OCR Text |
Show opinion/ MONDAY*AUGUST 22*2005 A9 A fun little game Pro/ and Con/ The moral justification for war: To text: simple, convenient, courteous In a verbal ping pong between two people, both attentions must be engaged at the same moment in time. In a written ping pong, the sender sends the message, and the receiver is free to view that message respond at his or her convenience, because, let's face it, we're all busy. We've all got things to do. We can't always be interrupted by a ringing phone. Sometimes I just don't have time to stop what I'm doing and talk to someone in my polite telephone voice. In such mo- ^< ments, a simple text message can do the trick. "John, can't make it tonight. See you tomorrow : at 5pm at the meeting." Simple. •.„ I don't need to dial and listen to the ring ring ring of R y a n John's phone. I don't need Is text messaging to wait while John stops his car, answers his phone, tells me about his motherinlaw or whatever else is on his mind before we can get to the point. John can simply respond, "Ok, u suk, bye." It's all about getting the message across simply and conveniently. Time is money. And the more diversified our technology becomes, the more we'll learn to utilize it. With text, there are no worries about whether or not you're interrupting somebody else's life, movie or meeting. A ringing telephone is, by nature, obtrusive and snaps the attention of everyone who hears it. Therefore, discretion is another pro on the side of text mes-. saging. My phone is now my internet uplink wherever I go. Twentyfour hours a day, I have email in the palm of my hand. People can call me, message me or send me files. I can respond immediately or at my own convenience. We all know how email and Yahoo Messenger works. You is good? send the message, you wait a moment, and you get a reply without all the inteiTuptive arrogance. You just gotta get used to it. And sometimes change is a good thing. Not to text: trendy, time-consuming, tiresome The text messaging fad baffles me. The difference between the graphic "meet... me... for... dinner... at... five," and the verbal "meet me for dinner at five" is exponential in my mind. The first situation requires that I press buttons around sixtyfive times. The second situation requires that I say six words (or more if you count hello, goodbye, etc.). Don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan of technology. But when the cell phone guy asked me if I wanted to pay more money for text messaging service, I laughed at him. If it takes more time for me to type out six words than it does for me to speak them, why would I want to type them? The cell phone guy said, "Well, everyone's texting." "Yes," I told him. "I'm perfectly aware that 'everyone' is paying more money than they were already paying for another useless cell phone service." Now, I know consensus is against me. More people text than don't text. Having consensus on your side does not however always mean you're right. For example, George Carlin is right about a great number of things simply because he is louder and funnier than most people. George Bush is wrong about a great number of things even with consensus on his side. You "texters" might make the argument that texting is fun and convenient. You might think I'm an idiot. But by the time you finish the acrobatic finger challenge of "John... it's... consensus... you... are... an... idiot," I will have finished calling you and your text messaging a hundred louder and funnier things. If you disagree with my CarlinBush philosophy, consider this: I could dictate this article over the phone five times before you could text it once. Gregory Lucero false. To claim that Iraq has Opinions Writer weapons of mass destrucIn all of the discussions tion is false. It's not even I've had about the war in particularly honest to claim Iraq I've never heard a good they had them. People often say Iraq shipped their weapmoral justification of it. I've heard about the schools ons to Syria, but that doesn't we've built. I've also heard hold up either. Syria has had about the mass graves. I've a healthy chemical weapons heard that "Saddam gassed program since 1979. What exactly would they his own people." However, given the horrible crimes do with a few chemical being committed right now weapons from the weakened around the world, which Iraq? Furthermore, with Iraq don't even raise an eyebrow under constant surveillance of these Iraqi humanitarians, up to and during the Iraq war, it makes me think these peo- it seems laughable that large ple don't really care about quantities of weapons made the welfare of the oppressed. it across the border. In addiWhere was the outrage when tion, I'd like to see concrete Saddam was actually gassing information that the Iraqis his people in the early 80s are significantly better off now. with American support? Using iraqbodycount.net It's frustrating to say the which only shows reported least. With everyone coming casualties, the number of back, I thought it would be civilians killed after the war a good idea to stir up the began is at minimum 23,589. opinion's column right off That's 9435.6 deaths per year minimum. Some human the bat. To that end, I've got a fun rights organizations place back to school game for ev- Saddam as killing around eryone to play. I challenge 300,000 civilians during his anyone to find a way to mor- bloody reign. That's 12,500 ally support the Iraq war. Ig- a year. That puts the US at a noring just-war theory, I only 75.48% of the kills to Sadask the players to adhere to dam. Keep in mind, that's just four simple rules. The first rule is that your the minimum of reported reasoning can't be logically deaths. If you take the figfallacious. That means you ure released by the Lancet can't claim that the people at 100,000 you're looking who oppose the war were bad at about 40,000 deaths per so it's right. It also doesn't year. That's about a 300% independ on how many people crease. It seems that in conbelieve the war is right. It crete terms the Iraqis are at also can't be claimed that the best minimally better off. burden of proof is on those The third rule is that your who are against the war. justification for war can't The next rule is that your predicate a different war. reasoning can't be factually Three examples will make this clear. It would not be a good justification to invade Iraq to kill penguins. That justification would suggest a war in Antarctica. Even if weapons of mass destruction are the claimed reason for war, it seems that invading North Korea would have been the right thing to do. North Korea was on the verge of testing nuclear weapons and had nuclear reactors under their control. < While the weapons of mass destruction have not turned up in Iraq, North Korea has tested a nuclear bomb and seems to be producing more. If the humanitarian angle is attempted, a simple look at the situation in Darfur should silence this justification. If humanitarian reasons were valid, then a war in Sudan to stop genocide would be the correct path. If the reason is to stop terrorists, it seems like the autocratic Saudi Arabia should be the target. The last rule is that you reason can't justify the Nazis. Now it might seem pretty preposterous that anyone would justify the Nazis, but as a last resort I've often heard how nation-states aren't guided by morality and it's the nature of the stronger to destroy the weaker. Perhaps this is the case, but it doesn't constitute any moral justification. Those who oppose the war are often characterized as wanting it to fail. However, if the war in Iraq can be justified, at least the horrors of war actually have a meaning. With that in mind, for the sake of myself and both nations, I wish you luck. >•< R ZIONS BANK* Concert Series LOCAL TALENTAVOR1D-CLASS VENUE. WORLD-CLASS TALENT/LOCAL VENUE. EITHER WAY YOU LOOK AT IT, ITS A GREAT SERIES Jon Schmidt SEPT I0" 1 Peter Brcinholt SEPT 1 7 l h Thanksgiving Point Gardens 1/amh Waterfall Amphitheatre off, any, Cutet open at 6:30 in the evening All shows stait at 7:30pm SlO/Penon-ln advance • Sli/Pcnon-Djyof $ purchase of (£ *~\ r \ :• 30 Ryan Shupe SEFT 23' d : ^# Ttdteuut fvaitafcletti jHTickrinmterouiIci* including the Show Barn Box Office »t Thanksgiving Point, online i t vrvfw.ticketmjsicr.com or by phone at (801) 325-SEAT. or more University Mall Provo Towne Center Exdudei Sthw. Nol vilid wrth othirr coupons.S«e nore lor d*tkjk Offw valid only at rrulli hitcd on cojpop Offer vabJ through MO-tll. Ewirt V 9196960. Opinions Desk (801) 863-8617 f Visit us online at www.netxnews.net Send story ideas t<> uvscopinions@hotmail.com |