Terminalcoffee discussion

I'm avoiding photos and videos of Qaddafi today. I've heard descriptions of the video footage and I have problems watching people be assaulted and/or die. It didn't bother me when I was younger. I probably had a semi-ghoulish interest in that kind of thing as a teenager but I can't do it anymore. I can't watch the video of that Chinese toddler being run over by a car and people walking by her. I don't want to look at historical photos of lynched people, hanged people, decapitated people. When Nick Berg was beheaded on camera in Iraq in 2004 there were right wing, pro-war people who were constantly screaming at the rest of us to watch the video. Only if we watched it could we really understand how fanatical and anti-American these people were, they said. I felt I could understand that without watching the video. I didn't want to see video of Saddam Hussein being hanged.

You?

Me either.

Most emphatically: Nay.

I’ve seen enough carnage in my life, no need to add to the catalogue of images that keeps me up at night. No thanks.

I've seen a picture of bloody dead Gadaffi. It was on the front page of the newspaper. I don't mind seeing it, but I wouldn't look for it either.

janine wrote: "I've seen a picture of bloody dead Gadaffi. It was on the front page of the newspaper. I don't mind seeing it, but I wouldn't look for it either."

Same. I won't go out of my way to look for the images, or go out of my way to avoid them either. But essentially, nay.

I have no desire/need to see any of this.

I'm not bothered by dying Hospice clients, but bullet-ed and bloody, no thanks.

I've procrastinated even entering this thread because I'm disturbed by the concept of anyone saying "yay" ever to this.

Death is sacred and very private.

I had a morning news show on this am and looked up to see the footage-it was absolutely horrible. An emphatic Nay from me.

Sally wrote: "I've procrastinated even entering this thread because I'm disturbed by the concept of anyone saying "yay" ever to this.

Death is sacred and very private."

This.

Hi Ko! *fist bump*

This said, I do admit to watching a YouTube video of a beheading in 2007 or so. I still regret that.

Did Qaddafi die? I've never seen a dead person. I don't want to ever see a dead person. That's just too gruesome. I'm only just now replying to this thread because I've been scared that if I opened it there'd be pics posted of dead people - YAY y'all for not posting pics of dead people. :)

Dead people are not necessarily gruesome, as long as they are kept comfortable and die when they are good and ready.

Cynthia wrote: "Dead people are not necessarily gruesome, as long as they are kept comfortable and die when they are good and ready."

Pics of dead people are gruesome. The people... I still don't wanna see 'em.

We used to call my buddy Humo (RIP little man) Momar Quadaffi. All I know about him is these two things.
He was a Middle Eastern leader, and was just coincidentally referenced in the book I'm reading right now.

Right now?

I don't look for these images, either, but if our government is going to be involved in these little escapades I think it's valuable to see that the end result is not going to be pretty.

I was in line at the DMV and I got to the front just in time to hear the soundtrack of Daniel Pearl's murder blasting from the radio of the lady behind the counter. I think I can say that it's the most horrific thing I have ever heard in my life -- it still haunts me to this day -- and I can't imagine what it must have been like to see it happen. No effing thanks!

No. Don't want to see anyone dying or dead. When I was watching footage of 9/11 and saw the people jumping from the windows, I turned it off. Still, the images are there and always will be. I'm not OK with the images of Qaddafi's death, either, and I got up to make some tea this morning when they were shown. I'm with you, Sally. Death is sacred and very private. Good to know others feel the same.

Private? Sometimes it's private, sometimes it's public. I suppose people mean it ought to be private, all the time. If you are lucky, you die privately, I suppose.

What's that saying, live by the sword ...?

Yes, what kind of public death is acceptable? Executions? Falls from roller coasters? Leaping from skyscrapers?

Yeah - that helps me process violent deaths like Qaddafi's and Saddam's. They lived that way and doubtless they both knew they would die that way. I still don't want to watch it, though.

Are you sure? I would have thought they were completely insane and both thought they were invincible.

How do we discern the type of leadership-by-force that is/is not acceptable in modern society? Hitler? Franco? Stalin?

Gail «Cyborg» wrote: "Are you sure? I would have thought they were completely insane and both thought they were invincible."

Maybe they thought they were invincible for most of their lives. But as soon as the U.S. became involved militarily and both of them were on the run, I'm sure they knew it wouldn't end with them living peacefully in exile.

Yes but that wasn't until the end of their reign.

I'm going to revise my statement. I actually don't think they think they are invincible, at all. That's why they go to such extremes to cling to power: they purge their enemies, sometimes even their allies. They have to constantly worry that someone will assassinate them, or that their own military will rise up against them. They trust very few people.

It doesn't really matter either way. I don't really want to get into their head space. I don't believe capital punishment is the answer to their crimes.

Is the public display for the victims to give them a sense of justice served?

I'm all for capitol punishment. Just not public.

(capital?)

Well, which? They're very different.

How much moral sense does it make for the state to condemn someone for murder and then to commit murder by enforcing the death penalty?

I don't find logic in that argument. Enforcing the death penalty is not murder.

A mere technicality, I fear.

It is state sponsored killing. Murder by the state.

But this thread is for images of death and dying. For a death penalty debate head on over to the other thread.

http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/1...

Charly wrote: "For the record I tend to agree with Sally."

Try not to make that a habit :-)

Lg is a maniacal thread tender. She's like our resident kamakazi gardener of prose.

Lg said: "But this thread is for images of death and dying. For a death penalty debate head on over to the other thread."

Controlling and parental, Lg. I balk at that. Insisting on strict adherence to the topic is stifling - and you can always return focus to your topic whenever you want.

Then why have separate threads at all? We might as well have one thread with 5 billion posts in it. It's more organized and convenient to separate things topically. Would you like your Thomas Jefferson thread to expand out into pictures of genitalia, or a discussion of cheese? How stifling, to only talk about Thomas Jefferson.

And you sound like a kindergarten teacher, with your scolding.

Damn. How'd you know to go for the jugular with that kindergarten teacher comment? I don't think what I said could be considered scolding. When you put a topic out there, who knows what will happen? That's a good thing, I think. If you don't like the way it's going, you can always guide the conversation back to the topic without being so heavy-handed.

And the Thomas Jefferson thread would welcome a few pictures of genitalia.

If we can't let things just flow a little bit (or even a lot) around here then I'm not so sure I wanna be here. Yeah sure it's nice to have it organized so you can find what you want, and never be surprised by what you find in a thread -- but jeez give me a yawn why don't ya.

Oh relax, all. This is a thread Lg started after all and she has the right to say there is another thread already going about a tangential topic.

And honestly, I appreciate having threads for certain topics if only that when I want to recall later what exactly had already been said. The carefully tended threads and categories helps Lg, Heidi, and Barb find them later on.

I understand your point, Scout, that all threads eventually devolve, this is true. But it wasn't non-specific poop and cheese talk we were on, we were discussing a side issue which had already been discussed at some length! I was pleased to go and read what I'd already had to say on the issue.

And finally, all, I'm the one who called Lg "maniacal" up above, but I meant in in jest (completely misunderstood, as always). She wasn't being rude or mean or even abrasive about it, just simply stating a fact, that there is already a different thread on the death penalty. You said yourself, scout: you can always return focus to your topic whenever you want. - that's what she did. Let it go.

Larry, Scout, Lg, Phil, Charly, and Smetch: Play nice with others.

*relaxes*

Sally wrote: "Larry, Scout, Lg, Phil, Charly, and Smetch: Play nice with others."

Looks like I've got a reputation as a troublemaker. Until just now, I hadn't even posted in this thread. :P

I know. I lumped you in to see if you were paying attention to me.


Subtext: always pay attention to me.

I always do.

PHIL! Be more like Felix!

Paying complete attention to me can actually be quite relaxing after a while. I'm like one of those sand doohickies from the 80s that go on your desk. I'll rearrange myself consistently.