Forums / Discussion / Serious Debate

This quote was from a photo with this wording plastered on it and a photo of a recent celebrity death and black and white photos of veterans.

Unfortunately this post or meme, like many others lacks the in depth explanation required to explain such complex emotional states of a person when grieving.

It is natural to grieve or care more about the death of a person when you have an emotional connection to that person. It is highly likely that people have built an especially strong connection with celebrities as their entire lives and careers are public to the world and in most cases more detailed than an average person’s life.

If the premise of the meme is to convey that you should care more about veterans then let me give an example of how that is an unreasonable request and that this meme like many others is just a tool of manipulation and deceit. Don’t misunderstand the fact that we should do all we can to ensure that veterans get the help they need and deserve in relation to mental health issues.

The example is that 17,000 people die every day from hunger or malnutrition. (2013) We currently live in societies where that would not even be considered acceptable by any ethical standard yet the number is shockingly high most would think. This is a single cause of death of what my opinion is of an unacceptable way to die in this world due to causes that are in 1st world countries considered so unethical that it doesn’t exist.

If the meme requires you to sympathise more about veterans then one would think you should equally care about each and every person in this world that die from a lack of care or unreasonable death. I can guarantee that nobody has the capability to care for such large numbers of people. Not each and every person individually. It is fairly easy to say that “my prayers are with them” or similar, but it is much harder to admit that your words usually don’t make a difference on such a scale. It is much harder to admit and can sound offensive to some, that it is really only possible to care about people you are emotionally connected to. This does not necessarily mean you need to know the person, just know of the person.

My opinion is that being sympathetic when it does not do any help to anyone might actually cause more emotional distress to the person. Unless there is a possibility you can directly affect a situation or the meme had put you on a path to affect a situation then likely there is no positive in you knowing or being sympathetic. There appears to be a hint of guilt when I see post of "good faith" towards these kind of meme's which I find useless, appalling and unethical.

In conclusion this post is, from what I can tell purely to generate a negative emotional response to gain popularity and does not actually do any good for anyone. It gives me proof that this world is so broken as it is so far from being able to look past 15 words of information slapped on a photo with the most recent celebrity that died.

The last sentence is referring to people not looking past the face value of anything in this world and believe everything that is seen and heard immediately without even a basic level of facts or reputable source.

I hate those kinds of posts, because it assumes we have the money, time, and emotional strength to worry about people we will never meet. We likely wouldn't have been able to stop their deaths either, as already 121 people commit suicide in the US every day.

Look, I barely pay rent and don't even have health insurance. I just got into a car accident that wasn't my fault, and my insurance is only paying for half of the loan so I have to front the rest. I don't need anyone to lecture me on empathy for people struggling in the US, much less the world.

crazy how people care more about someone dying that they know than someone they don't.

One death is a tragedy. 44,000 is a statistic.

Let's say your mother dies. You feel an immeasurable sadness, yes? Well thousands of mothers die every day, why aren't you feeling a thousand times as sad everyday? Because humans cannot feel true empathy to people they have zero connection too. Makes sense, as we would not be able to function otherwise. While most of these people have never met these celebrities, those celebrities have touched their lives, through their work. They have had an influence over us as people and we can form some kind of connection to their comedy, stories or characters they play. Thus, when they die, we are capable of feeling sadness over it.

When a Vet commits suicide, yes, one can acknowledge it as a regrettable event, but one cannot truly feel sadness for someone they have zero connection towards. The closest you can get is knowing a Vet that committed suicide and feel some sadness that what happened to the Vet you did know continues to happen to others. However, if you look at how human emotion and empathy works, it makes perfect sense that people care more about celebrities than the nameless, faceless masses.

Those that try to act smart and "enlighten" for pointing this out as if it were hypocrisy are just outing themselves as pseudo-intellectuals who don't know what they are talking about. They also don't know that the Joker they are quoting wasn't actually making a good point and wasn't supposed to be agreed with. Twenty soldiers dying doesn't surprise people not because of some sick plan, but because soldiers, by their line of work, are expected to put themselves into dangerous and life-threatening situations, thus them dying, while sad, is not unexpected or unprecedented, and they knew what they were getting into when they became soldiers in the first place. A Mayor being held hostage isn't expected and is unprecedented, thus people react. Funny how so many people miss that and see the Joker as some kind of sage to be listened too.

A bit of an inversion, but I had an argument once with an acquaintance on Facebook who talked down on people caring about Paul Walker's death (needless to say, that was a long time ago). She was getting all riled up because she insinuated that said people who were sad and concerned about his death didn't care about the poor starving Africans who are dying of malnutrition each day. The only thing I said to her, and that is something I'll stand by firmly: If she can't be arsed to acknowledge that one person's death is sad, how the fuck is she going to care for thousands of others then?
It's not even a matter of weeping for deceased ones you don't know or hold any connection to, it's just having the decency to say: It's sad that it had to happen, and that so soon. That's all you need to do, it shouldn't be too hard regardless of how you feel about celebrities or public persons of interest.

@Crystallion I would have just told them to look up "Fallacy of relative privation" on Google and left. Hell, the other name for that fallacy is "The Children starving in Africa fallacy" It's not an argument, it's never and argument.

We gonna comment, can't beat this tho