No, “book learning” doesn’t say that. :rolleyes:
Has the simple fact that the majority of people in New Orleans are, in fact, black escaped you people. The fact that people who didn’t evacuate are probably lower income people who didn’t have a car. That probably more whites than blacks left town. Of course most of the looters you see will be black. Most of the people are.
He probably hasn’t answered it because it’s not only a loaded (and stupid) question, but also a complete strawman.
So I’ll answer it for him – of course you save the fucking babies. It’s a strawman because nobody came into this thread to argue “Priority 1: Kill looters. Priority 2: Save people trapped in flooded houses.” (Believe it or not, many here are arguing that it’s important to save trapped survivors AND restore order in the streets).
Instead, the thread was started to condemn the actions of the looters as disgusting and morally despicable – and even then, most people here making exceptions in the cases of perishable foods that will go bad if they are not used now. And I would say that such food should be used, although if there are any looters that are hoarding and depriving other needy folks of food by doing so, then this would also be morally reprehensible. The way it’s happening right now is pretty much anarchy.
You seem to be the only person who’s arguing that it’s morally okay for the looters to grab not only food, but anything else they can get their hands on without getting caught, based on the argument that 100% of items in the flood zone are now useless and unsalable trash.
So, just as one example, do think that the people who stole jewelry will be able to sell it and get money for it? Or is that useless trash now, as well?
My original rant didn’t say just Fox news, I said especially Fox News. I thought that because of the heavy handed moralizing tone they were taking in conjunction with pictures of almost exclusively black looters (contrasted with pictures of white rescuers) and a complete lack of any desire to inform the viewers about the demographics of New Orleans.
Noble and truly wonderful. I admire you and in many ways agree. I like to envision myself helping others in a tragedy as well, I know I would. One thing, do you think people have the RIGHT to take your stuff or should you be able to give it to them? Just becasue I would give a beggar $5. dollars does not mean the have thr RIGHT to forcefully take it from me… true?
All right then. That’s it. The argument is over. We don’t waste time and resources chasing looters.
The point is that you CAN’T do both. They don’t have the resources. The authorities in NO are SAYING they don’t have the resources. You have to pick one or the other. You picked the babies. Good for you.
My position is not that it’s morally ok, but that it’s morally negligible because I don’t believe it’s causing any extra harm beyond what’s already happened. It’s ceratinly not anything that requires pulling resources away from rescue efforts and talk of mowing people down in the street is absurd and morally reprehensible.
Ooohh…you got me on the jewelry…you win the internets!!!11
I’m sure the jewelry is insured, but if it makes you happy, I’ll admit that it’s wrong to steal the jewelry. But it’s still not something anyone deserves to be killed for, and its not a problem that justifies pulling resources away from rescue efforts.
Forget it, Monstre . He’s not going to defend this, because he knows it’s indefensible. He stepped in it, but rather than cleaning off his shoes, he’s just switched to a new pair.
How awkward when a simulpost makes you look like a dickhead.
Ok, so he did defend it. Too slow, me. You did say there was nothing wrong with it, in an earlier post, glad to see you’ll at least admit it’s wrong.
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic
**Flyhalf[/bI apologize for any offense. I honestly did not mean to imply that I thought you couldn’t rely on them not to do anything gratuitously selfish or ethically unjustified.[/QUOTE]
Now see, this is why I like you. Unlike most people on this board, you are big enough to admit a mistake. I understand what you are saying and again, we are in agreement. If it came to down to ABSOLUTE survival, I think we can say that everyone would take a loaf of bread or a bottle of water. But in this case, as Lissa has stated, it has only been 24-48 hours and We cannot be in survival mode as of yet (unless You really are, you know what I mean).
Also, my parents are more likely to seek help than to steal even if that means going to a “shelter”. It is just not their way to steal.
Again, thank you for the apology and I offer my apology to you as well.
The money in a bank is insured, and bank robbing is still an offense that you will get shot for. Somebody out there places some value on it. Even if you are starving, you still can’t rob banks.
Did you mean to say I didn’t defend it?
I’m pretty sure I never said it was ok to steal jewelry in any previous posts (unless you’re going to reoll that into general statements about “all” the stuff that’s being take. I just didn’t think of Jewelry. You got me).
It’s wrong to steal jewelry. It’s even more wrong to kill people for it or to stop rescuing babies to chase the thieves.
Armed bank robbery involves terroristic threats, hostage taking and physical coercion of victims. That adds a level of “wrongness” which goes beyond the mere tehft of money.
Really? These Robbers didn’t make terroristic threats, take hostages, or coerce victims. Guess what? The bank still wants it’s money back.
Do other people agree with this sentiment? I don’t have a TV, but I have been following the news closely on the internet and the printed newspaper (yesterday I bought a copy of the Chicago Sun-Times, today I bought a copy of the Chicago Trib) and this doesn’t reflect what I’ve seen at all. I’ve seen several pictures of black people identified as police officers ferrying people to refuge locations in different location. A quick count of the front section of today’s Tribune shows that there are eleven pictures of people in the hurricane-stricken area in the main news section. One of them show a cop and a looter tussling - both appear to be Latino. Two are of white people in Mississippi staring at the devastation of their homes. Three are of black people being rescued in New Orleans (in two pictures, the rescuers are also black; in the third, the rescuer is an invisible helicopter pilot). One is of a black woman weeping. One is of two black women in Mississippi hugging in front of a destroyed house. The rest of the pictures are all of black people wading through the flooded streets of New Orleans.
I’d be interested to know if the cable news channels are following different trends than what is appearing in the print media.
You know, call me crazy, but here’s a theory…what if we apply Occam’s Razor to the situation would it be unreasonable to come to the conclusion that maybe, just maybe , the reason we’re seeing mostly black looters on TV is due to the fact…and I’m just theorizing here…that maybe, just maybe , most of the looters are, indeed, black? I mean, it is possible that the TV networks are all run by racists and they are deliberately editing their footage to artificially minimize the huge number of white racists, I suppose. Sure, why not? But maybe, just maybe , we’re all seeing exactly what we think we’re seeing.
I think that roving bands of people stealing stuff is actually quite a scary picture- one that you really can’t appreciate until you’re in the thick of it. Sure, a lot of it is opportunity, and the things left are up for grabs, but what if someone tries to defend their stuff? Are all of the ‘claims’ uncontested out in the open?
I can’t imagine that there is not violence associated with this looting, especially directed at those better off (reporters, aid workers, etc.). I’m sympathetic toward those stealing food, but some of this stuff is ridiculous.
If what it takes to make sure aid gets to the people that are left (and speed evacuation) is a sniper on every rooftop, so be it. The stuff goi8ng on around the hospitals is especially sickening to me.
As for the race thing…I’m sure that people with limited exposure and limited knowledge of the local population of NO will see a slanted picture of black people…but frankly, it’s not much worse than usual news coverage. But I don’t think that there’s any way to cover the looting that won’t reflect badly on black people- it’s a combination of present circumstances and our own built up biases.
As I understand it, most of the people in New Orleans are black. So I have no doubt that most of the looters are black, too. That’s not offensive, it’s just dumb to assume otherwise.
However, I’d also assume most of the cops and rescuers were black. And the post I quoted in my above post seemed to indicate the opposite.
It’s not about saving the game cubes, it’s about discouraging behavior that inhibits saving the babies.
Stephe96 illustrates the blind squirrel theory.
The population of New Orleans is over 67% black overall. In the lower-income neighborhoods, where the looting is greatest (and the flooding is deepest), it might well be even higher than that, mightn’t it?