On Sun, 2 Feb 2003 22:16:01 -0600, Mike Wallace <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:
Snipping liberally to comment only on those points that either need
clarifications or further comments. Agreement or no strong disagreement
otherwise.
>As to the similarities in the deaths of the divers and the astronauts,
>sure, I'd agree there are some similarities.
Yup. Not much, but enough to talk about some similarities.
>> Am I to read this to mean:
>>
>> 1. All those who said he "just stupidly killed themselves" or
>> "what a dumb ass they were" are callous sons of a bitch?
>
>I said *I* was a callous son of a bitch when *I* said that. I have not
>commented on what I might think of others who do the same thing.
It was VERY clear that you were speaking about yourself. But the
implication was there, whether you meant it or not.
>>
>> What about all those who flamed those who died diving deep
>> air, deep cave, deep free-dive and died? Are they any
>> different from the astronauts who died? For the most part,
>> THEY knew the risks, just as the astronaut did <if the
>> astronauts didn't, they would be REALLY dumb asses>; they
>> CHOSE to take the risk, as all others did. (Sheck and a few
>> others, e.g.)
>
>Certainly all of the above chose to take the risks that they took. The
>bill came due, as it does for all of us at some point in time, and they
>paid. I have compassion for all of them.
My point there was that I've heard PLENTY of folks calling the
deep-air deaths, stroke caver deaths, as worse than "dumb ass" (you
should know, having been around Techdiver and the WKPP boys), but I
don't know of anyone calling the dead astronauts "dumb asses". SAME
principle about knowing the risks and taking them. THAT's the kind
of similarity I was talking about, and observed how DIFFERENTLY
people feel about those willing-and-knowing risk takers.
>
>
>> OR
>> But wait! There's more <in the voice of ginzu-knife salesmen on
>> TV>:
>>
>> >The older I get the more I think about what death does to those
>> >are still here.
>>
>> I don't care how old you are, how do YOU know what death do to
>> family members of those whom you DON'T know?
>
>Because I have seen it. I have dealt with the after effects of death and
>how it affected the family members that remained,
I know THAT very well -- as in your rescue and body searching work.
But I was more or less playing the devil's advocate by saying there
must be SOME families of SOMEONE who are HAPPY to see some "dumb
ass" family member die. And since we DON'T know which is which, we
can't know how the particularly ones would feel. And I used MJB
as an example that MIGHT be such a case.
>> But take Dr. Black, e.g., he is the product of his family members,
>> to a large extent. How do YOU know they are not RELIEVED that
>> he was dead, rather than living longer, tormenting himself and
>> all those around him, assuming he had given THEM as much shit as
>> he had given the others;
>
>I did not personally know Mike Black nor his family members, and it's
possible
>in his case that they did not care, but I do believe from reading some of
the
>stuff written about his case, that he had friends who did care about his
>passing. I have compassion for them.
In that case, you know more about him than I or most other people do.
Again, my emphasis is NOT knowing those guys -- which was a much more
clear-cut case for the two icedivers.
>I can think of a hundred OTHER
>> scenarios for which one would have VERY DIFFERENT feelings about
>> someone one KNOWS.
>
>Me too. I believe that one can have very different levels of compassion
>towards our fellow human beings.
Or NO compassion in some cases.
>
>
>> Take the two icedivers -- in this case, there is NO QUESTION that
>> none of us know anything about them, or their families, other than
>> they PROBABLY did something "stupid", and Darwin took care of them!
>
>But yet I still find that I have sympathy and compassion for them and
>their families. Personally, I think that that makes me a better man
>than I once was.
No problem about that, so long as there is no implication that someone
else is a worse person for NOT having any sympathy or compassion for
them.
You see, that's a very point of LOGIC that make it hard NOT to draw
such an inference. If you judge YOURSELF better (or worse) for having
certain feelings, how can you NOT judge others by the same yard-sticks?
>> 2. My prayers are with their families tonite.
>>
>> It's no secret that I DON'T believe in prayers because:
\>>
>> b. People use prayers for the most frivolous things:
>> Pray for their football team to win. Since both teams pray for
>> the same jihad-damed thing, I KNOW god would be pissed at such
>> prayers.
>
>Agreed that there are most likely frivolous prayers uttered. I don't for a
>minute believe that you might KNOW what god may or may not be pissed
about.
In this case I do. :-) We have personal conversations quite frequently
-- at least that's what I told the preacher who lives across the street
from me, and he never tried to get me to attend his church again. :-))
>>
>> c. What about praying to win a WAR (which is synonymous to KILLING
>> more of the other bad guys). I would send all those praying
>> sons of bitches to 30 years in purgatory if I were God each time
>> they make such a prayer!
>
>Seems like most wars have some religious background.
That begs the issue of the contradiction between religious theory
and practice doesn't it.
>>
>> d. What can one expect the prayers will do to THEIR families?
>
>Sorry, don't get your point here.
A variation of (a).
>
>>
>> e. For whose who pride themselves reading and quoting the "Bible",
>> it says somewhere to the effect that God already KNOW what you
>> pray before you say the first word! And less complimentary
>> things about those who pray aloud in front of temples.
>
>You won't hear me quoting the Bible. I'm not qualified.
In this entire sermon about religion, killing, and prayer, I've gone
far beyond anything YOU said specifically, other than praying. That's
just my commentary about ALL Christians who seem to over-do the
praying part. That's part of the sermon I give repeatly to one of
my brother in laws, who is a Southern Baptist zealot. :-)
>>
>> Just as I believe there is only ONE rule one needs to heed in scuba,
>> "Know YOUR limits (and limitations), and dive WITHIN it",
>>
>> the only rule I believe about God, prayer, and religion, is:
>> "God help those who help themselves". That goes along with all the
>> other stuff I believe: self-responsibility, self-sufficiency,
>> self-INDEPEDENT-thinking, and self-criticisms! Yup, I am a
>> hard-ass son of a bitch when it comes to those principles.
>
>Really don't care to get into a religious discussion here.
I agree. Never discuss/argue about religion, politics, ... what's
the other one? :-) Some spirit must have pushed me into discussing
religion and politics. But that's not my regular diet.
>> As for "people who live in glass houses", they CAN throw as much
>> stone as they like IF they first build their glass houses with
>> bullet-proof GLASS (it's the 21st century, ya know -- the cliche
>> of yester-centuries don't apply now, for the THINKING man who
>> learns from history as well as modern facts and thoughts). :-))))
>
>Objects thrown against bullet-proof glass tend to bounce back. Best be
>careful, you could put your eye out.
But I know the physics of reflection and refraction to throw my stones
so that they don't bounce back that way. But they sometimes sneak up
on my ankles and knees (as my coffee table glass top did) and caused
me a few stitches, but that's not because I threw any stones. :-)
>
>
>> So, when Bob da Feeesh is dead, you can say "Da Feeesh is dead, and
>> if pressed to say more, "Da Feeesh is dead. Read his FREE sermons
>> in the scuba archieves."
>
>What I will say is that I have sympathy and compassion for those who
>remain behind that know and love Bob Da Feesh. Hope that doesn't bother
>you too much.
>:-)
It suffices for me to know how they feel when I am ALIVE. :-) When I
am dead, however they feel will be THEIR bitness, and neither of us
will know. :-))
-- Bob.
|
