9/3/2003: Indian bridge collapse

[novice]

Originally posted by Whit
&Put simply, I care more about kids at an instinctive level. That's a good enough reason to me.

Seriously, i'm with you, but you sure know how to dampen tongue-in-cheekiness

[LUVBUGZ]

Originally posted by Whit
      Okay, Bugz. Now that we've established that you were going to ask the same thing as Quzah perhaps you'd like to take part in this discussion and respond to something that was said since then. There are, in fact, three posts to choose from.
      What's that? No, you'd much rather just attack Quzah, who was having a reasonable conversation with the rest of us? Well gee, thanks for taking the time to add something worthwhile to the thread.
      Now that I'm done with the sarcasm, would you please try again without the attack?

Whenever I see the name "Quzah" I automatically go into attack mode, it's a conditioned response. I wasn't actually going to ask anything, but rather make the statement that "It kinda irks me when the nightly news emphasizes that "Oh no what a tragedy, 2 kids were killed", like who cares that 500 adults died too." Which I obviously already made in that post. But, if you want commentary, here it is. I like Chewy's idea that God loves irony. I don't do as novice does and "rekindle my innocence vicariously" through "kids and puppy dogs". For the most part I dislike kids and I love puppy dogs. As far as your post, Whit, I see what your saying, but don't agree.

Originally posted by Whit
Kids, any kid, has a much greater potential of experiences than an adult. We've already experienced so much of life, and if we choose to think it through, even understand a great deal of it. Kids haven't and at young ages, can't. But they will. I feel awe when considering this. What's more, I like kids because of it. I don't much care about adults, save for the ones my life has brought me into contact with, and I have chosen to like.

My feeling is.....how is it more tragic to lose a kid who has the equal potential of doing good or doing bad, as opposed to losing an adult, say a doctor, who has already done good by society and if remained alive would further benefit society? I mean if we could hold up a 2 yr old kid against a serial rapist and say who would you rather die on that bridge, of course we'd say the rapist who we know is bad compared to the kid who has a 50-50 chance of becoming bad too. But, the fact remains that "good" adults are killed all the time and I believe that their deaths are just as tragic as a kids. I realize this idea is flawed somewhat, but I just don't see how it's anymore tragic for a kid to die than it is for an adult. Another way of looking at it is...the kid with no real life experiences won't know what it's missing as opposed to an adult who has life experiences and will. That's kinda dumb too, but anyway it's how I feel.

[juju]

So, you're saying that 50% of all people are so bad that they'll never do anything worth living for?

[LUVBUGZ]

Originally posted by juju
So, you're saying that 50% of all people are so bad that they'll never do anything worth living for?

No, I'm saying that it is no more tragic for a kid to die than it is for an adult. As I stated, my idea is flawed, but I was merely trying to convey a point and hoped that my example whould give the reader a feeling for what I feel regarding this topic. Truthfully, it doesn't bother me if kids or adults are killed as long as it isn't someone I know and care for, but if it so happened to be a kid, I would feel that death is no more tragic than if an adult was killed. People think that if a kid dies there is a great loss because of the "potential" that kid had. All I'm trying to say is that maybe that kid's potential would have ended up in becoming a bad person like a murderer, rapist, or child molester. Where as there are many adults that have been killed who have been "good" people, Princess Diana for example, and their deaths just as tragic as a kids who has the equal potential of becoming a good or bad person.

[juju]

Ehh, I don't know. You make a good point, but I don't really agree that people have an equal potential to be good or bad. That's just in how you look at things, but I think most people are pretty good. I mean, what percentage of the population are murderers, rapists, and child molesters?

I think chances are, any given child will grow up and contribute many good things to many people's lives.

[LUVBUGZ]

Originally posted by juju
Ehh, I don't know. You make a good point, but I don't really agree that people have an equal potential to be good or bad. That's just in how you look at things, but I think most people are pretty good. I mean, what percentage of the population are murderers, rapists, and child molesters?

I think chances are, any given child will grow up and contribute many good things to many people's lives.

I know I have put things in either black or white in my examples here, but I was basically only looking at the extremes in order to get my general feeling across to the reader. I realize that it isn't that cut and dry, but I think I've gotten my point across, haven't I?

[Leus]

Originally posted by LUVBUGZ
but I think I've gotten my point across, haven't I?

And with style.

[juju]

No.. I don't really see your point. Are you disagreeing with the premise that children have more potential than adults?

[quzah]

Originally posted by novice
As a typically jaded adult I'm always trying to rekindle my innocence vicariously. Kids and puppy dogs can facilitate this.
Everyone else can go fall off a bridge.

Puppies I agree with. You can keep the kids.

Quzah.

[quzah]

Originally posted by juju
No.. I don't really see your point. Are you disagreeing with the premise that children have more potential than adults?

You compare apples and oranges. You have to comparisons in one:

1) You have what they have done in the past.
2) You compare what they could do if they had the future.

The adult has more "points" for bullet point number one. They have done more in their life. These points are either "good" or "bad", or a combination of both, if you want to simplify it.

They both have the same future potential, however, it's still not that simple.

The future of a child would be more easily shaped by their surroundings. Or at least, you'd think so. With an adult, it should be easier to predict how their future would turn out. I mean, you can look at past deeds and see how they reacted to them, to use it as a guage for what they may do to any given response in the future.

I don't think the child has more potential. They may be around longer. There is a greater likely hood that from time frame A to ending time B, that the distance between A and B will be greater with a child, baring unnatural death, because the adult has already started down the road.

To simplify, if I am 30, and the child is 1, then it is realistic to expect that I will die before them. Thus, on that metric alone, they have more potential to effect the future than I do, simply because they'll be in it longer than I will.

There's a saying I once heard, PBS I beleive, that applies here. When weighing the impact a life may have, consider the following:

Two couples conceive a child. From a medical standpoint, there is a greater likelyhood that the child would be born severely retarded. Is it better to let the child live, in that in all likely hood, it will have a horrible existance, or do you abort it?

In this case, had you opted to abort, you would have spared the world from the evils of Hitler. However, you would have also denied the world the works of I believe it was Leonardo da Vinci.

It was an interesting piece, I don't do it justice.

But the thought still holds. There is the potential for amazing beauty, or incredible attrocity. One never knows.

I should stop here, but another thought occurs:

If the adult were to die, what impact do they have on all that they have ever touched? All the people they've befrinded, loved, hated.

And the child, they've had less an impact. So the loss is less.

It's a hard call. And yet, I still personally don't hold higher value over children than adults.

Now puppies on the otherhand...

Quzah.

[warch]

People think that if a kid dies there is a great loss because of the "potential" that kid had.

The death of kids pangs me a bit more because as an adult, I consider it part of my duty to protect the young and vulnerable. Its a parenting gut. Mama bear.

[xoxoxoBruce]

What's of more value to the organization;
1- A fully trained, up to speed veteran.
2- A raw recruit.

Where as there are many adults that have been killed who have been "good" people, Princess Diana for example

No Bruce...just let it go, let it go..

[Whit]

     As I said earlier and parental instinct is at work with me. I hear 500 adults die in a major accident, I'm curious how it happened. I hear two kids die from parental stupidity, I would be willing to kill the negligent parent myself. It's like Warch said,

...as an adult, I consider it part of my duty to protect the young and vulnerable.

      Also, I think I need to clarify something. When speaking of potential I'm also including that portion which the adult has already experienced. No one should be cheated of the exhilarating highs and lows of growing up. Thus in Quazah's example of the thirty year old, the adult has most likely (I'm assuming US middle class for the sake of discussion) bought a car, been in love, hated his/her job and made love. A child has done none of these things. So, the child has more potential in the sense of having so many things to experience for the first time. Perhaps this is meaningless to Bugz and Quzah, but to me it's meaningful and incredibly important.
     Oh, and for the record, that's why the news focus's on the two kids and ignores the adults. Every parent worth a damn I've ever met felt the importance of what I've been talking about while looking at their child. So the media panders to us, the parents, because we are in the majority.

[LUVBUGZ]

Originally posted by juju
No.. I don't really see your point. Are you disagreeing with the premise that children have more potential than adults?

Yes, that's what I'm saying. As others have stated, it is true that a kid has a greater potential to live longer than an adult (from the point in time that the deadly event occurs), but I disagree that their potential to become a "good" human being is no greater than an adults. Obviously there is a lot more to it, but I stand by my belief that a kids death is no more tragic than an adults. Quzah touched on another point I was thinking about, that the death of an adult has a greater impact on others (family, relatives, coworkers, friends, etc.) than a kids does by the mere fact that that adult has had more interaction with a greater number of people in their lifetime, so from that stand point, an adults death might very well be considered more tragic in that it most likely affects a greater number of people.

[Whit]

      Ever known anyone that's lost a kid? I saw a man, a strong man that didn't cry at his own fathers funeral drop to his knees and bawl at his sons funeral. What's more the entire family was confused and in truly immense pain. This didn't happen when the adult died. Also, everyone that knew the family was affected, this also was not the case when the adult died. Why? The depth of the effect. We are prepared for an adults death, most of us just aren't ready when a kid dies. The loss of an adult you are close to is truly sad, the loss of a child is often devastating.