4 ms·
> All of them. How is this not obvious? Not sure if you are in agreement with the comment you are replying to or challenging it. If the latter - your stance do
by handy2000 3y ago
> All of them. How is this not obvious?
Not sure if you are in agreement with the comment you are replying to or challenging it. If the latter - your stance does not address the question. All unjust deaths are tragic, we could have thick magazines published daily listing details of unjust deaths of children just in the US. So the question is what do we pay attention to? (Apologies if I misunderstood your comment.)
- dclowd9901 3y agoNot all deaths are unjust, and ergo, not all deaths are tragic. We collectively believe child murder to be beyond the pale. I don’t think it’s rhetorical but I also don’t think it’s debatable. So, the essence of my comment is this, to be clear: if a child dies due to some consequence of society we’re capable of changing, we should be forced to look upon those images.
- handy2000 3y agoI agree with you in principle: if a person (don't think it's reasonable to limit this to children only) dies due to some consequence of society we can change, there is a shared responsibility on all of us to face this injustice. But this is wildly impractical, attention is a valuable and limited commodity. This whole thread is dedicated to that specific notion: neither the media, nor individually we can't collect, process and raise awareness of all unjust deaths. So then the question is, what is the process for choosing and reporting these injustices? > if a child dies due to some consequence of society we’re capable of changing, we should be forced to look upon those images Just to reiterate: this is impossible due to various unresolvable constraints.