There's a difference between 'every random death' and children getting shot up. Obviously there are many tragedies every day, but a massacre of children is something which should warrant some form of emotional response.
Since when did you know the 'normal human' way to respond? You are taking your opinion as the norm at least as much as I am, so don't you go that way. Random children getting shot up, happens all the time, you hear nobody about that. But when it is on tv, we all need to shed a tear. That is my main problem with the drama about this.
How can you say that I'm not upset, who the fuck are you to judge someone else's emotions?
Upset pretty much means disturbing the general order of things, so using your description I judge that you are not upset. Might be a linguistic point here.
Your rather missing the point i think. Having a wider moral conscious and the ability to feel emotions about things that don't directly affect us is a good thing, not bad. You can be upset by stuff and think its wrong without it being in your immediate life, why else do people fund charities and relief agencies.
Because they rationally decide that it is the right thing to do, atleast I'd wish. That is not the case though, because people let emotions lead their actions, they send their money to the charity with the sad picture, instead of the one who tries to fix a less media friendly but maybe more important problem.
Our major point of discussion is probably that you think emotions are positive and I think that rationality better to rely on in most cases. A simple fact is though, that being emotional does not make you a better person than someone who is more rational even if you say it very loudly. I would go further than that and say being emotional clouds judgement and is therefore something negative, but I am well aware that that is an endless point of discussion.
