Tuesday, 10 December 2024

Post No. 2,959 - a recent violent event in the USA

I wasn’t going to write anything about the recent murder of a CEO in the USA because: 

  • I hold that all life (including that of the CEO of a disgusting company [details of the company’s appalling actively life-taking actions in one of the linked videos below] ) is inherently of value sufficient to justify the maintenance of that life - especially against arbitrary killing, whether by a government or others;
  • the first of the videos I link to below includes evidence that violence has historically been necessary in the past to accomplish major change to reduce inequality in society. Whilst that is probably true, it does NOT mean that such is a desirable or even an effective-in-the-long-term option that should be considered. Look at those instances where such violence occurred in the past, and see if there is still a reduced inequality: if not, then I would suggest it was, at best, only a short term change - and at the cost of human suffering, and change to reduce inequality is meant to reduce human suffering - for all - on a long term, sustainable basis;
  • the conduct of those obstructing justice, whilst understandable from a human point of view (given the company’s disgusting conduct that arbitrarily robs others who are all also equally deserving of having their lives respected as the CEO), does NOT contribute to a better legal system for all.
    Furthermore, those who have actively gloried in the death of a human are engaging in behaviour that, from a spiritual point of view, is a vicious, vindictive vendetta - i.e., nonBPM or anti-spiritual behaviour.
    I would accept indifference to his death as being, given the circumstances, a reasonably neutral response.

However, I came across two videos which actually provide a good discussion of the case and its context and issues. 

The first, which is more comprehensive, is particularly of note to me because it, in part, gets into class consciousness - and it also discusses a possible origin for the “an eye for an eye only makes the whole world blind” saying, although I consider the video misses the different later context (from here: “The epigram is a twist on a famous Biblical injunction in the Book of Exodus”, and “In 1914 politician and journalist George Perry Graham argued against the death penalty in the Canadian House of Parliament ... “We can argue all we like, but if capital punishment is being inflicted on some man, we are inclined to say: ‘It serves him right.’ That is not the spirit, I believe, in which legislation is enacted. If in this present age we were to go back to the old time of ‘an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth,’ there would be very few hon. gentlemen in this House who would not, metaphorically speaking, be blind and toothless”, and “Fischer used the maxim again while explaining the concept of Satyagraha, but he did not attribute the words to Gandhi.   Satyagraha is peaceful. ... The opponent must be “weaned from error by patience and sympathy,” weaned, not crushed; converted, not annihilated.   Satyagraha is the exact opposite of the policy of an-eye-for-an-eye-for-an-eye-for-an-eye which ends in making everybody blind”, and “In 1958 the major civil rights leader Martin Luther King who was influenced by Gandhian ideals used the aphorism in his book “Stride Toward Freedom: The Montgomery Story”: Violence as a way of achieving racial justice is both impractical and immoral. It is impractical because it is a descending spiral ending in destruction for all. The old law of an eye for an eye leaves everybody blind. It is immoral because it seeks to humiliate the opponent rather than win his understanding; it seeks to annihilate rather than to convert.”). 

The video details are: 

“Are We Allowed To Laugh When A CEO Dies?”   Leeja  Miller   https://youtu.be/YCpVncEXZVE     

I may add a few comments on this video over time. 

The second video is limited to the gun and court indecision issues: 

“SCOTUS Sits on RULING as AMERICANS Lose their LIVES”   Legal AF, part of the MeidasTouch Network   https://youtu.be/iqf-P6bRKt0     

 

For context for anyone reading this in the future, a few news links are: 


PS - also see: 

“Amazon pulls merchandise seeming to support killing of UnitedHealthcare CEO | Brian Thompson shooting | The Guardian”   https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/dec/10/amazon-merchandise-unitedhealthcare-ceo      

“Woman Arrested and Charged for “Threatening” Insurance Co. by Saying “Delay, Deny, Depose””   https://www.democracynow.org/2024/12/13/headlines/woman_arrested_and_charged_for_threatening_insurance_co_by_saying_delay_deny_depose     



Possible flaws 

Where I can, I will try to highlight possible flaws / issues you should consider:

  • there may be flawed logical arguments in the above: to find out more about such flaws and thinking generally, I recommend Brendan  Myers’ free online course “Clear and Present Thinking”;  
  • I could be wrong - so keep your thinking caps on, and make up your own minds for yourself.

 

If you appreciated this post, please consider promoting it - there are some links below, and there’s also Instagram. 

Note that I am cutting back on aspects of my posts - see here. 

(Gnwmythr is pronounced new-MYTH-ear)  

Remember: we generally need to be more human being rather than human doing, to mind our Mӕgan, and to acknowledge that all misgendering is an act of active transphobia/transmisia that puts trans+ lives at risk & accept that all insistence on the use of “trans” as a descriptor comes with commensurate use of “cis” as a descriptor to prevent “othering” (just as binary gendered [men’s and women’s] sporting teams are either both given the gender descriptor, or neither).

#PsychicABetterWorld   and   candles for Viva La Résistance à Tr_ mp!   and may all that I do be of value and actively BPM used for and by the nonphysical  BPM  

Copyright © Kayleen White 2007-2024     NO AI   I do not consent to any machine learning aka Artificial Intelligence (AI), generative AI, large language model, machine learning, chatbot, or other automated analysis, generative process, or replication program to reproduce, mimic, remix, summarise, or otherwise  replicate any part of this post or other posts on this blog via any means. Typo’s may be inserrted deliberately to demonstrate this is not an AI product.     Otherwise, fair and reasonable use is accepted under Creative Commons 4.0 on an Attribution-ShareAlike basis https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/  




 

Posted by at
Labels: