Philosophy Now Forum

I have often wondered about the nature of blame and the function that it serves in society. And also about why people are so quick to assign blame, without engaging in much prior thought, to alleged wrongdoers in many situations. Thus, when I saw Blame Its Nature and Norms, I promptly ordered the book.

In the case of the late Michael Brown of Ferguson, Missouri, I suggest that the operation of political correctness has immunized Brown from any discussion of his blameworthyness. However, in my view Brown was the primary instigator of the series of events that ultimately resulted in his death.

Brown's relationship with the law and police (ultimately, with officer Darren Wilson) began with Brown's strong-arm robbery: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FHxXGvXQrno

In my view, Brown is blameworthy both legally and morally; Officer Wilson is not.

http://www.amazon.com/Blame-Nature-D-Ju ... ords=blame

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Michael_Brown

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_correctness

So that a society can be ruled by the strong and ambitious, instead of he weak and stupid.

I suggest that the operation of political correctness has immunized Brown from any discussion of his blameworthyness.

Er ... Death has immunised Michael Brown from any discussion of anything ever again.


I hope you aren't going to start SHOUTING your topics again, Tom. It really is quite rude, I think

tbieter wrote:I have often wondered about the nature of blame and the function that it serves in society. And also about why people are so quick to assign blame, without engaging in much prior thought, to alleged wrongdoers in many situations. Thus, when I saw Blame Its Nature and Norms, I promptly ordered the book.

In the case of the late Michael Brown of Ferguson, Missouri, I suggest that the operation of political correctness has immunized Brown from any discussion of his blameworthyness. However, in my view Brown was the primary instigator of the series of events that ultimately resulted in his death.

Brown's relationship with the law and police (ultimately, with officer Darren Wilson) began with Brown's strong-arm robbery: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FHxXGvXQrno

In my view, Brown is blameworthy both legally and morally; Officer Wilson is not.

http://www.amazon.com/Blame-Nature-D-Ju ... ords=blame

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Michael_Brown

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_correctness

Excessive force!! No one deserves to die for stealing cupcakes! Get real!

In some states it's illegal to meet a home invader with any force exceedingly more than the invader applies.

Wait, someone stepped on my toe. I think I'll pay him back with a Googol-ton nuclear weapon. Whoops there goes the solar system. Oh well, it was the toe steppers fault, not mine!

Fear, the mind killer!

He was just a kid. Look at it logically. Which scenario makes the most sense? Think carefully now.
And Tamir Rice. Oh my. What a place. You obsess over gun ownership then shoot children dead for having BB guns. SICK!!!
Perhaps you wouldn't care if your child was writhing on the ground in agony after being shot in the stomach. I don't know how you people can even stand yourselves.
Now let's have a discussion about how Tamir was 'to blame'.

Blame is an easy game to play, it is always someone else's fault.

If you really want to know who to blame, look in a mirror; blame yourself.

Blame yourself for not being more active in ensuring that social inequities are not allowed to persist, blame yourself.. etc etc.

Then maybe, just maybe, things will improve.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:He was just a kid.

he was not a kid

he was over 6 feet tall and just robbed a convinience store

thats not a kid

now if the ferguson police dept could come up with a consistent story on whether or not officer darren knew that brown was a suspect in the robbery, that would be nice

at first their attitude was "we killed a guy and you have to trust us that it was justifable"

that anyone gives any credence to what ferguson police dept has to say at thsi point is mind boggling

Kayla wrote:

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:He was just a kid.

he was not a kid

he was over 6 feet tall and just robbed a convinience store

thats not a kid

18 is just a kid. I suppose being over six feet is a good reason to be shot dead. The other one was only twelve. There's no point in arguing with Americans about it anyway. You all seem to be insane.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: 18 is just a kid. I suppose being over six feet is a good reason to be shot dead. The other one was only twelve. There's no point in arguing with Americans about it anyway. You all seem to be insane.

no one facing a 6 foot something 18 year old is going to think 'oh its just a kid'

it may well be that there was no good reason for shooting him but bringing in 'omg he was just a kid' is stupid

now go back to drinking to excess alcoholic british person

no point to talking to brits you are all perpetually drunk

Kayla wrote:

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: 18 is just a kid. I suppose being over six feet is a good reason to be shot dead. The other one was only twelve. There's no point in arguing with Americans about it anyway. You all seem to be insane.

no one facing a 6 foot something 18 year old is going to think 'oh its just a kid'

it may well be that there was no good reason for shooting him but bringing in 'omg he was just a kid' is stupid

now go back to drinking to excess alcoholic british person

no point to talking to brits you are all perpetually drunk

Of course, there are only two kinds of people in the world: American and 'British'. Stupid American person.
Just the fact that anyone would try to 'rationalise' these murders shows the mentality. Btw, if you are going to use quotation marks at least make sure it's actually a quote.

not sure how saying that Brown was not 'just a kid' somehow is a justification of anything

Kayla wrote:not sure how saying that Brown was not 'just a kid' somehow is a justification of anything

It was a frigging observation! You shoot kids over there. WTF! I don't see any argument. Your police like to shoot unarmed black children. End of story. The twelve year old was undeniably a child, even if you think 18 is a man.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:

Kayla wrote:not sure how saying that Brown was not 'just a kid' somehow is a justification of anything

It was a frigging observation! You shoot kids over there. WTF! I don't see any argument. Your police like to shoot unarmed black children. End of story. The twelve year old was undeniably a child, even if you think 18 is a man.

are you talking about the 12 year old with a toy gun with the red ring removed - so that it did not look like a toy gun any more

that one just sounds like evolution in action to me

Kayla wrote:

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:

Kayla wrote:not sure how saying that Brown was not 'just a kid' somehow is a justification of anything

It was a frigging observation! You shoot kids over there. WTF! I don't see any argument. Your police like to shoot unarmed black children. End of story. The twelve year old was undeniably a child, even if you think 18 is a man.

are you talking about the 12 year old with a toy gun with the red ring removed - so that it did not look like a toy gun any more

that one just sounds like evolution in action to me

Like I said, sick. And you have control over a child.