Thursday, April 19, 2007

More Philosophy...

Don't you find it odd that only a 72 year old Holocaust survivor stood up to the Virginia Tech gunman, and yet a whole school full of adults were slaughtered like Holocaust victims in a Nazi concentration camp? What are we teaching our kids these days?

Mark Steyn said this very thing in his column today: "They’re not “children.” The students at Virginia Tech were grown women and — if you’ll forgive the expression — men. They would be regarded as adults by any other society in the history of our planet. Granted, we live in a selectively infantilized culture where twentysomethings are “children” if they’re serving in the Third Infantry Division in Ramadi but grown-ups making rational choices if they drop to the broadloom in President Clinton’s Oval Office. Nonetheless, it’s deeply damaging to portray fit fully formed adults as children who need to be protected. We should be raising them to understand that there will be moments in life when you need to protect yourself — and, in a “horrible” world, there may come moments when you have to choose between protecting yourself or others. It is a poor reflection on us that, in those first critical seconds where one has to make a decision, only an elderly Holocaust survivor, Professor Librescu, understood instinctively the obligation to act."

Why didn't someone pick up a desk or chair and throw it at this maniac? Why did 2 planes slam into the World Trade center, whereas in Flight 93, the passengers stood up and fought back?

I just don't think you can allow yourself to be a victim. That is one of the enduring lessons of the Holocaust, which is why I think that Professor Librescu knew what to do. The Greatest Generation learned the hard lessons of WW I, the Great Depression, WW II and the beginnings of the Cold War. This man was a hero, and he sacrificed himself for others. He did the right thing. Why didn't anyone else?

I am not blaming the victims, however. The blame rests solely on the gunman who did the killing. What I am asking, is why no one else fought back. What lessons were these people taught? Have we so indoctrinated our kids that they have to be nice to everyone, and that you can always talk to a bad person and negotiate a happy ending, that we have forgotten there is evil in the world and that some people just need to be dealt with? What was the psychology here?

This is why I wonder if the 1920's and 30's are repeating. Too many parallels.

And now, you might ask, how does this relate to dog ownership?

As I have stated before, in many different ways, we should have the right to deploy a dog for self defense, and then use that dog, if necessary, in a life threatening situation. And your neighbors and the public should accept that as being ok and moral.

Would any parent say they wouldn't have stood in front of that gunman and protected their offspring with a gun? Then, would you prevent me from defending myself in an emergency, using a dog, if necessary? Why would it be ok, for you to defend your family, but not me?

And if I am going to own such an animal, then shouldn't I get some leeway in order to train it properly to do such a job, and be allowed to let my dog bark from time to time to let me know strangers are present, and for my dog to growl at times at strangers who are acting strangely?

1 comment:

kcdogblog said...

I love an old quote that I once heard, but has always stuck with me: "After the age of 25, you are no longer a victim, you are a participant".

I think the age is negotiable, but the overall point I think is very good.