Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

mdegges

Regulars
  • Posts

    710
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    14

Everything posted by mdegges

  1. Oh also, I wanted to repost this comment that was written in response to Thomas Sowell's article "Is this still America?": How would you respond to this? Seems like a reasonable line of questioning to me.
  2. @FeatherFall, 2046, etal: There are a ton of little events that lead to Martin's death, and I don't want to speculate about what might have happened IF- but there were some key points that stood out to me from Zimmerman and Jeantel's accounts. Overall, Zimmerman wasn't properly trained. He got out of his car, not knowing where the 'suspicious individual' was. He put himself in harms way even though he knew police were on the way. He had multiple opportunities to identify himself and his purpose to Martin, yet chose not to- Jeantel said this lead Martin to believe that Zimmerman was trying to sexually pursue him. He did not identify himself when he was face to face with Martin + warn him that he was carrying a weapon. I think it's likely that both individuals were scared of each other and didn't use the best judgement. However, Zimmerman was the adult, the neighborhood watch captain, etc, and should have known how to handle himself.
  3. I didn't realize this was an English class. Zimmerman went out of his way to find Martin. First he followed him his truck. Then he got out of his car, took his gun with him, did not heed the advice of the dispatcher who said 'we don't need you to do that,' and started running (see 9/11 recording). I call that pursuing (ie: going out of your way to find someone). The part I was focusing on was 'do not take any risks to prevent a crime.' If you want to read more into what I'm saying, go ahead, but that is not what I meant to imply. I think I explained myself pretty clearly in post 85.
  4. Zimmerman was following Martin, first in his truck, then on foot. We can only speculate as to why he continued to look for Martin, but his goal was surely to locate his position. The quote you seem to have a problem with merely says that as a watchman, your job is to report crime. Period. It goes on to say "do not take any risks to prevent a crime." Following (ie trying to locate) a suspicious individual easily falls under that category.
  5. Yeah- as I said earlier, I agree that his actions were within the law, but I do not think they should be morally condoned.
  6. From the neighborhood watch program handbook: "Remember always that your responsibility is to report crime. Do not take any risks to prevent a crime or try to make an arrest.The responsibility for apprehending criminals belongs to the police department." From the National Sheriff's Association: NSA Executive Director Aaron D. Kennard, Sheriff (ret.) stated: “The alleged participant [Zimmerman] ignored everything the Neighborhood Watch Program stands for and it resulted in a young man losing his life." What ,specifically, is he referring to here? “The Neighborhood Watch Program fosters collaboration and cooperation with the community and local law enforcement by encouraging citizens to be aware of what is going on in their communities and contact law enforcement if they suspect something – NOT take the law in their own hands." From Ms. Dorival (who works with Sanford PD- she trained groups of citizens who wanted to start neighborhood watch programs): “Their duty is to be the eyes and ears. Report crime as they see it,” said Dorival, adding that she provided handouts stressing this and also explained it verbally during the meeting. Zimmerman was there as the neighborhood watch coordinator, a role he told Dorival had been assigned him by the president of the homeowners' association. Guy asked Dorival what the handouts and her instructions tell volunteers to do if they begin following a suspicious person. “We tell them they don’t do that. That’s the job of law enforcement,” she replied. The same instructions apply to confronting a suspicious person, Dorival said. She said her presentation would advise people, “Not to confront, to let … the police department do the job. “They’re not supposed to take matters into their own hands. … Let law enforcement take the risk of approaching a suspect,” Dorival said." From NY Times: "In Sanford, [Dorival] said, watch groups are not even supposed to make the rounds. That is the job of another kind of volunteer organization, Citizens on Patrol, whose members are selected and trained by the police and who drive the streets in a specially marked vehicle. Members of that group, Ms. Dorival said, “are armed only with a radio.” ...A wide range of neighborhood watch organizations exist across the country. Some have patrols, while others like Sanford’s do not. But the National Sheriffs’ Association, which sponsors the program nationwide, is absolutely clear on one point: guns have no place in a watch group. A manual distributed by the association repeatedly underscores the point: “Patrol members do not carry weapons.” You will probably just say, 'Zimmerman & his watchgroup were not official members of the NSA's Neighborhood watch program, so their rules do not apply.' To that I would respond, 'Then why did they have a Sanford PD employee come to speak to their group & inform them of the Neighborhood Watch program's rules and methodology?' That was not my implication at all. def pursue: "Follow (someone or something) to catch or attack them." Swap it out with 'follow' if you'd like, but I stand by my statement. Zimmerman could have been following Martin to find his location, confront him, detain him, or attack him. Who knows. My interpretation is: 'I don't want this [suspicious] guy getting away like all the others do.'
  7. Neighborhood watch members are not supposed to pursue suspicious suspects, and they are not supposed to carry carry concealed weapons. The purpose of neighborhood watch is not to detain or even apprehend suspects- all they are supposed to do is look around, listen, and report suspicious activity to authorities who are trained to react appropriately in these situations. So what exactly was Zimmerman's purpose for continuing to pursue Martin, first by car, then on foot? He was not acting within the neighborhood watch rules- I think his intention was made crystal clear when he said on the 9/11 call, "These assholes, they always get away."
  8. Was not trying to evade your comment- I was thinking out loud and validating those points for myself. I agree that proven was the wrong word to use there. I should have said "The fact that existence exists is independent of consciousness, and Descartes' statement implies the exact opposite (ie: that existence is dependent upon consciousness- this is wrong because thinking or even not thinking cannot change the facts of reality.)"
  9. I agree with you, and I think it's definitely something to think about on an individual level (ie: "should I follow this suspicious individual?" "if I do, what might happen?") This might not be the best example, but you know when little kids get in your face and say "I'm not touching you, I'm not touching you"? They do this to annoy you and make you angry without actually getting physical, and without technically breaking any rules. But even though they're within the law, so to speak, the response is always the same- people get 1. uncomfortable, 2. annoyed, 3. angry, and may even retaliate themselves. In this example the annoying kid is Zimmerman (technically within the law, but unnecessarily continuing to pursue Martin.)
  10. Consciousness allows you to see that which exists, but reality exists regardless of consciousness- whether one chooses to recognize it or not. That's why existence is the first axiom. For consciousness to exist (and perceive reality), existence must first exist. Edit: I think it was Rand who said "When I die, the world will end." (There's probably a thread about that on here somewhere.) But surely, reality does not literally end when one person dies- or two, or three.. so the ending of one consciousness (or all consciousness) does not & cannot end existence.
  11. Right. "I think, therefore I am" means that existence can only be proven by consciousness. The opposite, "I am, therefore I think" means that existence exists regardless of consciousness. One must exist in order to think- not the other way around.
  12. Adam's girlfriend was there and wrote a short post about the arrest on her fb: "Just got raided by the Feds dressed in swat gear, with helicopters, armored vehicles and a fuck ton of dictatorial peons who call themselves "enforcers" of "the law." They broke in the door, threw a flash bang, detained all in the house with NO CHARGES and refused to produce a warrant until they left the house in CHAOS. Ya, gonna go ahead and say AMERICA IS A POLICE STATE and if you think you're free, it's pretty clear you're a slave. PEACE AND LOVE, NOT GUNS AND FORCE. Thx." Went on to say in a later post: "For some reason, getting an assault rifle with a laser pointed at my face (and seeing my bf in the same position) by a criminal cop makes me less scared of these cowardly government goons. I have spoken out and will continue to speak out, and getting manhandled and harassed by the state is only more motivation to do so." I don't keep up with Adam's website or anything, but I know they are both diehard RP supporters and (she, at least) is an anarchist. [some articles I've read of hers are from RevoluTimes and Come Home America.] Most of her posts strike me as a little paranoid, but I guess if I were in these types of situations, I would be too.
  13. Adam's apartment was raided last night. Apparently he was put under suspicion after loading a shotgun in the streets of DC on July 4. He was arrested for possessing shrooms and a weapon. He's facing over 10 years in prison. [link]
  14. Thanks again for your post. I have read papers about how 'terrorists' are made (ie: what are their core motivations, why do they do what they do, etc)- some claim that through isolation, rituals, & propaganda, people are willing to commit atrocities that were originally thought to be despicable. It's implied that given enough time, any man can be formed into a terrorist. Some claim that terrorists have below average intelligence or other mental defects, such as a mental illness. (As far as I know this has been refuted.) Others claim that the death of a family member or some other type of personal trauma can put a person 'at risk.' Still others claim that a man's environment is the primary motivation- man looks for a social group who will accept him, help him gain meaning and understanding about life, and self-esteem. It is his environment that pushes him towards one group or another. I think it's a mistake to say that ideology is the only distinguishing factor between you and a terrorist (see above factors), but it's also wrong to say that ideology plays no role whatsoever (for ex, I have not heard of objectivist terrorists). I would like to settle this for myself before revisiting the issue of moral/legal responsibility.
  15. I think the main question comes down to this: is ideology a terrorist's primary motivation for committing atrocities?
  16. This is the key point you left out of your conclusion. People, ideas, character, etc are all works in progress. It's unrealistic to expect a person to find answers to all of his questions about every subject he encounters. (Sometimes we're uninterested in the subject and do not want to spend the time figuring out what is correct and what is jibberish. Sometimes we don't have all the information available to make an informed decision. Sometimes we think we've made an informed decision, only to realize later that we were completely wrong/ were missing important information which is what happened in the blood example you gave.) I don't see this as a character flaw or a compromise.
  17. Carpet bombing an entire village is unlikely to be the first plan of action, isn't it? I would think targeting specific buildings would be higher up on the to-do list.. In theory this parallel sounds nice, but I think the plan of action should depend on the dangerousness of the terrorists in question - nothing should be taken completely off the table.
  18. I said earlier that "The question really comes down to this: Do people choose to do evil because of the facade (a certain philosophy, religious dogma, etc) or is the facade a sanction that gives people the freedom (or the moral go ahead) to do evil? In other words, is religion the catalyst for evil or just the excuse? I think it is a little of both" and "I agree that 'militant' Islam is evil and should be fought." So no, I don't think that "everyone else is exempt." (See my last paragraph for further explanation.) I took many of those points (specifically: vengeance (ie: being emotionally impacted by a tragic death - a trigger event), wanting to be significant/ be a hero, environmental factors) from Arie Kruglanski's research. In short, he believes that: "...there are three basic components in the tendency of a person to become a suicide bomber or active terrorist. There’s the social element — being part of a group; the ideological element — a set of beliefs that condone violence for the sake of the group; and the emotional element, which triggers both the acceptance and personalization of the ideology. The ideology doesn’t need to be intricate or profound. There’s a grievance, a culprit responsible for the grievance and a method of regressing the grievance by violence." From what I've read, ideology is not usually the primary motivation for becoming a terrorist. It can be for some people, sure, but there are usually other more personal and more important factors involved.
  19. Those are interesting examples, but without the context of the discussion it's kind of hard to relate to. Is there some sort of structure in this 'discussion'? - ie: when the person said "There is no humanity, there is no such thing as gender, there is no identity" was he responding to a specific topic, saying whatever was on his mind, or something else entirely?
  20. I think this is correct with a few exceptions. For instance, in wartime it's best to target the areas where you know the bad guys live and try to take them out. Innocent civilians will undoubtedly be killed in the process, but it wouldn't make sense to, say, put every person on trial to measure their guilt or innocence before taking any action.
  21. Haven't been able to get online for a couple days, but I wanted to respond to snerd's posts. The question really comes down to this: Do people choose to do evil because of the facade (a certain philosophy, religious dogma, etc) or is the facade a sanction that gives people the freedom (or the moral go ahead) to do evil? In other words, is religion the catalyst for evil or just the excuse? I think it is a little of both. You ask what the core motivation is. I can only speculate as to what that might be.. maybe it's the personal desire to make a difference in the world (ie: to make a lasting impact even after death).. or maybe it's to avenge the loss of a loved one by turning one philosophy (or one nation) into the guilty party. There are many factors- but no matter what the specifics are for an individual, it doesn't change the fact that he has the freedom of choice. He can choose to stone a woman to death or not. He can choose to become a suicide-bomber or not. He can choose to kill an innocent man or not. Whether his motivation comes from vengeance, the pure desire to kill, his socioeconomic status, environmental factors (ie: his family is apart of a terrorist organization), or a combination of these, he has choices. The individual alone should be responsible for the choices he makes- religious dogma is not an excuse. I agree that 'militant' Islam is evil and should be fought. But the individuals who buy into it are not guiltless puppets- they have chosen it.
  22. Can't edit my other post, but I wanted to add something: The only 'evidence' I've seen about gender roles is from participant studies. From these, generalizations are made with respect to people's personal anecdotes, feelings, experiences, etc. I don't know if this form of evidence is valid- wiki says "it is accepted only in lieu of more solid evidence (regardless of the veracity of individual claims)" and "the process of verification is necessary to determine whether a generalization holds true for any given situation." So IF these studies are the only 'evidence' available right now, there's not much we can do except to say "that generalization is false in these specific situations" and leave it at that. What Delaney and other romance bloggers/radio-hosts do (see tom leykis) is try to help people along in their relationships and/or make a living. Where do they get their info? Cherry-picked anecdotes, their own experiences, and maybe a few studies or articles on google. Obviously their advice is not going to work for everyone or even be appealing to everyone, because their info is based (at best!) on generalizations.
  23. This is really the only counter in this thread that makes sense. When I said that a terrorists motivations are personal, I meant that they are not shared by the majority of others in his religion. True, militant Islam is a real branch of Islam (and probably has a number of sub-branches), and it is dangerous and should be fought. But shouldn't the primary fault lie with the men who accept this philosophy? My posts on this page were meant to convey that. There's a reason why terrorists or others who do evil believe in these sorts of philosophies. All the philosophy does is give them the facade of a sanction to do whatever evils they want (ie: bomb innocent people, kill dissenters, etc).
  24. I've also been wondering what sort of evidence is necessary to prove a hypothesis about human sexuality, gender roles, etc. We obviously need SOME kind of evidence in order to accept a hypothesis or assertion, but I don't know exactly what kind of evidence that is or if it can even be gathered in respect to these topics.
×
×
  • Create New...