Shootings in US schools (1 Viewer)

[Bodisathva]

I suppose that would depend entirely upon exactly who is doing the deeming

 

[Pauldohert]

It does seem that americans cannot accept any criticism whatsoever without feeling its anti american. and without coming back with commenst like its the same in the UK (true on many points ) - which brings the nationalistic arguments into play when the critisism was of minutia rather than the US as a whole.

I feel the need to explore the americans sense of nationality a bit more and how they see themselves as part of the US, and why any critic of anything gets branded anti american.

Do american schools start the day with the SSB and a raising of the flag - or is that a hollywood myth?

And do americans hold dear the idea of as little central government interference as possible?

And if either is true - how do the two reconcile with each other?

 

[Bodisathva]

Actually, I think you'll find the majority of the problem (at least in my case) is blanket generalizations. I get uptight when stereotypes are used that don't apply or don't make sense. The term "Americans" includes me, even if I'm only one in 301,814,381.

We didn't raise the flag, but we always had morning announcements over the PA system followed by the National Anthem, Pledge of Allegiance, and a moment of silence... every morning.

I think you'll find that the concept of limiting interference from "Big Brother" while maintaining national pride works because we are proud of the system (as stretched and thin as it may be) which allows us the freedoms we enjoy.

 

[Pauldohert]

We didn't raise the flag, but we always had morning announcements over the PA system followed by the National Anthem, Pledge of Allegiance, and a moment of silence... every morning.

I think you'll find that the concept of limiting interference from "Big Brother" while maintaining national pride works because we are proud of the system (as stretched and thin as it may be) which allows us the freedoms we enjoy.

How can you pledge allegiance and limit interference at the same time?

Actually, I think you'll find the majority of the problem (at least in my case) is blanket generalizations. I get uptight when stereotypes are used that don't apply or don't make sense. The term "Americans" includes me, even if I'm only one in 301,814,381.

I see your point - but maybe its you generalising americans to include you - when other posters are talking of specific americans and not generalising at all.

 

[Brianwarnock]

It does seem that americans cannot accept any criticism whatsoever without feeling its anti american.

Paul I think that the problem is that there are some posters who insist on turning every thread into criticism of America/Americans, eg your favourite car thread. I guess that under such an incessant and mindless barrage even the most tolerent get fed up, many no longer visit.

Brian

 

[Brianwarnock]

I see your point - but maybe its you generalising americans to include you - when other posters are talking of specific americans and not generalising at all.

No Paul, those posters do generalise all Americans despite trying to use semantics to say not.

Brian

 

[Bodisathva]

How can you pledge allegiance and limit interference at the same time?

One nation...under god...indivisible...with liberty and justice for all.

 

[Pauldohert]

Cheers Brian - I don't think I'm particularly guilty though?

I think its the very generalisation thats perceived by the US posters, that is then used in reverse to include me as being anti american Brit.

 

[Brianwarnock]

Cheers Brian - I don't think I'm particularly guilty though?

I think its the very generalisation thats perceived by the US posters, that is then used in reverse to include me as being anti american Brit.

That's part of the problem that the original guys have caused.

Brian

 

[Pauldohert]

One nation...under god...indivisible...with liberty and justice for all.

Eh? Can you translate that into something other than goobledegook?

I'm wondering if Brown decided to introduce a pledge of allegiance whether we would go for it or not. The only way I can see that being popular - is in the cricket tebbit test kind of way.

As a US friendly gesture - heres what I meant by cricket test http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cricket_test

(not a five day match versus the aussies - sorry that would be a 2 day match and a win to them!)

 

[Pauldohert]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pauldohert
Cheers Brian - I don't think I'm particularly guilty though?

I think its the very generalisation thats perceived by the US posters, that is then used in reverse to include me as being anti american Brit.

That's part of the problem that the original guys have caused.

Brian

Rise above if necessary?

 

[Bodisathva]

Eh? Can you translate that into something other than goobledegook?

my apologies. That would be the end of the Pledge of Allegiance. It reminds us (or is supposed to) that we're one big happy, dysfunctional, neurotic, homocidal, xenophobic family

The important part being the references to One Nation and indivisible. I, and most other people, have recited the words 180 days/year for 12 years.

 

[Rich]

That's part of the problem that the original guys have caused.

Brian

Yes and I've told them about it often enough, free speech is now banned thanks to a few Americans and pro-Americans

 

[Rich]

Cheers Brian - I don't think I'm particularly guilty though?

I think its the very generalisation thats perceived by the US posters, that is then used in reverse to include me as being anti american Brit.

They don't need much of an excuse to hurl foul language insult etc. at members on a personal level, still there are those who can't see the wood for the trees and think the Yanks a really nice people

 

[The_Doc_Man]

The pledge of allegiance is about the same as certain religious mouthings that people force their kids to say in hopes that repetition makes something true. Take, for example, the Nicene Creed or the (commonly called) "Hail Mary" as two examples. Say it enough, you might eventually believe it.

(Whoops - am I being cynical again? Or is it just that I must not have said it enough? We'll never know.)

The pledge of allegiance was someone's misguided attempt to create some official saying that they hoped would inspire people to be loyal to their country. The last time it was modified was during the McCarthy era in the USA, when Sen. Joe McCarthy was on a communist "witch hunt" and during which time paranoia was high due to the nuclear arms race. Everyone was twitchy anyway. So they thought it would be a good idea to brainwash the kids by rote & repetition.

The "with liberty and justice for all" part is based on the (more or less) honest belief that this country has the fairest form of government for the greatest number of its citizens. With GWB in the White House and the Patriot Act still on the books, there are a few of us who might hesitate in fully agreeing. Yet as the pendulum swings, we might see a return to other viewpoints of a less reactionary and sabre-rattling stance. I am hopeful.

The Virginia Tech shooting merely points out that our system sometimes goes too far along the path of assuring the maximum of personal freedoms. Our shooter was actually ordered by courts to undergo MANDATORY psychiatric counseling, but the guys who want to take liberty to the extreme have gutted the laws that would have allowed the Virginia Commonwealth to force the guy into a closed facility to get his head shrunk. He spurned the court order and went off the deep end a couple of years later.

This is where I believe we go too far. An order of the court was basically ignored and yet the cops didn't go out and arrest the guy. They didn't take him into a prision where he COULDN'T escape without some treatment. The bleeding-heart types forced us to let go of the nutcases years ago. They became many of the homeless street people in the big cities. (Why the big cities? Better odds of getting a handout or finding food tossed out behind a restaurant, I guess.)

I blame the ACLU for taking matters a bit too far. Personally, I think there is a place somewhere in the middle of the political spectrum where you can maximize the total liberty of the people in your country without leaving the door wide open for this kind of tragedy. Then again, there is no single answer that works for everyone.

I'll say this. If at least a couple of students had been carrying their own form of equalizer, the death toll would have been lower. But the anti-gun nuts go berserk whenever they hear that. Well, tough. It is true. No one was there to stop him because the colleges are trying to liberalize (lobotomize) the kids these days, forgetting that the USA was FOUNDED by people who were deeply self-motivated, self-actualized, self-sufficient most of the time. They were rugged individualists. The colleges and some demoncrats (is that a Freudian slip?) would just LOVE it if they could get rid of guns entirely. Until someone slipped a few through a border and started using guns on the unarmed populace.

But this could turn into a rant all by itself. I'll let it go for now.

 

[Alc]

The pledge of allegiance is about the same as certain religious mouthings that people force their kids to say in hopes that repetition makes something true. Take, for example, the Nicene Creed or the (commonly called) "Hail Mary" as two examples. Say it enough, you might eventually believe it.

I know exactly what you mean, here. Growing up, I had to recite the Lord's Prayer at the end of every assembly in school. Did I believe it? No. Did I even take much notice of what I was saying? No. It may as well have been in a foreign language.

I'll say this. If at least a couple of students had been carrying their own form of equalizer, the death toll would have been lower. But the anti-gun nuts go berserk whenever they hear that. Well, tough. It is true.

You said this earlier in an earlier post. Saying it again doesn't make it any more truthful. Armed students may have saved lives. They may have made no difference. They may have made things worse. We'll never know.

 

[qailoh]

You said this earlier in an earlier post. Saying it again doesn't make it any more truthful. Armed students may have saved lives. They may have made no difference. They may have made things worse. We'll never know.

I think the laws of probability would favor a more positive outcome had there been a sane armed person there as well though. Not every civilian goes to water when the shooting starts, and certainly in this tragedy there was ample evidence that some of the victims fought back. Had even just one been armed the rampage would have been a lot shorter.

 

[Rich]

I think the laws of probability would favor a more positive outcome had there been a sane armed person there as well though. Not every civilian goes to water when the shooting starts, and certainly in this tragedy there was ample evidence that some of the victims fought back. Had even just one been armed the rampage would have been a lot shorter.

And if you didn't have a gun ho culture the problem wouldn't have occured in the first place. Oops forgive me father for I have sinned, I pointed out the obvious and will now be branded anti-American

 

[Rich]

the kids these days, forgetting that the USA was FOUNDED by people who were deeply self-motivated, self-actualized, self-sufficient most of the time.

Are they the same ones who were motivated to all but wipe out the natives with guns

 

[Alc]

I think the laws of probability would favor a more positive outcome had there been a sane armed person there as well though. Not every civilian goes to water when the shooting starts, and certainly in this tragedy there was ample evidence that some of the victims fought back. Had even just one been armed the rampage would have been a lot shorter.

Once again, we have the 'would have been'. Is it just me or does no-one else see how foolish it is to confidently state what would have taken place if...?

You have just said "Not every civilian ", meaning that some do. How the hell do you know for a fact that none of those who would have gone to water (as you put it) would have made the situation worse?

I'm not saying that they couldn't have helped, just trying to get the gun crowd to admit that they might not have.

By the same argument, if I'd been there I would have stopped it, since I'd have know to be standing behind the gunman and would have had the foresight to bring a baseball bat. Some may argue that this wouldn't have happened, but I can just as confidently state it to be 'true'.