Should we have sympathy for flood victims?

Therumancer

Citation Needed
Nov 28, 2007
9,909
0
0
Scrumpmonkey said:
Therumancer said:
At the end of the day I believe for humanity to survive 90% of the population needs to die, and the remaining 10% need to be assembled into a single nation/culture with tight population regulation.
I thought you were being deliberately over the top but you obviously believe your points to make such lengthy posts about them. This idea is part of the pantheon of 'Eugenics', an idea that had some traction until World War 2, when the reality of of the extermination of masses of people became all too real.

On topic. Yes. An area can flood that hasn't flooded before. If you think we shouldn't then you are an idiot. A heartless, argumentative idiot. Its like someone having a house fire and then saying "Well you voluntarily choose to live a house that contains wood, it's your own fault for not having an asbestos house" or someone being hit by a car that mounted the pavement and saying "Well you chose to walk down the street, it's your own fault for leaving the house".


Okay, now go back and actually READ all of the posts I've written in detail. This is why I get so curt with people. Yes I am not a great writer, but I cover a lot of different things to head off various points ahead of time. You really should do this when coming in relatively late to a conversation and trying to "make points".

For those who follow my stuff (there are a few) this is also why after a while in threads why I simply "declare victory" after a while and move on, newcomers saying I didn't address points that had already been handled hours if not days ago, or are irrelevant to what I actually said, frequently get ignored for a reason.

At any rate you are apparently confusing two entirely different points as I have said nothing racist or eugenically based (ie genetic inferiority) at all. I have said:

1. It's hard to feel sympathy for people that keep doing the same stupid things over and over again and then expect other people to dig them out. In this case when I'm talking about "Darwin" it's less genetics as much as letting idiots reap what they sow when countries like the US are already in massive amounts of debt. Charity is nice when you can do it, but it's not an entitlement, and really there is a certain point where you just flat out have to admit an outside force is not going to solve the problems in the region. Either the people there are going to sort it out on their own, or they are going to die. It's more akin to other civilizations that have faded away into history (as might happen to all of us in the first world some day) than any specific eugenic argument. The first world should not be a life support system for third world people unwilling or unable to help themselves and who keep doing the same stupid things.

A eugenics or racist argument (which I would make if I believe it) would be to say "hah, well the people in SE Asia are inferior to us white folks and this proves it. Due to their own inherent stupidity they keep killing themselves, and really if we let them die out it will make a stronger human race".

On a lot of levels my argument is exactly the opposite, as I am probably one of the least racist people you'll ever meet, I tend to irritate those with very liberal sentiments (who are themselves kind of racist) by realizing I can expect the same things of other humans that I can expect of my own people. I do not expect miracles though mind you, picking yourself up is a long, slow, process. I do however expect the people in the regions that we help to also try and help themselves, and not keep doing the same stupid things, which has rendered me unsympathetic in a lot of these cases. Indeed the liberals who come running out basically argueing that these people *can't* be expected to help themselves are actually making a far more bigoted argument since their entire position is based on presumed inferiority that requires someone else to pretty much take care of them and prop them up. This can lead into a lot of other arguements though and would get off topic. I'm writing this (which is pretty much what I've said before) to explain this particular point.


2. The entire point about 90% of the people on the planet needing to die is entirely separate from the above. It has to do with overpopulation and resource depletion rather than racism, and as I have explained before isn't specifically directed at a "type" of people. Any serious population reduction that would do the job would by definition be hitting the first world, which is densely overpopulated itself in a lot of areas, as much as anywhere else.

I merely pointed this out because this dark and depressing reality (which I believe at least), means that on a fundamental level I think running out to save lots and lots of people is kind of pointless when you consider if humanity is to survive we pretty much need to get rid of 90% of the people out there.

Explaining this in more detail would get far afield of the topic, and as I mentioned earlier, if you want more details on it you can check out some of my threads. When I'm already writing huge posts going off about the need for space travel, why we need a global government for that to happen, resource depletion and the time table before we reduce resources below the level to ever save ourselves with space travel, and other things get well off topic. I go into this in more detail and then someone else will come along and wonder why the heck we're talking about why you can't have more than one nation competing over things like in-system asteroid mining (which is one of the first things we'd have to do) and start jumping on my points there totally not getting the conversation and what's actually going on and how it could possibly relate to refugees.

Indeed I pointed it out largely by way of making the point that my attitudes are NOT racist, I'm just a guy that realizes reality sucks, and it's going to suck a lot worse if things are ever going to get better for anyone down the road.
 

shootthebandit

New member
May 20, 2009
3,867
0
0
Vykrel said:
you seem to have literally no concept of what it is to be "less fortunate".

Less fortunate? These floods are happening in south west england. I would not describe somerset as "less fortunate". You have these floods in Hull or Scunthorpe etc and damn right ill feel sorry for them and probably donate some money but when someones second holiday home get flooded my sympathy levels drop a bit.
 

Andy of Comix Inc

New member
Apr 2, 2010
2,234
0
0
dyre said:
If you get shot/raped/mugged in a high crime area, no sympathy for you! You should've known that it's dangerous to live there!
Vote "yes" to Mega City Judges! Or RoboCop. RoboCop will contact a rape crisis senator.
 

Eamar

Elite Member
Feb 22, 2012
1,320
4
43
Country
UK
Gender
Female
shootthebandit said:
Less fortunate? These floods are happening in south west england. I would not describe somerset as "less fortunate". You have these floods in Hull or Scunthorpe etc and damn right ill feel sorry for them and probably donate some money but when someones second holiday home get flooded my sympathy levels drop a bit.
You have got to be fucking kidding me. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. Some towns and villages in Somerset are fairly middle class, some are very much not. Y'know, like most places. And none of the flooded areas is "second holiday home" territory.

Do you seriously think entire counties conform to stereotypes?
 

Caiphus

Social Office Corridor
Mar 31, 2010
1,181
0
0
Eamar said:
Do you seriously think entire counties conform to stereotypes?
Not that I'm desperate to stereotype, but...

I thought everyone in Somerset lived on a farm and drove a tractor. Or at least, that was the common wisdom in my posh boy London school. We'd run around yelling "Sormerset, lar lar lar" and then salute in the direction of the nearest combine harvester.

And then we'd fuck.

Aaaaaah, public school.

Where was I? Oh yeah, holiday homes. What?
 

Eamar

Elite Member
Feb 22, 2012
1,320
4
43
Country
UK
Gender
Female
Caiphus said:
Not that I'm desperate to stereotype, but...

I thought everyone in Somerset lived on a farm and drove a tractor. Or at least, that was the common wisdom in my posh boy London school. We'd run around yelling "Sormerset, lar lar lar" and then salute in the direction of the nearest combine harvester.
That's actually closer to the truth (for the area I grew up in, which is also where the floods are, anyway).

No really, I have The Wurzels on my ipod, and it wasn't uncommon to break into a chorus of Combine Harvester or Drink Up Thy Cider after a few drinks :p

In all seriousness though, that's the stereotype I expect to encounter (people at university were devastated by my lack of a Zummerzehht accent when they found out where I was from). This holiday home stuff is news to me.
 

Ambitiousmould

Why does it say I'm premium now?
Apr 22, 2012
447
0
0
To be honest, while I do have sympathy for the flood victims, I am severely pissed of right now about this. Basically, when it happened a few years ago up north and around my area, nobody gave a shit, and business (small or otherwise) were charged for any flood defences or whatever, and a limited amount of money was spent on the relief effort. Now it has happened in the south though, David 'I'm a sheltered Poncey Posh Git With No Concept of Money' Cameron has decided that 'money is no object' (despite the fact that it will cost hundreds of millions) because that's where all the Tory voters are, and of course they're the only people our government gives a shit about.

Maybe I went a bit off topic. I actually think it depends. It's quite difficult to have loads sympathy for these UK flood victims when they are being relieved and whatnot, when there are people suffering from far worse disasters with less relief. Our weather is absolutely not extreme, despite what anyone says. Any 'snow storm' here is what any other country would call a 'light flurry' and even the 100mph winds we experienced a couple of days ago are nothing really, considering that hurricanes are a thing. We also hardly ever get earthquakes, and the ones we do get wouldn't shift a feather balanced on the end of a spear. We also have no volcanoes, tornadoes, hail the size of tennis balls, or tsunamis, so we should really get some perspective over here in the UK. Where the hell is our 'blitz spirit' of suck-it-up-and-get-on-with-it stiff-upper-lippedness? Still there somewhere, hidden under a 12ft pile of out-of-touch media and scaremongering.

I went off-topic again.

As for the idea of whether we should sympathise with those who know the risks, well if they choose to live in a flood plain (as in decide upon that when there were viable alternatives) then I won't care, really. But for a lot of people there isn't much choice, so really it's not their fault. Besides, the only way to definitely avoid floods is to live on a hill/steep street, so it isn't easy.

TL;DR: One can't really live anywhere without being affected by something bad in someway, so of course they deserve sympathy, we just need to moderate who deserves how much.
 

Eamar

Elite Member
Feb 22, 2012
1,320
4
43
Country
UK
Gender
Female
ambitiousmould said:
To be honest, while I do have sympathy for the flood victims, I am severely pissed of right now about this. Basically, when it happened a few years ago up north and around my area, nobody gave a shit, and business (small or otherwise) were charged for any flood defences or whatever, and a limited amount of money was spent on the relief effort. Now it has happened in the south though, David 'I'm a sheltered Poncey Posh Git With No Concept of Money' Cameron has decided that 'money is no object' (despite the fact that it will cost hundreds of millions) because that's where all the Tory voters are, and of course they're the only people our government gives a shit about.
To be fair, the "money is no object" thing only kicked in once the home counties/Thames Valley were affected. The South-West had been flooded for weeks by that point, and let me tell you people there are fuming about that in much the same way as you.

It's not even the whole south that gets priority, it's just the bits that are vaguely near London. Which I agree is total bullshit.
 

omega 616

New member
May 1, 2009
5,883
1
0
MorganL4 said:
I thought this very briefly as a kid, then it was pointed out to me by my mother that there is nowhere on this earth that is simultaneously devoid of earthquakes,floods,hurricanes,tornadoes,drought,avalanches,tsunamis,blizzards/snowstorms, volcanoes etc...
Tell your mother to pack her bags! I live in the North West of England, the most we get is a single road closed 'cos there is a large dip in the road under a bridge and that has only happened once in 5 years.

Never had a hurricane, earthquake or any of the other stuff you have mentioned.

To be really personal, flood water would have to rise the highest of 3 or 4 floors to get my apartment wet, which means houses would have to be completely submerged.

I am sure plenty of places exist that have no problems like this.

I too am torn on the issue, I mean you knowingly live in a place that when you buy says "this WILL flood" ... so how can you then ***** and moan you just got flooded? If somebody says "if you do that I will shoot you" and you do it, are you going to be surprised when you are shot? To be more realistic, I have no sympathy for hangovers.

On the other hand, having all your stuff ruined, carpets wrecked and living in shitty conditions for weeks would be tough to deal with.
 

MorganL4

Person
May 1, 2008
1,364
0
0
omega 616 said:
MorganL4 said:
I thought this very briefly as a kid, then it was pointed out to me by my mother that there is nowhere on this earth that is simultaneously devoid of earthquakes,floods,hurricanes,tornadoes,drought,avalanches,tsunamis,blizzards/snowstorms, volcanoes etc...
Tell your mother to pack her bags! I live in the North West of England, the most we get is a single road closed 'cos there is a large dip in the road under a bridge and that has only happened once in 5 years.

Never had a hurricane, earthquake or any of the other stuff you have mentioned.

To be really personal, flood water would have to rise the highest of 3 or 4 floors to get my apartment wet, which means houses would have to be completely submerged.

I am sure plenty of places exist that have no problems like this.

I too am torn on the issue, I mean you knowingly live in a place that when you buy says "this WILL flood" ... so how can you then ***** and moan you just got flooded? If somebody says "if you do that I will shoot you" and you do it, are you going to be surprised when you are shot? To be more realistic, I have no sympathy for hangovers.

On the other hand, having all your stuff ruined, carpets wrecked and living in shitty conditions for weeks would be tough to deal with.

Well aint that some irony....... My mother was born and raised in the northwest of England...... Liverpool to be exact (lived there till she was 22) And she had to deal with floods a couple of times and 4 of the homes she grew up in burnt to the ground... So umm yeah....
 

omega 616

New member
May 1, 2009
5,883
1
0
MorganL4 said:
Well aint that some irony....... My mother was born and raised in the northwest of England...... Liverpool to be exact (lived there till she was 22) And she had to deal with floods a couple of times and 4 of the homes she grew up in burnt to the ground... So umm yeah....
Funny, I lived there for 10 years and grandparents have lived there for about 60 ... neither flooded.

Stay away from the Mersey, or any river really, and you can't go far wrong.

Burnt to the ground isn't really in the same category as flooding, earthquakes and tornadoes ... unless a volcano had erupted that I didn't know about.
 

Vykrel

New member
Feb 26, 2009
1,317
0
0
shootthebandit said:
Vykrel said:
you seem to have literally no concept of what it is to be "less fortunate".

Less fortunate? These floods are happening in south west england. I would not describe somerset as "less fortunate". You have these floods in Hull or Scunthorpe etc and damn right ill feel sorry for them and probably donate some money but when someones second holiday home get flooded my sympathy levels drop a bit.
my point was that he assumes that anyone living in a flood zone or any other area susceptible to natural disasters can just up and move to a safer place, as if it were nothing. not everyone is well off enough to just uproot their lives and move elsewhere.
 

Sarge034

New member
Feb 24, 2011
1,623
0
0
MammothBlade said:
Did you read my entire post? Because you are working off of some flawed information.

So you admit yourself, there are different reasons people live in such areas. And it's not because they want to get hit by floods. They have their entire livelihoods there, their jobs, their family, everything. No-one looks at a map and goes "GEE WHIZZ I SURE WISH I LIVED IN A FLOOD-PRONE AREA!"
You don't have to. It is common knowledge tornadoes happen in "tornado ally", Louisiana gets hit hard every year by storms of one sort or another, ect. Anyone who knowingly moves into a disaster zone knows what they are signing up for. And anyone that gets burnt by a risk they were ok with gets no sympathy from me.

Often, living in an area that is prone to floods is a necessity. The vast majority of people are not to blame for their misfortunes. There's no need to sit on a high horse and tell people after the fact. It's not as if low-lying areas are just barren wastelands which produce nothing of value. To say these sorts of things is just ignorant, I think.
I believe I said, "Now there is also something to say for people who can't afford to move. They get my sympathy simply because they do not posses the means to correct the situation if they wanted to." Misquoting things is just ignorant, I think.

It's okay not to have sympathy, you can just not care and ignore it. But it's quite different to go and say that people living in flooded areas are to blame for their troubles, as a lot of people seem to be doing here. And it's no good, as you are doing, to simply cherry pick your sympathy based on your own perceived criteria of worthiness.
You do know the difference between empathy and sympathy, right? I said everyone gets my empathy, as in I understand their plight and realize it sucks, but not everyone is deserving of my sympathy, as in I understand your plight and it really sucks that it happened to you. Those who knowingly and willingly move to disaster prone locations simply can't get me to care that it is happening to them (specifically). I know it sucks, but they took the risk.

With the attitudes some people have, I don't think flood victims want their sympathy anyway. "Sympathy" is only worth something coming from decent, considerate people.
First, watch it with the passive aggressiveness. I am decent and considerate, but I view the world differently than most. If you're gonna call me names at least have the balls to come out and do it.

As for flood victims (I was talking about ALL natural disaster victims by the way)... Cool, that means they'll stop taking the disaster relief funds that my taxes pay for.

Yuno Gasai said:
I think I love you. You have succinctly summarized the point I was trying to make. So thank you.
I was totally gonna link "No Homo" by Lonely Island but then I looked at your profile to be sure. THAT would have been awkward... Thanks though!
 

MammothBlade

It's not that I LIKE you b-baka!
Oct 12, 2011
5,246
0
0
Sarge034 said:
You do know the difference between empathy and sympathy, right? I said everyone gets my empathy, as in I understand their plight and realize it sucks, but not everyone is deserving of my sympathy, as in I understand your plight and it really sucks that it happened to you. Those who knowingly and willingly move to disaster prone locations simply can't get me to care that it is happening to them (specifically). I know it sucks, but they took the risk.
So you stated. But no beating around the bush, people have reasons to choose to move there knowing the risks, and it's not because they're greedy. For example, sometimes it's the only place where they're able to get a job. And if they don't take those jobs, someone else will. By simple economic necessity, someone has to live there. And you're still judging them from your pedestal, oh great one.

First, watch it with the passive aggressiveness. I am decent and considerate, but I view the world differently than most. If you're gonna call me names at least have the balls to come out and do it.

As for flood victims (I was talking about ALL natural disaster victims by the way)... Cool, that means they'll stop taking the disaster relief funds that my taxes pay for.
Calling people names is against the rules, and I don't wish to get banned. I was only referring to people in general who take that sort of attitude. If you happen to fall in your category, that's your fault. The same with all these "undeserving" flood victims.
 

Sarge034

New member
Feb 24, 2011
1,623
0
0
MammothBlade said:
So you stated. But no beating around the bush, people have reasons to choose to move there knowing the risks, and it's not because they're greedy. For example, sometimes it's the only place where they're able to get a job. And if they don't take those jobs, someone else will. By simple economic necessity, someone has to live there. And you're still judging them from your pedestal, oh great one.
It's nice of you to realize how great I am.

As for the rest of your reply... They can have their reasons and I'm fine with that but unless it wasn't their choice to be there it changes nothing.

Calling people names is against the rules, and I don't wish to get banned. I was only referring to people in general who take that sort of attitude. If you happen to fall in your category, that's your fault.
So you do admit to passively aggressively calling me names through generalization. So do you not poses the professionalism of attacking my points and not me. Tisk tisk.

The same with all these "undeserving" flood victims.
Did you change this in an edit? It says, "Don't forget, these people are also deserving taxpayers." in my inbox.

To which I would reply...


Seriously, not all who receive aid are taxpayers and you are fooling yourself if you think they are. My tax comment was directed at the fact that you implied the victims of the disaster didn't want sympathy from people like me and I replied by saying fine they shouldn't want our money either.
 

JupiterBase

New member
Feb 4, 2010
428
0
0
As some people have brought up, disaster prone areas are not just swaths of land for peoples lives to be destroyed on. I live in California and besides the earthquakes one of the major dangers is fire. We are in one of the worst droughts in our history and hence a large portion of the state is a tinder box. California produces around 50% of the United States fruits, vegetables etc. A disaster here could cause billions of dollars in damage and be harmful to the economy, which is a big purpose of government aid after a disaster to rebuild and reestablish. I think leaving people homeless and destitute actually costs more then the money handed out to people. The government wants people back to work.
 

Vegosiux

New member
May 18, 2011
4,381
0
0
Sarge034 said:
Seriously, not all who receive aid are taxpayers and you are fooling yourself if you think they are. My tax comment was directed at the fact that you implied the victims of the disaster didn't want sympathy from people like me and I replied by saying fine they shouldn't want our money either.
When you pay your rent, do you still consider it "your" money and tell your landlord he should only be spending it on activities you approve? Or well, if you're the landlord, do you consider the money you collect from the rent to still be "their" money and ask for rules on how you're allowed to spend it?

Taxes are basically rent, you see.
 

Sarge034

New member
Feb 24, 2011
1,623
0
0
Vegosiux said:
When you pay your rent, do you still consider it "your" money and tell your landlord he should only be spending it on activities you approve? Or well, if you're the landlord, do you consider the money you collect from the rent to still be "their" money and ask for rules on how you're allowed to spend it?

Taxes are basically rent, you see.
Actually, in a manner of speaking, yes. The tenant is paying rent to stay in the apartment but it is still the landlord's responsibility to keep up with maintenance. If the tenant needs something fixed the landlord is required to attend to it, regardless if the landlord spent all of the rent money or not, so one could surmise the tenant can "set the rules".

However, if a landlord doesn't want me living in that apartment I sure as hell will not pay them.