Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Ask Michael Burke -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Freedom Fighter who wrote (110071)	12/10/2007 2:43:06 AM
From: Skeeter Bug	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 132070

>>You know better than this. The number can't be higher because 270M is probably more people than were on earth for most centuries other than the last few. ;-)<< fair enough. so gather some data and make an actual argument instead of an unfounded hypothesis. >>If we had the stats on the percentage of people that were killed by war or because of cruelty and also looked at the number saved due to kindness etc... for each century, I suspect we'd find that the trend is getting better.<< data? take the average population of a century and divide it into the number of deaths due to war and i bet the 20th century yields the highest ratio. by far. a little thought would yield the reason why... the industrial revolution brought upon us the industrialization of death. i do have an open mind, though, so if you have data to support your "feel good" argument, i'd like to see it. as for being saved by kindness, that wouldn't be necessary unless the threat of death due to war was significantly greater than the actual 270 million actually killed. i don't think that helps the portrayal of the 20th century. >>Though I would agree that the 20th century was a pretty horrific one. I think it might have been a bit of an aberration because there were several historic idealogical battles fought in that century. Free markets and democracy won (though you'd never know it if you listened to many politicians). The only battle like that on the horizon is the one we are fighting against Muslim extremism, but that is a smaller battle so far.<< you seem to be arguing against yourself. on the one hand, you claim the 20th century wasn't anything special from a war death standpoint due adjustments made for population differences (no data supplied for support, though). on the other hand, you argue it was a horrific aberration from the norm. so, which is it? business as usual, adjusted for population, or horrific aberration? supporting data is always appreciated.