Every time there’s a military
conflict, someone points out that many of the victims were NOT adult
men. The theory is that a tragedy is way more tragic if anyone other
than adult men get killed. If you throw a woman or a minor or a puppy
into the mix then we all have a reason to be sadder and madder.
I totally agree with the view that some tragedies are more tragic
than others, depending on who is involved. But I do demand efficiency.
That’s why I propose ranking the value of all types of people so I can
more easily judge how sad I should feel when they get killed.
For example, if 400 villagers are buried in a mudslide, I’d like to
know how many of them were drunks, assholes, nags, dickheads, crooks,
or males, just to pick a few examples. I wouldn’t feel as much pressure
to feel bad about that portion of the village. In the best case
scenario, the victims would all be adult men with no special talents.
That’s barely even a tragedy. We adult males have our uses to be sure,
but society agrees that it’s not such a big deal when someone kills us.
I think that the main reason there are so many wars is that most of
the soldiers are adult males. If all wars had to be fought exclusively
by second graders or contestants from the Special Olympics, no one
would ever start a war because the results would be too tragic.
3 comments:
I like that. A war entirely fought by second graders! I suspect there would be lots of "dutch rub" and "indian rub" casualties. If nothing else, it would thin the herd of annoying second graders.
it works for me.
either that or over 60 draft dodgers.
not heard of those.
we have the Chinese Burn,and the ever popular Wedgie,altho i think the second was a transatlantic import.
oh ,and the Noogie.
Post a Comment