Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Boston Marathon Explosions

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 64
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Am I the only one who is really uncomfortable with how quickly and how completely they have taken complete control of this area, with their unprecedented "lockdown"? Why is the news ok with this happe

I think this is much worse. An entire city is shut down -- don't you think an entire city could manage to apprehend a 19-year-old kid with homemade explosives? No one has a nuclear bomb here. I think

Oh okay. No one here comments on the fact that federal agents, militarized local police, and military police basically invaded the town and forced everyone under house arrest right before out eyes, as

NPR almost literally apologizes every time it mentions a possible Muslim connection, but not for any other possible connection. Whether the motivation was Muslim radicalism or not, that's some embarrassing news reporting bias.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've heard countless (politically correct, multicultural, diverse, inclusive, sensitive, etc.) news reporters today say "We still don't know what their motivation is," or else, "We have absolutely no idea why they did this."

 

Are you fucking kidding me?

 

They're Muslims! They're jihadis! Their Islamic philosophy compels them to wage continuous holy war (jihad) on the whole world -- to kill or enslave everyone!

 

It makes not a jot of difference whether or not the individual muzzies think the U.S. supports Israel too much, or fails to aid Chechnya enough against Russia, or is improperly working against the Syrian dictatorship, or isn't doing enough to overthrow the Syrian dictatorship, etc. The "reason" for the various Islamic atrocities is absolutely irrelevant. The Muslim response to all of these alleged American failures is always the same: jihad!  

Edited by Garshasp
Link to post
Share on other sites

Another aspect of the Boston bombings, which perhaps should be addressed in the Ethics section, is the extensive praise being given to those who ran to help the victims of the first explosion, despite the well-known terrorist tactic of detonating a second bomb aimed at killing first responders.  Announcers on Fox News, and probably other networks as well, have spoken of those people running directly into harm’s way as deserving of tremendous admiration for their bravery.  One announcer spoke of such heroes as reflecting the greatness of Americans and our unique, instinctive courage in the face of danger. 

 

I disagree.  As much as I would want to help in any way I could, I would be very cautious about rushing toward the victims until I thought it was fairly safe to do so.  I’m curious what other Objectivists have to say on that.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Am I the only one who is really uncomfortable with how quickly and how completely they have taken complete control of this area, with their unprecedented "lockdown"? Why is the news ok with this happening?

I think the amount of force used is appropriate, in this case. These are terrorists, not run of the mill criminals. If what it takes is to lock down an entire city to stop them, then that's what they should do. The alternative is much worse.

Another aspect of the Boston bombings, which perhaps should be addressed in the Ethics section, is the extensive praise being given to those who ran to help the victims of the first explosion, despite the well-known terrorist tactic of detonating a second bomb aimed at killing first responders.  Announcers on Fox News, and probably other networks as well, have spoken of those people running directly into harm’s way as deserving of tremendous admiration for their bravery.  One announcer spoke of such heroes as reflecting the greatness of Americans and our unique, instinctive courage in the face of danger. 

 

I disagree.  As much as I would want to help in any way I could, I would be very cautious about rushing toward the victims until I thought it was fairly safe to do so.  I’m curious what other Objectivists have to say on that.

What do you mean by cautious? What specifically would you do?

Rushing towards danger and risk with a life affirming goal in mind is precisely the definition of heroism and bravery. And there's nothing more life affirming than saving the would be victims of a mass murderer.

Edited by Nicky
Link to post
Share on other sites

According to this article, following a terrorist bombing, emergency crews are actually trained to wait to see if there is a secondary explosion before rushing in to help.  I did not know that.

 

The Urge to Help Is Overwhelming

 

This much is obvious: You are not going to be able to help if you are also dead.

 

Beyond that, I would compare "rushing to help" in such situations to running into a burning building to help total strangers.  I consider risking your own life for the lives of strangers in this sort of reckless manner to be immoral.

 

I would wait a few minutes to see if there was a secondary explosion.  Then I would do all I could to help.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the amount of force used is appropriate, in this case. These are terrorists, not run of the mill criminals. If what it takes is to lock down an entire city to stop them, then that's what they should do. The alternative is much worse.

I think this is much worse. An entire city is shut down -- don't you think an entire city could manage to apprehend a 19-year-old kid with homemade explosives? No one has a nuclear bomb here. I think the city was too quick to boss people around with no explanation given to anyone, and I think the people were too quick to comply.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this is much worse. An entire city is shut down -- don't you think an entire city could manage to apprehend a 19-year-old kid with homemade explosives? No one has a nuclear bomb here. I think the city was too quick to boss people around with no explanation given to anyone, and I think the people were too quick to comply.

 

Do you really know what this 19 year old was capable of ?   Likely not a nuke but who wants to risk not doing everything he can to see that he's apprehended?  I agree with Nicky. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you really know what this 19 year old was capable of ?   Likely not a nuke but who wants to risk not doing everything he can to see that he's apprehended?  I agree with Nicky. 

Everything, really? Like, a week of lockdown? Does anybody know what this 19-year-old is capable of? Is it worth shutting a city down and ordering a large population into hiding?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The bystanders, by contrast to the professionals, probably didn't know about the second-bomb strategy and believed (accurately, as things turned out) that rushing in was safe.

 

That may be true.  But Objectivists, in my opinion, are not being consistent with rational egoism if they join the TV commentators and sing the praises of the eager bystanders. Their admiration seems based on their utter disregard of potential danger.  It is not heroic to recklessly disregard potential threats to your own life. True courage does not involve recklessness.

Link to post
Share on other sites

They say he's down, lockdown over:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/04/19/police-go-door-to-door-in-hunt-for-boston-bombing-suspect/

" The second suspect in the Boston Marathon bombing is believed to be "down" after gunfire broke out from a boat or shed behind a house in the Watertown section of Boston moments after state and local officials said their hunt had come up dry Friday.

Sources told Fox News a suspect was "down," but later said he was alive and possibly surrounded. A neighbor described the sound of as many as 30 shots as akin to "a roll of firecrackers shooting off," and said blood was found on the door of a shed, or on a trailered boat near it behind a home on Franklin Street.

"All hell broke loose," the neighbor told a MyFox Boston reporter.

Sources told Fox News the shed and the boat had been searched earlier, but a woman noticed a door to it had been opened, saw blood and called police. The gunfire broke out when police went to search it, but it was unclear if any police were injured."

Edited by intellectualammo
Link to post
Share on other sites

He's said to be in custody now.

" Police said they had taken the second suspect in the Boston Marathon bombings into custody here Friday night, after a day of intense searching that shut down daily life across a large swath of greater Boston.

Shortly after 8 p.m., police surrounded a boat stored behind a home in East Watertown, a short distance away from where Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, 19, had been last seen. Authorities said they believed Tsarnaev was inside the boat, which had been covered in a tarp. He was thought to be wounded but alive: television crews reported that they could hear police calling his name, attempting to induce his surrender"

http://m.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/massive-police-operation-under-way-in-boston/2013/04/19/979ec6dc-a8c6-11e2-a8e2-5b98cb59187f_story.html

Edited by intellectualammo
Link to post
Share on other sites

That may be true.  But Objectivists, in my opinion, are not being consistent with rational egoism if they join the TV commentators and sing the praises of the eager bystanders. Their admiration seems based on their utter disregard of potential danger.  It is not heroic to recklessly disregard potential threats to your own life. True courage does not involve recklessness.

I also do not join in with the constant praises of the TV comentators, but for a different reason. One thing that has been a constant theme before any TV comentator speaks, or any government bureaucrat or spokesman gives a briefing, is the never-ending refrain that "our first responders" have been so curageous and brave and amazing and they could not possibly have done a finer job and this is the greatest, freest, awesomest country in the whole world and that the terrorists are cowardly and we will go get 'em and so forth. The job of official spokesmen and the media is primarily of propaganda, and this type of ritualistic veneration is probably motivated by a shallow "feelgoodism," but serves to be more like a basic religious ritual, much like the Party's "two minutes hate" in Orwell's 1984, to assure and reinforce faith in the government and the police state.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That may be true.  But Objectivists, in my opinion, are not being consistent with rational egoism if they join the TV commentators and sing the praises of the eager bystanders. Their admiration seems based on their utter disregard of potential danger.  It is not heroic to recklessly disregard potential threats to your own life. True courage does not involve recklessness.

 

   If I had a soap box to stand on, i would probably suggest that while everyone intention in helping is admirable, they need to be careful and follow emergency procedures when an emergency happens. This is why we have fire drills in school. 

 

   However the problem is that there isn't much of a procedure for bombings, or what do during a terrorist attack. I know what to do during a tornado because I live in Oklahoma, I bet Israel is the only country that gets bombed so consistently that is people know to look out for secondary explosives. 

 

  @2046

 

   Well if they said anything else they would never here the end of it. Some people demand that you genuflect to the various sacred cows before saying anything important. Just look at how people talk about teachers in this country right before they talk about the education system. 

Edited by Hairnet
Link to post
Share on other sites

That may be true.  But Objectivists, in my opinion, are not being consistent with rational egoism if they join the TV commentators and sing the praises of the eager bystanders. Their admiration seems based on their utter disregard of potential danger.  It is not heroic to recklessly disregard potential threats to your own life. True courage does not involve recklessness.

I would've rushed in too. Not because I'm reckless, it's because I think you're overstating the risks. It's not automatically reckless to help the wounded after a bomb attack. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...