Mxsmanic wrote:
When 32
people are shot by a nutcase, it becomes a Major Media Event and a national
day of mourning. When 150,000 are killed by an atomic bomb in a distant
foreign country, it is a cause for celebration, with not a single tear shed.

And the fact that the two are separated by 60 years of history, two
major wars, countless smaller police actions, and an enormous paradigm
shift both in how the media covers a story and the role society expects
and accepts media coverage has *_ABSOLUTELY_* no bearing on that, right?

Or that the two had completely opposite purposes, right?

You're treading dangerously close to Godwin's Law.

People become indignant when others refuse to wail with grief over the deaths
of those the former consider important

They only asked that you not be an insensitive lout. That was, obviously
enough, too much.

but they simultaneously show precisely
the same indifference towards the untold millions of others who are dying
throughout the world.

"One death is a tragedy; a million, a statistic". Heaven forbid that a
group of pilots should care when a highly-skilled member of their ilk
perishes doing his job more than the deaths of unrelated college students.

It's an extreme case of tunnel vision, and it's a form
of irrational emotion that is dangerous to society.

Socrates said it best.

"A little learning is commendable; a little knowledge, the most
dangerous thing of all".

Reflect on that while you reconsider you statement (as if you could).

TheSmokingGnu

Edit: cross-posted again. If you're going to act like a porn spammer, at
least put in a few links or something.