Blue Angels plane crashes

Kingfish wrote:

On Apr 22, 3:58 am, Mike Hunt postmaster@localhost wrote:

Mxsmanic wrote:

See

http://us.cnn.com/2007/US/04/21/blue...ash/index.html

Interesting quote he

"On an F-18, you have two motors, and if they take [a bird] in the
engine, it could cause engine failure and shut that down," he said. He
said the plane is capable of flying in excess of 450 mph.

An F-18 can fly in excess of 450 MPH.. Who would've guessed?


Those CNN guys *are* slick aren't they? 1.8 Mach IS faster than
450mph. My Convert-O-Matic program sez it's actually 1,383mph. (Mach
speed figure is from Boeing)


Actually, the speed of sound (Mach) varies. MPH doesn't.

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
B A R R Y writes:

What a truly stupid thing to say.

I don't see anything stupid about it. It's important to keep things in
perspective.

I'm always amazed by how skewed the perceptions of death can be. 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.

People become indignant when others refuse to wail with grief over the
deaths
of those the former consider important, but they simultaneously show
precisely
the same indifference towards the untold millions of others who are dying
throughout the world. It's an extreme case of tunnel vision, and it's a
form
of irrational emotion that is dangerous to society.


Spoken by the poster child for tunnel vision.

On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 14:29:01 -0700, Mike Hunt postmaster@localhost
wrote:


It's one death. Not any more important than the deaths of others dying
in the military.

And no less, either.

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.

B A R R Y writes:

And no less, either.

Someone dies somewhere every second. Do you mourn them all equally?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

TheSmokingGnu writes:

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?

Right.

Or that the two had completely opposite purposes, right?

Right.

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

I'm recognizing death for what it is, and the value of life for what it is.

Lots of people die. My relationship to them does not determine the importance
or unimportance of their deaths. At least I recognize that, and I do not try
to rationalize any preferences I may personally have in order to deny their
injustice.

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

Are they the same ones who clamor for the killing of people they consider
their enemies?

"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.

They are welcome to care. It's only when they try to pretend that they are
not showing favoritism that there is a problem. Certain deaths may be more
important to them--but that doesn't make those deaths more important
objectively, and if there is insensitivity in anything, it is in denying this
reality.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Mxsmanic wrote:
Right.

You cannot recognize the effect to which social precepts shape the
perceptions and reaction of society?


Lots of people die. My relationship to them does not determine the importance
or unimportance of their deaths.

Of course not. They're all equally unimportant to you.

Certain deaths may be more
important to them--but that doesn't make those deaths more important
objectively, and if there is insensitivity in anything, it is in denying this
reality.

So you seek to claim that the death of, say, Martin Luther King, Jr.
held equal importance to the death of, say, Richard Pryor? JFK to Elvis?
Napoleon to the Apollo 1 astronauts?

Do you even know the names of the Apollo 1 astronauts? Using WP is cheating.

Careful, your sociopathy is showing.

TheSmokingGnu

Mike Hunt wrote:
It's one death. Not any more important than the deaths of others dying
in the military.



But infinitely more significant than your death would be. What a slimy piece of
**** you must be.

B A R R Y wrote:

On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 14:29:01 -0700, Mike Hunt postmaster@localhost
wrote:


It's one death. Not any more important than the deaths of others dying
in the military.


And no less, either.

We don't see pictures of the military deaths in Iraq on the news every
times someone is killed.

Mxsmanic wrote:

B A R R Y writes:


And no less, either.


Someone dies somewhere every second. Do you mourn them all equally?


No kidding. There are about 31,556,926 seconds in a year.
There are about 55,490,538 deaths per year, and over twice as many births
http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/ipc/pcwe