Irradiated

_Sal said:

no we would not

but we can at least try to be mindful of what we personally are willing or not willing to sacrifice...acknowledge it and be aware of the suffering of those who have sacrificed

it's like no one wants to think of it or say it

why not

we kill innocents everyday and go pick up groceries without a thought

we need to find a better way

we need to think more and kill less

Click to expand...

Everyone born will die, that fact is without question - what is left to discuss is how best to keep the most people able to remain living freely.

ttwtt78640 said:

Everyone born will die, that fact is without question - what is left to discuss is how best to keep the most people able to remain living freely.

Click to expand...

agreed everyone born will die

the question is, should I expect another human being to be fallout for me? if they are, what do I owe them?

do we have a right to kill innocents in order to keep ourselves free? is that truly freedom?

I am not so sure any more

I do not believe that question should be a fast resounding yes

_Sal said:

correct "dead is dead"...innocent or guilty...saying an innocent sacrifice is for the good of the many is fine until the innocent is yours...then it feels different

I don't expect people to accept anything at face value. Frankly the older I get and the more I see the less I expect anything of people in general. The strong and those protected by the strong won't even let their mind get close to sacrifice to examine it. Just read through the thread.

Is there a point you were attempting to address with regard to innocent victims who we are quick to sacrifice and then forget about or justify their death?

Click to expand...

Just references about how world peace hangs in the realization that "dead is dead" please. Seems like an easy way to achieve world piece, all people need to do is realize that circular logic and qe, we would have world piece?

DDD said:

Just references about how world peace hangs in the realization that "dead is dead" please. Seems like an easy way to achieve world piece, all people need to do is realize that circular logic and qe, we would have world piece?

Click to expand...

wow

yes I'm ten and you completely got me

you win

ttwtt78640 said:

People die doing all manner of high risk jobs, many more die while merely commuting to/from low risk jobs (or the local store). Safety, defined as the absence of risk, is unattainable. All that we can do is try to limit those risks as much as possible. Would we, as a nation, be safer without nuclear weapons while our enemies possess them?

Click to expand...

The world would be much safer without nuclear weapons, but not if only one nation didn't have them. A Mutually Assured Destruction is better than a "Do what we say or we nuke you" situation.

Unfortunately, the genie is out of the lamp now, and can't be put back in.

It's a lot like guns. We'd be safer if no one had them, but there is no way to achieve that situation. It's better if everyone has them than it is if only the criminal element has them.

_Sal said:

well in a manner of speaking yes you are quite correct...and then they write the history

Click to expand...

Everyone revises history to their hearts content.

The Japanese rewrites history so they are the victims.

The southerners rewrites history so they are the victims of the civil war.

Anti Semites rewrites history so they are the victims to justify their hatred of Jews.

It's a trend.

Dittohead not! said:

The world would be much safer without nuclear weapons, but not if only one nation didn't have them. A Mutually Assured Destruction is better than a "Do what we say or we nuke you" situation.

Unfortunately, the genie is out of the lamp now, and can't be put back in.

It's a lot like guns. We'd be safer if no one had them, but there is no way to achieve that situation. It's better if everyone has them than it is if only the criminal element has them.

Click to expand...

One of the computer games called Civilization, which is a series, one of the Wonders of the World you can develop is Nanite technology. When you develop that, they go and deconstruct anything that has a nuclear weapon in it including people, the vehicle 9such as a nuclear submarine), and all equipment and nuclear weapons all at once.

But, that's just a game.

Ancient Herald said:

Everyone revises history to their hearts content.

The Japanese rewrites history so they are the victims.

The southerners rewrites history so they are the victims of the civil war.

Anti Semites rewrites history so they are the victims to justify their hatred of Jews.

It's a trend.

Click to expand...

it's the way of the world yes!

Ancient Herald said:

One of the computer games called Civilization, which is a series, one of the Wonders of the World you can develop is Nanite technology. When you develop that, they go and deconstruct anything that has a nuclear weapon in it including people, the vehicle 9such as a nuclear submarine), and all equipment and nuclear weapons all at once.

But, that's just a game.

Click to expand...

Yes, it's only a game. If only it were possible to deconstruct all of the nuclear weapons in the world, we'd be better off.

Or would we? Would it simply lead to bigger and better conventional wars?

Dittohead not! said:

[h=2]The hidden legacy of 70 years of atomic weaponry: At least 33,480 Americans dead[/h]

Is our nuclear weapons program worth it?

Click to expand...

Absolutely ! National defense is worth it.

How many soldiers and pilots have been killed in training accidents ?

Do you stop investing in and promoting National defense because accidents happen ? Hell no.

I know, old thread. I've been gone awhile ...

_Sal said:

omg...you really don't get it do you...

Click to expand...

I get it just fine, you're the one missing the point ...

_Sal said:

people sacrifice their children on highways?
wow
you put your kid in a car knowing they will die?
that is one bizarre thought process you have comparing cars to nuclear weapons

Click to expand...

Every single day about 100 people die on American highways so, yes, I'd say they're sacrificing their children by taking them out there. Don't you think 100 deaths every day is enough to qualify? If not, exactly how many dead people per day does it take to qualify as a sacrifice to you???

You believe 33,480 in 70 years is a sacrifice and I've just shown that it's one hundred times more risky to drive in America. In your own words, dead is dead and, don't kid yourself, at CAN happen to you or your children just as easily as anyone else out there.

MoSurveyor said:

I know, old thread. I've been gone awhile ...

I get it just fine, you're the one missing the point ...
Every single day about 100 people die on American highways so, yes, I'd say they're sacrificing their children by taking them out there. Don't you think 100 deaths every day is enough to qualify? If not, exactly how many dead people per day does it take to qualify as a sacrifice to you???

You believe 33,480 in 70 years is a sacrifice and I've just shown that it's one hundred times more risky to drive in America. In your own words, dead is dead and, don't kid yourself, at CAN happen to you or your children just as easily as anyone else out there.

Click to expand...

Driving is a lot safer now than it used to be, back before there were seat belts, air bags, limited access highways, crumple zones, antilock brakes, and a whole lot of other technological innovations. Moreover, travel by car is still safer than travel by horse and buggy, despite the higher speeds.

There is no way to be 100% safe. Eventual death is inevitable anyway, and we do still need to get from place to place.

It would help if there were fewer idiots behind the wheel, but I'm not sure how we accomplish that one.

And, currently the most astonishing statistic is that more Americans die of heroin overdoses than of traffic accidents.

Dittohead not! said:

Driving is a lot safer now than it used to be, back before there were seat belts, air bags, limited access highways, crumple zones, antilock brakes, and a whole lot of other technological innovations. Moreover, travel by car is still safer than travel by horse and buggy, despite the higher speeds.

There is no way to be 100% safe. Eventual death is inevitable anyway, and we do still need to get from place to place.

It would help if there were fewer idiots behind the wheel, but I'm not sure how we accomplish that one.

And, currently the most astonishing statistic is that more Americans die of heroin overdoses than of traffic accidents.

Click to expand...

There's no doubt that it's much safer out there than it used to be. (I bet it's much, much safer in the nuclear industry, too!->) My first car only had seat belts (front only) because it was a Chrysler Newport instead of a "common" car and, of course, has nothing else except a horn and lights for safety - and not even side marker lights. I had been driving for years, years before ABS and airbags came out. ((As a side note, did you know Hollywood first used an airbag to do a car stunt in the film Bullitt in 1968?))


I think horse and buggy was only dangerous because of other people (though I'm not quite old enough to have direct experience with them). I guess horses can get spooked but it's awfully hard to run into another buggy and get killed. I'd also bet most buggy injuries (not all) can be taken care of with modern medicine, too. Infection and broken bones really aren't big problems anymore.


I didn't know that about heroin. WOW! :shock: