Alex Posted January 6, 2005 Share Posted January 6, 2005 So why is 3 mins required? Why not 1? Why not 5? Why are the lives lost in Iran not worth a silence? Why are silences dished out so hap-hazardly with random amounts of time? This is not about respect it's a question of why we get told to have these silences for one thing and not another. It feels like political point scoring in a way...it feels like we are told that some lives are worth more than others. And slightly off on a tangent. How many criminals just got killed? Suddenly they all get the slate wiped clean and we show them respect? How many rapists & child abusers are in Thailand - it's known for it...maybe some of them died too but now we've had to show them respect and yet the little old lady down the street who is killed by burglars that she's disterbed...where was her 3minute silence?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tbourner Posted January 6, 2005 Share Posted January 6, 2005 I hate it when people say 'you wouldn't say that if it was your loved ones' because I would feel exactly the same, I'm a man of logic don't you know!!! I'm not mentioning my views again though after the Hitler incident on another thread!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CJ Posted January 6, 2005 Share Posted January 6, 2005 CJ, So where do we draw the line? Not just the time, but upon deciding if a particular event is even worthy of a silence or not? Some large disasters have not been given a silence at all, so where does that leave us? Also, your not forced eirther way, I have had personal silences for events not deemed worthy of them, so instead of being led, and getting eirther angry or annoyed at the length of time thought to be appropriate, do what you feel is right. Nobody should judge you for the choice you make. Hang on Syed - you are now turning this around copmpletely. My argument was against your comment that the size of the disaster should dictate the length of silence. That idea is fundamentally flawed - end of argument! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaveRex Posted January 6, 2005 Share Posted January 6, 2005 Perhaps one idea/benefit behind the silence is for people to collect their thoughts and perhaps take time out to donate, when they might not have had the time/inclination to do so. I donated online during the 3 minutes silence, had that period of time not happened it might have slipped my mind for a few days and I wouldn't have got round to it Theres also the whole "sign of respect thing" obviously Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Syed Shah Posted January 6, 2005 Share Posted January 6, 2005 Ah, but CJ, I provided a solution. Your 'end of arguement' leaves us nowhere. What would your solution be? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CJ Posted January 6, 2005 Share Posted January 6, 2005 What solution? Give more silence time to the larger disasters? If that really is what you call a solution then you need to rethink as it is plain stupidity. My solution? What about 1 minutes silence regardless of size or scope and people make their choice whether to observe it or not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Syed Shah Posted January 6, 2005 Share Posted January 6, 2005 CJ, Also, your not forced eirther way, I have had personal silences for events not deemed worthy of them, so instead of being led, and getting eirther angry or annoyed at the length of time thought to be appropriate, do what you feel is right. Nobody should judge you for the choice you make. That solution CJ. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake Posted January 6, 2005 Author Share Posted January 6, 2005 What about 1 minutes silence regardless of size or scope and people make their choice whether to observe it or not. Yep, makes perfect sense to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CJ Posted January 6, 2005 Share Posted January 6, 2005 That solution CJ. Ah but once again you have deflected away from my original point - there should not be a sliding scale for the length of silence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Syed Shah Posted January 6, 2005 Share Posted January 6, 2005 But there has to be, it is a simple government way of reflecting on the magnitude of the disaster. Also, going back to your solution 'regardless of size or scope' ?? So where is teh line drawn for what deserves a minute and what does not? It certainly a hard choice, and its not exactly cut n dry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CJ Posted January 6, 2005 Share Posted January 6, 2005 But there has to be, it is a simple government way of reflecting on the magnitude of the disaster. Why does there have to be a sliding scale? Why do you feel that we need to show more respect (in terms of length of time being silent) for larger disasters? Surely respect and sadness isnt measured in length of silence? I still stand by my original solution. We hold a minutes respectfl silence regardles of the size of disater. As for your question regarding who decides what deserves the silence, well, I guess it is the same formula that is out there now. why change that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Syed Shah Posted January 6, 2005 Share Posted January 6, 2005 Why does there have to be a sliding scale? Why do you feel that we need to show more respect (in terms of length of time being silent) for larger disasters? Surely respect and sadness isnt measured in length of silence? I still stand by my original solution. We hold a minutes respectfl silence regardles of the size of disater. Fair enough, I usnderstand your viewpoint, as do you mine. I think we will have to agree to disagee here? As for your question regarding who decides what deserves the silence, well, I guess it is the same formula that is out there now. why change that? Ahh, but what IS that formula? Do you always agree with it and follow it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Prawn Posted January 6, 2005 Share Posted January 6, 2005 I think Jake's main gripe is with the length of time. Originally the first silence was two minutes but this has been diluted to one Why two minutes? In a letter published in the London Evening News on 8 May 1919, an Australian journalist, Edward George Honey, proposed a respectful silence to remember those who had given their lives in the First World War. This was brought to the attention of King George V and on 7 November 1919, he issued a proclamation calling for a two minute silence, where "all locomotion should cease, so that, in perfect stillness, the thoughts of everyone may be concentrated on reverent remembrance of the glorious dead." Now it suddenly goes up to three, why and who says so? I am not against the silence just the sudden size of it. The African plight in 1984 which spawned Live Aid say many more people lose their life yet they never had three minutes or more silence. On a different issue, but still linked.The Band Aid charity record in 1984 sold over 40 million copies (original version worldwide) so if this disaster in Asia is now a greater tragedy how many copies will the Robin Gibb one for the Tsunami victims sell if we work on the extended silence theory? This is not to berate posters or cause offence because I genuinely feel for the innocents involved. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Prawn Posted January 6, 2005 Share Posted January 6, 2005 To shoot me down and others. I think if you look back you will see that 9-11 also had three minutes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake Posted January 6, 2005 Author Share Posted January 6, 2005 Really? I don't remember that Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Prawn Posted January 6, 2005 Share Posted January 6, 2005 To further dampen my arguement the three minutes originally comes from a three minute pause observed at noon on every day in the first world war, this was when all work, all talk and all movement were suspended for three minutes that we might concentrate as one in thinking of those - the living and the dead - who had pledged and given themselves for all that we believe in. So that is possibly the answer you are looking for. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Prawn Posted January 6, 2005 Share Posted January 6, 2005 Oh and to add another it was requested by the EU that all member states observe three minutes for the Madrid train bombing. As from my understanding now, that is who requested the three minutes this week. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkyJawa Posted January 6, 2005 Share Posted January 6, 2005 Oh and to add another it was requested by the EU that all member states observe three minutes for the Madrid train bombing. And I suppose the EU did this for us during the IRA campaign of bombings? See how fickle it is! And just to really nitpick That quote you posted about the letter in 1919. The letter wouldn't have read to have a silence for those who gave their lives in the First World War, it would have said The Great War, as it wasn't called the First World War until after the 2nd in 1939-1945 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Prawn Posted January 6, 2005 Share Posted January 6, 2005 And just to really nitpick That quote you posted about the letter in 1919. The letter wouldn't have read to have a silence for those who gave their lives in the First World War, it would have said The Great War, as it wasn't called the First World War until after the 2nd in 1939-1945 The letter was written after the first war and you are correct it was known as the Great War (although what is great about war?). I think in the quote it was put into context as the First war so many would understand what was being discussed. It was also to be the war that ended all wars........ how wrong was that then? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkyJawa Posted January 6, 2005 Share Posted January 6, 2005 I'm joshing with ya fella Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Prawn Posted January 6, 2005 Share Posted January 6, 2005 I'm joshing with ya fella Whether you were or not. I'm the first to hold my hands up if i'm wrong Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.