<p>I meant to say, “armchair view of the world.” Its the perspective of someone who lives a cushioned life giving advice on situations they have never encountered: genocide, poverty, etc. It gets its name from the person talking supposedly sitting in a comfortable position to be talking about “the hard life.”</p>
<p>Its funny you mention, I just learned it today in AP Human Geo.</p>
<p>ahh funny. well i must admit it is a harsh perspective. i mean think of the starving children in africa, the drug resistant tb patients in south america, think think of the humanity!
lol.</p>
<p>Maybe we shouldn’t have stopped fighting WWI then. Nobody, if they can help it, is going to live with a problem just so they don’t cause another one. </p>
<p>Obviously we have some responsibility to our fellow human beings. Mothers don’t have babies that can take care of themselves; it is their responsibility to take care of them until they can function on their own. People in general like to take care of one another. It gives them a sense of purpose. No, it’s not obligatory, but it’s a part of human nature. Sure, there are arguments that compassion and sympathy only work on the small scale, but you can achieve gains for a lot of people individually by operating on the larger scale.</p>
<p>I’m not sure if that actually makes sense when I type it out. The mental image is those charity operations that show you a picture of a “little boy or girl you can help,” I think.</p>
<p>Does not compute. What is this heart item you speak of?</p>
<p>Wow, it’s late, kiddos. I got to do some AP English homework. Thanks for all the feedback, honestly. I only talk like this with my brother, but he rarely comes down form college except for holidays. Without a doubt, I’ll be back tomorrow!</p>
<p>i know this is nutty but i can never remember the purpose or catalyst to wwI all i remember is some euporean duke or something got shot. most of the other i can but wwI nothing.</p>
<p>The four MAIN causes of WWI: Militarism (new weapon technology. Like boys wanting to play with their new toys), Alliances (self-explanatory), Imperialism (They all wanted each other’s colonies) and Nationalism (a semi-new concept. Like in All Quiet on the Western Front)</p>
<p>Catalyst: Archduke Franz Ferdinand of the Austro-Hungarian empire was shot by a Serbian member of the Black Hand.</p>
<p>I’ll kip off to bed too. Nice debating with you! </p>
<p>PS The genetic motivation for emotion and compassion is really interesting. Look into it some time.</p>
<p>oh god, you pulled me back in, Earilmadith. I love what you say about compassion and sympathy only working on the small scale. But were we disagree, and i think this is the root of our different opinions, is the whole people working to change larger scale. I say, the larger scale is what it is for a reason, genocide, starvation, and all. You’d think this outlook would depress me, but I just focus on the compassion and sympathy in my immediate world. If you look for happiness, you’ll find it.</p>
<p>Pretty much all I remember about WWI is the kellog treaty. I think it’s called the kellog treaty. Something like the cereal. Anyways they were like NO MORE WARS!! YAY!</p>
<p>Hahaha and then a couple decades later… Hitler comes out.</p>
<p>I dunno but for some reason it amuses me. In a rather morbid way. The naivete. But I guess I’m just really really cynical?</p>
<p>nope the leaders were just all lying to themselves
and thx earilmadith. i love that group name “black hand” hehe.
how can you just watch genocide. what do those suffering have to think about? (what pleasant thoughts do they have)</p>
<p>Yes, I have a book list that is all about genetic motivation for cooperation, compassion, etc. very interesting, actually. although my book list also had a lot of fiction books etc hah</p>
<p>yeah my book list was fiction and a few books on various epidemiology friendly topics.</p>
<p>oh.</p>
<p>Um. I think my booklist had a lot of 18th century chick-flicks. Like Jane Austen.</p>
<p>i have a friend who loves that stuff. every couple of months is a new century.</p>
<p>I don’t know how to quit do I? As for what the suffering have to think about, they have the drive to want to fell those pleasant thoughts again. My idea is that they should stand up to their oppressor(s), even if that means immediate death, and yet again, my fear of having an armchair view of life rears its ugly head: what right do I have to say what I victim of something of that magnitude should do? But if I continue with that thinking, I’ll eventually reach the point were I believe I don’t have a right to think any of the thoughts I think.</p>
<p>you have the right but is it practical?
to expect thousands of people who feel powerless to pool happy thoughts together and fix their problems could be to no avail. not to mention it will inspire even more outside aid. i mean the media would love it. and armchair view does come up, do you think you have the strength within you to face imminent death and go forward. its the stuff of grand fiction.</p>
<p>You’ve used the best weapon against me! Being accused of having an armchair view of the world is my Kryptonite, it makes me second guess every thought that comes to my head!
I don’t understand were you connect an inspiration for outside aid and a group of conscious individuals taking their OWN fates into their OWN hands.</p>
<p>ok like say my country is going through a coup right. i start a revolt against that, and im all joan of arc inspiring right. media catches wind, im blown up as this amazing person, and potentially people side with my efforts and throw some help to the cause my way.
or is that too theoretical??
and i use the kryptonite well.lol.</p>
<p>or they could just let us destroy ourselves, but i try to think on positive terms : P</p>
<p>Too Theoretical? This entire past two and a half page worth of discussion should be called “Theories 101.” I feel like I’m the biggest culprit. (:</p>