Depressed Emo Nation and the Lord's Resistance Army

Yesterday in casual conversation, the subject of Bud Dwyer, the politician who killed himself on live TV came up. I searched him online to refresh my memory on the details of his situation. I was amazed to notice my search engine picked up so many emo tiny booper sites obessessed with things like this, even sites featuring unedited clips of the actual suicide video, followed by comments along the lines of, 'Yeah, that is a good one, but there are much better suicide videos released since then'.  Pretty f-ed up we have so many of our youth so obsessed with suicide and death. Even to the point that watching suicide videos seems like an amusing past time (unless I am misunderstanding the nature of their comments).

Later in the evening, I was watching this documentary I have been told a million times I need to watch, but had just never gotten around to it, it is called The Invisible Children and is about three guys who travel to Uganda in search of some exciting story to tell, and once there they learn about the Lord's Resistance Army and the terrible impact they have on the lives of so many people in northern Uganda. Their 50 minutes documentary focuses on the young Ugandan children and their lives of constant fear of being abducted by the Lord's Resistance Army and forced to become soldiers. The children are afraid to sleep in their homes in the villages at night, so they all gather in the city streets to camp out every night. They do their homework by candlelight, and many of them have already experienced violence at the hand of the rebels, either having watched family members or close friends be killed or abducted. The rebels abduct children, and indoctrinate them to be soldiers. They start by forcing them to kill and watch others be killed before their eyes. Blood, violence and death becomes such a common day thing to them, it is nothing for them to hold a gun to a child's head and pull the trigger. One of these young soldiers, just a kid, explained how he has to see blood, when he goes too long without seeing blood, he gets a headache. Like an addict with an unfed addiction.

Yet, this documentary shows those same frightened kids getting up every morning and still smiling and laughing, dancing, playing and enjoying life, despite the horrific violence and fear they are faced with on a daily basis. They still take their school seriously and dream of growing up to be doctors and lawyers.

Kind of an interesting and disturbing contrast. In America we are surrounded by prosperity and many of our youth spend their time obessessed with death, while in places like Uganda where the youth are surrounded by horrific death, they spend their time focused on life. Which is exactly why I believe in American exceptionalism! USA USA USA... errr... hides head in shame...

It's boredom. I find that it isn't the kids into "emo" culture that obsess over blood, death, and gore as much as the young guys that are just looking for something to shock themselves with. It's sick, yeah, but I don't think it really speaks to anything insanely sinister. If they could find a worthwhile direction for their lives I'm sure they'd leave it behind (I suspect there's only so much gore you can watch before becoming bored of that too).

Wow.  I never knew about this.  I was only 9 when it happened though.  Pretty sickening that people can think that about suicide.

The only other video I've ever seen like this was called "Failure to search".  It shows a suspect in custody with a detective preparing to question him.  The detective sits down at a desk, facing away from the suspect.  The suspect pulls a gun from under his belt, cocks the slide, puts the barrel to his and pulls the trigger.  Right after, the detective turns around and throws down his pencil.  It's pretty disturbing.

I have not seen any other videos that disturbing and I have no wish to.  The video of Dwyer probably ranks second to the one I described, IMO.

Hmm, that is a good point with the boredom thing Tip. I was considering the number of teen suicides in the US, my discovery yesterday, and my old studies of teens with suicidal tendancies from my counceling courses in University, and kind of bunched them together. Perhaps there is very little connection between them. Almost more disturbing that kids who are relatively healthy socially should be into such things. To me it is more understandable that a youth suffering from some social issues should find such videos amusing. But somehow the boredom thing makes sense. I can think of all the sorts of things I did as a youth out of boredom that were not computer related, back when internet connections were quite uncommon. With ease of access to this kind of stuff, I can understand these sorts of things replacing the crap I used to do. Though I would describe the crap I used to do has a healthy curiousty, and this stuff as extremely unsettling.

I'd almost forgotten about Dwyer.  I don't know how I came across it.  It was just one of those random wikipedia searches that led to one page that led to another that eventually led to him.  And there were links to the video, and I contemplated watching it, but then I chickened out.  It was probably right before a class, and I didn't want to go out with that on my mind.  I might check it out eventually just to satisfy my curiosity.  But the whole story is really sad, those of you who know it.

Hmm, suicide is a dimension I wasn't really considering. I suppose it makes sense that a suicidal kid will dwell on death and the macabre. A video of a person's death would definitely fit that curiosity. However, that said, I'd still guess that most kids are looking for entertainment.

For me the sickest facet of people watching a suicide video is for the entertainment "value." It's like how a lot of young guys are addicted to hardcore porn. Disturbing content encourages some people to find excitement in bad ways. I suppose I wish young people were educated better.

All of that said, watching a video of someone's death for the sake of learning something important (or facing something important) would be okay with me, but that sort of opportunity is extremely rare in my mind.

Huh, another interesting observation I just made. All responses have only focused on the American centric half of my original post, and not the African centric. If I were to respond to a similar post, I assume I would do the same thing. Kind of like when you hear of a bus wreck and thirty people dying in some 3rd world country on the news it just kind of passes through one ear and out the other without too deep of an emotional response, while when you hear the exact same story, only now it is a bus crash with thirty people dying in New Jersey or some other place in the US, it evokes a much stronger reaction. I mean, who really cared about the recent terrorist attacks in India? None of us even bothered to post about it. Yet Bernie Mac or Michael Crichton dies and we all rush here to be the first to make his R.I.P. post. Not picking on anyone, I am obviously the same way. Just kind of funny how that works.

C3PX said:

I mean, who really cared about the recent terrorist attacks in India?

Yeah, but what was there really to say?  I didn't even bother reading about it until I heard on the news "Mumbai Terrorists speaks out!".  My initial reaction was "why should I care what that murdering asshole has to say?"  The only thing I found remotely interesting about the whole thing is that they were targeting Americans and "westerners" and ended up killing a lot of Indians.  That and one of them said toward the end that he didn't want to die and didn't realize it was suppose to be a suicide mission.

Other than that, it's yet another terrorist attack.  What more can be said?

lordjedi said:

Other than that, it's yet another terrorist attack.  What more can be said?

That if the world were a better place . . . we might care a little more? :)

Tiptup said:

lordjedi said:

Other than that, it's yet another terrorist attack.  What more can be said?

That if the world were a better place . . . we might care a little more? :)

But who says we don't?  Just because we don't talk about it here, doesn't mean we don't care.  There's plenty of things I care about that I never discuss here.

If the world were a better place, terrorists assholes like that wouldn't exist.

Right, but I did stupid things like busting out windows on abandon buildings with a bb gun and urinating my initials on the siide of houses, not scouring the net for graphic images of people killing themselves. It is just a little unsettling, that's all.

lordjedi said:

Tiptup said:

That if the world were a better place . . . we might care a little more? :)

But who says we don't?  Just because we don't talk about it here, doesn't mean we don't care.  There's plenty of things I care about that I never discuss here.

Well, you yourself said you didn't even bother reading about the attacks until a secondary headline came along. Perhaps if we each did our small part to raise awareness and proper thought about events like these we'd be doing a better good. :)

Tiptup said:

lordjedi said:

Other than that, it's yet another terrorist attack.  What more can be said?

That if the world were a better place . . . we might care a little more? :)

I don't think it is an issue of mankind as a whole (or the world), caring is something that has to be worked out on a more personal level.

Tiptup said:

lordjedi said:

Tiptup said:

That if the world were a better place . . . we might care a little more? :)

But who says we don't?  Just because we don't talk about it here, doesn't mean we don't care.  There's plenty of things I care about that I never discuss here.

Well, you yourself said you didn't even bother reading about the attacks until a secondary headline came along. Perhaps if we each did our small part to raise awareness and proper thought about events like these we'd be doing a better good. :)

Right.  I didn't read about it, but that doesn't mean I didn't care about it.  Why should I waste my time reading about something that I can already guess about?  I heard about a terrorist attack on Mumbai.  Should I go read about it or just assume it's the same terrorists as usual?  Personally, since it's in that region, I'll assume it's the usual.  And it turns out it was.  No point in wasting my time reading that some terrorists were targeting Americans.  Same old same old.  To me, it's nothing new and only serves to continually reinforce the point.  That point is that we weren't being attacked because of our President and his policies.  We were being attacked because of our beliefs.

I would've been shocked if it had been some westerners attacking Muslims.  That would've made me read even more about it.  As it was, it's nothing new.

It's not that I don't care about the people that were attacked.  I absolutely care about them.  What I don't care to hear is the reasoning for attacking them (based on where they were from).  I don't give a shit what reason some damn terrorist gives for attacking these people.  I care about the response and what happened to the people that got attacked.  The response wasn't reported much.  Just the dead and wounded numbers.  I can either continually get pissed every time it happens and go on a rant and rave (kinda like right now) about how the assholes need to be hunted down and killed or I can just not talk about it.  I prefer the later.

sean wookie said:

In response to the original topic at hand:

Young people are kind of stupid and say stupid shit and do stupid things. You were probably stupid when you were young too.

Yeah, but like C3PX said, we weren't crazy.  I didn't have a fascination with death.  The stupidest things I did were driving a little crazy (nowhere anyone could be harmed) and getting drunk every weekend.  Of course, the Internet was just starting to explode at the time too (1993-96).  Google Images and YouTube didn't exist yet.  Still, I can't imagine actually seeking out pictures and video of death.  It's usually sent to me by people because it's so shocking.

lordjedi said:

Right.  I didn't read about it, but that doesn't mean I didn't care about it.  Why should I waste my time reading about something that I can already guess about?  I heard about a terrorist attack on Mumbai.  Should I go read about it or just assume it's the same terrorists as usual?  Personally, since it's in that region, I'll assume it's the usual.  And it turns out it was.  No point in wasting my time reading that some terrorists were targeting Americans.  Same old same old.  To me, it's nothing new and only serves to continually reinforce the point.  That point is that we weren't being attacked because of our President and his policies.  We were being attacked because of our beliefs.

I would've been shocked if it had been some westerners attacking Muslims.  That would've made me read even more about it.  As it was, it's nothing new.

It's not that I don't care about the people that were attacked.  I absolutely care about them.  What I don't care to hear is the reasoning for attacking them (based on where they were from).  I don't give a shit what reason some damn terrorist gives for attacking these people.  I care about the response and what happened to the people that got attacked.  The response wasn't reported much.  Just the dead and wounded numbers.  I can either continually get pissed every time it happens and go on a rant and rave (kinda like right now) about how the assholes need to be hunted down and killed or I can just not talk about it.  I prefer the later.

So, you believe, then, that all your actions are completely in line with a supreme model of daily perfection? I understand you're a person that generally take things seriously, but, if you were to honestly analyze every action and attitude of your life, you don't believe that there is even one tiny change that you could make with yourself to potentially be even better? :)

Supposedly "caring" in our heart of hearts about rightly apposing terrorism is well and good, but if that caring doesn't really affect our most substantial actions for the better, then what good is it? I think that we don't really, truly care, in the fullest sense possible for human beings, because then our actions would be very different. If we were all actually acting with such purity I think our effect on the world would be much greater, don't you?

I'm not saying the world is an easy place to figure out, and I'm not even sure where we would start acting better, but when I honestly look at myself, I know I'm not working with pure motives or pure judgments. To automatically assume I have achieved perfection when it comes to caring about people that face the evils of this world is not something I can do.

Tiptup said:

lordjedi said:

Right.  I didn't read about it, but that doesn't mean I didn't care about it.  Why should I waste my time reading about something that I can already guess about?  I heard about a terrorist attack on Mumbai.  Should I go read about it or just assume it's the same terrorists as usual?  Personally, since it's in that region, I'll assume it's the usual.  And it turns out it was.  No point in wasting my time reading that some terrorists were targeting Americans.  Same old same old.  To me, it's nothing new and only serves to continually reinforce the point.  That point is that we weren't being attacked because of our President and his policies.  We were being attacked because of our beliefs.

I would've been shocked if it had been some westerners attacking Muslims.  That would've made me read even more about it.  As it was, it's nothing new.

It's not that I don't care about the people that were attacked.  I absolutely care about them.  What I don't care to hear is the reasoning for attacking them (based on where they were from).  I don't give a shit what reason some damn terrorist gives for attacking these people.  I care about the response and what happened to the people that got attacked.  The response wasn't reported much.  Just the dead and wounded numbers.  I can either continually get pissed every time it happens and go on a rant and rave (kinda like right now) about how the assholes need to be hunted down and killed or I can just not talk about it.  I prefer the later.

So, you believe, then, that all your actions are completely in line with a supreme model of daily perfection? I understand you're a person that generally take things seriously, but, if you were to honestly analyze every action and attitude of your life, you don't believe that there is even one tiny change that you could make with yourself to potentially be even better? :)

Of course not, but I don't go around planning and executing attacks on people simply because of where they're from.  Hell, I don't plan and execute attacks period.  There's plenty of people I disagree with, but I would never wish death on them or try to kill them myself.  I don't believe these actions are in line with daily perfection.  I believe these actions are in line with a civilized society.

Supposedly "caring" in our heart of hearts about rightly apposing terrorism is well and good, but if that caring doesn't really affect our most substantial actions for the better, then what good is it? I think that we don't really, truly care, in the fullest sense possible for human beings, because then our actions would be very different. If we were all actually acting with such purity I think our effect on the world would be much greater, don't you?

I live on the West Coast of the United States.  The easiest thing I could do to "care" for these people would be to send money.  The best thing I could do would be to drop everything in my life, hop on a plane, and go there and help.  I have a wife and son (and one son on the way).  Taking care of them is my first responsibility.  So if I were to do the purest act possible to show that I care for these people, I'd have to leave my family to do it.  There's no other way (outside of sending money) for me to show that I care.  Talking about the incident doesn't show anything other than the ability to discuss the situation.  It doesn't show that I care.  It just shows that I have the ability to watch the evening news and then carry on a conversation about what I saw.

I'm not saying the world is an easy place to figure out, and I'm not even sure where we would start acting better, but when I honestly look at myself, I know I'm not working with pure motives or pure judgments. To automatically assume I have achieved perfection when it comes to caring about people that face the evils of this world is not something I can do.

I'm not even going to suggest that all of my motives and judgments are entirely pure, but nothing about them involves wanting to take the lives of others simply because of their ideals.  What I said was that those muslim terrorists deserve what they get because they are terrorists.  Just like all terrorists deserve what they get.  They aren't fighting for freedom or anything else.  They made this attack on people "from the West" simply because they were "from the West".  What did those people do to them?  Nothing.  Did they deserve to die?  Abosolutely not.  Yet we have one terrorist who was involved with the deaths of many saying "I don't want to die!"  Neither did the people you killed.

lordjedi said:

Of course not, but I don't go around planning and executing attacks on people simply because of where they're from.

Huh?

Uhh . . . hmm. Your other point that you have a family and can't go to India is definitely interesting.

Do you believe I was advocating that you go to India and help people in the most direct sense possible? Do you believe I think you should help people in India even if it means shirking your familial responsibilities?

Your illogical view of "purity" makes you sound like you come from a Roman Catholic background, lordjedi. :)

Tiptup said:

lordjedi said:

Of course not, but I don't go around planning and executing attacks on people simply because of where they're from.

Huh?

Uhh . . . hmm. Your other point that you have a family and can't go to India is definitely interesting.

Do you believe I was advocating that you go to India and help people in the most direct sense possible? Do you believe I think you should help people in India even if it means shirking your familial responsibilities?

Your illogical view of "purity" makes you sound like you come from a Roman Catholic background, lordjedi. :)

I'm pretty sure just about everyone here already knows I'm Catholic from the politics thread.  I don't know how my view of "purity" is illogical either.  Purity, in my mind, is unattainable by a mere person.  You can try to be as pure as possible, but things will always pop up that will cause you to deviate.  At that point, you can either beat yourself up over it or try to correct yourself back onto the path.  You can also go the opposite direction, throw purity out the window, and just do whatever the hell you please.  So how is my view of "purity" illogical?

Obviously dropping all of my responsibilities to my family would be a stupid thing to do (maybe that's what you were referring to), but from what you said, not doing anything to help the people in India isn't doing enough.  In order to do anything, we all have to make a sacrifice somewhere.  I could send $20 to a charity, but then that's $20 that doesn't go to my family.  I also can't be assured that the people that need it get it if I send money.

It sounded like you were advocating that we do everything possible to show that we care for the people involved in the attacks.  It sounded like you were advocating we do everything possible in every situation to help everyone involved.  For me, there's just no way I can do everything possible.  My point was that I'm not going to drop everything in my life to fly 10000 miles just to show that I care.  If I were willing to do that, then I'd sell all my possessions and become a missionary.  Instead, I will come out against any and all terrorists attacks.  Beyond that though, there's nothing I can do.  And sitting here behind a monitor and keyboard doesn't help the people in India one bit.

I can send money, I can send prayers.  Sure, I can talk about it, but that doesn't help them, does it?

lordjedi said:

Purity, in my mind, is unattainable by a mere person.  You can try to be as pure as possible, but things will always pop up that will cause you to deviate.  At that point, you can either beat yourself up over it or try to correct yourself back onto the path.  You can also go the opposite direction, throw purity out the window, and just do whatever the hell you please.  So how is my view of "purity" illogical?

The view of purity you specifically described before this (in the post before your last one) was similar to the kind that tries to pretend a "vow of poverty" (and worthless Mother-Teresa-style shit like that) has any value in the sight of God. Hard work aimed at wise productivity in a free market is far more pure and helpful than some supposedly high and lofty individual that spends her life obsessed with death and suffering (as apposed to someone who works hard to alleviate and heal death and suffering). You know this and, as such, running off to India would not be a righteous use of your energy and time (you would be doing what you know to be wrong).

Real purity is the kind attainable by real people. Christianity teaches that Jesus was a real person and that, as a person, he kept himself perfectly pure. He didn't have some God cheat code that he used to make himself invincible to temptation that ordinary people don't have access to. Jesus faced all the same issues you or I do on a daily basis and yet he kept himself righteous. Biblical Christianity then also teaches that our primary calling and goal in life, as Christians, is to constantly strive to be just as righteous.

A man who works hard and helps his family before others is a far more righteous and pure man than one that runs off and ignores his family so he can supposedly help dying people in a far off country. There is wisdom in helping those whom our help will yield the best results within. To act more in accordance with that kind of Godly wisdom is to be more righteous.

lordjedi said:

It sounded like you were advocating that we do everything possible to show that we care for the people involved in the attacks.  It sounded like you were advocating we do everything possible in every situation to help everyone involved. 

Seriously, I mean no offense, but, truthfully, what you think my arguments "sound like" half the time is laughable. You could really stand to learn how to read people's posts better before immediately moving on tp open your mouth.

In your post before last, you went so far as to argue against me accusing you of being someone who wanted to commit terrorism (or something insane like that). Haha. Oh well, I will say definitely have a unique way of experiencing the world, lordjedi. :)

lordjedi said:

For me, there's just no way I can do everything possible.  My point was that I'm not going to drop everything in my life to fly 10000 miles just to show that I care.  If I were willing to do that, then I'd sell all my possessions and become a missionary.  Instead, I will come out against any and all terrorists attacks.  Beyond that though, there's nothing I can do.  And sitting here behind a monitor and keyboard doesn't help the people in India one bit.

I can send money, I can send prayers.  Sure, I can talk about it, but that doesn't help them, does it?

I most definitely have to side with lj on this whole thing. Can hardly believe the retardedness of a lot of what I am reading. He said nothing wrong, but for some reason you are really pounding him into the ground and being a dick. I just don't get it.

C3PX said:

I most definitely have to side with lj on this whole thing. Can hardly believe the retardedness of a lot of what I am reading. He said nothing wrong, but for some reason you are really pounding him into the ground and being a dick. I just don't get it.

You're not the only one.  I'm starting to wonder how we went from talking about how we don't care about what happened in Mumbai (even though I stated that I do care, just don't see a reason to talk about it) to attacks on me and my reactions to those incidents.

Seriously TipTup, what the hell?  I know it would be foolish to drop everything and run to India to help them, which is why I don't do it.  It would be foolish and dangerous.

Tiptup said:

lordjedi said:

Purity, in my mind, is unattainable by a mere person.  You can try to be as pure as possible, but things will always pop up that will cause you to deviate.  At that point, you can either beat yourself up over it or try to correct yourself back onto the path.  You can also go the opposite direction, throw purity out the window, and just do whatever the hell you please.  So how is my view of "purity" illogical?

The view of purity you specifically described before this (in the post before your last one) was similar to the kind that tries to pretend a "vow of poverty" (and worthless Mother-Teresa-style shit like that) has any value in the sight of God. Hard work aimed at wise productivity in a free market is far more pure and helpful than some supposedly high and lofty individual that spends her life obsessed with death and suffering (as apposed to someone who works hard to alleviate and heal death and suffering). You know this and, as such, running off to India would not be a righteous use of your energy and time (you would be doing what you know to be wrong).

I won't suggest that taking a "vow of poverty" is the ticket into heaven.  Of course it isn't.  I also wouldn't say, as you have, that Mother Theresa was obsessed with death and suffering.  I will say that she lived amongst the poorest of people so she would understand what it was like.  To suggest that a "free market" is going to help some poor individual in South Africa is, to me, a joke.  While a free market would definitely help them, there's nothing wrong with giving up what one has in order to help the less fortunate.  If you've got a TV, you've got more than most people.

I also don't understand why someone like Mother Theresa is given a hard time by you.  She felt that the best way for her to help people living in poverty was to give up what she had, live among them, and do what she could to make their lives better.  She showed the world the kind of poverty that exists.  That is exactly what God calls us to do.  See Luke 21:1-4, Luke 3:11

Real purity is the kind attainable by real people. Christianity teaches that Jesus was a real person and that, as a person, he kept himself perfectly pure. He didn't have some God cheat code that he used to make himself invincible to temptation that ordinary people don't have access to. Jesus faced all the same issues you or I do on a daily basis and yet he kept himself righteous. Biblical Christianity then also teaches that our primary calling and goal in life, as Christians, is to constantly strive to be just as righteous.

I'm very aware that Jesus was tempted by the same things as every other man, but he also happened to be God incarnate.  He could read other peoples minds.  He knew what they had done before and he knew what they planned to do.  This gave him a much better ability to do what needed to be done.

Real purity, much like real perfection, is completely unattainable.  If you really believe you, or anyone else, can attain real purity, then I'm sorry for you.  Jesus was perfection.  God is perfection.  No one else can hope to come close.  Purity of mind, body, and soul is a daily exercise.  We can hope to come close to it in our lifetime, but we will likely never reach it.  I don't think Mother Theresa ever reached real purity either.

A man who works hard and helps his family before others is a far more righteous and pure man than one that runs off and ignores his family so he can supposedly help dying people in a far off country. There is wisdom in helping those whom our help will yield the best results within. To act more in accordance with that kind of Godly wisdom is to be more righteous.

I never suggested that I could run off and help others.  In fact, I said that I simply can't do that.  I even said I can't do it because I have other responsibilities.

 

 

lordjedi said:

 

It sounded like you were advocating that we do everything possible to show that we care for the people involved in the attacks.  It sounded like you were advocating we do everything possible in every situation to help everyone involved. 

 

Seriously, I mean no offense, but, truthfully, what you think my arguments "sound like" half the time is laughable. You could really stand to learn how to read people's posts better before immediately moving on tp open your mouth.

 

You could stand to be more clear in your posts and not ask such leading questions.  We went from talking about the Mumbai terrorists attacks to questioning my view of purity.

Of course doing "everything possible" is not humanly possible. We can't be everywhere and we can't do everything. Humans have to live human lives. As a very imperfect human life, there are always better ways for me to live out my values and reassess my values at every moment. To me I found your response to C3PX as one that was self-righteous and cocky.

Now who's putting words into who's mouth?  You would do well to take your own advice.  My statement was never meant to be either self-righteous or cocky.  I asked a simple question.  What more can be said about this attack that hasn't already been reported?  What more are we suppose to say about terrorists?  Please, feel free to answer these questions.

Again, on the level of an ordinary human life, there are no small ways in which you could have better acted in opposition to evil? There are no better motivations and actions you could plan for yourself that would be better than the ones you're in right now?

No.  Now why don't you give me some examples of how exactly someone in Southern California can act in opposition to evil in the Middle Eastern region of the world?  How am I or anyone else that's on this board suppose to act in opposition to the evil of this world?  I could've joined the army years ago, but I would've been out before the invasion of Iraq.  I vote for the people that I think can act in the best way possible.  My motivation is to have a better world for the time that I'm here in order to keep myself and my family safe (my family would be me, wife, children, and then my parents, brothers, sisters, etc, etc).

Sending money helps. Praying prayers helps. Talking about things helps. The question is what mixture of those good actions and other good actions is most wise from a moral persepctive (and therefore leads to greater righteousness).

How does talking about it on an Internet forum help?  Seriously, explain that to me.  I know that sending money helps.  I know that prayer helps because I've seen it work.  But how does blabbing about it on an Internet forum do anything?  As far as I can tell, it does nothing.  Our elected officials don't read it.  Maybe a passerby sees it from time to time, but for the most part, it's just a bunch of guys talking about it.  It's almost no different than a bunch of guys in a room talking about it.  After they're done talking about it, they go home and nothing changes.  Perhaps someones mind is changed, but beyond that, nothing has really been done.  It all ends up being a bunch of hot air.

Talking about things doesn't help unless the talk allows someone to change.  But if nothing is changed, then no help can come about.  I'm sure most of us read or heard about Mumbai.  If we were going to help, we would've done something.  Coming here and saying "So, what do you guys think about this terrorist attack" doesn't help anyone.  It's a mental exercise, nothing more.

Tiptup said:

... tries to pretend a "vow of poverty" (and worthless Mother-Teresa-style shit like that) has any value in the sight of God. Hard work aimed at wise productivity in a free market is far more pure and helpful than some supposedly high and lofty individual that spends her life obsessed with death and suffering (as apposed to someone who works hard to alleviate and heal death and suffering). You know this and, as such, running off to India would not be a righteous use of your energy and time (you would be doing what you know to be wrong).

I resent that comment. I have no idea why "Mother-Teresa-style" selfless living for others should be called shit. Sure it isn't for everyone, but to me it is just unbelievable that you'd claim a life is better spent living for youself and your family, working hard and productively in a free market society than it is living your life for others. Even more stupid is that you claim it has no value in the eyes of God.

I'd find it terribly inappropriate for somebody to leave their family in such an effort, but I find it indescribably admirable when someone who has no other family obligations (like a guy out of college, or a single individual) gives up their Xbox, their internet and their cell phones to go live and work with orphans in African villages without electricity or running water. When they see beyond their own lives and decide to live serving others. Please explain to me the part where that is shit? Or better yet, don't. Because I probably don't even want to hear it.

How exactly are you working hard to alleviate and heal death and suffering by working a 40 hour a week job and collecting a pay-check every two weeks? Do you think that kind of life has merit in the eyes of God? Taking care of family is something even animals do, why should doing what is natural to do be such a high and mighty thing to do? While we can say it is wrong to abandon your family in order to move overseas and help people, what is wrong if a whole family decides to move overseas to do something like this? Are they wrong in not contributing to the precious free market of American economy? Unrighteous because they are living off of the donations of others? BS!

Of course I see no merit in the self righteous actions of guys like Sean Penn or Bono, those guys are just ridiculous. If you are going to go help others with camera crews chronicling your every move and capturing your every "selfless" actions on film for people to gawk at and praise you about, then your motivations are pretty obvious.