Tuesday, August 30, 2005

Show us your Wrath(?)

Katrina
Did God finally have enough of it or did he just want some beads?

(I know I'm making a joke even though people have actually died. It is only to point out that the Argument from Evil is a powerful one and/or many people are inconsistent when it comes to their values and their behaviour. In the linked story the Biloxi mayor said "This is our tsunami." While the process of comparing deaths is somewhat absurd, I think there is validity in it. 100 dead is not the same as 210,000 dead. It would seem odd to say, "This is our one-twentieth tsunami," but it would be more accurate and less insulting to the families of thousands of people. Secondly, why can't you make a reference to some devastating hurricane? A hurricane is not a tsunami. More reasons it is dissimilar are that large foreign corporations will not likely displace you from your future homes and that aid given to help will actually be received and used to help you.)

6 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Alright then, name a hurricane that's been this destructive?

2:56 PM  
Blogger Darren said...

As I can't read the tone, I want ask, "Did you miss the 5 other points raised and/or are just being picky or do you sincerely want to know?"

To answer your question, it seems
"Hurricane Katrina was the third-most intense hurricane to ever hit the United States since reliable records began in 1851, according to the National Weather Service. Only the "Labor Day Hurricane" that hit the Florida Keys in September 1935 and 1969's Hurricane Camille were more intense."

For more on Camille: http://www.geocities.com/hurricanene/hurricanecamille.htm

4:12 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The point was that references are supposed to be meaningful. What does "this is our Hurricane Camille" mean? Nothing, if you don't know the reference. The Tsunami is a meaningful reference right now.

Also, force doesn't equal destruction & devastation - you're getting those two concepts confused.

Personally, I disagree with your disapproval of the comparison - I think it's quit fair. UN's humanitarian chief agrees:

http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WEATHER/09/02/katrina.world/index.html

I think it's justified.

5:48 PM  
Blogger Darren said...

I think we'll just disagree then (and I'll disagree with anyone else too).

I'm actually not confused about what force equals. Force equals mass x acceleration.

The point is that I think lives are more important than property. 180,000 dead is not the same as 1800 dead.

also, just because references are meaningful, doesn't mean they are valid.

6:59 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If you know that force and destruction aren't the same think, then why did you argue the point in terms of loss of lives, and then cite weather statistics about the force of the storm? Did Camille do any damage? Do you even know that without looking it up first? I'm guess no, since you obviously have to look up the stat in the first place.

9:51 AM  
Blogger Darren said...

You'll see my first statement used the word 'devastating,' while in your comment you say '...this destructive,' which likely made the words equivalent for me (if only connotatively). I meant a devestating loss of life, which can be inferred because I never mentioned property.
So, you'll see from the beginning, I cited lives lost. Then you brought in destruction, then I went back to lives lost.
Why I didn't have to look it up initially (note that you never did), was that I knew in terms of lives lost Katrina would not be the same as the Tsunami. This is my point, not literal 'destruction'. (One would also have to do a relative balance of cost of a edifices in a third world versus a first world). It was correct the first time I mentioned it, the second time, and now it is also correct this third time. You continually do not acknowledge this point... but it is not required anymore. If you choose to discuss this matter further, please do it elsewhere.
Thanks.

5:34 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home