Tuesday, April 5, 2011
Barn Burning
The question in the discussion board about whether or not it is justified to destroy someone else's property has pretty much been answered along gender lines. The majority of the class which are woman seem to agree that it is never justified, while Wade and I seem to agree that in certain situations it is justified. I guess as we look through history at certain actions that include the destruction of ones property, like the Boston Tea Party for instance, we see that they are primarily conducted by men. The woman are generally the passive beneficiaries of these brave and noble acts.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Ah.. the old women are passive and men are aggressive debacle. It is so uncanny how things from either a woman's point of view or a man's point of view can be taken in such a different outlook from the other gender. I think when it comes down to actions everyone needs a both sex side of view in order to get the real outlook of the ordeal. We all know that there is no way that could happen in real life but still, think just how much that would change things if it could be done. I think the actions of the man in Barn Burning were not right but the man had a right to do something...maybe a good old fashioned fist fight but the Barn Burning, was a bit much. Then again in a physical confrontation a human could be hurt, very hurt to where the barn can be replaced..so I guess it depends on how you choose to look at the issue. Great post and what a great story.
ReplyDeleteI dunno, Glenn...
ReplyDeletePart of the story paints Abner as a horse thief. So it seems to me the guy had a pretty messed up moral compass. If he wanted to be a vigilante maybe he should have set his family up somewhere and become the first "batman." What other ending did he expect but a bullet?
I really like what you've done with the place :looks around: :)
"The woman are generally the passive beneficiaries of these brave and noble acts." That is just hurtful, Wade! The woman kept this country going when the "brave" men went off to fight during WWI. They worked jobs for less pay to feed their children and survive. They were nurses and radio operators. I think it's unfair to say women were or are less noble.
ReplyDeleteThat being said, I am glad I am not the only one who thinks it can be justified to retaliate in certain circumstances. However, it is hard to say which circumstances are acceptable. Everyone has different morals and ideals.
I wouldn't call destroying someone's property brave and noble in anyway. Not just because I am a women, more because I have compassion for others. Burning the barn did not just hurt the owner. What about the rest of the family or the livestock. When property is destroyed it hurts more than the property. I asked my husband about his opinion on the barning burning and I am proud to say that he does not think that the decision to burn the barn was just either. I like to agree with Elizabeth, "Everyone has different MORALS and ideas." Morals being the main word! Thank God we now have suitable punishments for guys like Mr.Snopes.
ReplyDeleteElizabeth, my name is Glenn. Htocco,I did not express the opinion that the barn burning was just. I think Snopes is an idiot. For one to say that all cases of property destruction is justified would be quite disturbing. I think in certain instances like World War 2, the Civil War, what is happening now in Libya, the Boston Tea Party, maybe Iraq, where a tremendous amount of property was destroyed it is necessary. Is a slave justified in destroying the chains that bind him. It is not his property. Is he wrong?
ReplyDelete