We Are Virginia Tech

**gcdevil22** · April 17th, 2007, 11:16 PM

without a doubt the best speech I've ever witnessed

"We are Virginia Tech. We are sad today and we will be sad for quite a while. We are NOT moving on. We are embracing our mourning. We are Virginia Tech! We are strong enough to stand tall tearlessly. We are brave enough to then to cry. And sad enough to know we must laugh again. We are Virginia Tech! We do not understand this tragedy. We know we did nothing to deserve it. But neither does a child in Africa dying of AIDS. Neither do the invisible children walking the night away to avoid being captured by a rogue army. Neither does the baby elephant watching his community be devastated for ivory. Neither does the Mexican child looking for fresh water. Neither does the Appalachian infant killed in the middle of the night in his crib in the home his father built with his own hands, being run over by a boulder because the land was destabilized. No one deserves a tragedy. We are Virginia Tech! The Hokie Nation embraces our own and reaches out with open heart and hands to those who offer their hearts and minds. We are strong and brave and innocent and unafraid. We are better than we think and not quite what we want to be. We are alive to the imagination and the possibility we will continue to invent the future. Through our blood and tears through all this sadness WE ARE the HOKIES! We will prevail! We WILL prevail! We will PREVAIL! WE ARE...Virginia Tech..."

**NotSoSilentBob** · April 18th, 2007, 01:46 AM

That woman is about 10 bricks shy of a load.

**plantsman** · April 18th, 2007, 08:41 AM

So this woman is equating the life of these Tech students with the life of an elephant?

**TheBeast** · April 18th, 2007, 09:12 AM

I don't recall all the details exactly but I do believe she just takes the details of the baby that was killed and changes all the details to suit her agenda and to make it sound as bad as she possibly can.
Not that it wasn't a terrible incident but to just make up things and change things because the actual facts don't make as good a story or case for your argument is just wrong. I am reffering to her agenda as being one of the people against mining especially strip mining.

**plantsman** · April 18th, 2007, 09:20 AM

Who is she?

**TheBeast** · April 18th, 2007, 09:31 AM

Nikki Giovanni

April 19th, 2007, 12:39 PM

[ QUOTE ]
So this woman is equating the life of these Tech students with the life of an elephant?

[/ QUOTE ]

No she is not making a comparrison between the deceased students and a baby elephant.... do you understand hypathetical statements?

**plantsman** · April 19th, 2007, 03:09 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So this woman is equating the life of these Tech students with the life of an elephant?

[/ QUOTE ]

No she is not making a comparrison between the deceased students and a baby elephant.... do you understand hypathetical statements?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I understand hypothetical, and can even spell it correctly. It's typically used within a suppositional situation, frequently within the framework of an "if/then" statement. If you would bother to actually read her post, you would note that she is making a comparative statement, stating that the victims at Tech didn't deserve what happened, just as the baby elephant doesn't deserve having to watch other elephants killed for the sake of their ivory. That's comparative, not hypothetical IMO. Though I believe her statement to be true, I also believe she took advantage of the audience to promote her personal biases and agenda. Here's her quote:

"We do not understand this tragedy. We know we did nothing to deserve it. But neither does a child in Africa dying of AIDS. Neither do the invisible children walking the night away to avoid being captured by a rogue army. Neither does the baby elephant watching his community be devastated for ivory."

**R0cketer** · April 19th, 2007, 03:54 PM

I'll agree that she used some 'personal opinions' to reference it, and could have no doubt found several other examples that would have been just as valid. I also doubt that most people wouldn't reference it to things that they hold as deeply or believe in.

If it had been the pro-gun crowd, we would have had the 'its a tragedy that we didn't have a student there with his gun to end this situation earlier' and the anti-gun crowd would be 'its a tragedy that a child who doesn't need a gun is able to get one and unleash such damaged'.

I swear people, we criticize the media for being liberal or conservative, we look for blame immediately, who else can we blame it on, because it can't just be the shooters fault, it has to be the people who made fun of him, it has to be the administration for not reacting properly, it has to be his parents for whipping him when he was 4, it has to be a preacher who told him he was a sinner, or whatever reason we want to attach to it.

We are all (or almost all) as guilty as the media or the people who annoy us. She annoyed some because she referenced their death with the ivory and the mining. If she had referenced something that we were strong proponents of, the very same who 'down her' would be building her up.

Again....forgetting the most important thing in this. The victims. The innocents who did nothing or deserved none of this. Those who faced death, those who died, those who lost loved ones, those who feared they did, those who were wounded, not just physically but mentally.

So if you don't like her, fine. If you don't like the administration, fine. If you don't like the news coverage, fine. That's great and that's your rights, but focus on the most important stuff now, and not your own personal beliefs or agendas. And if you think that someone, be it Giavanni or whomever, is using their platform for theirs, rise above them. Hold yourself to a higher standard.