Two minute silence

[ciphergoth]

At 12:00 BST today, London and many around the world observed a two minute silence for the 48 people who died in the terrorist attacks on London on 7 July.

During those two minutes, approximately 42 children worldwide died due to poverty.

We are not going to let terrorists cause us to lose perspective.

Comments

[simm42.livejournal.com]

Thankyou for raising this.

There are far worse things being perpectuated around the world that people forget about.

People so often use such silences as this to reflect on things that have closely touched themselves and then give themselves a little pat on the back for giving up their time to think, then forget about everything and go back to their starbucks and their SUVs.

[adjectivemarcus.livejournal.com]

I think I'd say "other" rather than "far worse".

[simm42.livejournal.com]

Really? You dont think its worse that 42 children died because we in the west couldn't be bothered to give them the money instead of spending it on an over priced coffee of a fuel guzzling lump of metal? That we ignore that fact?

I think that is far worse. What happened in london atleast had a reason behind it, a message they were trying to convey. The reasoning was insane, the message stupid and the delivery barbaric, but to let children die because we as a whole just cant be bothered to fix it?

No there are far worse things that can and do happen in this world and our hands are dirty from them.

[adjectivemarcus.livejournal.com]

No, I do not think we should ignore it. I apologise if you took me to mean that.

I think we should fight poverty and terrorism. Death from neither is 'better' than the other.

[simm42.livejournal.com]

Both should be stopped.

Deffinatly.

But I think the billions being put in to add new liberty infringing anti terrorist messures could have far far better uses.

The scales of the problems are confused in politics and the responses disproportionate to the actuality

[ajva.livejournal.com]

to let children die because we as a whole just cant be bothered to fix it?

You dont think its worse that 42 children died because we in the west couldn't be bothered to give them the money instead of spending it on an over priced coffee of a fuel guzzling lump of metal?


This isn't the way I see it, actually. I don't think it's possible to fix poverty by just giving people money. That might seem counterintuitive, but I genuinely believe it. I certainly don't think we are ignoring poverty. I understand and share your frustrations that poverty can't be cured with the click of a finger; the fight goes on to address the underlying problems and I think we are actually beginning to tackle them effectively. It will take time, but I am an optimist. I genuinely believe we will get there in the end.

[adjectivemarcus.livejournal.com]

I genuinely believe we will get there in the end.

I believe this too.

If not in their lifetimes, hopefully within ours.

[simm42.livejournal.com]

I agree - giving people money or food isn't going to fix it - but it is going to take money to fix the underlying problems.

Things like wiping out the debt of poorer countries, setting up fair trade laws and sorting out farming subsidies

[ciphergoth.livejournal.com]

Thanks.

I've enjoyed the discussion in this entry, and agreed with a lot of contrasting things people have said. I've got to say, I think it reflects very poorly on you that you've disabled comments in the entry in your journal that it inspired. There are people on my friends list who have the courage of their convictions enough to do things like go to Uganda to try and make a difference. I can't match that, but at least I have enough courage in my convictions to allow people to challenge them here.

[simm42.livejournal.com]

I dont normnally disallow comments, in this case I was going for shock and the thought it creates (I know for one I dont score close to perfectly against the metrics I list there, but in writing it I've had to confront those issues in myself)

The main problem with this kind of discussion on LJ is that you are preaching to the choir, the people already doing something and that what you say doesnt reach those that really need to hear it, but then would they listen?

[boyofbadgers.livejournal.com]

It's probably just as well that they did disable comments or I might well have torn them an new arsehole.

[simm42.livejournal.com]

Thats the attitude why I kept comments off.

I dont open my LJ space for online flame wars, but then I dont put opinions on there that I wont hold up in public.

I'm going to drop the matter there since I certainly dont want to get into the kind of flames on someone else's LJ that I avoid in mine.

[ciphergoth.livejournal.com]

In that case perhaps you should consider deleting the entry altogether. I don't consider the sentiments you expressed laudible or well thought out, and if you're not prepared to stand by them yourself you should retract them.

[djm4]

You do not have the right not to be offended by what other people say. You have the right to think they're arseholes for saying it, but it's not up to you to arbitrate whether or not they get to say it.

(I don't have a problem, in this context, with 'perhaps you should consider deleting the entry altogether', but I think 'you should retract them' is going too far.)

[ajva.livejournal.com]

I think ciphergoth was just making a suggestion, and a good one at that. Still, I look forward to a future in which none of us believes they have a right not to be offended.

:o)

[djm4]

Yes, OK, sorry. It's a bit of a button issue for me.

[simm42.livejournal.com]

no one has the right to tell anyone what to think.....




In this case I haven't deleted the entry as that would be a denial, which is worse than a retraction, I've made it a private post - which is mostly what my LJ is, a private place for my thoughts

[ladytabitha.livejournal.com]

Ah, he has every right to be offended, he has no right to actively censor others' words.

[djm4]

True, but ciphergoth wasn't actively censoring anyone. I wasn't thinking straight when I read his post, and menatlly skipped right over the 'if' in:

'...if you're not prepared to stand by them yourself you should retract them.'

I too believe people should retract statements that they're not prepared to stand by, although it's a feeling of mine that they're at liberty to ignore. I also don't think that posting something with comments disabled is the same as making a post that you're not prepared to stand by, and I suspect that this is where ciphergoth and I have a bigger disagreement, but that's not itself an issue of censorship.

[simm42.livejournal.com]

The entry served its purpose - in making me think about my own life in response to my ideals, one of the reasons I keep a journal.

In hindsight the place where it is now is perhaps more appropriate given prevailing thoughts and emotions.

Since you obviously disagree with the content and context I apologise for linking your name in there wihtout permission.

[cavalorn.livejournal.com]

Making a post that is supposedly intended to 'make people think' and then refusing to engage in the articulation of said thinking (the subsequent discussion) is the equivalent of knocking on doors and running away.

[simm42.livejournal.com]

More to make me think about my life in the reflections of my own opinions, how one holds up against the other and do I manage to live to my own ideals.

[djm4]

I disagree. I think it's the equivalent of putting up a highly visible poster (and to me, that's a different thing from knocking on a door and running away).