Canada, Europe, even Sri Lanka & korea. But nope.... first time was in Houston