9/3/2003: Indian bridge collapse
 

http://cellar.org/2003/indiabridgeout.jpg

It's not all that spectacular, when it comes to bridge collapses - but it's a tough thing to have happen to your infrastructure. In this collapse which happened last week, a lot of children died because a school bus was crossing at the time. According to the BBC, locals said the bridge was one-way only and in a "state of disrepair for some years". Yah, I think so.

That's a disgrace. India should be taking care of their infrastructure. Instead of spending a fortune on increasing military strength and nuclear weapons, they should be taking care of bridges, healthcare and the poor. Like we do.:rolleyes:

That's sad those poor kids had to die from authorities mistakes by not repairing the bridge or doing something about it earlier. Why don't sad and horrible things ever happen to people who F*#k up these things in the first place.
i.e. Why does nothing bad ever happen to Judges who let rapists and other bad people off early from their jail terms???? :confused:

     Well Leah, to answer your questions in order: Because the people that should do something know how bad the whatever, in this case a bridge, is and stay away from it. The Judges live in well patrolled neighborhoods with big locks and expensive security systems. In essense, the answer to both questions is that these people know the risks to the general public they cause and protect themselves from it. Maybe I'm just a cynic, but that's my take on it.
     By the by, if the people that didn't do anything about the bridge would have been the only ones on it, would it have been sad and horrible?

So true Whit, so true.
If the people who ignored the bridge were the only ones injured or killed then they would have got their "just deserts".

Maybe it was their children. Then it's just a tragic desserts. (1s is desert, like the Sahara). Or perhaps a tragedy of justice.

Quzah.

Oops, a slip of my S's
:D

     Nah, that's would still be a tragedy, plain and simple Quzah. No kid deserves to die 'cause his or her parent is an asshole, it's just not their fault.

Far be it from me to correct anyone's spelling. The only reason I remember that is because of some thing I heard years ago:

"There is one S in desert, and dessert has two. You can remember, because there's always room for seconds of dessert."

Or something to that effect.

Quzah.

Why is a tradgedy when it's a child? What does it matter if you've lived five years or fifty? A loss of life is a loss of life. Personally it has no effect on me either way. Just posing the question.

Quzah.

Long ago, I created the Twomey Corollary to the Roman Catholic Catechism. Simply put, it says "God loves irony. When He was handing out stuff for people to be patron saints of, He came across irony and said 'Know what? I'm gonna hang onto this one.'" This would just be one more proof of an already well-established Corollary. :cool:

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.

      Let me clarify. The reason I said that is that in this example the kid's death is more or less punishment for the parents actions. The kid did nothing to warrant it his/her self and thus the death is tragic. What's more, if it's a young kid and the kid did do something wrong it probably lacked the facilities to fully understand the ramifications of it's actions, and thus is still a tragic death.
      As to the question, I differ from Novice a bit. I don't try to "rekindle my innocence." Instead I value the potential for it's own sake. 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.
      Also, I have strong parental instincts, if that is because of the reason above or vice versa I'm not sure. Put simply, I care more about kids at an instinctive level. That's a good enough reason to me.

I was getting ready to post something to this effect, but realized my buddy Quzah beat me to it. 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. The only other thing I have to add is...Too bad you weren't on that bridge, Quzah. Definately no tragedy there. Oh, and one more thing, only one "d" in tragedy:p

      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?

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

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.
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.

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.

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?

And with style.

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

Puppies I agree with. You can keep the kids. :D

Quzah.

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.

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.

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

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

     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,       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.

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.

      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.

      Oh yeah, and if you notice, I've never once mentioned good, evil or service to society. Since it's all guess-work I've got no idea why that would have any bearing on how tragic a kids death is.

For many people life offers many lows, and very few highs so if a kid were to miss out on a miserable life I don't find that tragic in the least. Not every 30 yr. old has experienced the things you've listed above. I was 33 before I got my first new car and now have to spend the next 30 paying it off. Even if they have had those experiences, nothing says those experiences were pleasurable. Life isn't a great huge bowl of cherries, even for US middle class adults. I personally have no maternal instincts to protect children so that idea doesn't hold any value with me either.

      I didn't say "new car" I said "car" for the specific reason that many of us never buy one new. Also, I used the example of "hated his/her job" for the sole purpose of giving an example of an unpleasant thing. That's the life of an adult, I think everyone should get a shot at it.       For that reason you have my deepest sympathies. Though it does explain to me why your view of life seems so dismal.

Yea, I noticed:rolleyes: . I brought up those points because that is how *I* have decided whether a persons (kid or adult) death is tragic to *me*. You're right it is guess work, but for *me* it has "bearing" on this issue because that's what *I* look at in evaluating the level of tragedy in death. You were the one who wanted commentary so I've given my opinion. It is neither wrong nor right, it is simply my opinion. I have attempted to provide examples in an attempt to convey my opinion. They are not scientific or mathematical proofs that can be proven or disproved, they are simply *my* opinion. You have a right to your feelings and opinions just as I do. I have not once suggested that you change your opinion on this matter so why do you find it necessary to change mine?

      LOL, I ask for clarification because I don't understand something and now I'm hounding you to change your opinion?
      I appreciate the examples you've given, and I've responded to them by addressing them, without changing words or meanings as you so often do me. I really don't care if your opinion changes, that's not what I'm here for. What I was trying to do is better understand what your opinion is. At least understand the logic backing it, and give that logic the chance to change my opinion. In this way I may grow as a human being.
      If you only wish to state your opinion with no reply of needing clarification or alternate viewpoint being expressed in return why is it that you bother to post where we can all read it? Hmm, given your past... emotional responses... I want to go on record right now as saying this is not an attack. I really would like to know, simply because I don't understand.

I don't need, nor do I want your sympathy. In making this statement you are not only attacking me and my beliefs, but also those of millions of people who chose not to have children. We are people too and I find it hypocritical of you to ramble on about how wonderful kids are, yet at the same time condeming others simply because they hold different beliefs than yourself. How do you know that "the children" who are killed so "tragically" won't grow up to hold the same beliefs as I do. In that case should they just die on the bridge with the adults? I don't run around hurting or killing kids, I just prefer not to have any myself for reasons I won't get into at the moment. Yes, my life is dismal, but not because I don't want kids or because I don't think that they are the only things life is worth living for. I would appreciate it if you don't want to hear someone else's opinion than don't ask for it.

     Please show how I've condemned anyone. Also, I didn't say anything about everyone that doesn't want kids, heck I didn't want kids 'till I had 'em. I just referenced you. Where you get the great generalization from is beyond me.

     Oh yeah, and I do want your opinion. Heh, and no, neither kids that may or may not grow up with your beliefs nor you, yourself deserve to die. Kind of a big jump, to assume I'd want that. I'm actually a pretty nice guy, just curious. I'm sorry if I've offended you by questioning your opinion. When you gave it I thought it was up for discussion. Mine are.

Basically, Whit, I've just spent the past few hours reading, quoting, replying, justifing myself, yadda, yadda, yadda in the Big Pig Thread so I currently don't have the energy to do so here. I do not believe that a kids death is more tragic than an adults, period. In fact, I find an animals death much more tragic than a kids or an adults, but that is a topic for another thread. In this discussion I got the feeling that you were taking punches at me just because I feel differently than you do (ex. condesending tone of this remark "For that reason you have my deepest sympathies. Though it does explain to me why your view of life seems so dismal.") So naturally, I felt the need to defend my views. If you can find it in yourself to forgive the assumptions, generalizations, and whatever else you think I've done inappropriately in this discussion, I would appreciate it.

for the record: I have instinctive compasion and care for children even though I have personally chosen not to reproduce and be a parent. I dont think I am that unusual.

I love children, but I don't think I could eat a whole one.:cool:

Yeah. I have trouble with veal.

Fuck that...veal is delicious. MORE SUFFERING OF CALVES!!!

      Heh, you know what Bugz? We just can't seem to synch up here. I concede that line came across as pretty condesending. I really didn't mean it that way but after a 14 hour shift on three hours of sleep it came out gruffer than I meant it to. I could explain what I meant, but I don't think you are interested.
      For the record, I didn't mind a lot of the things you apologized for. I do think you are going to have trouble in Cellar discussions if you continue to misread what people write. For instance the new car example, or when I said, "Most likely" and you replied with "not all". I already conceded that. I really don't think you are reading what I say. Just treating it as an attack. This saddens me, it's not what I'm about.
      I am curious as to why you see animal deaths as more tragic than human of any sort though. Please explain.

I like animals more than people. For the masses, I'll liken them to children.

You (someone) feel that you need to protect the helpless.
I feel the need to protect the helpless animals that are going extinct left and right.

But that's just me, and I am probably a bit more to the extreme than most of you folk. I don't eat or use anything animal or that has been processed on equipment used for animals or "animal products". I don't smash spiders that run around my house, I take them outside. Same with bees, even though I have a great loathing for them. I don't smash mosquitoes that bite me. Hell, I don't even pick flowers because in my opinion, it's cruel.

Sure, plants are thought to not feel pain, but what if they do?

You see, it is my belief that I should inflict as little harm on my enviornment as I can. I don't need animals to live a healthy life, so why should I bother? Most everything I eat can be obtained without killing the plant itself also.

Like flowers. They're nice to look at, but I don't need them, so I leave them be.

Quzah.

You must have a very limited diet. Grains and vegetables are almost impossible to harvest without killing the plant. Of course even if you do manage to pick things like beans and corn, the plant dies soon after producing the food anyway. The food was its attempt to reproduce before it dies;)

Actually, in the case of grain, the plant is usually dead before it's harvested. Ever seen a wheat field all golden? The plant is already dead.

Furthermore, all fruit is harvested without killing the plant. I mean really, why cut down an orchard just to get the oranges? Which brings us to fruitatairans (sp), people who only eat fruit or product which they know is harvested without killing the plant.

You've also got to consider that many plants are annuals. Now me not being a botanist, I couldn't tell you which ones are and which are which, because I haven't looked into it.

But you're intentionally missing the point, which is fine. Like I said, I don't recruit. I do what I can; you do what you like.

Quzah.

If I'm missing the point, it's not intentional.
I read your post and understood what you were saying but when you made that remark it struck me as odd because I know something about how food is produced and harvested.
I avoided mentioning fruit because it does not kill the plant, although it may be traumatized by having it's babies stolen.
I did mention annuals, beans and corn, remember.
I didn't get into legumes or tubers because I didn't want to belabor the point.
I also did not criticize or ridicule your choice of diet or lifesyle or philosophy. Whether I agree with it is irrelevant to my question or to you.
Have a nice day:)
Oh..BTW...those amber waves of grain, are not dead.

Hm, nifty. I guess you learn something new every day. I figured wheat was like grass. When it goes to seed and dries out, it usually dies, or at least appears to. I haven't pulled any up to see if the roots were alive.

Still, with fruit-type foods alone you could still have quite a variety. It wouldn't be as convenient as Micky-D's, but it could easily be done. If you're the Bible thumping type, consider the Garden of Eden. Why put people in a garden if they can't sustain themselves?

That being said, if they were smart, they'd have taken one of those handy "tree of life" fruits first before fucking themselves up talking to the snake...

Quzah.

Aw that was all Eve's fault, the bitch.
When wheat and such is harvested the bottom of the stalks are still green. If you wait till the plant is completely dry the grain falls off to easily as in on the ground instead of in the hopper. Also there is too much chance of a good (bad) wind or storm knocking the stuff over before the reaper can get to it. Then you play hell trying to get it into the machine.:)

      Instead of blaming Eve why don't we blame the one that put the snake in the garden in the first place. Who was that again?

Could it be (drumroll) SATAN (rimshot).:rolleyes:

      Satan? How the did he get involved? I read the beginning of Genesis just last night. Satan's not mentioned...

That's important, the idea that one diet could be imposed on everybody, a fantasy held by some, is offensive and deadly. It is becoming apparent that along with shellfish, wheat, rye, spelt, kamut, and triticale make me ill. I decided to increase my grain intake a while back and apparently set off a gluten sensitivity. I'll stick with steak.

If you go by a strict reading, it was the big G himself who put the serpent in the garden.

The problem with being the ultimate cause is you also get the ultimate blame.

Don't tell the Church Lady.:eek:

Griff! What? Kashi backlash? Ack!

'fraid so, nasty business, that. On the upside guilt free ham and eggs for breakfast rolled up in a corn tortilla with mozz cheese n habenero sauce mmmm... good stuff

I've been following this thread form it's inception so I know how we got to this point, but I had to giggle when I glanced up to see "Indian bridge collapse" and here we are talking about breakfast foods:whofart: . Anyway, Griff you're making me hungry. I think I'm gonna whip some of this stuff up for breakfast tomorrow, it sounds yummy:biggrin:

      Damn straight. O' course, I don't believe in the biblical god. If I did, that would definately be a major issue for me.