FIN

Our past couple of classes have not triggered much discussion for me that has not already been discussed in class. However the recent killings in Connecticut has given me a new perspective. There has been s number of brutal killings like this before and all everyone can seemed to be concerned with his having better gun control policies. But what about the people committing these crimes? Does making guns harder to get take away how they already mentally operate? There is obviously something wrong with these people and they need help. If our society took better precautions with the mental care of our people these people can be better monitored and better prevention methods can be developed, which can prevent episodes like this from occurring.  This event has left our country in a state of what happens now with violence on the rise? But I see one thing being over looked the individuals committing these crimes are usually people who are in need of help.

Extreme is usually the start

Not quite understanding, why it takes such extreme events to occur for people to make the right decision. If quality of participation matters just as much as the quantity of the participants. Why do people only start to participate after the tragic occurs? The UN secretary council waited until after eighteen months and six hundred fifty Palestinians were murdered before taking a course of action, but why?

Precis

 Thesis -Occupy is a form of civil disobedience, 
 reasons -it's overall goal is the same as that of other groups that practice recognized forms of civil disobedience, 
objection-some groups within Occupy accept violent methods for achieving social change, 
Response to objection-the core concept of civil disobedience allows for violence when there is no other way of achieving one's aims. 
Premises
1. The overall concept in occupy is to promote change without violenc
2. Occupy is an open organization and allows everyone to join 
3. Occupy is for the betterment of the majority not the 'minority'

Occupy should be considered a form of civil disobedience because its over all goal is the same as the overall concept of civil disobedience and it stands for non violence but there are certain groups within that organization that disagree.Some would argue that it can't be civil disobedience because it involves some sort of violence but doesn't the core concept of civil disability allow room for violence when there is no other way?

CD Justified?

Can civil disobedience be considered justified at all if it doesn't allow the overall concept of violence to be justified as well?
Violence doesn't have to be physical for it to be considered dangerous, there are other types that can also be dangerous. Not to say that violence is needed to justify civil disobedience; I'm just saying the means that are often used to achieve ends in civilly disobedient situations do require some sort of coercion to a certain degree.  This can be considered a type of violence as well because, it involves force and compulsion. When acts of civil disobedience are committed they see it necessary to shun violence from its category without realizing that although they may not be committing physical harm they can still be doing damage as well. If violence is at least considered to a minimal degree then civil disobedience can then be fully justified. Intimidation, strong- arm tactics and non-violent threats are all forceful acts that can be considered violent and harmful. In order for civil disobedience to be fully justified it must be looked at differently.

Thoughts

In class on Thursday we were talking about civil disobedience and trying to figure out how to classify it. Does it have to be open in order to be considered civil? And is it wrong to remain anonymous while fighting for a certain cause? These questions and more were discussed during our seminar. My confusion on the matter is, if a person is to be fighting for a cause why wouldn't they stray away from being anonymous, if they need that public support to become stronger?

"Philosophy is BS"

I was in the cafe today and this guy asked me my major. I told him I double major in Philosophy and FPA with a concentration in theatre, and he asked me why? I told him because I like the idea of rationally investigating the truths of being,knowledge or conduct. He told me I was a bullshitter and that philosophy was bs and not needed in everyday life. I thought back to our previous classes conversation about what shouldn't and should be taught in schools, then I thought evolution. I asked him what do you know about biology or the human body? He told me that human beings went thoroughly the process of evolution. I asked him did he believe that? He told me yes. I laugh at him and ask do you know that evolution is a theory? It isn't actually facts but it cannot be disregarded. You learned about that in school and you believe it. So how can philosophy be bs? I didn't get a response.

Double Standard

After watching the video that Justin posted on his blog I was very disturbed. My whole life I've lived in NYC and I've only noticed Stop and Frisks occur in areas where it would be obvious to accuse someone of being "suspicious". If someone has there pants sagged or a hood on there head does that make them suspicious? Or are the police just picking on people because they can? I think the latter is correct. I have seen police pull up, hop out and say,"Get on the wall!" for no reason while just outside talking to my friends. However, I never see the police hop out on anyone when I'm in lower manhattan. It is honestly racial profiling, they only do these stops in areas where minorities are prominent. Instead of protecting the citizens of the city they really are hurting them and becoming hated because of it. They say it isn't a quota but in actuality it is only one percent of these stops that actually find something. I cant completely blame the officers either because they are ordered to do so. Cops are being held at a double standard. Either they harassed the citizens or they get harassed by the officials. This is not fair.