Philosophy Now Forum

New York town's 'Firefighter of the Year' shot dead responding to blazeBy Greg Botelho, CNN
December 25, 2012 -- Updated 0133 GMT (0933 HKT)

A gunman -- later identified as William Spengler, 62 -- apparently set his home ablaze, took up a position on a nearby berm, then shot and killed Chiapperini and fellow firefighter Tomasz Kaczowka. Two other firefighters were wounded, as was an off-duty police officer who was driving through the area.


This country has lost the plot!

Maybe we should ban fires too?

Gee

Excluding scenarios which occur during war, I think that random events of violence against unknown strangers in the domestic theatre is a modern phenomena which is related to the alienation and isolation that the individual faces within capitalist society these days. What, with modern social networking community is a dying institution, we are becoming narcissistic hermits within urban mega structures. Especially when modern capitalist wars do not require a massive manpower to implement (which was always a means in the past of venting and projecting social hostilities outwards internationally, and using the malcontents which their system produced to carry out their dirty work, 2 birds with 1 stone. The Falklands War is a typical political ploy, but I digress)
So capitalist values shall be my scapegoat for this violation of goodness which waits for some peace,,,,

Then let's ban 'Capitalist Values'. Hell, let's ban 'values' altogether.

reasonvemotion wrote:Is it true the Bill of Rights legally only protects white men? If so, is this Bill not antiquated?
So it would have included American Indians, African Americans and women? In the 1700s? Very liberal for the time.

First I would like to talk about the Bill of Rights as there seems to be some confusion here. Most people make the mistake of thinking of the Federal government as the first authority, then the states, counties, cities, etc. This is not correct. This is the United States, not the Divided Federal. Think of the 50 States as small countries that have ratified an agreement to address the world as a "whole" nation; therefore, the Federal government has only the rights and responsibilities granted to it by the States in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. The individual States retain a tremendous amount of power.

So were the American Indians granted rights under the Bill of Rights? Well gosh no. Actually, neither were their allies the English, nor were their allies the French granted any rights. For some reason, we decided to not grant any of these nations, our enemies, citizenship rights under the Bill of Rights. As to their rights now, I think that it would take someone more knowledgeable than me to figure it out with all of the different Treaties with all of the different Indian Nations. As to a black man's rights, they would have to be considered citizens of their State in order to quality, and I think that you know it took some time before that was universally accepted in the US. The same goes for women's rights. It was decided State by State, and there are still differences today, although not nearly as pronounced.

reasonvemotion wrote:

Gee wrote:I knew the day that I brought him home from the hospital that he may one day be called to war.

That is enterprising, but how could you be thinking of dying when holding a new born in your arms?

When you made this statement, I lost a good deal of respect for your ability to think. I was not going to respond to it, but have reconsidered. My words, "I knew", do not translate to your words, "thinking of dying". This is a blatant manipulation of my meaning, and is done in the same way that gossip columnists elaborate a truth, or lawyers manipulate a jury, or jesters entertain a crowd. This is not thinking, it is not philosophy, and it is beneath you--but I will answer it.

My Great Uncle died in WWI; my Father was in the Merchant Marines in WWII and had his ship shot out from beneath him. He survived because his ship was toward the front of the convoy, so other ships came behind and picked up the survivors that they could find. Ships do not stop or turn easily in the water, and it would be foolishness to dally when a sub is targeting them, so if he had been at the back of the convoy, he would have been left. My Uncle fought in Korea and came home whole; my Brother fought in Viet Nam, and came home damaged. My son was sent to Bosnia to try to help check the genocide that was going on there. So, yes, as soon as I knew I had a son, I knew this was a possibility, and I did my best to prepare him.

As long as there is war, there will be weapons. So if you really want to get rid of the weapons, then you have to stop the wars. I would be happy to never see a gun again, if I knew that war did not exist. So how does one stop war? I have already heard the suggestion of getting rid of men, and hope that any foolish young women, who actually believe that tripe will have the opportunity to grow up and learn better.

Wars are fought for many reasons, but in reality, it comes down to power. Someone powerful wants more of something; be it oil, gold, land, water rights, trade routes, more people to rule, more money, or just more--someone wants it. But this is not why people fight. People are not stupid enough to destroy their homes, fields, businesses, and families because someone that they don't even know wants more. People do not destroy themselves with grief, watch their friends die and get broken into bits because someone wants more. People do not wade through blood, and guts, and mud to make some stranger happy with their need for more. So why do they do it? They do it for the cause. There is always a cause. Some moral right or good that must be preserved.

If you check any war at any time in history, both sides will have had a cause worth fighting for--or so they believed. The Civil War that was fought in the US was about slavery. Right? Or was it about economics and preserving the strength of a whole nation? Slavery was the cause; economics and power were the reasons. I remember when Bush senior wanted us to go into Kuwait, but no one wanted to go; so he told us that the Iraqi troops were dumping babies out of their incubators in the hospitals. So we went to save the babies and stop the atrocities. It was a lie. The Iraqi troops fought because they were regaining the land that was annexed by the Allies in WWII--because we needed gas and oil. Their cause was to reclaim what was theirs; our cause was to stop the atrocities. The reason for that war was oil, money, and power.

We will never stop greedy men from wanting more; that won't happen. But could we stop people from believing in the cause? Maybe. The internet can give us a lot of information that was not accessible before; it can show us the reality of what is really going on; it can give us an understanding and empathy for the other side of the issue. Maybe we can learn a way to resolve the problems with understanding, and education, and civility. That would be grand. But in order to do that, we would have to stop moralizing. We would have to understand that there is no "good" or "bad" that is completely "good" or "bad"; at least not enough to kill over, there are just differences. Religions have been blamed for much war, not because they actually start the wars, but because they provide the cause. They do the moralizing. So to stop war, one must stop moralizing. imo

reasonvemotion wrote:"These are desperate acts in desperate times, symptoms of a country in dire straits, that should not be ignored." "It is terrible to witness a once proud, strong nation sliding into an abyss."
"BAN GUNS"
"Barack Obama in his second term, could push through gun control."
"Emotion not reason is ruling the day."
"Its time for all you cowboys and cowgirls (we have one at least on this Forum who is pro guns) to relinquish your weapons. Other countries have done it...... successfully"
"Do they feel the need to shoot the next door neighbours cats and dogs if they stray across their boundaries, or shoot magnificent deer. That, in itself, is barbaric." "I want know how this love of arms has been nutured to the point where people are not truly really willing to change laws."
"There is a glaring obviousness that gun lobbyists are a powerful group in the U S of A."
"The sad fact is, gun related crime will increase because of it."
"It is beyond my comprehension that people have guns in the cupboards, draws, basements, in their cars, handbags, under the bed, in little Jimmy's toybox, "just in case". Scarey stuff."
"America must be an exceedingly dangerous country to live in. "
"Change won't happen until the pain of staying the same is greater than the pain of change".
"I guess the patrons of this store would probably holiday in Iraq."
"This is obscene."
"Judging from the response of people in America regarding this "latest" massacre, their love of weapons runs deep and strong."
"The gun culture in America is obscene and the ingrained love of guns is depraved."
"America is its own worst enemy."

If you will review your statements that I have extracted from this thread, you will find no compassion, no understanding, no empathy, no listening, no educating; only moralizing. The words of an ignorant woman who has decided what is right and good, and what is wrong and bad. A woman who does not listen, does not understand, and does not care. A woman with a closed mind and a closed heart. This is the kind of person who makes wars, who creates causes for wars. This is a woman who is my enemy, and is proud to say so. These are the words of a moralizing bitch.

reasonvemotion wrote:Serving Down Under: Australia offers military jobs to US troops facing separation
Stars and Stripes
As the U.S. is looking to trim the number of troops serving in the military, the Austrailian Defence Force is recruiting U.S. servicemembers join its ranks. Many troops, especially enlisted servicemembers, stand to make more money in the Australian military.
David Byron/U.S. Air Force
U.S. servicemembers looking at career options in this era of shrinking military budgets and force drawdowns might want to take a look Down Under.
Known as the Lucky Country, Australia has had a booming economy for almost two decades due to rising commodity prices and strong Chinese demand for its mining products. It has also seen the Australian dollar rally against the U.S. dollar in recent years, meaning U.S. veterans — especially enlisted — stand to make more money working for the Australia military.
The U.S. Air Force website lists the annual base pay for an E-5, staff sergeant, with six-years’ service at $31,946. An O-3, captain, with six years’ service makes $63,263.
By comparison, a newly promoted E-5, corporal, in the Australian air force makes $57,277, when converted to U.S. dollars, while newly promoted O-3, flight lieutenant, takes home $66,417.

reasonvemotion wrote:Not surprising, a gun was never a commodity needed at any time, then or now.

Of course not. You just hire Americans to do your dirty work. I know you. You are the kind of person who hates guns and war and violence; but if needed, you will be happy to call someone else to protect you. Then when it is over, you will admire the dead heroes, and see the returning veterans as tainted. They will seem soiled by their experiences, damaged, angry, embittered, not whole, not quite good enough. You will want them to go away and take their taint with them. People like you disgust me.

Gee

chaz wrote:BTW - the owner of those guns was also a really decent person, now she is dead.

Do you know this? As far as I have heard, no one saw the actual attack on the mother. Are you sure that the son got a gun and shot her, or could she have gotten the gun because she was afraid of him. Then he took it away and shot her? This does happen. She was afraid of him. He was mentally ill. I would not think that she would give him access to the guns. If she was afraid of him, and she did give him access, then she was awfully stupid.

Gee