www.ditl.org

The guy was willing to kill others to convince a TV channel to air more of a certain type of documentary. I can't say I'm feeling very sympathetic about him getting shot.

SolkaTruesilver wrote:He was hardly a treath to "humanity". So some people, definetly. Humanity? It wouldn't really have cared of his crazy actions.

I am not so quick to hand out judgement for who deserves to live and die.

The guy strapped a bomb to himself, grabbed guns, and took people hostage threatening their lives. I'm not seeing the big moral quandary with increasing his lead intake.

Tyyr wrote: The guy strapped a bomb to himself, grabbed guns, and took people hostage threatening their lives. I'm not seeing the big moral quandary with increasing his lead intake.

There is none. Let me explicitly state that. At the point we had come to, it was perfectly justified to shoot him down. There is absolutely no moral ambiguity.

But just because somebody has to be shot doesn't mean we can't regret his death.


And, as violent as that man was, he wasn't a threat to Humanity. I hardly see how he could have endangered Humanity, as violent as he was.

SolkaTruesilver wrote:And, as violent as that man was, he wasn't a threat to Humanity. I hardly see how he could have endangered Humanity, as violent as he was.

And that's just splitting hairs to a ridiculous degree.

Tyyr wrote:

SolkaTruesilver wrote:And, as violent as that man was, he wasn't a threat to Humanity. I hardly see how he could have endangered Humanity, as violent as he was.

And that's just splitting hairs to a ridiculous degree.

Not really. It's just that I don't like the use of such an hyperbolic as "a menace to humanity" when we talk about the single actions of a man which will have no impact whatsoever on the humanity as a whole.

Pretty much like many people abuse "national security" when they talk about the actions of a single terrorist which might kill 30 peoples, or even 100. More people die of traffic accident every day, yet you don't hear that being heralded as a "national security threat".

I was simply pointing out the use of hyperbolic. The man that took Discovery hostage was a criminal, and he was a menace to the people around him. It's sad we had to kill him, but it wasn't wrong. But except for some people who have been directly impacted, we won't remember him in a month.

He may not have been a menace to humanity but he was certainly a serious threat to anyone nearby at the time.

SolkaTruesilver wrote:And, as violent as that man was, he wasn't a threat to Humanity. I hardly see how he could have endangered Humanity, as violent as he was.

Surely he wasn't a threat to the continued existence of homo sapiens as a species. But he was patently a threat to humanity as expressed as those humans who were nearby.

Sionnach Glic wrote:He may not have been a menace to humanity but he was certainly a serious threat to anyone nearby at the time.

Agreed 100%

Mikey wrote:Surely he wasn't a threat to the continued existence of homo sapiens as a species. But he was patently a threat to humanity as expressed as those humans who were nearby.

I agree that he was a threat to the people who were nearby. But he was not a treath to humanity, as humanity isn't really affected by the demise of a few people.

It's simply four (5?) order of social magnitude higher, it doesn't even compare.

SolkaTruesilver wrote:humanity isn't really affected by the demise of a few people.

Wow. I'm a born cynic, and even I think that that's pretty cold.

Mikey wrote:

SolkaTruesilver wrote:humanity isn't really affected by the demise of a few people.

Wow. I'm a born cynic, and even I think that that's pretty cold.

But it's the truth.

Humanity goes on, history will barely remember that man, and his victims. They might cause traumatic event for the people directly involved. Maybe they will be a very bad memory for the local community. It will be an unconfortable spot for the region. It will be a weekly fad for the nation. I don't think people in India much care about what just happened.

Compare this with the 04 Tsunami, which has had a much more horrific toll. Still hasn't treathened humanity as a whole, but it certainly shook on it's boot countries, maybe even civilisation. It was devastating for regions.

It's a matter of number and ramifications. It doesn't make the local horrors less of an horror, however. Just because a crime killed 1 person doesn't meant it's less an important crime than one with 100 victims. Or 100,000. Or 100,000,000, for the person to whom it happened, or the victim's family.

"Humanity" is simply the grandest order of scale you can compare consequence that will directly affect us. You could go higher, but it stops existing on a social scale of responsability and control, and you get more into the cosmic thing, where there is little we can do.

Depends on what you mean by "affect." This particular crisis has zero direct, tangible effect on me - but I am affected nonetheless.

Since solka just said that humanity wouldn't be impacted by the demise of few, then he should be happy that we limited the loss to just one.

On a side note, I have a serious question for solka. Have you ever considered thinking before you post? As in thinking about what you're about to say.

Deepcrush wrote:Since solka just said that humanity wouldn't be impacted by the demise of few, then he should be happy that we limited the loss to just one.

Off course I am happy. Ultimately, we ended up with the single best possible outcome - save his peaceful surrender. I just hope the people he took hostage won't have too much sequels out of the experience.

Do we know if there was woundeds?

Deepcrush wrote:Blablabla I just want to insult people

A lot more than you, apparently.

SolkaTruesilver wrote:A lot more than you, apparently.

Misquoting someone doesn't do much more then show you as more of a fool then you already asked. I wasn't insulting you, it was a serious question and if you can't answer it then just say so. If I wanted to insult you I would do so.

SolkaTruesilver wrote:Off course I am happy. Ultimately, we ended up with the single best possible outcome - save his peaceful surrender. I just hope the people he took hostage won't have too much sequels out of the experience.

His peaceful surrender would have allowed his continued living, which is hardly a good outcome for anyone.

SolkaTruesilver wrote:Do we know if there was woundeds?

A, spell check.
B, only minor injuries reported.

Am I a bad person for laughing at this guy's list of demands? And not just because it was poorly thought out and contradicted itself, but something about his utter disgust for babies was hilarious to me.