This is a blog of the editor of the World Peace Herald; I'm trying to find an actual news article from one of the drawn-upon sources.
What the fuck do you think he used to defend the country with, harsh language?
Community divided over war hero statue
By Valerie Richardson | Published Apr/7/2007 | North America , Peace and Conflict | Rating:
Local man killed in Afghanistan
By Valerie Richardson
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
LITTLETON, Colo. -- A planned statue depicting a local hero, a Navy SEAL killed in Afghanistan, has drawn opposition from some parents, who say the image and location are inappropriate for children.
A bronze sculpture of Petty Officer 2nd Class Danny Dietz Jr. showing him cradling his rifle across his chest is scheduled to be unveiled July 4 at Berry Park here, where he grew up and attended school. The statue was modeled after a photo of the young serviceman.
But a group of parents wants the city to recast the statue or place it elsewhere, arguing that the site, near three elementary schools and two parks, is a hub for young children who could find the weapon disturbing.
"While our hearts go out to the family of this brave young man, we have serious concerns regarding the graphic and violent detail the statue portrays," stated a flier distributed recently in a nearby neighborhood.
"As a community, we cannot allow the many young children in this area to be exposed to a larger than life-size grenade-launching machine gun," the flier stated.
Members of Petty Officer Dietz's family and others have defended the memorial, saying there's a clear distinction between a rifle used in combat to defend the United States and a firearm used in other contexts.
But critics have said the image of an automatic rifle is particularly inappropriate given the memorial's proximity to Columbine High School. The high school, located a few miles from the park, was the site of the 1999 massacre in which two suicidal teenage gunmen killed 12 students and a teacher.
"In light of our community's experience with the Columbine tragedy, and the clear message of nonviolence that we teach in Littleton schools, what is our city thinking?" the flier stated.
Maria Dietz, Petty Officer Dietz's widow, called the references to Columbine "offensive."
Something about Libertarianism always bothered me. Then one day, I realized what it was:
Libertarian philosophy can be boiled down to the phrase, "Work Will Make You Free."
In Libertarianism, there is no Government, so the Bosses are free to exploit the Workers.
In Communism, there is no Government, so the Workers are free to exploit the Bosses.
So in Libertarianism, man exploits man, but in Communism, its the other way around! If all you want to do is have some harmless, mindless fun, go H3RE INST3ADZ0RZ!! Grrr! Fight my Brute, you pansy!
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
We have half a dozen riflemen statues from the revolution here. I dont see any difference.
This day is Fantastic!
Myers Briggs: ENTJ
Political Compass: -3/-6 DOOMerWoW
"I really hate it when the guy you were pegging as Mr. Worst Case starts saying, "Oh, I was wrong, it's going to be much worse." " - Adrian Laguna
-giggles- Parents can be so overprotective it's ridiculous. They need to chill and be zen. The world is shitty and it's not a great place, expecially right now. You sheilding your kid from every last 'disturbing' thing isn't gonna do much later on. Some sheilding is fine, but going overboard is too common nowadays. As is lacking in sheilding. FIND THE HAPPY MEDIUM!
In an average year, children will see over 1000 violent crimes on TV (here). Presumably, a sizeable fraction of these crimes involve guns. If you have a problem with a local hero -- a soldier, to boot! -- holding a gun, then turn off the goddamned TV.
A Government founded upon justice, and recognizing the equal rights of all men; claiming higher authority for existence, or sanction for its laws, that nature, reason, and the regularly ascertained will of the people; steadily refusing to put its sword and purse in the service of any religious creed or family is a standing offense to most of the Governments of the world, and to some narrow and bigoted people among ourselves.
I think we all know that's mostly a convenient lie from the more awkward truth that these protestors themselves are the ones who find the sight of firearms disturbing/appalling/whatever.
Alternatively, they're projecting their own vision of an ideal reality in which they think it would be awesome for kids to be scared at the visual depiction of guns.
"There is no "taboo" on using nuclear weapons." -Julhelm
What is Project Zohar? "On a serious note (well not really) I did sometimes jump in and rate nBSG episodes a '5' before the episode even aired or I saw it."- RogueIce explaining that episode ratings on SDN tv show threads are bunk
Surlethe wrote:In an average year, children will see over 1000 violent crimes on TV (here). Presumably, a sizeable fraction of these crimes involve guns. If you have a problem with a local hero -- a soldier, to boot! -- holding a gun, then turn off the goddamned TV.
You honestly see no difference between TV, which is completely voluntary, and a display in a public park, which is maintained by taxpayer dollars that every citizen is compelled to pay?
Not saying I agree with these complaints, but you're being totally ridiculous by equating it to TV censorship. TV is voluntary, hence it can be offensive. A public park is involuntary; everyone is forced to pay to support it, so everyone has a right to bitch and moan as loudly as they like if they're effectively being forced to pay for something that is offensive to them.
PS. Can't wait for the right-wingers to crow that this is "PC run amok" while simultaneously insisting that the children need to be "protected" from knowledge of homosexuals, images of womens' bodies, etc.
"It's not evil for God to do it. Or for someone to do it at God's command."- Jonathan Boyd on baby-killing
"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC
"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness
"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.
I can see why people may have a problem with this, but it's kind of ridiculous. Are we expected to believe that US Soldiers go into battle barehanded now? How many statues feature war heroes holding swords and such? Should we go the E.T. route and replace them with flowers or something?
We pissing our pants yet?
-Negan
You got your shittin' pants on? Because you’re about to Shit. Your. Pants!
-Negan
He who can, does; he who cannot, teaches.
-George Bernard Shaw
I love the line of thinking that children will be disturbed by the image of a rifle. When I was a small child, I loved military equipment, and the assortment of messy explosions that it could create.
Surlethe wrote:In an average year, children will see over 1000 violent crimes on TV (here). Presumably, a sizeable fraction of these crimes involve guns. If you have a problem with a local hero -- a soldier, to boot! -- holding a gun, then turn off the goddamned TV.
You honestly see no difference between TV, which is completely voluntary, and a display in a public park, which is maintained by taxpayer dollars that every citizen is compelled to pay?
I should have quoted the part of the article I was responding to: "'As a community, we cannot allow the many young children in this area to be exposed to a larger than life-size grenade-launching machine gun," the flier stated.'" If, however, they're going to claim that displaying a gun is harmful, then they should be mindful that children (that's a bit vague?) are exposed to images of firearms almost daily.
Not saying I agree with these complaints, but you're being totally ridiculous by equating it to TV censorship. TV is voluntary, hence it can be offensive. A public park is involuntary; everyone is forced to pay to support it, so everyone has a right to bitch and moan as loudly as they like if they're effectively being forced to pay for something that is offensive to them.
They have every right to bitch and moan, sure. The "think of the children!" argument, however, is not simply bitching and moaning because they find it offensive and are being forced to pay for it: it's bitching and moaning because they think an image of a soldier holding a gun will be harmful to children in the area.
EDIT: It occurs to me that my initial argument was flawed anyway: it's the classic "A is worse than B; therefore, B is okay" fallacy. Even so, the burden of proof is on someone who wants to claim that an image of a soldier holding a gun is harmful or inappropriate to display to children.
A Government founded upon justice, and recognizing the equal rights of all men; claiming higher authority for existence, or sanction for its laws, that nature, reason, and the regularly ascertained will of the people; steadily refusing to put its sword and purse in the service of any religious creed or family is a standing offense to most of the Governments of the world, and to some narrow and bigoted people among ourselves.
Surlethe wrote:In an average year, children will see over 1000 violent crimes on TV (here). Presumably, a sizeable fraction of these crimes involve guns. If you have a problem with a local hero -- a soldier, to boot! -- holding a gun, then turn off the goddamned TV.
You honestly see no difference between TV, which is completely voluntary, and a display in a public park, which is maintained by taxpayer dollars that every citizen is compelled to pay?
Not saying I agree with these complaints, but you're being totally ridiculous by equating it to TV censorship. TV is voluntary, hence it can be offensive. A public park is involuntary; everyone is forced to pay to support it, so everyone has a right to bitch and moan as loudly as they like if they're effectively being forced to pay for something that is offensive to them.
PS. Can't wait for the right-wingers to crow that this is "PC run amok" while simultaneously insisting that the children need to be "protected" from knowledge of homosexuals, images of womens' bodies, etc.
"Offensive" is a very dubious standard upon which to base an action anyway. By whose standard do we make our "offensive" based judgement upon? The warmongers? The pacifists? Why should one be based over the other? There is no good reason to favor one over the other based strictly on the amount of "offense" they may feel for any situation; to do so is to pander to emotionalism- and place it above rationality in the decision making process.
Aenigma wrote:"Offensive" is a very dubious standard upon which to base an action anyway. By whose standard do we make our "offensive" based judgement upon? The warmongers? The pacifists? Why should one be based over the other?
All of them, unless there is some secular reason why that particular government act is necessary. Let's put it this way: what secular purpose is served by any government function? If it is being done for purely emotional purposes, ie- no real objective function like a statue in a public park, then it's totally absurd to dismiss emotional objections to it just because they don't make any sense. The reasons for doing it in the first place don't make any sense either; they are emotional too, and they bear a higher burden of justification because government money is spent building and maintaining it.
There is no good reason to favor one over the other based strictly on the amount of "offense" they may feel for any situation; to do so is to pander to emotionalism- and place it above rationality in the decision making process.
And you have some "rational" justification for putting that statue in the public park and maintaining it with public money?
"It's not evil for God to do it. Or for someone to do it at God's command."- Jonathan Boyd on baby-killing
"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC
"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness
"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.
Jadeite wrote:I love the line of thinking that children will be disturbed by the image of a rifle. When I was a small child, I loved military equipment, and the assortment of messy explosions that it could create.
So ... if these kids are exposed to a lot of military imagery, they might grow up to be like you? A knee-jerk militaristic Republitard?
"It's not evil for God to do it. Or for someone to do it at God's command."- Jonathan Boyd on baby-killing
"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC
"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness
"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.
Why didn't the town just build a cairn with the names of the dead from Iraq and Afghanistan on it and make sure he was included? Monuments like this can be found all across Canada for WWI, WWII and Korea and the best thing is: their inoffensive and they pay respect to everyone from the town who died. You can even go one step further and have an eternal flame. If you want to have a park commemorating this individual just name the park after him and erect a plaque.
M1891/30: A bad day on the range is better then a good day at work.
Flagg wrote:I can see why people may have a problem with this, but it's kind of ridiculous. Are we expected to believe that US Soldiers go into battle barehanded now? How many statues feature war heroes holding swords and such? Should we go the E.T. route and replace them with flowers or something?
Here's a novel idea: maybe you should not build statues revering militaristic imagery as the ultimate expression of national pride. Of course, for people who are steeped in "flag, army, God" from birth, you probably don't find anything at all jarring about that, do you?
"It's not evil for God to do it. Or for someone to do it at God's command."- Jonathan Boyd on baby-killing
"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC
"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness
"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.
Near where I live, there's a park name Doughboy and it has a rifleman statue squeezed between an elementary school and a playground. It's been there since 1923 as well so that's a lot of kids that passed through there getting scarred.
But then again, it doesn't have a grenade launcher.
I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season."
Flagg wrote:I can see why people may have a problem with this, but it's kind of ridiculous. Are we expected to believe that US Soldiers go into battle barehanded now? How many statues feature war heroes holding swords and such? Should we go the E.T. route and replace them with flowers or something?
Here's a novel idea: maybe you should not build statues revering militaristic imagery as the ultimate expression of national pride. Of course, for people who are steeped in "flag, army, God" from birth, you probably don't find anything at all jarring about that, do you?
I've never really thought about it that way to be totally honest. But there really wasn't a whole lot of that where I grew up, either. I find alot of the older bronze statues to be pretty interesting from an historical standpoint, but I'm not a big fan of jingoism and never have been. I'm not really a fan of people having pride in your country just for the fact that you were born there, either.
We pissing our pants yet?
-Negan
You got your shittin' pants on? Because you’re about to Shit. Your. Pants!
-Negan
He who can, does; he who cannot, teaches.
-George Bernard Shaw
Here's a novel idea: maybe you should not build statues revering militaristic imagery as the ultimate expression of national pride.
What could possibly deserve more reverence than the average or extraordinary man or woman who lost his or her life volunteering to protect his or her country in the most dangerous way possible?
Australian parks are full of statues of a) famous Britons (kings (usually on horses), Churchill (usually scowling), etc) and b) Australians with guns(often dead/wounded). I think it's kind of odd to try to represent and honour a soldier while trying to ignore that his job is to kill people.
Yay, more stupidity from the state I'm living in right now. What I'm wondering is why these idiots aren't actively protesting the several cannons that are lined up in public parks around the state and city capitol buildings. . . .maybe it's just me but I can't see the difference between having cannons put on public display and some soldier that happens to have a gun on public display. Especially given the "logic" they're using in the article.
"It's you Americans. There's something about nipples you hate. If this were Germany, we'd be romping around naked on the stage here."
Stark wrote:Australian parks are full of statues of a) famous Britons (kings (usually on horses), Churchill (usually scowling), etc) and b) Australians with guns(often dead/wounded). I think it's kind of odd to try to represent and honour a soldier while trying to ignore that his job is to kill people.
The mental image I get here is of a grumpy Churchill statue led force of mounted British soldier statues killing Aussie statues left and right.
That'd make a great Doctor Who episode I'm sure.
And is it just me, or is this protestation ever more ironic coming from the de facto gun lover's nation of the world?
Stark wrote:Australian parks are full of statues of a) famous Britons (kings (usually on horses), Churchill (usually scowling), etc) and b) Australians with guns(often dead/wounded). I think it's kind of odd to try to represent and honour a soldier while trying to ignore that his job is to kill people.
The mental image I get here is of a grumpy Churchill statue led force of mounted British soldier statues killing Aussie statues left and right.
That'd make a great Doctor Who episode I'm sure.
And is it just me, or is this protestation ever more ironic coming from the de facto gun lover's nation of the world?
It would only be more ironic if it happened in Texas.
"It's you Americans. There's something about nipples you hate. If this were Germany, we'd be romping around naked on the stage here."
Tanasinn wrote:What could possibly deserve more reverence than the average or extraordinary man or woman who lost his or her life volunteering to protect his or her country in the most dangerous way possible?
Someone who toiled away, unheard of, unseen, unthanked, and openly despised for not beleiving the Word Of God is literal in every sense, spending his career seeking ways to preserve life from the most horrible of diseases?
That's just one extraordinary example, and if you're not totally simple, you'll realize it's a stem cell researcher. There's lots of people out there who do things they hate simply for other people, not for the glory and pride of some silly uniform and militaristic worship, but because it is genuinely to help others.
Or are these people to be hated and scorned, because they never grabbed a gun and killed other people in a far off land?
Manic Progressive: A liberal who violently swings from anger at politicos to despondency over them.
Out Of Context theatre: Ron Paul has repeatedly said he's not a racist. - Destructinator XIII on why Ron Paul isn't racist.
