Good on those soldiers!
news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thelookout/201103...
Good on those soldiers!
thats so cool!!!
Great story. I know it's a rough thing to say, but I wonder if they'll do the military burial thing. I hope they do.
technically they have to right?
These are the kind of stories that make me proud to be human. Thank you for sharing.
And that's why I respect the service. Even if I have no respect for morons put in charge of it.
Even if the military burial is not officially sanctioned, I would not be surprised to hear that, on the day of his eventual funeral, some soldiers on leave took the time to attend, and maybe even give him a 21-gun salute and a rendition of Taps.
Even if the military burial is not officially sanctioned, I would not be surprised to hear that, on the day of his eventual funeral, some soldiers on leave took the time to attend, and maybe even give him a 21-gun salute and a rendition of Taps.
Exactly.
Now I'm hoping for a Disney ending to the story, where the kid rallies back from the brink, beats his cancer, and joins the army for real.
But I know it'll never happen.
Stupid reality.
Yes, I see you're a far better person Iqwinn, for making observations like that to spite him
If only it worked, but she left me for other reasons. Better luck next time.
Edit: Interesting, Mock is here. What will happen?
Whatever happens, Goldomark, it will not be because of me. I came to read a story about a dying kid who got a last wish fulfilled by some soldiers who gave up their free time to put a smile on the boys face. I did not even know you were posting in this thread until I skimmed the comments and saw my name. A little backtracking and it was easy to see where you shot yourself in the foot and then proceeded to stick said foot in your mouth.
I am willing to take a guess as to what will happen, Goldomark, and that is that since you are for whatever reason unable or unwilling to maintain a low profile that the moderator/moderators who are watching the Off Topic section will quickly find this thread, will read where you reply to other posters calling you Goldy/Goldo/whatever and they will ban you. Maybe if you took a few skill levels in common sense you might stop yourself from constant banation.
By the way, do you really think that if I was hounding you and reporting all your new IDs that I would keep my browsing status public? Sorry, Goldy, but unlike trolls my dump stat is NOT Intelligence.
By the way, do you really think that if I was hounding you and reporting all your new IDs that I would keep my browsing status public? Sorry, Goldy, but unlike trolls my dump stat is NOT Intelligence.
Hey! I take offense to that
By the way, do you really think that if I was hounding you and reporting all your new IDs that I would keep my browsing status public? Sorry, Goldy, but unlike trolls my dump stat is NOT Intelligence.
Hey! I take offense to that
Exception is duly noted!
Nope. I really thought what I said. Stop thinking with your emotions, that story is PR.
Lets change Cancer Kid for something less emotional like NASCAR. The US military sponsors NASCAR (or some other car thing that people watch while drinking beer). Do you think they sponsor it out of the goodness of their heart or because it is good publicity?
but here your equalion fails to add up. (on 2 area's)
- You're point is "they don't do it because of emotions, but PR" and start your proof with "change it into something more emotionless". It's a bad analogy
Suppose I feed a stray cat, because I like cats
For me, the cat has high emotional value (as I like cats), hence the chance I will help it because of the goodness of my heart, is bigger.
If the cat was NASCAR (something with less emotions about), and thus with low emotional value I woudn't have helped them becasue of the goodness of my heart.
Your analogy is only correct if the army (and the people in the army) felt the same way about ill kids as they feel about NASCAR. - "Do you think they sponsor it out of the goodness of their heart or because it is good publicity?" You just said to look at it more objectively (less emotional). Objectively, we can't answer that question, as we don't have any additional information.
... probbably this story? IMHO, a combination of both. (the warm-hearted people thought it was a good idea, the cold-hearted people didn't see a downside)
But that's not important. The army did a great thing for that kid, instead of blowing stuff up. They should do that more offen!
unlike trolls my dump stat is NOT Intelligence.
for the record: charisma is their dump stat, not intelligence. (trolls don't need charisma to troll, but intelligence to find ways to keep work around mods)
Nope. I really thought what I said. Stop thinking with your emotions, that story is PR.
Lets change Cancer Kid for something less emotional like NASCAR. The US military sponsors NASCAR (or some other car thing that people watch while drinking beer). Do you think they sponsor it out of the goodness of their heart or because it is good publicity?
but here your equalion fails to add up. (on 2 area's)
- You're point is "they don't do it because of emotions, but PR" and start your proof with "change it into something more emotionless". It's a bad analogy
Suppose I feed a stray cat, because I like cats
For me, the cat has high emotional value (as I like cats), hence the chance I will help it because of the goodness of my heart, is bigger.
If the cat was NASCAR (something with less emotions about), and thus with low emotional value I woudn't have helped them becasue of the goodness of my heart.
Your analogy is only correct if the army (and the people in the army) felt the same way about ill kids as they feel about NASCAR.- "Do you think they sponsor it out of the goodness of their heart or because it is good publicity?" You just said to look at it more objectively (less emotional). Objectively, we can't answer that question, as we don't have any additional information.
... probbably this story? IMHO, a combination of both. (the warm-hearted people thought it was a good idea, the cold-hearted people didn't see a downside)
But that's not important. The army did a great thing for that kid, instead of blowing stuff up. They should do that more offen!unlike trolls my dump stat is NOT Intelligence.
for the record: charisma is their dump stat, not intelligence. (trolls don't need charisma to troll, but intelligence to find ways to keep work around mods)
It seems to me that since most of the publicity for this is NOT coming from the Army that the Army really did this out of the kindness of "their" heart. Most people who hate the military tend to see it as a single entity. They forget that the army is made up of individuals, and a LOT of those individuals have family. Whatever officer approved this honorary induction is probably a parent and probably imagined their own child dying of a horrific disease and thought about their child's last wish. And as such they approved this simple request which really costs them nothing. (The soldiers who attended did so of their own accord, on their own time. The vehicle is one that is local to the area and did not have to be shipped in.) Sure, they might have decided to capture a little PR from this, but if so I am willing to bet my life savings that it was not a priority consideration.
As an aside, has the Army even said anything about this? I did a little searching around and could not turn up anything on any military websites.
It seems to me that since most of the publicity for this is NOT coming from the Army that the Army really did this out of the kindness of "their" heart.
As an aside, has the Army even said anything about this? I did a little searching around and could not turn up anything on any military websites.
Well, somebody did inform the newspaper/reporter/cameraman ...
(and I hope nobody will argue that the army was too dumb to notice that this had the possibility of creating good PR)
It seems to me that since most of the publicity for this is NOT coming from the Army that the Army really did this out of the kindness of "their" heart.
As an aside, has the Army even said anything about this? I did a little searching around and could not turn up anything on any military websites.
Well, somebody did inform the newspaper/reporter/cameraman ...
(and I hope nobody will argue that the army was too dumb to notice that this had the possibility of creating good PR)
It was probably the friends and family who helped to organize this who informed the press (and I do not think that they did it for the publicity, but simply because they wanted to share the story of this little boy). Also, I would bet my life's saving that the Army did recognize this as good PR. But as I said up above I imagine that it was not a high priority on their list when deciding to approve this.
It was probably the friends and family who helped to organize this who informed the press
ah, but 'probably' is subjective. I'dd say 'possibly'.
Nope. I really thought what I said. Stop thinking with your emotions, that story is PR.
Lets change Cancer Kid for something less emotional like NASCAR. The US military sponsors NASCAR (or some other car thing that people watch while drinking beer). Do you think they sponsor it out of the goodness of their heart or because it is good publicity?
This is the same thing, except more emotional because you can Cancer Kid.
I was going to respond to this, but Qube beat me to it. Well done Qube... well done.
This is a good story. Was it a PR stunt? I highly doubt it. If it was a PR stunt, it was badly organized. PR stunts are supposed to get a lot of media attention and advertise or show case some message or concept. They are great tools for communication, but when done badly, they are a complete waste of time. The Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Contest held in NYC is a good example of a PR stunt that is done every year.
As i said before, I highly doubt that this was a PR stunt. Did they get good PR for doing it? Of course they did. So what? How does the added benefit of getting some good PR points take away from the men and women that volunteered to go see this kid? I don't think it does.
Now if we see a rash of kids and sick people being honorary inductees into the millitary, well, you can then claim that these are PR stunts.
Nope. I really thought what I said. Stop thinking with your emotions, that story is PR.
Lets change Cancer Kid for something less emotional like NASCAR. The US military sponsors NASCAR (or some other car thing that people watch while drinking beer). Do you think they sponsor it out of the goodness of their heart or because it is good publicity?
but here your equalion fails to add up. (on 2 area's)
- You're point is "they don't do it because of emotions, but PR" and start your proof with "change it into something more emotionless". It's a bad analogy
Suppose I feed a stray cat, because I like cats
For me, the cat has high emotional value (as I like cats), hence the chance I will help it because of the goodness of my heart, is bigger.
If the cat was NASCAR (something with less emotions about), and thus with low emotional value I woudn't have helped them becasue of the goodness of my heart.
Your analogy is only correct if the army (and the people in the army) felt the same way about ill kids as they feel about NASCAR.- "Do you think they sponsor it out of the goodness of their heart or because it is good publicity?" You just said to look at it more objectively (less emotional). Objectively, we can't answer that question, as we don't have any additional information.
... probbably this story? IMHO, a combination of both. (the warm-hearted people thought it was a good idea, the cold-hearted people didn't see a downside)
They didn't do it out of the goodness of their heart, but they knew it would stur up emotions in the public. Read the posts that camed after the OP. They all fell for it.
Maybe some army bum was moved, but it was still done for the PR. That kid was a tool. But what really pisses me off is that this is done to manipulate us and it works. People do not defend themselves against emotional manipualtion and just become puppets. You put a dying kid infront of a camera and people will go aaawwww, loosing all critical sense.
But that's not important. The army did a great thing for that kid, instead of blowing stuff up. They should do that more offen!
It is important. Good PR, if you let me over simply it, will let them blow more stuff up in the future. Because of more recrutes, more funding and the ok of the population that comes with good PR.
This is a drop of water in the cesspool that is the army's PR program, but it should be denounce at every opportunity we have. Even if some kid is dying.
And like I said, I am a cynic. I've talked to a lot of people in marketing and heard the conversations they have about stunts. They used that kid for their own benefite. Cancer Kid was a tool.
Is Kancer Kid more catchy?
Prove it, Goldomark. You have made the very specific claim that this was done only for the PR, now back up your claim with some actual proof.
I am not that person you say I am, but prove that it is not a PR stunt.
Please, sir, use sensible arguments when baiting.
Not baiting at all. You picked up the conversation between Qube and Goldomark without missing a beat.
As for proof, YOU are the one who made the claim therefore the onus is on YOU to back up YOUR claim.
Proof that it is a PR stunt? The publicity around it. The journalist who was there, who took a picture, that wrote the article, the paper who published it. Who called the journalist? Was it necesary for the kid to have him/her there? True charity is discrete.
Now can you porve it is not a PR stunt?
You still haven't proven it was a PR stunt. Publicity does not equate to PR stunt. The boy's friend's mother could have contacted the journalist because she felt it was a wonderful story.
It's irrelevant. It's still a nice story for the boy whether it was a PR stunt or not.
I am not that person you say I am, but prove that it is not a PR stunt.
Please, sir, use sensible arguments when baiting.
Not baiting at all. You picked up the conversation between Qube and Goldomark without missing a beat.
As for proof, YOU are the one who made the claim therefore the onus is on YOU to back up YOUR claim.
I like to defend the oppress and the victims of injustice, this is why I picked up the conversation. Poor guy.
Victims of injustice? There is no vicitm of injustice on this web site. Goldomark repeatedly violated the rules and the moderators punished him for it. That is justice, not injustice.
Proof that it is a PR stunt? The publicity around it. The journalist who was there, who took a picture, that wrote the article, the paper who published it. Who called the journalist? Was it necesary for the kid to have him/her there? True charity is discrete.
Now can you porve it is not a PR stunt?
None of that is actually proof that this is a only a "PR stunt." Just because a charitable event has publicity does not automatically make it a "PR stunt." You have yet to show that the only reason this event happened was because it was a "PR stunt," and that is the claim that you made earlier, that this was done only for the PR.
Once again, back up your claims with some actual proof.
Publicity is the result of a successful (even marginaly) PR stunt. If it weren't for PR, what was a journalist doing there?
Please, be honest when you aregue for once J.
Offering different viewpoints is not being dishonest. Having a different opinion or viewpoint other than yours is not being dishoneset.
Being dishonest (maybe more accurately: disingenuous) is not acknowledging other possible scenarios and parading your opinion as fact. I never once said it wasn't a PR stunt. I simply provided an alternative scenario that easily counters your argument that it was a stunt. PR does not always mean PR stunt.
Like I said, it's irrelevant to me if it's a PR stunt or not, and it's particularly irrelevant to the boy. Nothing dishonest about that.
Publicity is the result of a successful (even marginaly) PR stunt. If it weren't for PR, what was a journalist doing there?
Please, be honest when you aregue for once J.
Maybe the journalist thought it was a good story?
You have no idea who contacted the media or why they were there. You just assume that it was the military who contacted the media, and the media only ran the story as a PR stunt to help out the military. Ignoring for a moment the tinfoil hat-esque levels of paranoia this implies, that still doesn't change the fact that what they did was ultimately a good deed, regardless of motivations. I mean, what the hell were they going to do when the news showed up? Tell them 'oh, no thank you, we'd rather nobody knew we were doing something nice for a sick kid.'
Plu used the word stunt. I just used it after he did. I just used PR. I didn't know stunt would cause such emotional turmoil. I just thought it was the proper way to name this PR thing. Plu is better in English then me.
No worries. But that word "stunt" indicates much more than just PR. It implies intent and deception and that they only did this for the boy for PR purposes. So yes, that is why I focused on that word, because that is the word that completely damns the entire act.
What are you goldy, a tax collector? Is that how you justify your existence? Maybe you are a tax auditor, raking people over the coals (figuratively, perhaps literally), taking their children away, throwing them into prison on real or (most likely) imagined tax evasions?
What do you do for "social justice", goldy?
What do you do for a living?
I try to educate the uneducatable.
It's a good thing that you try to educate people that do not have any ability to learn.
It is a construct, made up, by the Left to rabble rouse, and make people believe that other people who are better off than them, stole from them... somehow.
It is a load of crap.
And goldo... I have a hard time believing you are over the age of, say, 12...
Now on the topic of PR "stunt" and the press being there because the military allowed them. How the hell do you know the press was there?
1) The picture could have been taken by a family member. I know if my sick kid was being inducted into the army honorarily, I'd probably take a pic.
2) The story reads more like it was told to a reporter by the family than a reporter actually being there at the event and they gave the pic to the reporter.
3) There is just as much "evidence" that the story was solicited by the family as it was the Army.
4) As Forest Gump would say, "And that's all I have to say about that."
I have a hard time believing you are over the age of, say, 12...
Personal attack? Me sad panda. /sniff
Well... you certainly act that way most of the time.
Personal attack? Nah...
I could do better than that, and there would be no doubt that it is a personal attack.
Think of it as "tough love" or constructive criticism.
Am I the only one who kind of pictures Goldo and R_H as satirical cartoon characters based on the far left and far right respectively? Who constantly try to undermine or hurt each other? No? Just me then?
I always thought they were just hot for each other...
Nope. Evidence shows it is a PR stunt. Prove it isn't.
1. Ipse-dixitism. You have not proven your statement to be true. Simply saying something to be true does not make it true.
2. Correlation does not prove causation. The so-called evidence you presented does not prove your claim that this was strictly a PR stunt.
3. You have repeatedly failed to back up your claim that this was strictly a PR stunt.
4. I never stated that this was not a PR stunt. I said that I doubted it was one and gave my reasons why I thought that, but that is just my opinion. It was not a declarative statement. You, however, made a declarative statement that this is strictly a PR stunt.
5. Once again, put your money where your mouth is and prove your statement to be prove.
They didn't do it out of the goodness of their heart, but they knew it would stur up emotions in the public.
as said, that probbably was why they went truth with it (if it would damage the army's reputation, they would have stopped it).
however, I don't see any evidence that, what sparked the action, was PR, and not goodness of the hart.
I am not that person you say I am, but prove that it is not a PR stunt.
...
Now can you porve it is not a PR stunt?
First; we only need to proof it's possible it's not a PR stunt. (which is different then proving that it's not a PR stunt)
Second. a PR stunt is should be something more than any article where company X gets a good review. (because, if not, there's no value in calling something a 'PR stunt'.)
So;
Is it possible that the militairy did not notify the press; but some local reporter coïnsidently passed the events, saw it, and wrote this article about it?
Is it possible the uncle/father of the kid happened to be a reporter for that news paper?
Hence, I've given you evidence that's it's possible that this is not a PR stunt.
If you claim it is, I would like to see you give evidence of it.
Mock26 is correct when he says that Correlation does not prove causation (it's sience speak for "its not because it looks like a duck, smells like a duck and quacks like a duck; that it is in fact, a duck")
And goldo... I have a hard time believing you are over the age of, say, 12...
R_H, honestly that's how I feel about you too. The fact that you're old enough to vote (as, IIRC, you said once you have a job & kids), simply terrifies me.
Yeah, cause it doesn't mean helping the needy. Not one bit.
Nice of you to be honest enough to admit you don't care about your fellow human beings. Of course, those of us who remember your thread, I am not your friend, do not tell me about your pathetic life already knew that you don't even have the ability to feel empathy for your fellow human beings.
Social justice isn't about taxing the middle class more then it already is, but the very very rich. Those who hardly work for their money.
Wrong. What makes you think that the ultra-rich don't have influence/control over the taxing system? After all, they have the monetary means to control the government. Actually, all that needs to be done is to gain control over the money supply. Armand Rothschilds said, "Give me control of a nation's money, and I care not who writes its laws." A good example is Rockefeller, whose family influence continues to this day. All you need do is google "Rockefeller" and, say, "communism".
The true purpose of modern government is to ensure that the ultra-rich stay in their position, while no one else is able to even approach their level of wealth.
You say you educate the uneducatable: see if you can educate yourself.
Wrong. What makes you think that the ultra-rich don't have influence/control over the taxing system?
define 'the taxing system'. do you mean the U.S. taxing system, or taxing systems in general?
The true purpose of modern government is to ensure that the ultra-rich stay in their position, while no one else is able to even approach their level of wealth.
Then why then do their (still) exist laws against monopolism?
The true purpose of modern government is to ensure that the ultra-rich stay in their position, while no one else is able to even approach their level of wealth.
Then why then do their (still) exist laws against monopolism?
To stop rich guy fights?
Umm ... the soldiers that went did so voluntarily and not under orders. They did so in their free time. This, to me, says it wasn't some sort of PR stunt. Was it good for PR? Sure. But where's the evil in a win/win situation? The kid gets something amazing before he dies and the Army gets some nice press. So what? It's not like they gave the kid cancer so that one day they'd be able to take advantage of it. That would be a PR stunt.
Because anything involving soldiers. Particularly American ones has to be an evil duplicitous thing.
Welcome back to the forums. Nice pic. Marie's?
Probably his own!
