Lost for words on this one

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from newman09. Show newman09's posts

    Lost for words on this one

     

    What a sad way to go, one of our surviving WW11 veterans goes out this way. What the f is going on. As a late teenager this guy was fighting for his country, could these punks be any further apart from Mr. Belton on the morality scale as a teenager? Please dont tell me they were just board, can't wait to hear their reasoning. Read on.

     

    Police in Spokane, Washington are searching for two young suspects after a World War II veteran was severely beaten in a parking lot Wednesday and later died from his injuries.

    The Spokane Police Department says in a press release officers responded to reports of an assault Wednesday and found the victim in his car with serious head injuries. He later died Thursday in the hospital.

    Authorities on Thursday released surveillance photos of the two suspects, who they describe as African-American males between the ages of 16 and 19.

    Friends identified the victim as 88-year-old Delbert Belton, and say he was sitting outside a lodge for the Fraternal Order of the Eagles when he was attacked.

    KXLY-TV reports that Belton served in the Army during World War II and was shot in the leg during the Battle for Okinawa.

    "He was a tough old bird, I'll tell you that," Ted Denison, Belton's friend for 23 years told the Spokesman-Review. 

    The station says he went on to work for Kaiser Aluminum for 30 years. Friends say he was known as “Shorty,” and enjoyed playing pool and working on cars. His wife passed away several years ago.

    "He was just such a nice person for God's sake. I don't think Shorty had a mean bone in his body," friend Betty told KXLY-TV.com. 

    "It does appear random. He was in the parking lot, it appears he was assaulted in the parking lot and there was no indication that he would have known these people prior to the assault," Spokane Police Major Crimes Detective Lieutenant Mark Griffiths told the station.

    Denison told KXLY-TV he cannot comprehend how someone could have carried out such an attack. "I thought of him more as a dad than I did a friend really," Denison said. 

    "He was always there for me when I needed him," Denison said. "We'd joke back and forth. We were always having fun, some sort of fun."

    "I don't understand how somebody could do this. I really don't," he told the station.

    "Anybody that didn't get to know him missed out on a wonderful angel in their life," Lillian Duncan told the Spokesman-Review. 

    The Spokane Police Department is asking anyone with information to call their hotline at 456-2233.



    Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/08/23/world-war-ii-veteran-beaten-to-death-by-2-teenagers-in-washington-parking-lot/#ixzz2cnf9bsH1

     

     

     

     

     
  2. This post has been removed.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: Lost for words on this one

    A sad story.  Hopefully, the perps will be caught and tried.

     

    (As for a 'morality scale', it's not clear where fighting in a war falls on the spectrum, but that's utterly beside the point anyway.)

     

    For some reason, A Clockwork Orange comes to mind....

     

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from newman09. Show newman09's posts

    Re: Lost for words on this one

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

    A sad story.  Hopefully, the perps will be caught and tried.

     

    (As for a 'morality scale', it's not clear where fighting in a war falls on the spectrum, but that's utterly beside the point anyway.)

     

    For some reason, A Clockwork Orange comes to mind....

     



    OK, fighting for his country, your country. Changing the world. It can't get any higher at least on my spectrum.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: Lost for words on this one

    In response to newman09's comment:

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

     

    A sad story.  Hopefully, the perps will be caught and tried.

     

    (As for a 'morality scale', it's not clear where fighting in a war falls on the spectrum, but that's utterly beside the point anyway.)

     

    For some reason, A Clockwork Orange comes to mind....

     

     



    OK, fighting for his country, your country. Changing the world. It can't get any higher at least on my spectrum.

     



    A soldier on the battlefield has moral authority?  Really?

    To each his own, I guess...

    ...but I see "fighting for one's country" in terms of nationalism, not moralism.  

    "Changing the world"...?!  Again, really?!  Kind of a stretch....

     

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from newman09. Show newman09's posts

    Re: Lost for words on this one

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

    In response to newman09's comment:

     

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

     

     

    A sad story.  Hopefully, the perps will be caught and tried.

     

    (As for a 'morality scale', it's not clear where fighting in a war falls on the spectrum, but that's utterly beside the point anyway.)

     

    For some reason, A Clockwork Orange comes to mind....

     

     

     



    OK, fighting for his country, your country. Changing the world. It can't get any higher at least on my spectrum.

     

     



    A soldier on the battlefield has moral authority?  Really?

     

    To each his own, I guess...

    ...but I see "fighting for one's country" in terms of nationalism, not moralism.  

    "Changing the world"...?!  Again, really?!  Kind of a stretch....

     



    Ok, helped in changing the world. No strech, not even kind of.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: Lost for words on this one

    In response to newman09's comment:

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

     

    In response to newman09's comment:

     

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

     

     

    A sad story.  Hopefully, the perps will be caught and tried.

     

    (As for a 'morality scale', it's not clear where fighting in a war falls on the spectrum, but that's utterly beside the point anyway.)

     

    For some reason, A Clockwork Orange comes to mind....

     

     

     



    OK, fighting for his country, your country. Changing the world. It can't get any higher at least on my spectrum.

     

     



    A soldier on the battlefield has moral authority?  Really?

     

    To each his own, I guess...

    ...but I see "fighting for one's country" in terms of nationalism, not moralism.  

    "Changing the world"...?!  Again, really?!  Kind of a stretch....

     

     



    Ok, helped in changing the world. No strech, not even kind of.

     



    So, everyone who served in the U.S. military during WWII "helped change the world"...?

    If you say so....

     

     

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from FortySixAndTwo. Show FortySixAndTwo's posts

    Re: Lost for words on this one

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

    In response to newman09's comment:

     

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

     

     

     

    In response to newman09's comment:

     

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

     

     

    A sad story.  Hopefully, the perps will be caught and tried.

     

    (As for a 'morality scale', it's not clear where fighting in a war falls on the spectrum, but that's utterly beside the point anyway.)

     

    For some reason, A Clockwork Orange comes to mind....

     

     

     



    OK, fighting for his country, your country. Changing the world. It can't get any higher at least on my spectrum.

     

     



    A soldier on the battlefield has moral authority?  Really?

     

    To each his own, I guess...

    ...but I see "fighting for one's country" in terms of nationalism, not moralism.  

    "Changing the world"...?!  Again, really?!  Kind of a stretch....

     

     

     



    Ok, helped in changing the world. No strech, not even kind of.

     

     

     



    So, everyone who served in the U.S. military during WWII "helped change the world"...?

     

    If you say so....

     

     



    You don't think so? If Germany and Japan defeated the US and allies you think things would be the way they are now? Interesting.

     

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from devildavid. Show devildavid's posts

    Re: Lost for words on this one

    In response to newman09's comment:

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

     

    A sad story.  Hopefully, the perps will be caught and tried.

     

    (As for a 'morality scale', it's not clear where fighting in a war falls on the spectrum, but that's utterly beside the point anyway.)

     

    For some reason, A Clockwork Orange comes to mind....

     

     



    OK, fighting for his country, your country. Changing the world. It can't get any higher at least on my spectrum.

     



    I agree with you. WWII was an existential war. It was the one war tha had to be fought to keep the world from falling under despotic rule. Just because war involves terrible acts does not mean that in reality it is sometimes the only option to preserve that which is better on the whole for all of mankind. The world is not an ideal place, and not all acts need to be ideal to achieve the greater good.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: Lost for words on this one

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

     

    In response to newman09's comment:

     

     

     

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

     

     

     

     

     

    In response to newman09's comment:

     

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

     

     

    A sad story.  Hopefully, the perps will be caught and tried.

     

    (As for a 'morality scale', it's not clear where fighting in a war falls on the spectrum, but that's utterly beside the point anyway.)

     

    For some reason, A Clockwork Orange comes to mind....

     

     

     



    OK, fighting for his country, your country. Changing the world. It can't get any higher at least on my spectrum.

     

     



    A soldier on the battlefield has moral authority?  Really?

     

    To each his own, I guess...

    ...but I see "fighting for one's country" in terms of nationalism, not moralism.  

    "Changing the world"...?!  Again, really?!  Kind of a stretch....

     

     

     

     



    Ok, helped in changing the world. No strech, not even kind of.

     

     

     

     

     



    So, everyone who served in the U.S. military during WWII "helped change the world"...?

     

     

    If you say so....

     

     

     



    You don't think so? If Germany and Japan defeated the US and allies you think things would be the way they are now? Interesting.

    Maybe, but that is not the logical inverse of what he said (nor the logical extension of what I said).  If so, then Germans and Japanese dying and/or losing also "changed the world".  The world changes whether we want it to or not.

    I'm not saying the outcome of WWII wasn't very important, but to interpolate that down to every single soldier who served is debatable.  By that token, are those soldiers also responsible for the various undesired outcomes from WWII...?

     

    So instead, perhaps we can say that this particular veteran fought for his country, while these murderous hooligans fought only for themselves.  The former has honor and sacrifice; the latter has selfishness and shame...the brutality of its ignorance (or vice versa).

     

     

     

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from FortySixAndTwo. Show FortySixAndTwo's posts

    Re: Lost for words on this one

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

     

     

     

    In response to newman09's comment:

     

     

     

     

     

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    In response to newman09's comment:

     

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

     

     

    A sad story.  Hopefully, the perps will be caught and tried.

     

    (As for a 'morality scale', it's not clear where fighting in a war falls on the spectrum, but that's utterly beside the point anyway.)

     

    For some reason, A Clockwork Orange comes to mind....

     

     

     



    OK, fighting for his country, your country. Changing the world. It can't get any higher at least on my spectrum.

     

     



    A soldier on the battlefield has moral authority?  Really?

     

    To each his own, I guess...

    ...but I see "fighting for one's country" in terms of nationalism, not moralism.  

    "Changing the world"...?!  Again, really?!  Kind of a stretch....

     

     

     

     

     



    Ok, helped in changing the world. No strech, not even kind of.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     



    So, everyone who served in the U.S. military during WWII "helped change the world"...?

     

     

     

    If you say so....

     

     

     

     



    You don't think so? If Germany and Japan defeated the US and allies you think things would be the way they are now? Interesting.

     

     

     

    Maybe, but that is not the logical inverse of what he said (nor the logical extension of what I said).  If so, then Germans and Japanese dying and/or losing also "changed the world".  The world changes whether we want it to or not.

    I'm not saying the outcome of WWII wasn't very important, but to interpolate that down to every single soldier who served is debatable.  By that token, are those soldiers also responsible for the various undesired outcomes from WWII...?

     

    So instead, perhaps we can say that this particular veteran fought for his country, while these murderous hooligans fought only for themselves.  The former has honor and sacrifice; the latter has selfishness and shame...the brutality of its ignorance (or vice versa).

     

     

     



    Guess we'll have to agree to disagree

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: Lost for words on this one

    In response to devildavid's comment:

    In response to newman09's comment:

     

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

     

     

    A sad story.  Hopefully, the perps will be caught and tried.

     

    (As for a 'morality scale', it's not clear where fighting in a war falls on the spectrum, but that's utterly beside the point anyway.)

     

    For some reason, A Clockwork Orange comes to mind....

     

     

     



    OK, fighting for his country, your country. Changing the world. It can't get any higher at least on my spectrum.

     

     

     



    I agree with you. WWII was an existential war. It was the one war tha had to be fought to keep the world from falling under despotic rule. Just because war involves terrible acts does not mean that in reality it is sometimes the only option to preserve that which is better on the whole for all of mankind. The world is not an ideal place, and not all acts need to be ideal to achieve the greater good.

     



    WWII was definitely the first war in which existentialism was firmly attached to the public narrative, that's for sure.

    And yet terrible acts remain terrible even if the outcomes are desirable to many people.

    The truth is that - though we may have an idea of what 'mankind' would be like if the axis powers had won the war - we can't really know for sure.  That's partly what Sartre was getting at.

     

     

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: Lost for words on this one

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

     

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     

     

     

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

     

     

     

     

     

    In response to newman09's comment:

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    In response to newman09's comment:

     

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

     

     

    A sad story.  Hopefully, the perps will be caught and tried.

     

    (As for a 'morality scale', it's not clear where fighting in a war falls on the spectrum, but that's utterly beside the point anyway.)

     

    For some reason, A Clockwork Orange comes to mind....

     

     

     



    OK, fighting for his country, your country. Changing the world. It can't get any higher at least on my spectrum.

     

     



    A soldier on the battlefield has moral authority?  Really?

     

    To each his own, I guess...

    ...but I see "fighting for one's country" in terms of nationalism, not moralism.  

    "Changing the world"...?!  Again, really?!  Kind of a stretch....

     

     

     

     

     

     



    Ok, helped in changing the world. No strech, not even kind of.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     



    So, everyone who served in the U.S. military during WWII "helped change the world"...?

     

     

     

     

    If you say so....

     

     

     

     

     



    You don't think so? If Germany and Japan defeated the US and allies you think things would be the way they are now? Interesting.

     

     

     

     

     

     

    Maybe, but that is not the logical inverse of what he said (nor the logical extension of what I said).  If so, then Germans and Japanese dying and/or losing also "changed the world".  The world changes whether we want it to or not.

    I'm not saying the outcome of WWII wasn't very important, but to interpolate that down to every single soldier who served is debatable.  By that token, are those soldiers also responsible for the various undesired outcomes from WWII...?

     

    So instead, perhaps we can say that this particular veteran fought for his country, while these murderous hooligans fought only for themselves.  The former has honor and sacrifice; the latter has selfishness and shame...the brutality of its ignorance (or vice versa).

     

     

     

     



    Guess we'll have to agree to disagree

     



    On which part?

     

     
  14. This post has been removed.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: Lost for words on this one

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:



    WWII was definitely the first war in which existentialism was firmly attached to the public narrative, that's for sure.

     

     

    And yet terrible acts remain terrible even if the outcomes are desirable to many people.

    The truth is that - though we may have an idea of what 'mankind' would be like if the axis powers had won the war - we can't really know for sure.  That's partly what Sartre was getting at.

     




     

    Of course no one can 'know' what the world would've been like but one can easily infer what the Axis wanted it to be like through their stated objectives and their treatment of other races.

    That is not a stretch.



    Yes, but having stated goals and seeing them to fruition are two different things.

    For instance, one could argue that victories by Germany and Japan would have tamped out communism in both russia and china, rendering that ideology down to a fraction of what its post-war existence actually turned out to be.

    Of course, the choice between fascism and communism has always been a false one, since both have led to profound tragedy.

    The only real certainty came with the notion that wars should never, ever be fought on that large of a scale again, so help us jeebus.

     

     
  16. This post has been removed.

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: Lost for words on this one

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

     

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

     

     

     

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

     

     



    WWII was definitely the first war in which existentialism was firmly attached to the public narrative, that's for sure.

     

     

     

     

    And yet terrible acts remain terrible even if the outcomes are desirable to many people.

    The truth is that - though we may have an idea of what 'mankind' would be like if the axis powers had won the war - we can't really know for sure.  That's partly what Sartre was getting at.

     

     

     




     

     

     

    Of course no one can 'know' what the world would've been like but one can easily infer what the Axis wanted it to be like through their stated objectives and their treatment of other races.

    That is not a stretch.

     

     



    Yes, but having stated goals and seeing them to fruition are two different things.

     

     

    For instance, one could argue that victories by Germany and Japan would have tamped out communism in both russia and china, rendering that ideology down to a fraction of what its post-war existence actually turned out to be.

    Of course, the choice between fascism and communism has always been a false one, since both have led to profound tragedy.

    The only real certainty came with the notion that wars should never, ever be fought on that large of a scale again, so help us jeebus.

     

     



    The elimination of a political form of gov't is not exactly a profound or even visceral idea.

    The attempt to exterminate entire races of people however was a very real and immediate goal of the Axis.



    Then many wars fall into that non-profound, non-visceral category.

    The U.S. practically exterminated an entire race of native americans, although it didn't take a world war to stop us from going the full nines.  There's evidence to suggest the nazis would have failed, too, eventually.

    Am I glad we helped cut their reign of terror short?  Absolutely.  Does that mean I think some wars are morally justified?  Not quite.

     

     
  18. This post has been removed.

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: Lost for words on this one

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:



    Then many wars fall into that non-profound, non-visceral category.

     

     

    The U.S. practically exterminated an entire race of native americans, although it didn't take a world war to stop us from going the full nines.  There's evidence to suggest the nazis would have failed, too, eventually.

    Am I glad we helped cut their reign of terror short?  Absolutely.  Does that mean I think some wars are morally justified?  Not quite.

     

     



    Then many wars fall into that non-profound, non-visceral category.

     

    With out a doubt, in fact the vast majority of them, but that doesn't preclude the idea that some wars are morally justified.

    As far as the Axis failing in their genocide... I would argue that the war itself was the reason and not any failure on the part of the Axis in their intent or implementation.

    Of course the pre-war justification by the Allies for the most part didn't include the idea to prevent genocide but was more fixated on saving governments. The fact that the Jews and to a lesser extent other Asian populations were saved was a fortuitous consequence.



    As it happened, the Axis still did pretty well for themselves, starting a war that killed upwards of 80 million people, including ancillary casualties.

    So, our resultant standard for moral justification is measured by the desirability of the outcome, which can only mean that the war itself was fought in some pretty murky moral territory...existentially speaking, of course.

     

     

     
  20. This post has been removed.

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: Lost for words on this one

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

     

     


    As it happened, the Axis still did pretty well for themselves, starting a war that killed upwards of 80 million people, including ancillary casualties.

     

    So, our resultant standard for moral justification is measured by the desirability of the outcome, which can only mean that the war itself was fought in some pretty murky moral territory...existentially speaking, of course.

     



     

     

    I personally don't view existentialism as particularly effective way of judging morality, especially on the scale of a world war. It may serve to persuade someone to your justification for war by appealling to their patriotism, political beliefs or religious tenets, all existential ideas, but consensus doesn't equal morality

    Existentialism is too personal and societies too broad to ever reach a determination of what is 'moral'.

     

    I do believe however that there are some universal truths that transcend philosophy, such as the idea that genocide is morally wrong and acting to prevent it is morally right....existentially speaking of course.

    The corollary to that idea is: That although you may be morally right in your intentions to prevent genocide, the actions you take and the lengths you are willing to go in order to fulfill your quest determines the morality of the war just as much as, if not more so, than your intent.

    If those who are in control of percipitating the war have the intent of annihilation then they lose the moral high ground. I don't believe the intent of the Allies was annililation of the Axis.

     

     



    Good points.

    And good talk, to be continued at another time.

    Have a great weekend.

     

     

     
  22. This post has been removed.

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hansoribrother. Show Hansoribrother's posts

    Re: Lost for words on this one

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

    A sad story.  Hopefully, the perps will be caught and tried.

     

    (As for a 'morality scale', it's not clear where fighting in a war falls on the spectrum, but that's utterly beside the point anyway.)

     

    For some reason, A Clockwork Orange comes to mind....

     



    Not clear? That says a lot.

    Were would we be if it were not for people like this 83 year old white vet who got murdered by two black men?

    War is not always the answer but in came in pretty handy to get rid of the British twice and become an independent nation, seemed to do the trick to end slavery in this country, and kept the Germans from taking over Europe twice and stopped them from their genocidal mania.

    Not clear? I can't believe that. 

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Lost for words on this one

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

     

     

     

    In response to newman09's comment:

     

     

     

     

     

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    In response to newman09's comment:

     

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

     

     

    A sad story.  Hopefully, the perps will be caught and tried.

     

    (As for a 'morality scale', it's not clear where fighting in a war falls on the spectrum, but that's utterly beside the point anyway.)

     

    For some reason, A Clockwork Orange comes to mind....

     

     

     



    OK, fighting for his country, your country. Changing the world. It can't get any higher at least on my spectrum.

     

     



    A soldier on the battlefield has moral authority?  Really?

     

    To each his own, I guess...

    ...but I see "fighting for one's country" in terms of nationalism, not moralism.  

    "Changing the world"...?!  Again, really?!  Kind of a stretch....

     

     

     

     

     



    Ok, helped in changing the world. No strech, not even kind of.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     



    So, everyone who served in the U.S. military during WWII "helped change the world"...?

     

     

     

    If you say so....

     

     

     

     



    You don't think so? If Germany and Japan defeated the US and allies you think things would be the way they are now? Interesting.

     

     

     

    Maybe, but that is not the logical inverse of what he said (nor the logical extension of what I said).  If so, then Germans and Japanese dying and/or losing also "changed the world".  The world changes whether we want it to or not.

    I'm not saying the outcome of WWII wasn't very important, but to interpolate that down to every single soldier who served is debatable.  By that token, are those soldiers also responsible for the various undesired outcomes from WWII...?

     

    So instead, perhaps we can say that this particular veteran fought for his country, while these murderous hooligans fought only for themselves.  The former has honor and sacrifice; the latter has selfishness and shame...the brutality of its ignorance (or vice versa).

     

     

     



    It's really not as complicated as you seem to think. 

    Fascism grew like stink in the thirties.

    In the fourties, every American who served in WW2 helped stamp out fascism. Many put their lives directly at risk, and many died.

    their sacrifice makes them morally superior to those who did not sacrifice.

    we owe them a debt of gratitude, each and every one, plain and simple, no wandering around the ideological garden.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share