The Exploitation of Trayvon Martin

[caroljane]

Here on your own website posters have said that Trayvon "received justice". As he died, I interpreted that to mean he deserved his death, that that was the justice he received. Perhaps I interpreted wrongly.

[Xray]

For Rand was strictly against private persons carrying weapons, which imo also included any form of armed 'vigilantism'.

Huh? Link.

Excellent work MJ - these links end Angela's argument and assertion of Ayn's thoughts on the issue.

I don't think it puts an end to the argument; for nowhere does it say that Rand's ideal of a rational society implied the notion of private citizens carrying weapons.

Rand may have found herself in a dilemma though as she became aware that to many Americans, the right of private citizens to carry a gun is regarded as a high value, and that suggestions to restrict that right would probably get a negative reaction.

Rand loved America - it stood for so many things she admired deeply.

That's why her answers on the gun control issue in the interview were a bit hesitant and unconfrontional.

[caroljane]

I agree that it does not end the argument at all. Angela's analysis here strikes me as true. Rand was forced to politicize much of her philosophy "Off-the-cuff" without thinking it through.

In her own mind and heart I think she would have been uneasy about everyone being armed, and tried to determine who was worthy of being armed, such as Dagny etc but in real life.

[Xray]

There's nothing dehumanizing about the term "scum". Only humans are capable of being scum.

But doesn't the slang use of the technical term "scum" intend precisely that: to dehumanize a person by comparing him/her to worthless matter?

scum (skm)

n.

1. A filmy layer of extraneous or impure matter that forms on or rises to the surface of a liquid or body of water.

2. The refuse or dross of molten metals.

3. Refuse or worthless matter.

4. Slang One, such as a person or an element of society, that is regarded as despicable or worthless.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/scum

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Here on your own website posters have said that Trayvon "received justice". As he died, I interpreted that to mean he deserved his death, that that was the justice he received. Perhaps I interpreted wrongly.

Carol,

I don't know who you mean as I skim a lot, but if such a person meant Martin deserved to die, I am with you in condemning that person's attitude. That's disgusting.

I'll go further. The concept of one person meeting out justice in a fight between two very flawed individuals like Marttin and Zimmerman is so wrong, if a person proposes this, I say that person knows nothing about justice.

I don't even think Zimmerman wanted to kill Martin. I think he just wanted to get Martin to stop pounding on him and panicked. I also believe Martin just wanted to scare Zimmerman a bit and kick his ass some to get him to stop stalking him.

But respective storylines kicked in from the media and others, all based on agenda-driven core storylines in the culture. Then, common sense went on vacation, distortions ran rampant, and open season on decency and truth was declared as the story wars took off ...

Michael

[caroljane]

Here I agree with you, in every particular, except as I disagree about the scenario. It was an encounter which should not have ended in death. Neither of them deserved death, in any way.

[Selene]

For Rand was strictly against private persons carrying weapons, which imo also included any form of armed 'vigilantism'.

Huh? Link.

Excellent work MJ - these links end Angela's argument and assertion of Ayn's thoughts on the issue.

I don't think it puts an end to the argument; for nowhere does it say that Rand's ideal of a rational society implied the notion of private citizens carrying weapons.

Rand may have found herself in a dilemma though as she became aware that to many Americans, the right of private citizens to carry a gun is regarded as a high value, and that suggestions to restrict that right would probably get a negative reaction.

Rand loved America - it stood for so many things she admired deeply.

That's why her answers on the gun control issue in the interview were a bit hesitant and unconfrontional.

Angela:

You must do a lot of Yoga in order to bend yourself into uttering this last post.

from the Letters of Ayn Rand, in a letter to a Mr. Flynn: "A man has a constitutional right to bear arms. But if a man has declared that he intends to murder you, it is not your duty to provide the knife and place it in his hands." This is the only instance I could find where the subject of a right to bear arms was directly mentioned. However, Rand only mentions in passing (on her way to an analogy) that such a right exists in the Constitution. She does not expound at all on what this right might involve.

and,

The exchange was as follows:

Raymond Newman: You have stated that the government ought to be the exclusive agent for the use of force under objective rules of law and justice --

Ayn Rand: That's right.

Newman: -- and yet at the same time today we see an alarming rise in violent crimes in this country and more and more people applying for gun permits and wanting to protect themselves. Do you see this as a dangerous trend, number one; and number two, do you favor any form of gun control laws?

Rand:

I have given it no thought at all and, off-hand, I would say,

no, the government shouldn't control guns

except in very marginal forms.

I don't think it's very important because I don't think it is in physical terms that the decisions and the fate of this country will be determined. If this country falls apart altogether, if the government collapses bankrupt, your having a handgun in your pocket isn't going to save your life. What you would need is ideas and other people who share those ideas and fighting towards a proper civilized government, not handguns for personal protection.

Selective distortion does not work, ever.

A...

[anthony]

Xray,

Your subjective query received a subjective reply.

On the contrary, it has been a mainly rational debate, and it's quite disingenuous of you to introduce that subjective angle- and then state: Look how emotions make a discussion difficult!

Rationality (btw) is entirely consistent with emotion.

Tony,

The problematic issue of objective morality had been addressed in this thread long before I took part in the discssion. See the exchange between you and poster Dglgmut :

whYNOT, on 29 Jul 2013 - 5:27 PM, said:

I think the distinction is this: the Objectivist has already incorporated a just and rational morality into the Law, while the progressive looks for his collective morality do be overtly demonstrated through the Law and Justice..

To which Dglgmut replied in post # 662:

This is impossible. An objective morality requires objective values, and objective justice is even farther from reality.

There are many situations where following a set of principles will not give you the best result.

Angela: Thank you for the heads up. No "problematic issue of morality" that I see...

My reply to Calvin would have been:

Individual rights, which give us protection under the law, include the right to take the law into one's own hands when -and only then- one estimates one's life is in real danger. As you know, individual rights derive from the ethics of rational selfishness: in this case, to not take self-defensive action would be self-sacrificial, and immoral.

So the law then, reflects ('contains') the ethics, by way of individual rights. Justice, and whatever punishment is to be imposed, would be 'objective'- as in equitable and predictable, known and sustained.

A man's life, as end in itself - is the value that Calvin seeks. The "set of principles" he raises, are clear enough; and any mitigating factors would naturally be taken into account- so objective justice would be closer to reality than he supposes, and if not 100% perfect, certainly give "the best result".

(I had contrasted this with populist 'justice' and its implementation, which (it seems to me) demands that the collectivist morality, via the media's and public's 'town-square justice' must be satisfied by a court's (subjective)judgment.)

[Mikee]

There's nothing dehumanizing about the term "scum". Only humans are capable of being scum.

But doesn't the slang use of the technical term "scum" intend precisely that: to dehumanize a person by comparing him/her to worthless matter?

4. Slang One, such as a person or an element of society, that is regarded as despicable or worthless.

Bingo.

Other terms that may fit: dross, waste, residue.

"The exceptions prove the rule" may be a useful concept, how would we even define civilized humanity without recognizing the exceptions? And naming them. These names are useful in that they recognize the lost potential of the greatness of humanity that is missing in certain individuals. They also serve (or they were intended to) to shun these individuals, perhaps into seeing the error of their ways and joining the ranks of the law abiding and productive. It is not dehumanizing to recognize people come in all categories, from the sublime to monsters.

There is ample evidence on Trayvon's social network records (facebook, twitter) that he had a fascination with drugs, punching people in the face, and guns. There is also evidence he was a thief, covered up by a school principle more interested in hiding evidence of criminal activity at his school than bringing budding criminals to justice. He was not a monster, he was a 17 year old male from a broken home and picked the wrong role models. It is unfortunate that he died, I do think he could have been rehabilitated given the right mentor. Like this guy, Mr. Julius Baker.

[Selene]

There is also evidence he was a thief, covered up by a school principle more interested in hiding evidence of criminal activity at his school than bringing budding criminals to justice. He was not a monster, he was a 17 year old male from a broken home and picked the wrong role models. It is unfortunate that he died, I do think he could have been rehabilitated given the right mentor. Like this guy, Mr. Julius Baker.

FYI:

The "kid glove" program that you refer to was jointly devised by the principal and the Sheriff.

"Funny" how the kid glove program vs. being sentenced to a rehab stint with "drill instructor" types led directly to his death.

A...

[anthony]

Tony,

I have only heard that "deserve to die" meme in the Progressive storyline of the Martin-Zimmerman affair. Nobody I know of--on any side--believes Martin deserved to die. Yet the accusations and insinuations keep coming from that Progressive story-world.

Michael

Never let some pesky facts disrupt a good story.

There must be something to "the story" Michael, else why would everybody get their knickers in a knot every time something like this -so removed from their lives - comes up? Despite progressives being largely secular-humanists (on the surface) I think their narrative cuts very deep, all the way back and down to something very Biblical:

David and Goliath; Eye for an Eye; Vengeance is Mine, sayeth the Lord; - and so on.

It's why a person taking "justice" into his own hands so offends them. They've only replaced God with The People in their "story".

[moralist]

Mikee, I do not refuse to see the dead boy for "what he was", because I did not know him as a full human being and neither did you. It was Moralist who denied him humanity according to his own moralizings.

There is no lie like a liberal lie. The truth is that it is impossible to deny someone of their humanity just from the mere stating of a subjective opinion by another. People can only deny themselves of their own humanity by behaving like scum.

[caroljane]

Or by deciding, oh-so-objectively, who is human and who is scum.

[Brant Gaede]

You are scum, son, but I love you anyway. Here's a gun for your birthday.

--Brant

throw the switch for full auto

[Brant Gaede]

Or by deciding, oh-so-objectively, who is human and who is scum.

Derogatory terms like "scum" tend to be subjective and belong only to the stater of the statement. However, there may be millions of staters of the statement. The point is the stater is entitled to his opinion even if in return he gets negatively and subjectively evaluated. Now, if I say "Hitler was great" you can say "Brant is scum" for saying that--if not a crypto-Nazi. To objectify the situation we need to start with facts and say he was good or bad and why. "Scum" is too far out from human and human being to objectify--not worth the effort. "Thug" is closer to objectification than "scum." The idea of such words is to negate any argument. Most of us agree about Hitler, right? No argument from me. Pure scum.

--Brant

[moralist]

Or by deciding, oh-so-objectively, who is human and who is scum.

That's a good example of another false premise held by liberals, and explains why they are so totalitarian in trying to control speech through political correctness... as if controlling words could control the reality of what people are. The abdication of personal responsibility by blaming others for the consequences of the blamer's own personal moral failure. The fantasy that one person could actually possess the power to make a person either human or scum with mere words, when that power actually resides within each person's own choice of how they behave..

[Brant Gaede]

Or by deciding, oh-so-objectively, who is human and who is scum.

That's a good example of another false premise held by liberals, and explains why they are so totalitarian in trying to control speech through political correctness... as if controlling words could control the reality of what people are. The abdication of personal responsibility by blaming others for the consequences of the blamer's own personal moral failure. The fantasy that one person could actually possess the power to make a person either human or scum with mere words, when that power actually resides within each person's own choice of how they behave..

Which means, of course, controlling people in ways they ought not be.

Morality is primarily about self control. If you aren't first free inside your head, knowing right from wrong and doing right, not wrong, you won't be free out there. The freedom of choosing wrong is derivatively a pseudo-freedom in and by its consequences and the consequences are on you if not also others, say others close to you. If you aren't a critical thinker someone else has done your thinking for you and imposed his conclusions which you accept, even something so mundane as the farce of recycling.

--Brant

[moralist]

Or by deciding, oh-so-objectively, who is human and who is scum.

That's a good example of another false premise held by liberals, and explains why they are so totalitarian in trying to control speech through political correctness... as if controlling words could control the reality of what people are. The abdication of personal responsibility by blaming others for the consequences of the blamer's own personal moral failure. The fantasy that one person could actually possess the power to make a person either human or scum with mere words, when that power actually resides within each person's own choice of how they behave..

Which means, of course, controlling people in ways they ought not be.

Morality is primarily about self control. If you aren't first free inside your head, knowing right from wrong and doing right, not wrong, you won't be free out there. The freedom of choosing wrong is derivatively a pseudo-freedom in and by its consequences and the consequences are on you if not also others, say others close to you. If you aren't a critical thinker someone else has done your thinking for you and imposed his conclusions which you accept, even something so mundane as the farce of recycling.

--Brant

You're singing my favorite song, Brant...

[Selene]

Another unintended consequence of the media lynching of George Zimmermann.

After living in a trailer for the past year, and being terrified that whenever she would leave the trailer might be her last, Mrs. Zimmermann has filed for divorce.

Nice work media scum.

[caroljane]

????? Where does she blame the media attention? She said they were having problems before the arrest.

[Selene]

????? Where does she blame the media attention? She said they were having problems before the arrest.

Not disagreeing with you. However, where did you read that?

[caroljane]

Guardian article. It said she had left the house after a fight with him, the day before the shooting.

[Selene]

Guardian article. It said she had left the house after a fight with him, the day before the shooting.

Guardian article. It said she had left the house after a fight with him, the day before the shooting.

Hmmmm, now there is a great spin to use in a divorce complaint. And, of course you know that allegations in a divorce complaint are the closest you will come to pure fiction, correct?

[Mikee]

Must be a pile of money involved. And divorce is consistent with a law enforcement career.

[Selene]

So let's see:

A convicted perjurer, Shellie Zimmerman, swears in a divorce complaint that "xyz" happened. And we are supposed to evaluate those statements in the complaint by what probative standard?

Shellie Zimmerman was sentenced to 12 months of probation last month after she admitted lying to a judge about their finances during her husband's bail hearing in June 2012. She said in an interview after her conviction for perjury that she felt he had "beaten down her self-esteem" and that she was no longer sure if she wanted to remain married.

So, if this is the Guardian article you were referring to, you are comfortable with relying on the statements of a convicted perjurer?

She continued stating that:

She also revealed that she was not at the couple's home on the night of the shooting, having left the house the day before after a fight with her husband. When the interviewer, Good Morning America's Christi O'Connor, asked her if George Zimmerman had a volatile temper, she replied: "I'm not going to answer that."

Further tension between the couple was indicated by George Zimmerman's decision not to attend his wife's 28 August perjury hearing at the same Sanford courthouse in which he was acquitted more than a month previously. She said she felt "let down" by his absence after she attended every day of his murder trial.

Hmm, maybe he was told not to attend by his counsel?

Continuing the weave of this story, the article explains that:

The announcement came on the same day that it was revealed that George Zimmerman, 29, received a speeding ticket after he was stopped earlier this week by police in Lake Mary, close to the central Florida town of Sanford where he shot and killed Martin, 17, in a confrontation at his gated housing community in February last year.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/06/george-zimmerman-wife-shellie-files-divorce

Carol, is this the article you were referring to?

A...