The Exploitation of Trayvon Martin

[caroljane]

I have seen such dehumanization of the dead, indeed of the living, on O-sites in the three years I have participated, but never before on OL.

[Brant Gaede]

I have seen such dehumanization of the dead, indeed of the living, on O-sites in the three years I have participated, but never before on OL.

Oh I'm sure someone here has called Hitler "scum" or some such.

--Brant

let me

[Brant Gaede]

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.

You are overlooking the possibility of a seance.

--Brant

[caroljane]

I have seen such dehumanization of the dead, indeed of the living, on O-sites in the three years I have participated, but never before on OL.

Oh I'm sure someone here has called Hitler "scum" or some such.

--Brant

let me

God damnit I knew you would say so if I did not add a rider, in fact I did about tyrants and murderers and even thought of Hickman - they all got psychologized at least - but I deleted that part - you know what I am saying.

[Mikee]

I have seen such dehumanization of the dead, indeed of the living, on O-sites in the three years I have participated, but never before on OL.

Dehumanizing someone after death would be refusing to see them for what they were, their values and resulting actions. You are the one dehumanizing Trayvon. I'm sorry he died from his wounds, truly. But his own actions lead to his death. I think it highly probable he would have killed Zimmerman if he hadn't been shot. I'm not saying he deserved to die, but Zimmerman had the right to defend himself.

[caroljane]

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.

[Mikee]

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

[caroljane]

Look it up. I was not speaking colloquially and neither was moralist. It was utterly, contemptuously and smugly dehumanizing.

[Mikee]

The context of all your statements in this thread is your anti-handgun stance. It is the only issue for you, you cannot see either Trayvon Martin or George Zimmerman for the people they were and are because of it. Who's doing the dehumanizing?

[caroljane]

No, you wrong me. Now that the case is over, I am just looking in weariness at a dead boy who is believed by so many to deserve death. Of course I wish the means of instant death had not been there, but that is not what I am thinking about now.

[Mikee]

Now you have wronged everyone who differs from your opinion. No one is arguing that Trayvon Martin "deserved" to die. We are arguing that the evidence showed Trayvon attacked George Zimmerman and he had a right to defend himself. As for your regretting "the means of instant death" had not been there, the means of "instant death" as you call it is always there in any fight. Trayvon could easily have beaten Zimmerman to death with his fists. You also wrong policeman who use their guns and shoot men "only" armed with a knife. You know nothing whatever about fighting or combat. Police officers are rarely very good at unarmed combat and even if they were their careers would not last very long if they got in a wrestling match with every belligerent armed with a knife. They would be dead in 2-3 years. Those are facts. We very much need police to guard our cities and towns, we very much need people like George Zimmerman who want to make a career in law enforcement. You smear George Zimmerman every time you talk about this and it's unjust. Just stop. Be ignorant silently.

[caroljane]

I have said no word about George Zimmerman since his acquittal, I will never say another word about him, I do not care about him. Whatever might have happened cannot be known. It is the smearing of Trayvon after he is dead that I have protested against now.

And let he whose ignorance is the greatest be the most silent.

[Mikee]

[Brant Gaede]

Federal and state agents and major media players tried to smear George Zimmerman into a murder conviction, a legalized lynching, a trial that shouldn't have happened, not even a grand jury indictment. One way was pretending a thug was a sweet, little 13 yo boy. Even the that's-my-son President chimed in. Another way was to make mixed-race GZ a poster boy for white guilt. Unlike many cops whose philosophy is keep shooting until the bullets are gone, he only fired once.

Justice was done to TM. The only justice GZ got was formal. His life has been terribly damaged.

--Brant

can't say he was "scum"

[Selene]

Carol:

What if Zimmermann had not had a gun, but was trained in an extreme martial art and killed travon with several punches and kicks to his head?

How would that change your position on tha facts of the case?

A....

[caroljane]

It wouldn't, as I do not believe Trayvon attacked him.

[Brant Gaede]

It wouldn't, as I do not believe Trayvon attacked him.

So GZ attacked TM? If you carry a gun and intend to attack someone, but not use that gun, you'll be carrying another instrument like a club or baton. You'd know how to use it. If you are just carrying a gun you'll be attacking no one. For another thing, that someone you attack might get hold of it and shoot you. Carrying a gun actually makes you more placid and careful. Recently someone blindsided me and I verbally tore his head off. This only happens when I'm caught by surprise. I never would have done that with a gun in my pocket. It gives you much more psychological gravitas and focus that keeps you on center.

I hate to say this, Carol, but not once have you given any indication of knowing who these people really were when all this went down. That GZ isn't a saint doesn't mean he's not a good man and that TM was a cute 13yo boy once doesn't mean he didn't grow up to be a thug. You have a belief you cannot back up so it just sits there in your post like food that won't leave the stomach. You should barf it up but the idea is too precious to you. You have to believe TM didn't attack GM or your basic position has no foundation.

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

You have a belief you cannot back up so it just sits there in your post like food that won't leave the stomach. You should barf it up but the idea is too precious to you. You have to believe TM didn't attack GM or your basic position has no foundation.

Brant,

That's how the story wars work.

Religion works like that, too.

So does Objectivism in some quarters.

It's the story running in the background that rules, not logic or observation.

If you can get the person who lives within a story to change the channel and try another story, the change in perspective happens and the mind opens up to allow a new perspective in--including evidence. If not, it's like the cybernetic system I have mentioned before. You will get brief agreement on this point or that from reason-based arguments, but the mental autopilot soon corrects the course back to the core storyline.

Michael

[caroljane]

Well, same is true of you, You must believe that Trayvon attacked GZ. Only GZ knows what happened, and you believe him. I don't think he is a devil or a bigot or a racist, but I cannot believe his version of events based on the evidence. There it is.

[caroljane]

And Michael, you are so immersed in your story theory that you see everyone as a sleepwalker within core story dreams. Except yourself, of course.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

You must believe that Trayvon attacked GZ. Only GZ knows what happened, and you believe him.

Carol,

Isn't it terrible when things like a lot of wounds to a head have to be ignored to the point of discomfort to keep a storyline going?

I do sympathize with you.

But it's not so bad. Here's a suggestion.

Haul out the Progressive "martyr for the truth against the big bad bigots" storyline, play the victim, and things should start lining up better.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Here's another storyline, but from another angle.

The Brazilian military police during the military dictatorship once reported a prisoner they had in custody died of 7 gunshots wounds to the head. They reported it as a suicide.

And some people believed them. Or leaned that way. These story-followers said no one really knew what went on, so they had to suspend judgment.

Michael

[anthony]

Nobody "deserves" to die, ever. Reality dictates otherwise, sad to say. It has its own justice - it will sometimes punish anyone who places himself in harm's way, or gambles his own life against another's. And maybe the other guy will be one who feels he is less deserving of death than you are.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

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

[Xray]

How do you explain the rescue mission to free John Galt, in Atlas Shrugged?

In Rand's view, Galt & Co were fighting against a state that was "the enemy", a "rogue state", so to speak, run by evil collectivist rogues. The fight against such evil enemies justified using a gun against them, especially when the life of super-hero Galt was in danger.

The dystopian situation in AS is therefore not comparable to what Rand said in essays like "The Nature of Government" where she presented her ideal of a civilized society.