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.

Equality in Human Rights...

Today at the end of the class I think it was Stephan who brought up the inalienability of human rights. We all understand that human rights is universal and should be applied to all humans even if they happen to be a sociopath or psychopath. However if someone is one of the two, where does human rights stand with them?

 One thing that I don't understand is that if human rights is supposed to be justified and applied to everyone what happens to those who don't respect those inalienable rights? If a psychopath decides to kill someone should they not be penalized for their actions just because they are a human being? Wouldn't we in fact be uplifting them in a direction that would cause them to do more harm because we do not punish them? If someone commits a heinous crime towards another human  they have already violated that person's rights as a human being; so I don't think that there rights should be respected in the least bit. They become null and voided. I'm not saying that person should not be considered a human being because that fact cannot be ignored, but the law is clear to a certain extent even if the person does not have the ability to make morally right decisions there is a system set in place to help them respect those who do have that capability.

Another thing that stood out to me was when we spoke about the book that Nicole read, even though the man in the book did commit the crimes he did and had the mindset he had he is still considered to be a human being, yet he knew what he was doing was wrong how do we just set that aside? We can't. Allowing someone to hide behind the fact that they are human isn't going to bring justice to those who the wrong committed injustice to. I honestly think that it depends on the circumstances when dealing with who deserves what rights, and that depends on their actions.

What's unjust?

When reading the Letter from Birmingham Jail a specific part of the passage seemed to puzzle me. Although slavery, Jim Crow, and other injustices had occurred to minorities matters that seemed just to them were unwise and untimely to members of the clergy. It is understandable that they may have been in a situation where they have been scared of the majorities actions however, wouldn't their moral obligation to their god bund them to doing what is right? Wouldn't men who consider the self to serve god do what's just so that equality could be achieved? What Dr.King did what was necessary for drastic change to occur. While it would of been more subtle to solve the injustices in court we have to consider several things; that takes more time, it doesn't amplify the message, it doesn't show the injustice. By taking direct action an audience is drawn, people are able to see the injustices, and more attention is brought to the matter and that is what was needed when times were like that.
Do you agree or disagree?

Something isn't Right

One of my friend's went to Occupy Wall Street on Monday and it's so ironic because as I was reading this article he walked into my house. So I began to ask him questions regarding his trip. I asked him,"Do people get arrested for participating?" and he told me yes they do. Which led me to ask why if they didn't technically break any laws? He told me it depended on circumstances, it shouldn't happen because it is a form of civil disobedience but this society sucks which is why we need Occupy lol . I agree with my friend to a certain extent but I'm glad there has come a time where there are more people willing to stand up to this economy and fights for rights we equally deserve.

In the Article Professor Silliman posted I seen a few things that Rebecca Solnit said that really intrigued me:
1.And the family resemblances matter. If you add them all up, you see a similar fury at greed, political corruption, economic inequality, environmental devastation, and a dimming, shrinking future.
         -She talks about the people being united and coming together to make a voice for themselves and to be heard so that things like those above won't occur.
2.Don't be reasonable, don't be realistic, and don't be defeated. A year is nothing and the mainstream media is oblivious to where power lies and how change works, but that doesn't mean you need to be.
          - Occupy has a long way to go and it has made so much progress in only a year but the media try to mask and manipulate reality so that the mass can continue to be obliterated and inane.
3.And here was Occupy's other signal achievement: we articulated, clearly, loudly, incontrovertably, how appalling and destructive the current economic system is. 
          - I'm just excited that a change for the better is finally on the rise.

Is it for Friend or Self?

Crito gives Socrates numerous reasons for why he should escape prison. Many referring to how it would directly affect him and how he would be seen in society. This brings me to ask the question, does he want to help Socrates out of jail because it directly benefits him or is it genuinely because he doesn't want to see his friend harmed? 

In the reading there are several instances when Crito asks Socrates what will the people think of him and his actions. He contemplates what people will think of him if he doesn't convince Socrates to live. However what kind of friend would he be if he doesn't choose to accept Socrates wishes no matter how they affect him?

Welcome

I'm a 19 year old sophomore at MCLA
My majors are Philosophy and FPA with a concentration in Theatre
I love my life whole heartedly
And I truly believe the world can be a greater place.